Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Not Me
That (Rudy!) will be the Republican party 2008.

Cash money in any reasonable amount says no fucking way. He will never make it through the Republican primaries for the same reason that the conservative Catholics are going after Kerry -- abortion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's easy to spin that way, but it really is a pain in the ass to comply with regulations. I think that while it seems inefficient, it's more efficient than having all these individual actors roaming around doing their own things and then having to fix it (which is nearly always more expensive than just doing it differently the first time around) when you get sued, or whatever. I mean, WAY easier to dispose of my oil properly than to compensate people for the diseases they get from polluted groundwater, or to dig up all the earth that was touched by the oil and then find someplace to dispose of that hugely larger hunk of stuff.

We relied on the common law in these areas for years, and it didn't work well. That's why these laws were passed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

Not to be entirely cynical (or flippant), but you can usually buy them (or buy your way free of restrictions) if you have money. What, you didn't know there are effectively different social freedoms/rights for the rich and the poor? See: abortion. The debate is, as a practical matter, irrelevant to anyone with the means to hie themselves across the state border (or to Canada in the event of fed. regulation). See, also: voting. Voting is a much less effective way to cause your gov't to represent your opinions than gaining access to and incurring obligation from your representatives by judicious use of funds. See, also: 4th A/5th A/criminal rights. OJ.

Oh, hell, of course there are two sets of rules. But its not fair that people with money have to go to Canada to have certain medical procedures performed which more than half the country thinks they should have a right to receive domestically. And its not fair that a poor or a rich person shouldn't be able to get those procedures domestically because of the views of someone 1000 miles from them who they've never met. We're not "all in this together" in this country. I shouldn't have my morals dictated to me by sam, the Bible Thumper from OK. No offense to Sam, but Sam should mind his own goddamned business and be happy to live off govt subsidies derived from my taxes. He's the last asshole who should be telling me what I can or can't do in my home or to my own body. When he starts pulling his weight, then I'll give his religious bunk some airtime. Until then, he should be damn grateful to me.

I am not telling anyone how to live. I am vehemently arguing that they should have as much freedom as possible. I am arguing for personal responsibility, the concept to which so many of these judgmental people pay so much lip service. yet when I say people should be personally responsible, they say "No... I only want you to be personally responsible until that responsibility allows you to do something I don't like. Then I want the govt to step in and enforce my moral code on you. Even though I've never lived a day in your shoes and my moral code probably doesn't work practically for a person in your shoes." I say Bullshit. If you don't like what I'm doing here in heathen Philly, well fine. I don't like the way you practice what i see as backward values in OK. So lets be content to leave each other alone.

I'll leave them alone - why won't they leave me alone? Why do they need to tell me what to do?

[dtb]

This ought to make the Bushies proud.

Iran endorses a second Bush term as better for Teheran's interests.

How come none of you Bush supporters pointed this out?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'll leave them alone - why won't they leave me alone? Why do they need to tell me what to do?

Modernity and technological change threaten their traditional way of life, and they react by seeking to use government to try to preserve it.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I shouldn't have my morals dictated to me by sam, the Bible Thumper from OK. No offense to Sam, but Sam should mind his own goddamned business and be happy to live off govt subsidies derived from my taxes. He's the last asshole who should be telling me what I can or can't do in my home or to my own body. When he starts pulling his weight, then I'll give his religious bunk some airtime. Until then, he should be damn grateful to me.

Are you my husband? (I would say it's a definite "yes" except for that "no offense to Sam" part.)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
These people confuse the living piss out of me. I don't get them at all. Why? Where does this desire to control other people you don't even know come from? Am I missing that gene? I think I got the gene that blocks understanding why people want to meddle in other people's business. I just don't get it. Its hard enough to keep control of your own life in this world... why the fuck would you want to go fucking around with other people's lives? Am I nuts? I've tried looking for studies about what sort of personality defects make people want to control others, but I find little good literature (lots of stuff about the Nazis and such). Other than fear, the anthropoligists offer no explanation for the phenomenon. Why is "live and let live" such a hard concept for so many? This is an earnest question - I think it goes to the heart of the present political debate.

Well, my good and kind man, I'd suggest it has something to do with the understanding of the social compact. All of society, all of law, all of civilization, is a social compact. What was that book I read, oh yeah, Guns Germs and Steel, explains the development of humankind through different parts of the world, starting in Africa. Evolution, including societal evolution, is often based on no more than an accident of nature. Oops, did the early Africans kill off all the domesticatable mammals in the Beginning? Well, their descendants will do better in Asia. Just a gigantic series of accidents.

So, one day in the gathering stage (and in multiple societies), humans figured out how to leverage the battle for food through crop-cultivation etc. etc. etc. Next thing ya know, in every society someone steps up and says "hey, that Mountain just spoke to me, he says I'm the messenger". Literally, a cynic might think the original Priests were just trying to get out of their share of work (they were the first people excused from tending crops).

But the question is begged, why did people believe them when they stepped forward? In different places all over the world, some dude steps forward and says the Creator just spoke to him, and people buy into it. Its like, like, we want to believe in something.

Anyhoo, social contract. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. I agree to avenge your murder, you agree to avenge mine. Heck, we'll call the vengeance thing The Justice System. Otherwise, why the fuck do I care is your wife puts a hatchet through your skull? Its like a gigantic deal for society.

Welp, over time, people begin to think about whether the deal is fair. Some people begin to wonder, do we sell out some people? Next thing you know, slaves are being freed, women are getting the vote, gays are getting civil unions. People are all being allowed to buy into the system. That same instinct that tells someone, hey why should black people be bought and sold? Why shouldn't women be allowed to vote? Why shouldn't gays get civil unions? Well, that's the same instinct that tells others to help out society's defenseless others. I'm not sure there's a name for it, but I don't think I understand why anyone is opposed to it either. Why is someone opposed to helping out the defenseless in society?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Modernity and technological change threaten their traditional way of life, and they react by seeking to use government to try to preserve it.

Well there's a much more productive way to repsond: adapt. But I guess thats too Darwinian for them.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We relied on the common law in these areas for years, and it didn't work well. That's why these laws were passed.

Sweet pea, I know. And I agree with you. But a lot of people want to roll them back because they feel that the regulation is worse than the mess created by common law tort stuff, or whatever. And, since I charge a zillion dollars an hour to interpret regulations for people, I have some sympathy for where they are coming from. And, some regulations unintentionally have bad side effects. But overall, I think having, oh, say, nondiscrimination standards for tax-preferred retirement savings is better than not regulating it. Or scrubbers in smokestacks. Or whatever.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Well there's a much more productive way to repsond: adapt. But I guess thats too Darwinian for them.

Many try that too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Sweet pea, I know. And I agree with you. But a lot of people want to roll them back because they feel that the regulation is worse than the mess created by common law tort stuff, or whatever. And, since I charge a zillion dollars an hour to interpret regulations for people, I have some sympathy for where they are coming from. And, some regulations unintentionally have bad side effects. But overall, I think having, oh, say, nondiscrimination standards for tax-preferred retirement savings is better than not regulating it. Or scrubbers in smokestacks. Or whatever.

Anyone who thinks we would be better off without government meat inspectors should be forced to read The Jungle while eating a hamburger in a third-world country.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Well, my good and kind man, I'd suggest it has something to do with the understanding of the social compact. All of society, all of law, all of civilization, is a social compact. What was that book I read, oh yeah, Guns Germs and Steel, explains the development of humankind through different parts of the world, starting in Africa. Evolution, including societal evolution, is often based on no more than an accident of nature. Oops, did the early Africans kill off all the domesticatable mammals in the Beginning? Well, their descendants will do better in Asia. Just a gigantic series of accidents.

FWIW, I'm about halfway through GG&S, and I'm finding it to be a fascinating read.

R(a couple years behind in her reading list)T

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'll leave them alone - why won't they leave me alone? Why do they need to tell me what to do?

Because they can. And because people like you who care more about your wallet than being left alone vote for the GOP.

And, as the Poster Formerly Known As DebtSlave pointed out, the well-to-do can opt out of the intrusive social agenda pushed by the Puritans. They can be depraved in private parties (Gatsby had no problems getting Scotch for his parties, and Tom Buchanan had an apartment in the city) if the bars have to close early. College Republicans probably still have the best blow on campus.

This means that the GOP is usually more than happy to make that trade-off -- give us our tax cuts/sweetheart deals/pork, and we'll demonize the UnAmericans. And maybe throw you a bone or two on you if we have to and it doesn't inconvenience us too much.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Well, my good and kind man, I'd suggest it has something to do with the understanding of the social compact. All of society, all of law, all of civilization, is a social compact. What was that book I read, oh yeah, Guns Germs and Steel, explains the development of humankind through different parts of the world, starting in Africa. Evolution, including societal evolution, is often based on no more than an accident of nature. Oops, did the early Africans kill off all the domesticatable mammals in the Beginning? Well, their descendants will do better in Asia. Just a gigantic series of accidents.

So, one day in the gathering stage (and in multiple societies), humans figured out how to leverage the battle for food through crop-cultivation etc. etc. etc. Next thing ya know, in every society someone steps up and says "hey, that Mountain just spoke to me, he says I'm the messenger". Literally, a cynic might think the original Priests were just trying to get out of their share of work (they were the first people excused from tending crops).

But the question is begged, why did people believe them when they stepped forward? In different places all over the world, some dude steps forward and says the Creator just spoke to him, and people buy into it. Its like, like, we want to believe in something.

Anyhoo, social contract. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. I agree to avenge your murder, you agree to avenge mine. Heck, we'll call the vengeance thing The Justice System. Otherwise, why the fuck do I care is your wife puts a hatchet through your skull? Its like a gigantic deal for society.

Welp, over time, people begin to think about whether the deal is fair. Some people begin to wonder, do we sell out some people? Next thing you know, slaves are being freed, women are getting the vote, gays are getting civil unions. People are all being allowed to buy into the system. That same instinct that tells someone, hey why should black people be bought and sold? Why shouldn't women be allowed to vote? Why shouldn't gays get civil unions? Well, that's the same instinct that tells others to help out society's defenseless others. I'm not sure there's a name for it, but I don't think I understand why anyone is opposed to it either. Why is someone opposed to helping out the defenseless in society?

I understand the social compact argument, but what we have now is a group of people (Group A) who know very little about the lives of certain others (Group B) trying to force their morals on Group B. That's not a compact - that's attempted tyranny. A compact presumes that the parties involved agree. What we've got now is a vehement minority trying to inflcit its views on the majority.

I take comfort in the fact that what is presently happening will cleanse the system. the Right is blowing its wad at the moment and when the moderates have had enough, we will see a long moderate rule. I don't even mention the Left because in my wiew, they're already dead and subsumed within the moderates. The Right should be careful. By becoming so extreme, its now taking on the moderates as well as the left, and thats a battle it can't win.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Bob
College Republicans probably still have the best blow on campus.

Fuck. I invented this.