So Jerry has been advocating for more government regulations and oversight lately. Yeah really. :-)
He is supporting the travel ban, the cutting of funding to organizations who include abortion as an option, the increase in voter ID and he has always been luke warm on LGBT rights. His logic is that we can not prove that no fraudulent voters are voting, that no terrorist have snuck in with the refugees, that being LGBT is a physiological state of being, when a human life begins, etc so we should create government regulations and hurdles because... Here is where this led to.
He is supporting the travel ban, the cutting of funding to organizations who include abortion as an option, the increase in voter ID and he has always been luke warm on LGBT rights. His logic is that we can not prove that no fraudulent voters are voting, that no terrorist have snuck in with the refugees, that being LGBT is a physiological state of being, when a human life begins, etc so we should create government regulations and hurdles because... Here is where this led to.
" I agree... Let's force Trump to come clean and sell his businesses...
You are sounding like a Liberal... We need more regulations and checks and burdens because you can not prove that someone is not polluting, being fraudulent, etc.
As I say often, there is a reason both the Dems and GOP are under the line on the Nolan diagram... They are regulation and government control obsessed. Just about different things.
The GOP:
It is very sad... G2A
- someone may sneak by, let's pass a law and regulate
- a pregnant woman may choose wrong, let's pass a law and regulate
- a few inappropriate voters may vote, let's pass a lwa and regulate
- someone may kiss the wrong person, let's pass a law and regulate
"Some very nice false choices, there." JerryPlease remember that I like the Nolan diagram, for me it explains things pretty nicely and this is my favorite that I found on a quora site. What I like about it is that it depicts what seems to be reality, both parties are more than happy to use the government to control people to their way of thinking. Maybe that is why we have SO MANY LAWS and SO MUCH GOVERNMENT... Thoughts?
40 comments:
The reason why Trump was told to divest himself of his business interests it that it is just very easy for conflicts of interest to turn into actual corruption. He ignored that advice, and as a result put himself into peril. It's one of the basic reasons why I don't think the Trump presidency will last the full four years.
--Hiram
a few inappropriate voters may vote, let's pass a lwa and regulate
No Republican who is knowledgeable about how elections are conducted believe that voter fraud is a significant factor. They just don't. They know the same thing we do; that making things difficult to vote hurts Democratic turnout. That's why they favor measures that have nothing to do with voter security, but everything to do with making voting harder.
--Hiram
Every polling place in Minnesota is supervised by both Republican and Democratic election judges. In Minnesota, have any Republican election judges come forward with reports of fraud at their precinct?
--Hiram
" In Minnesota, have any Republican election judges come forward with reports of fraud at their precinct?" Attempted fraud, many times, stopped by Republican judges or poll challengers, and many more times, no doubt, not detected or stopped. THIS Republican believes it is highly possible that vote fraud was a significant factor, finding over 50 apparently fraudulent votes during the Franken recount myself. The SOS ruled them legit. I've also seen what appear to be as many as 100,000 duplicate votes, have seen the lawsuits showing that 1700 proscribed felons voted. In close elections, any of these numbers are significant.
And the way it works is this. The Clerks are supposed to assign equal numbers of Democrat and Republican judges to each precinct. In some, however, the judges get together at the start of the day and say, "who are going to be the Republicans today?" Surprisingly, some of these precincts take in more ballots than they have registered voters. It's a shame, because procedures could be tightened up easily without "suppressing" any except the fraudulent votes.
I guess we can discuss the merits of each government control, however I am more fascinated with why BOTH PARTIES are so interested in forcing their morals, values, fears, etc on all of the citizens and businesses in the USA?
And the funny part is that BOTH Parties declare boldly that it is the OTHER PARTY who is guilty of creating these terrible restrictive burdens in the USA.
Now I realize that my views are in the upper right corner of the "Evolve Beyond" square, so I have a hard time understanding the people on both sides who want so many governmental controls.
Where is your desire for people to be free to live their lives as they wish? And experience the natural consequences of those decisions? Thoughts?
I am more fascinated with why BOTH PARTIES are so interested in forcing their morals, values, fears, etc on all of the citizens and businesses in the USA
It's really kind of balancing thing. I think marriage is a big deal. I think baking cakes for a marriage is a little deal. Does it really make sense to deny a couple the huge benefits of the marital state simply because someone doesn't want to bake them a cake?
--Hiram
I guess I would ask... Does it really make sense to force someone to bake a cake just because some people they disagree with want to get married?
Does it really make sense to force someone to bake a cake just because some people they disagree with want to get married?
I have never really thought it does. But that does seem to be a basic principle of the Christian religion, no cakes for gay people.
--Hiram
Gay folks have as much cake as they want... From a supplier who is happy to sell it to them.
If folks are willing to damage their business by not dealing with potential customers for religious reasons, should that not be their right? And if some people seek to damage their business by forcing them, under penalty of law, to do such business, isn't that oppression?
Me, personally, and I think almost all of these bakers, would be perfectly happy to sell gay folks all the bread, cookies, and even birthday cake they want. But they have an objection to that one small piece of the business. If they insisted and brought the law in, I would quickly relent. And it would be the worst cake they ever ate.
Where libertarians miss the boat is that there is a certain point where freedom becomes anarchy, and there is another point at which necessary government becomes oppressive. Balance, as Hiram says. I happen to believe the federal government is too far to the "oppressive" side of the ledger at present, but I would draw that "balance line" sloping downwards left to right. In other words, let's allow individual freedom to prevail so long as we don't actively harm one another. Violating personal religious liberty, or requiring the killing of unborn children are both harmful government activities.
Sorry, I just looked at your chart again and I cannot find anyplace to put myself, one of those eminently rational people who thinks that labels don't matter except in describing one's generally rational political viewpoint. I mean, there is some logic to left as well as right, as well as the libertarian "middle ground" or its opposite rigid fascism.
But according to your chart, as you go up on the left, increasing mandated equality leads to increasing personal freedom, and that cannot be true. Neither, on the right side, should increasing "legislated morality" lead to increased economic freedom. In short, the chart appears to be constructed to make Democrats and Republicans look very bad and Libertarians look very good. Perhaps it would be more realistic if all three logos were moved down by 1/4, and "anarchy" put at the top.
Jerry,
I think you should really consider your self perception. I am pretty sure many would disagree with it. After years of exchanging comments, I can think of almost no topic on which you vary from a typical Conservative GOP voter and FOX News watcher. By the way, you are in good company with my Parents.
Okay. I added another diagram that I found somewhere. Is it better?
As for the possibilities of the upper Left, to you life is very much so about strong personal property freedoms and strong moral controls. That is why you fit into the Lower Right.
To a person who is in the Upper Left, life is about strong personal freedoms and weaker personal property rights. Sharing the wealth that is created in America so all Americans have more personal freedom is their goal. To them Bill Gates being worth $60 Billion while other Americans don't have the freedom to go to college is wrong. Money just isn't as important to them when compared to the personal freedoms of others who are trapped in their poverty.
Sorry, but that second square chart doesn't help much at all. I think you would be far better off with a straight line that has "more government control" on the left (0) end and "less" (1.0) on the other end (the RIGHT end, I should point out :-). Democrats would be at 1/4 or so, Republicans at 3/4, Revolutionaries and anarchists at 1.0, with libertarians just slightly left, say .93. Totalitarians are at zero, and Moderates, Independents and centrists at 0.5 (or zero if you normalized the chart at the center point). The terms "reactionary," "mainstream" and "extremist" have been stripped of meaning in the current partisan rhetorical wars.
" Upper Left, life is about strong personal freedoms and weaker personal property rights." Your chart is misleading you. There is no such thing as what you suggest, since personal property rights ARE some of the most important personal freedoms.
Jerry,
The straight line depicting government control vs total individual control is the vertical axis that goes between Totalitarian on the bottom and Anarchy on the top.
The horizontal axis goes from Total Wealth Sharing on the left to Pure Everyone for Themselves on the right.
Wiki Nolan Chart
So using your vertical straight line....
"Democrats would be at 1/4 or so, Republicans at 3/4, Revolutionaries and anarchists at 1.0, with libertarians just slightly left, say .93. Totalitarians are at zero, and Moderates, Independents and centrists at 0.5"
The Nolan diagrams say the following...
1.0 Revolutionaries and anarchists
3/4 Libertarians
1/2 Centrists
3/8 Democrats and Republicans
0 Totalitarians
As for ...
"There is no such thing as what you suggest, since personal property rights ARE some of the most important personal freedoms."
This indicates that money, wealth, control and self are high on your care meter... Whereas for many the freedom to marry who they want, pursue their passions, control their body, etc, etc, etc are far more important than their pocket book.
Using the straight line again... With Left as Zero.
0 Pure Communism
1/4 Democrats & Liberals
1/2 Centrists
3/4 Republicans & Conservatives
1.0 Pure Capitalism
"1/2 Centrists
3/8 Democrats and Republicans"
Again, that cannot possibly be correct. Centrists by definition lie between Democrats and Republicans. So do "moderates" but that depends on who is calling them that. You also have the problem of "Party platform" vs "How the parties govern," which in my mind are two quite different things.
Your proposition, of confining the range of positions to economic freedom starting with Socialism (not communism, they are quite different) and ending with pure capitalism, sounds good, but nowhere on that scale do things like abortion or gay marriage fit in. In other words, there is a distinct difference in WHERE government control is exercised, at least between the two political parties. Sort of like Captain Kirk in "The Savage Curtain."
Centrists do lie in between Democrats and Republicans with regard to how the wealth of a country and it's citizens should be managed. (horizontal axis)
However Centrists lie in between Democrats/ Republicans and Libertarians with regard to government control. (vertical axis)
Please remember that governmental laws that control marriage, abortion, voter ID, tighter visa requirements, etc are just forms of government control and intrusion into the lives of citizens... Some may be good and some bad depending on your beliefs... But they are all governmental controls / mandates none the less, therefore driving the GOP down to 3/8 on the vertical axis.
So you are absolutely correct regarding the Democrats and Republicans...
"there is a distinct difference in WHERE government control is exercised"
The Democrats want to use the government to prevent people from harming each other, the environment, etc. (ie we need to protect everyone from everything)
The GOP wants to use the government to people from sinning, etc. (ie we need to prevent people from LGBT, end of life decisions, sexual perversion, foreign religions / beliefs, drugs, etc.)
That is why the Religious Conservatives are the way they are...
They believe that government must mandate and control the behaviors of the citizens of the country, for the good of the country and it's citizens.
If they had their way the 10 Commandments would likely be this country's constitution. With a couple more like no LGBT, no abortion, etc
Just like when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan and believed that everyone must follow the religious laws...
Let's take the left side of your rather fascinating and imaginative ontology first. "The Democrats want to use the government to prevent people from harming each other, the environment, etc. (ie we need to protect everyone from everything)"
So, that's what they WANT to do, and it is probably all good intentions. But what do they actually do, except to try to micromanage people's lives? They decide that you must never buy incandescent light bulbs because that "harms the planet" and instead mandates that you put toxic and costly CFLs in your closet where you will NEVER recover the initial cost and heaven help you if you break one. The government mandates that you pay for guys in hazmat suits to come clean up the broken bulb, and those are not cheap, either. And the benefit? Well, it isn't economic, and the effect on the environment of the planet is something less than negligible. And then there are the other edicts, too. Do you want to deny that someone who believes gay marriage is a sin is harmed if forced to bake a cake for one? If they want to turn away business and thus hurt themselves, so be it. That's freedom. But what is it when government orders them to pay a massive, business-wrecking fine on top of that? Now we find ourselves "protected" from "predatory lending" with the result that small banks and small businesses can no longer engage in any lending at all. You can talk all you want about "the right" wanting to "force morality," but the Left does it far more (and I would say more thoughtlessly), but just with a different moral outlook. They aren't trying to "protect" us, they're trying to "perfect" us in their own image of themselves.
Same as those on the Religious Right and Alt Right... Ironic and scary isn't it.
"They aren't trying to "protect" us, they're trying to "perfect" us in their own image of themselves."
I'll agree with your "both sides do it" argument if you will acknowledge that the "perfect image" is different. That is, the left has these ever-shifting politically correct views of perfection, while the RR has some eternal or at least traditional standards for it. When the RR "imposes their morality" it tends to be those things we have found over the millennia, like the ten commandments, to be good for a civilized society. Explain how the left believes that denying banks the ability to lend money to willing borrowers whom they choose is morally superior to the traditional arrangement. Or how forcing people to assist in gay weddings is morally superior to allowing them to choose their own associations and religious principles.
I do agree the "perfect image" is different. However I believe that both sides have good intent and have been pretty consistent for decades. They consistently work to make everyone adopt THEIR beliefs and punish anyone who does not.
Unfortunately the mortgage brokers, banks and investment bankers recently proved themselves incompetent, greedy and/or fraudulent. They gave loans to a huge number of poor risks and then transferred that risk to us tax payers. The result is that they contributed to a massive recession that harmed millions of US Citizens and caused a very large number of them to lose their homes. I am pretty sure they deserve some extra oversight and liquidity requirements.
As for the Religious Right's proven morality... Good Lord some of the most evil transgressions in the history of the world were due to those beliefs. The intolerance and inflexibility of the religious right is not acceptable in a free America.
Now please remember that I am in the upper right corner of the Centrist box. I want both the Democrats and Republicans to stop trying to force people to live as they wish people would.
Let LGBT people be free to live in peace and get married.
Let Religious Right people be free to not associate with LGBT people.
At least for now... However if the scientists do determine that being LGBT is a physiological state of being. Then the RR Florist will need to associate with LGBT folks. Just like White business owners can not discriminate against minority customers.
"Explain how the left believes that denying banks the ability to lend money to willing borrowers whom they choose is morally superior to the traditional arrangement."
Please expand on this. You have me puzzled.
Maybe this will help...
The Balance: Dodd Frank Summary
"I believe that both sides have good intent and have been pretty consistent for decades. They consistently work to make everyone adopt THEIR beliefs and punish anyone who does not."
Sorry, but that is not good enough. Good intentions do not make good policy, and the results of Democrat policy seem to be far more inconsistent with their supposed intentions than do Republican ones. Obamacare, as a prime example, RAISED costs, increased the number of uninsured (or effectively uninsured), and deprived people of plans and doctors they wanted to keep. And the "two sides" you describe are different in one very important way: The Left use the power of government to "make everyone" do things, while the Religious Right has no such power.
"The Left use the power of government to "make everyone" do things, while the Religious Right has no such power."
You have to be kidding. If the Right had its way:
- You are LGBT... Too bad you have to pretend to be straight.
- You are newly pregnant and do not want the baby... Too bad you have to bring the fetus to full term deliver it and deal with it.
- Not to mention recreational drugs, gambling, prohibition and all the other "vices / freedoms" they have fought against over the centuries.
" If the Right had its way:" Need I say more? The Religious Right (as different from economic conservatives and national security conservatives), do NOT get their way. And I am not sure why you continually want to attribute the most mean-spirited positions to people you obviously don't know, but shouldn't you be equally condemning those who want to murder children, encourage gender dysphoria, drugs, gambling and "all the other" things that "over the centuries" have been found harmful to humans and other living things?
I think Hiram, Laurie, Joel, Sean, etc will be more than willing to tell you how hard I have been on the Liberal control everything crowd over the years when the Liberals had the upper hand.
Remember all of our discussions about florist freedoms, keeping penises out of the girl's bathroom, irresponsible homeowner over mortgaging, not allowing abortions in the later terms, stopping legal pipelines, protect tenure / harm kids, etc, etc, etc.
Now the GOP is in control and threatening to over regulate in different ways. Remember that pendulum I keep talking about. It just keeps a swinging.
As for "mean spirited", please remember that I think almost everyone does things with good intentions. I truly believe their are very few "mean spirited" people out there. That does not mean that their actions are good, as you would be the first to admit.
This seems like a good topic for a future post.
Your premise has always been that "both sides do it" but that when they control government, they have the government "control" different things. I think you have a fundamental problem, and a problem with definitions. By definition, Democrats and the "left" are the party of government, more government and more control. Further left and you get Socialists, who exercise near-total control. Republicans and the Right, however, are by definition the party of LESS government and therefore less control. To the far right are the libertarians, who want almost no government control at all. The anarchists don't count because they are not on the scale of "government control" at all.
As for what each side controls, consider that conservatives seek to "conserve" the status quo traditional morality and economic freedoms, while liberals, again by definition, try to "liberalize" (i.e. change) it, by law and by curtailing economic freedom. To do that they must use the force of government or wait for moral suasion to eventually take hold. They seem impatient. For example, there can be no doubt that MLK's civil rights struggle succeeded only because of his ability to show a Christian nation that they were not living up to their own moral standards. Eventually, Republicans passed laws that "forced their morals" on the few Democrat holdouts, like George Wallace, and undid (i.e. reduced government control of) many of the old Democrat laws.
Personally I think you are a bit obsessed with money, and your personal control of it. And that is impressive given that I love money and toys...
However I think the universe of personal freedoms go far beyond money... And most of those freedoms are far more important than wealth. And that is why governmental control is on the vertical axis.
If you get to keep most of your money and yet the government dictates who you will love, how you will love them, what behaviors are acceptable, etc, it is still a country with a HIGH LEVEL of government control.
Show me, in any way you can, where our government controls "who[m] you love." And do you consider that government having penalties for such "behaviors" as murder amount to excessive government control? You are conflating a whole raft of things that are not in the least bit equivalent. The amount of government control has widely varying degrees over widely divergent activities. You cannot talk about it as an absolute number, but must instead talk about where that control may be excessive. Controls on economic freedom are easy for government, yet fundamental to many other liberties.
After centuries of conservative religious US governments doing everything they could to punish inter-racial and LGBT relationships, finally their freedoms are going main stream. Unfortunately many religious right and bigoted citizens seem to want to drag us backwards...
No I think laws against murder are not excessive control. I think laws against first term abortions and patient requested physician assisted suicide are excessive government control.
I agree that Economics are fundamental to many freedoms. How society balances the what is an individuals cut and what is societies is very interesting and important.
Please remember that without society / government and the rule of law none of us would have any property rights... So society has every right to decide who gets to keep how much and who pays the bills.
I'm sorry, but when you say "society/government" you have identified the problem. It is that we do not have a government that fully represents our society, and vice versa. That is, what is "right" is not necessarily the law, and what is lawful is not necessarily what is right. Where government controls, it often does so contrary to what "society," or at least a significant segment of us, consider "right." So, whenever government controls some aspect of our life that we believe we should control ourselves, or leave for others to decide for THEM selves subject to the "don't harm others" fundamental, that control is excessive. And right now that is a LOT of things.
You are lucky enough to live in a country where the people make the rules.
Maybe you need to buy an island somewhere in the Atlantic and then you can live under Jerry's rules.
Until then it is our society... All ~320 million of us...
OK, we're all in this together. So why do 535 get to make the rules for the other 319,999,465? Is it possible, in your mind, for these few folks to assume the power to go from a society based on self-government and self-control to a society largely based on government control? Do we have too many laws and regulations?
Post a Comment