Why Politics is Pointless

[Selene]

"... we furnish the means by which we suffer." That sounds like what Greg is saying to me.

A constitutional republic only works for a moral people who are mainly interested in being good. To think this is a contradiction or weakness is something along the lines of the fallacy of the single cause and a wish to impose the perfect collective system on the individual instead of trying to derive a collective system that works from the individual's nature.

Michael:

What you are saying here is precisely what Mark Levin defines as the Civil Society [his discussion starts at about the 00:30 mark:

[moralist]

Property that is seized for non-payment of taxes is stolen property, just as taxes themselves are a form of theft. Stealing is a violation of the Ten Commandments, an essential part of the "Judeo/Christian moral values" that you think this country was founded upon.

Well... that's where we each differ in our two views.

My property taxes pay for the supporting infrastructure that services my land and home so I'm happy to pay. And that infrastructure also includes fighting wildfires which is a vital service where I live. Two weeks ago a power line came down and started a wildfire. Within minutes huge planes came, scooped water out of the ocean, and dumped it on the blaze.

Now that's getting your tax money's worth of service.

Greg

[moralist]

Greg, your belief that only immoral people can be oppressed is irrational.

That's only half of the moral equation. Immoral people fantasize they are oppressed innocent victims. Believing in that lie is what provides the intellectual and emotional justification to oppress others.

Everyone who does evil first regards themselves as an innocent victim who angrily blames (unjustly accuses) others.

This is why Satan is called "The Accuser" in Hebrew in the Old Testament. The false accusation of others is what gives birth to all evil acts.

According to you, if a thief steals someone's money, then that is because the victim is immoral.

No... you're continuing to ignore the other half of the equation in an attempt to invalidate the whole thing. A thief steals what rightfully belongs to others because a thief is immoral. A thief always justifies stealing from others by believing that he was robbed by others of what he felt was rightfully his.

Now you are free to keep ignoring this other half, so I'll just keep pointing out what you're up to.

Greg

[moralist]

moralist, on 23 Feb 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

The American system of government only works for decent people... not for the indecent. And the only reason it is not working as it was designed by the Founders is because of catastrophic personal moral failure on a massive scale.

SoAMadDeathWish, on 23 Feb 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Pretty serious design flaw, if there ever was one... Like a cure that only works on healthy patients....

So you want a government that works on behalf of people who do evil?

(waves magic wand...) BONG!

There, you already have exactly the government you deserve right now!

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

moralist, on 23 Feb 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

The American system of government only works for decent people... not for the indecent. And the only reason it is not working as it was designed by the Founders is because of catastrophic personal moral failure on a massive scale.

SoAMadDeathWish, on 23 Feb 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Pretty serious design flaw, if there ever was one... Like a cure that only works on healthy patients....

So you want a government that works on behalf of people who do evil?

(waves magic wand...) BONG!

There, you already have exactly the government you deserve right now!

Greg

Very funny, but it's called "The Department of Corrections."

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Brant,

Not bullseye.

Bulllllll Shitttttttt--and a heaping steaming pile of it.

Government is not a cure. It is not some kind of inherent benefit to mankind like medicine.

It is a monster to be tamed.

I was simply pointing out the absurdity of having something that only works when you need it least.

That actually means a predominantly immoral people will get a predominantly immoral government because there is no such thing as 100% immoral people. That is the "single cause" in the fallacy I mentioned.

Hell, a moral people already get an immoral government because the side of human nature attracted to power is not too concerned with morality, but instead on increasing its power. That side is innately immoral and needs to be tamed.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that, if the people are immoral, then the government is immoral. But then also, if the people are moral, the government is still immoral? So whether or not the people are moral, they get an immoral government. Now, if the government is moral, then this implies that the people are both moral and immoral, which is a contradiction. Meaning that at least one of your two premises above must be false, possibly (likely, in my opinion) both.

Unless, that is, you mean to say that there are no moral governments. But in that case, your theory explains absolutely nothing, since your dependent variable is now a constant.

Power lust is....

Irrelevant. Even if no one actually wanted power, they will still seek at as a means to their other ends, as I've demonstrated in the OP.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

That's only half of the moral equation. Immoral people fantasize they are oppressed innocent victims. Believing in that lie is what provides the intellectual and emotional justification to oppress others.

Everyone who does evil first regards themselves as an innocent victim who angrily blames (unjustly accuses) others.

This is why Satan is called "The Accuser" in Hebrew in the Old Testament. The false accusation of others is what gives birth to all evil acts.

No... you're continuing to ignore the other half of the equation in an attempt to invalidate the whole thing. A thief steals what rightfully belongs to others because a thief is immoral. A thief always justifies stealing from others by believing that he was robbed by others of what he felt was rightfully his.

Now you are free to keep ignoring this other half, so I'll just keep pointing out what you're up to.

Greg

The question was not at all about why immoral people do immoral things or how they justify them to themselves, but whether or not people who are actually oppressed are immoral, as you've claimed several times in this thread already.

You have merely attempted to dodge the question with an obvious red herring. It won't work.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So let me get this straight. You're saying that, if the people are immoral, then the government is immoral. But then also, if the people are moral, the government is still immoral?

Dollhead

Bullseye!

Next thing you know, you'll figure out the problem is a matter of degree, not kind.

MIchael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Dollhead wants a government for automatons who do the "collective power" and "distributive power" schtick, not humans.

The problem with humans is those little suckers never act like you want 'em to when you're all busy collecting and distributing and stuff.

Gotta' kill 'em then. Sad, but gotta' kill 'em.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Dollhead

Bullseye!

Next thing you know, you'll figure out the problem is a matter of degree, not kind.

MIchael

So then, you must be saying that it is not enough that people be moral, but they must be sufficiently moral in order to have a moral government.

Four questions:

1. How do you measure morality?

2. How much morality is sufficient?

3. What exactly do you mean by a moral government?

4. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So then, you must be saying that it is not enough that people be moral, but they must be sufficiently moral in order to have a moral government.

Come one, Dollhead.

Do you have a reading problem? There is no moral government. There are only degrees of immoral with government.

Want a lot? Get big government.

Want a little? Make it smaller.

We can get some good stories out of it, but that's about all without a lot of corruption, bullying and so on.

Didn't you understand the Paine quote?

Freedom only works when people are good and want to be. When they don't, freedom doesn't last.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Come one, Dollhead.

Do you have a reading problem? There is no moral government. There are only degrees of immoral with government.

Want a lot? Get big government.

Want a little? Make it smaller.

We can get some good stories out of it, but that's about all without a lot of corruption, bullying and so on.

Didn't you understand the Paine quote?

Freedom only works when people are good and want to be. When they don't, freedom doesn't last.

Michael

Fine. Just two questions then:

1. How do you measure morality?

2. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Next thing you know, you'll figure out the problem is a matter of degree, not kind.

Ah, me...

I spoke too soon...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dollhead,

I'm going to stop being glib.

Try to understand what I wrote instead of just attacking it.

Then attack it.

Then we can discuss this stuff for real.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Dollhead,

I'm going to stop being glib.

Try to understand what I wrote instead of just attacking it.

Then attack it.

Then we can discuss this stuff for real.

Michael

I already understand it, I'm just asking you to substantiate your claim, so that there is something to discuss.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

So you want a government that works on behalf of people who do evil?

(waves magic wand...) BONG!

There, you already have exactly the government you deserve right now!

Greg

So you believe that the current government works on behalf of people who do evil, but you're ok with that as long as you're not personally inconvenienced by it?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I already understand it...

Then why do you write as if you don't?

Still doing it, too.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Then why do you write as if you don't?

Still doing it, too.

Michael

Damn, there goes my mind reading career...

So what am I missing?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So what am I missing?

Heh.

I put up a video the other day where the guy said there are three kinds of knowledge and potential knowledge:

1. Knowledge you know.

2. Knowledge you don't know, but know you don't know it.

3. Knowledge you don't know you don't know.

My guess is it's the third...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Watch what happens to government if these efforts succeed in getting people to think more about morality. There's a Convention of States to change the constitution on the horizon and the thrust is not expanded government. Without this cultural change, I don't believe it will ever happen. If this culture changes (which I believe), I don't see how it cannot.

Here's a canary in the coalmine that just cropped up on my news feed:

Americans rising up against government: Column

by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

USA Today

February 23, 2014

From the article:

America's ruling class has been experiencing more pushback than usual lately. It just might be a harbinger of things to come.

First, in response to widespread protests last week, the Department of Homeland Security canceled plans to build a nationwide license plate database.

. . .

I'm inclined to agree with TechDirt's Tim Cushing, who wrote: "The most plausible explanation is that someone up top at the DHS or ICE suddenly realized that publicly calling for bids on a nationwide surveillance system while nationwide surveillance systems are being hotly debated was ... a horrible idea."

On Friday, after more public outrage, the Federal Communications Commission withdrew a plan to "monitor" news coverage at not only broadcast stations, but also at print publications that the FCC has no authority to regulate.

. . .

Meanwhile, in Connecticut a massive new gun-registration scheme is also facing civil disobedience.

. . .

Though people have taken to the streets from Egypt, to Ukraine, to Venezuela to Thailand, many have wondered whether Americans would ever resist the increasing encroachments on their freedom. I think they've begun.

That's just a drop on the tip of the iceberg I believe is coming--all because of the different stories getting traction in the culture, the ones people consume and pass on.

Individual by individual.

I hope the pendulum doesn't swing too far to the other extreme because that way sucks, too. We get new wars.

Actually, it would be better if that goddam metaphorical pendulum broke and just stopped swinging where it's swinging.

Michael

[moralist]

So you want a government that works on behalf of people who do evil?

(waves magic wand...) BONG!

There, you already have exactly the government you deserve right now!

Greg

So you believe that the current government works on behalf of people who do evil, but you're ok with that as long as you're not personally inconvenienced by it?

Being ok has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have no control over, or personal responsibility for what has been going on. The government politicians elected by others do not represent me.

There are not enough productive Americans living in America to make a political majority.

Liberal Democrat parasites are the political majority in my state. Liberal Democrat parasites hold a super majority in the State Senate. Liberal Democrat parasites hold a super majority in the State House of Representatives. The Governor is a liberal Democrat parasite. So they're responsible for everything happening now...

...not me.

Instead of hurling impotent complaints about the government because there is no such thing as a political solution, there are only personal solutions. So mine is to continue to work to make progress on my own goals and enjoy my life regardless of the government.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

In Post #89 you wrote, "What you truly are inside is sole determinant of how you're treated by government." Therefore, if I have decided that I do not wish to be forced to buy more health insurance than I want or to subsidize Marxists in the state university or to finance DEA raids on drug dealers, then I alone should control what happens to any portion of the income I earn and should be able to stop the product of my labor from being spent on those government activities.

Have you ever stopped for a moment to notice just how impotent your complaints are?

Just to offer a contrast between your your approach on those issues you listed, and how I deal with them: I don't buy any health insurance at all and simply pay cash directly for all of our healthcare needs. This is how I operate entirely outside of the whole insurance system, because it's just a bunch of people all of whom expect someone else to pay their bills. So I pay my own bills, thank you. You also would never find me sitting like a useless inert lump in any nannystate subsidized University because that's where the failures are, instead I choose to get a real education out in the real world. And dope is for adolescents, not for adult men and women.

The protest of any slave may be impotent while he still is in captivity. But calling his enslavement a "paradise" doesn't make him any freer.

Starting in just 35 days this "Judeo-Christian paradise" will impose a tax penalty for not purchasing healthcare. This penalty will be imposed on everyone who falls into the IRS's net, regardless of "what you truly are inside."

I am delighted that you don't spend any time in tax-supported institutions of higher learning. And it is admirable that you don't get upset when your tax dollar is spent to to support professors like Eric Foner, Richard D. Wolff, Samuel Bowles, Erik Olin Wright, and many others who are attempting bring a radical socialist regime to the United States.

I am sure there were minds who expressed a similar serene indifference in the early days on the Soviet Union and the Third Reich.

But now you are saying that the statism is the "consequence of there not being enough decent Americans living in America."

Yes, that's true. But it doesn't mean that Americans can't enjoy their lives. It all comes down to this:

How do you learn to live a good life in an evil world? The solution is to build a good world. First within yourself, and then around you within your sphere of personal influence. Then evil becomes displaced outside the borders of your personal influence even though you can still watch it from a safe distance on network television news.

The government does NOT treat everyone uniformly. Surely you can see that, can't you? Please let me know whether or not you see the truth that each individual's direct personal experience of government van vary widely from others, because this point determines the utility of continuing the discussion.

Your inner self does not think and mull over and make a decision on how you ~feel~ you ~ought~ to be treated by the government. What you ARE inside has already set into motion how the government treats you. It can only respond to what you truly are inside, because it is subject to exactly the same moral law that you are.

If this were true, only evil men would suffer from the government's aggression. And yet everywhere I encounter good, decent people who are victimized by government regulation and theft.

Thus either your theory is incorrect or my eyes are lying to me.

This contradicts your statement that what I am inside is the sole determinant.

Well, in my view it doesn't, so we can just agree that we each see that from different points of view.

But I am not indecent. I have obeyed the Ten Commandments. I treat everyone I meet with respect and consideration. Therefore, according to your own words, the government should treat me "exactly as decent as I am."

Not ~should~. This is not a matter of what you think and feel ~should~ be. It is just what IS.

Let's deal with just what is.

1. I am decent.
2. The government doesn't treat me as decent.
3. The theory that "what you truly are inside" determines how you are treated is false.

Quote

Whatever you may wish to believe, the government does rob me--and robs me to further the advent of full blown socialism.

Well... then all I can say is go for it, Frank.

Just go right ahead and indulge yourself in angrily blaming the government because you think that it does not treat you how you ~feel~ you should be treated... for all the good that it won't do you. But at least consider the possibility that there is absolutely no possible solution to be found in the attitude of blaming others.

Greg

It's not about how I feel. It's about a moral code. That code can be found in your Bible. It includes the law, "Thou shalt not steal."

If a looter breaks into my house and steals my silverware, I'm not going to blame myself for "what I truly am inside." I am going to blame the looter.

Today the biggest looter in the country is the government. If you think the government's looting is in accordance with "Judeo-Christian values," then Obama surely qualifies for sainthood.

[Brant Gaede]

The "tax penalty" cannot be collected by the IRS except by taking it out of your tax refund. If you underpay your taxes you can refuse to pay the penalty. Just keep that money in a separate, dedicated bank account and let it build up in case they change the law and give the IRS some retroactive teeth in this area. That's right, the only legal way to make you pay is taking it out of your refund.

--Brant

"we won't know what's in it until we pass the bill"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The problem with humans is those little suckers never act like you want 'em to when you're all busy collecting and distributing and stuff.

Here's a guy who gets what I mean, although he couches it in the opposite terms for show.

He laments people can put together their own programming these days, and that companies can figure out what they like and offer it to them.

He wants to be able to tell everybody what's news. He wants the good old days when access to news was limited by what the elite few decided was news because there were few TV channels and newspapers. And if the public doesn't like what's served, they chug it down anyway or go without news.

http://youtu.be/UhswF5zLDPI

Funny how those little suckers (human beings) keep spoiling the plans of the high and snooty. And funny how the conceited whine when they don't get their way telling others what to do.

Hmmmm... Let's help 'em out. Maybe forced reeducation camps will work on those little suckers so the elite superior ones can keep their power...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Guess who else is getting it about the swing in storytelling that is starting to change the culture?

Google.

Guess where Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen will be at 5:00 PM today?

On TheBlaze TV for the full hour--being interviewed by Glenn Beck, that's where.

Google coming to Glenn Beck TONIGHT!
by Wilson Garrett
Feb. 24, 2014
TheBlaze

From the article:

On tonight’s episode of The Glenn Beck Program, Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google, and Jared Cohen, Director of Google Ideas will join Glenn, on set in NYC for the full hour. They'll be discussing their new book, The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business, as well as the evolution of technology and the Internet in the near future.

While having two of the biggest names in the tech world would normally be more than enough reason to tune in, what makes this interview a “can’t miss” is the mix of respect and skepticism that Glenn has had about Google.

You have to sign up to see the interview, but it will be on the cable channel.

Knowing Glenn, this will be available to the general public after the subscription draw power wears off.

Why would these guys go to Glenn's subscription audience to plug a book about technology. Aren't his subscribers supposed to be unsophisticated yahoos who don't know any better?

(Dayaaam! That "yahoo" thing was a big honking groaner. Sorry, it wasn't intentional. )

Google knows all about storytelling. And it is a savvy company that always stays ahead of the trends. Maybe it's because they have most of the Internet's search data and know how to analyze it.

But I want to see how Schmidt and Cohen will try to justify to Glenn why it is a good idea for Google to be in bed with the government, i.e., why crony capitalism might be bad, but when Google does it, it's good. That promises to be very, very interesting...

If anybody wants to buy the book, here is my Amazon affiliate link: The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen.

I might as well as make a few pennies if anybody wants to get the damn thing.

(sigh...) Look at me. I'm going to end up getting the damn thing myself, so I'm just as much a dummy.

Michael