A practical application of socialist ideas (Read 1168 times)


A Saucy Wench

    I wonder if you made a graph of average wordcount per posting by page......

    I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

     

    "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7


    Prince of Fatness

      I used a logical conversion from where you said "never" -- I suppose translating that into "always not".

       

      I used the word "never" in the context of blaming parties for partisanship.  First sentence in the post you quoted.  I cannot find anywhere where I said that it is how I judge everything.

      Semi-retired.

        Surprised that we can talk Politics and know the solutions all the way up to the State of the Union address, and then be silent in the hours since.

        We must all still be digesting the words of the address before commenting on it.

         

        In all seriousness, though, I'm glad that this topic has remained civil and that we all kind of get along and could shake hands with each other regardless of what we believe and whether we believe that our running brothers are right or wrong regardig political stuff.


        Cheers,

        2014 Goals:

        #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

        #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

         

          I wonder if you made a graph of average wordcount per posting by page......

           This would greatly advance the field of TOP Studies.  

          "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus

            One thing that the President brought up was the "trust deficit." Daniels also addressed this somewhat in his response. Discussions on politics can build trust, even if we do not end up in agreement.

             

            Can we get to the point where we allow our ideological opponents to experiment with the implementation of policy, even if we do not agree with that policy?  Seems to me that's the level of trust required for a democratic system to actually function.

             

            Even if we end up skeptical, seeing the rationale behind our ideological opponents' plans perhaps convinces us that the opposition has reasoned approach, worth trying, and that even if it fails, such failures are beginning points for movements in different directions.

             

            I believe that democracy requires an experimental approach, and ideological fixity is the enemy of that approach. While it is rare that folks change their minds by participating in these sorts of discussions, maybe some degree of trust is built, which allows better experiments into the solutions to political problems?


            Feeling the growl again

              That's a bit different definition of trust that I would use.  The problem is that when policy is implemented, peoples' lives are affected.  If one side believes it is wrong and there is a better approach, why would they allow what they believe to be negative impact on peoples' lives when they think there is a better way?  If each side is supposed to let the other proceed and decide through experimentation, are we then going to implement both sides?  That doesn't seem very realistic or actionable.

               

              Also, the gov't rarely erases anything they do.  They just build on layers and redundancy.  So I would rather they be thoughtful about what they do beforehand, rather than implement willy-nilly and try to learn as they go....because the failures will live on.

               

              The trust I see is the trust that our elected representatives have our best interests in mind.  Think back to when our country was founded and the way people voted back then.  They did not have access to much information about what the candidates stood for, what their platforms were, etc.  They had to make the best choice they could, and then trust that that representative would have their best interests in mind when they made law/policy.  Think about the caucus process; why does it work that way?  Because you need representatives to speak for the group...seems a bit out of place in today's world but it is a legacy.

               

              IMHO voters have gotten out of touch....I don't think many people would want to be represented by someone with an IQ of 100 (ie average) yet we expect them to respond to polling, which supposedly reflects the will of the people.  In reality, what is best for the group (be it a represented district, state, or even the nation) might not poll well and might be beyond the strategic or reasoning power of the group average.  We should be electing people we trust to make those hard decisions, especially to the Presidency where they are making decisions based off far more information than the average citizen has access to. 

               

              Because of lobbying, campaign finance issues, pandering, and blatant disregard of what is best for the people in favor of what is best for them or their party (which represents no one but themselves) they have lost trust.

               

              Voters don't get a pass on this.  "We" respond to their antics.  "We" are clamoring for the gov't to give us (individually) more and more, while it continues to build problems for us as a nation (mounting debt etc). 

               

              We've moved a long was since some random politician...a Democrat, at that...could say "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" and be applauded for it...

              "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

               

                One thing that the President brought up was the "trust deficit." Daniels also addressed this somewhat in his response. Discussions on politics can build trust, even if we do not end up in agreement.

                 

                Can we get to the point where we allow our ideological opponents to experiment with the implementation of policy, even if we do not agree with that policy?  Seems to me that's the level of trust required for a democratic system to actually function.

                 

                Even if we end up skeptical, seeing the rationale behind our ideological opponents' plans perhaps convinces us that the opposition has reasoned approach, worth trying, and that even if it fails, such failures are beginning points for movements in different directions.

                 

                I believe that democracy requires an experimental approach, and ideological fixity is the enemy of that approach. While it is rare that folks change their minds by participating in these sorts of discussions, maybe some degree of trust is built, which allows better experiments into the solutions to political problems?

                And modern organized politics is the enemy of that sort of populist intellectual bridging.  You risk eroding your base if they're allowed to see the merits of the opponent's views.  And that leads to loss of power.  Can't have that.

                 

                (Yeah, I'm feeling cynical today.)

                “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

                  ...why would they allow what they believe to be negative impact on peoples' lives when they think there is a better way?

                   

                  Typically a person's criterion for what is bad for the country is, would it have a negative impact on me.

                  Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                    That's a bit different definition of trust that I would use.  The problem is that when policy is implemented, peoples' lives are affected.  If one side believes it is wrong and there is a better approach, why would they allow what they believe to be negative impact on peoples' lives when they think there is a better way?

                     

                    I agree with a lot of what you say in the longer post, spaniel. I guess my answer to the question you start with is simple. We realize that we might be wrong about what we think works.

                     

                    MTA: A lot of ink has been spilled on "leadership," but I think that a large part of our problem today is "followship": trusting, listening, and responding, rather than certainty, decisiveness, and aggression. 


                    Fast is better than long

                      Typically a person's criterion for what is bad for the country is, would it have a negative impact on me.

                       

                      I am far more noble than that.

                      Me or my friends

                       

                      It's not just the country NIMBA relates to just about everything. I want only the benefits and strap someone/someplace/something else with the detrimants.

                      2014 Goals: 2500 miles / sub 2 800m / 4:30 mile / sub 16:30 5K

                       

                      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm the rest of the night;
                      Set a man afire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

                      What in the Jehu?

                        That's a bit different definition of trust that I would use.  The problem is that when policy is implemented, peoples' lives are affected.  If one side believes it is wrong and there is a better approach, why would they allow what they believe to be negative impact on peoples' lives when they think there is a better way?  If each side is supposed to let the other proceed and decide through experimentation, are we then going to implement both sides?  That doesn't seem very realistic or actionable.

                         

                        If only we were at a point where we could have that problem--where both sides trust that the other has the best of intentions but disagree over the best solution.  No, sadly, the current state (as the OP of this thread demonstrates) is to turn the other guy into a complete monster, call him an enemy and a traitor and throw out labels like "solialist" or "Nazi" or whatever bad thing you can think of and just presume it because the frothy masses who are conditioned to believe it will eat it right up.

                         

                        (Yeah, I'm with Clive...having a cynical day.)

                        Runners run.


                        Menace to Sobriety

                           No, sadly, the current state (as the OP of this thread demonstrates) is to turn the other guy into a complete monster, call him an enemy and a traitor and throw out labels like "solialist" or "Nazi" or whatever bad thing you can think of and just presume it because the frothy masses who are conditioned to believe it will eat it right up.

                           

                          (Yeah, I'm with Clive...having a cynical day.)

                           

                          It's somewhere between Thunderdome and a cockfight. Take no prisoners, victory at all costs.  It's also the reason we get the candidates we do. Why would any sane honorable person put himself or his family through this process. You have to be suspicious of anyone that wants the job.

                           

                          What, me cynical?

                          Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go f*** himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.

                            I am far more noble than that.

                            Me or my friends

                             

                            It's not just the country NIMBA relates to just about everything. I want only the benefits and strap someone/someplace/something else with the detrimants.

                             

                            I guess what I'm saying is that we hope that our representatives are looking at the bigger picture - what is best for the country as a whole - rather than what's best for themselves, their families, their big donors, their political party, etc.  I think our founding fathers established representative government trusting that the elected reps were more likely to look at the big picture than Joe the Blacksmith would.

                            Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.


                            Feeling the growl again

                              I guess what I'm saying is that we hope that our representatives are looking at the bigger picture - what is best for the country as a whole - rather than what's best for themselves, their families, their big donors, their political party, etc.  I think our founding fathers established representative government trusting that the elected reps were more likely to look at the big picture than Joe the Blacksmith would.

                               

                              Taking this and your prior post together ("most people define what is best as what is best for ME")....

                               

                              Intellectually one could say if the voter only cares what is best for them personally (screw the nation), a) they are short-sighted as eventually what is bad for the nation will likely be bad for them, and b) then why should they expect their elected representatives to behave any differently?

                               

                              I think it is a big problem that elected representatives no longer seem to care about representing their constituents (I'm sure there are exceptions) and this has cost them trust, including mine.

                               

                              I think it is a big problem that, as you say, a lot of people vote according to what is best for them personally.  That's bad.  Imagine a country where everybody acted like that....when is it ever in one's personal best interest to enlist in the military and go to war unless that war threatens to land on their own doorstep?  Not often, fortunately we have brave souls who serve this country and not just themselves.  It also makes me sad that some people don't seem to care what sort of situation they leave for their kids to deal with.

                               

                              I agree with you on what our founding fathers intended...and I think we're now far away from that.

                               

                              I think one cause is "professional politicians".  I'm a big proponent of term limits on Congress, say 2 terms in the Senate and 3-4 in the House.  If it's something they do as service....and not a career....I think more would actually represent and not just look after their personal interests.  My impression of our governement in the first 50-70 years was that it was much more of an amateur affair.

                              "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                               


                              Feeling the growl again

                                If only we were at a point where we could have that problem--where both sides trust that the other has the best of intentions but disagree over the best solution.  No, sadly, the current state (as the OP of this thread demonstrates) is to turn the other guy into a complete monster, call him an enemy and a traitor and throw out labels like "solialist" or "Nazi" or whatever bad thing you can think of and just presume it because the frothy masses who are conditioned to believe it will eat it right up.

                                 

                                (Yeah, I'm with Clive...having a cynical day.)

                                 

                                Yes, this has disgusted me to the point I almost want to stop following it at all.  Unfortunately I feel I am obligated to vote and therefore obligated to be informed.

                                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand