Jerry is doing the thing that drives me crazy. Though he enjoys living in the United States and wants to stay here... He wants to claim that our elected government is apparently not a creation that is empowered and controlled by the people who live in the country. And it definitely is not doing what he wants it to do... By Golly !!!
Apparently the idea that Obama was elected by a majority of the voters in the United States to do what he promised to do eludes him. Apparently our government will only represent our society if, and only if, it does exactly as Jerry says it should!!!
Apparently the idea that Obama was elected by a majority of the voters in the United States to do what he promised to do eludes him. Apparently our government will only represent our society if, and only if, it does exactly as Jerry says it should!!!
""Society" has no ability to affect behavior so long as government stands between "us" and "them" with a great big check. It both prevents us from helping them, and prevents them from joining us. It's a wall, a ledge, an almost insurmountable hurdle." JerryIt reminds me of the few team members in my history who would go along until something went wrong. Then they would cry "It's Not My Fault" and that the team had ignored their earlier concerns. Of course I would remind them that it was our team, and that we would swim or sink together... Thoughts?
"I know you disagree, but the citizens create, control, empower and manage the government. It is what the citizens make it." G2A
"Really? You believe that? How many of us demanded that the IRS keep conservative groups from getting tax-free status? Where were the petitions to force Obama's EPA to put forward the Clean Power Plan (aka destroying the coal industry to prevent global warming)? Anybody remember the Congressional majority being voted out for voting for Obama's worthless and deficit-driving stimulus? How about Obamacare? Did we "control" the government when that stupidity was foisted on us? No, I am sorry. What I will concede is that we have been massively lied to and propagandized, and thus do not take the control we should." Jerry
30 comments:
I'm not seeing the fallacy in my argument. Majority may rule, but if the majority is stupid or poorly informed or just not thinking clearly, or maybe you dislike that characterization, but nonetheless it cannot be said to be a "consensus" or collective decision. By the same token, even assuming that government does what the majority wants (a majority did not and does not want Obamacare), that is no reason to ignore what the minority feels is the correct course of action and, if so, gives them the absolute right to object and complain. Yes?
I have also served on and led teams. The best of them-- heck, even some of the poorest-- try to operate by consensus or at least take sensible objections into account as a matter of risk avoidance. In very few cases have I seen raw political partisanship push through things on slim majority votes without regard for what the slim minority found objectionable.
For better or worse both parties strive to push things through...
When Bush invaded Iraq, should Laurie say that the USA government does not represent her society?
We have ~320,000,000 people living in relative peace in this country. We vote for our politicians, and they vote for laws, programs, wars, regulations, etc. For better or worse they are what we made them...
The good side is that we as a society can change them if enough people can be convinced there is a better way...
Exactly my point. How much time of every day does the average VOTER, let alone the half who do not vote, spend trying to inform themselves on the issues? How much of that time, and what fraction of those information sources, are delivering MISinformation? We have permitted the federal government to grow in power and influence to the point that even our elected representatives do not know what is being done "for" us and TO us, and their every inclination is to extend that power further, to make everything "right" for everybody and solve all of our problems with their wise and beneficent rule. Were our government half its current size, you might be able to say "the people" were in control. It's not possible today.
Gotta love Ted Cruz on this. He has marked 5 cabinet level departments for elimination.
And a reminder: majority rule is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
It is terrible system... But is better than any other system...
For better or worse the US Governments are what the people in our society made them...
OK, now I see that as a fallacy. I believe government has made itself what it is, usurping power and authority with total disregard for the constitution, public opinion or rational limits. For example, just claiming that Obamacare can force people to buy something (health insurance), and thereby give more people better quality health care at far less cost is a sign of stupidity, not ignorance. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together should know it should not and could never work. And it hasn't.
I am not sure why they fibbed about it being cheaper. It is better coverage and covering higher risk folks who have not had healthcare for awhile. And hopefully the hospitals are no longer absorbing the "not covered" people costs.
But it seems to working fine. More people have good health insurance coverage and are getting more healthcare. Insurance companies are getting better a bidding and understanding the costs. People are paying fines if they choose to not comply.
Emergency rooms are busier than ever. Of those with Obamacare coverage, only about 5% were previously uninsured. Average costs have increased, rather than decreased, something like $2500, or more. Worse, it seems that the deductibles are now unaffordable, doctors are refusing to treat Obamacare/Medicaid/Medicare patients because of low "price fixed" reimbursements. People are paying for coverage that they don't need and don't want, driving up costs unnecessarily, and the "pre-existing conditions" folks no longer have access to State high-risk pools or "coverage exclusions" that they used to be able to get on the free market for lower costs, while the insurance companies raise rates to cover the new "must issue" rules for the same folks.
And those people aren't paying "fines." The government that argued they were fines went to the Supreme Court and insisted they were "taxes," because otherwise the whole law would have been struck down as unconstitutional. They lied and lied and here we are. Obama lied, people died.
State high-risk pools were a joke, pre-ACA. They didn't work. They only covered a fraction of the people eligible for them because most of them were prohibitively expensive (in some states, people had a $25,000 deductible with a $75,000 coverage limit), with premiums double to triple that those found in the regular market.
ACA Facts and Data
ACA Facts and Data 2
ACA Facts and Data 3
Majority may rule, but if the majority is stupid or poorly informed or just not thinking clearly, or maybe you dislike that characterization, but nonetheless it cannot be said to be a "consensus" or collective decision.
Our government works, at least as a practical matter by consensus. Nothing gets done unless a lot of major power centers signs off on it, which means each of them has a de facto veto power.
--Hiram
"if the majority is stupid or poorly informed or just not thinking clearly"
Well "society" does not mandate a group of wise logical kind individuals. If the majority of the people in your country are stupid, poorly informed, biased, etc, etc, etc, that is what your society will be... I mean our society has a history of treating minorities, women, LGBT's, etc very poorly.
Even when we were doing those terrible things, we thought we had a good society and the citizen's owned it whether they agreed or not.
"Our government works, at least as a practical matter by consensus." -- Hiram
Strange definition you have of consensus. Obamacare passed the US Senate with 60 votes for and 40 against, while the American public was 60% against. Now if it were just a matter of renaming a post office, such hyperpartisan and NON-consensus voting would not be serious. This was a disruption (for the worse) of 14% of the US economy. Such things should not be done without REAL consensus.
"Even when we were doing those terrible things, we thought we had a good society and the citizen's owned it whether they agreed or not."
I think I have found the problem. You believe that our government is the perfect "representation" of our society and does exactly what we would do given the time, information and authority. It is, after all, a "representative" government. But I believe that our government has come to believe, collectively, that they are BETTER than the rest of us and can "perfect" our society by law, regardless of whether we think it "wise and compassionate" or not. How else would you explain the plethora of laws they pass for us but from which they carefully exempt themselves?
"government is the perfect "representation" of our society"
No I think it is an imperfect representation that acts like a shock absorber on our society. But over time it is a pretty close approximation. Society started to see slavery as immoral and in time government made it illegal. Government used to be tied very closely to Christianity, and slowly it is becoming more representative of the diverse beliefs we have in our society.
"plethora of laws they pass for us but from which they carefully exempt themselves"
Examples or sources please... I know there are some. But I think plethora is a big stretch.
OK, substitute "many" for plethora. Include discrimination, Obamacare, Social Security and traffic laws.
"...and slowly it is becoming more representative of the diverse beliefs we have in our society." Sorry, I have to laugh. We now allow gay marriage, but the "diverse beliefs" of Catholics and many Christians get ignored, and fortunately the beliefs of Muslims-- that gays deserve death-- are also ignored. Government attempting to "perfect" society whether society likes it or not.
Maybe you should buy these bumper stickers.
You are correct LGBT folks get to be legally married like every other loving couple of humans... And they get to walk around without fear of being killed. I am pretty sure you are happy that our Muslim friends can not legally kill you for being a Kafir.
"Government attempting to "perfect" society whether society likes it or not."
Jerry... "Will and Grace" put a fork in Gay Marriage being taboo in our society a long time ago... And now the government is slowly catching up.
Sorry, but I don't think that what we will tolerate as fictional comedic entertainment necessarily translates to what we will accept in reality and the cold light of reason. Taboo, no, because you can be killed for that. But being legal doesn't make it right, or moral, or even sensible. Our government seems to suffer from King Canute syndrome.
That King Canute reference seems to be controversial...
Jerry if anyone is trying to hold back the tide, it is the Religious Right. The majority of our society has spoken and they have chosen tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people/behaviors. And even more interesting is that they seem to be fascinated with that lifestyle. And this will only accelerate as the older citizens pass away.
I mean if LGBT is only ~3.8% of the population, they sure get a lot of attention and characters on our TV shows.
Exactly my point. The rampant political correctness has made society TOO tolerant for its own good, and afraid to exercise the "social norming" that preserves a society/culture over time. Tolerance for LGBT (a relatively meaningless term, once examined) behavior in private isn't bad. But enforced tolerance of public behavior contrary to those who object is terrible. Whatever happened to "the consent of the governed"?
"enforced tolerance of public behavior contrary to those who object is terrible"
Agreed when it comes to the Religious / LGBT balance.
Disagree when it comes to Governmental Agencies recognizing LGBT freedoms.
So when science proves that LGBT folks are unique physically. (ie made that way) Are you finally going to work to protect and ensure their freedoms and rights?
Please tell us, jerry, why I or anyone should tolerate someone such as yourself who doesn't believe that everyone should be allowed their inalienable rights?
Joel
Joel,
Here we go again....
What inalienable rights are you talking about and where are they documented in Federal law?
The reality is that society through the government decides which citizens get which rights. Not much is inalienable unless it is clearly stated in the Constitution or one of the Amendments.
Please remember that LGBT folks won the right to marry by one small vote. It easily could have gone the other way, and likely would have 10 years ago.
"The reality is that society through the government decides which citizens get which rights. Not much is inalienable unless it is clearly stated in the Constitution or one of the Amendments."
This is not what the Constitution says. The Government does not grant rights.
Joel
I may be a little off on my wording, however let's discuss your view with the people who practice polygamy, polyandry, adult incest, etc and want to get married to the one(s) they love...
I have NO Doubt that SCOTUS would have ruled differently regarding gay marriage 30 years ago. Society's change of heart is what made it possible.
First of all, the Constitution says nothing about inalienable rights at all. That is the Declaration of Independence and, while a marvelous founding document, has no weight in law. Joel is correct that we all have inalienable rights, supposedly, but all that proves is that there is ZERO right to a legally-recognized marriage. You have an inalienable (i.e. God-given) right to "love whom you please" and I have an inalienable right not to approve of it, even if you insist I should. Government cannot grant rights but they can abridge them. Try to have a gay marriage in Iran and you will see.
Post a Comment