[Shaddim]

Moral danger? Personally, I was talking about finances.

[subego]

Originally Posted by raleur 

First of all, thank you for your generous words. I try to be those things, but fear I fail all too often.
Second, I should explain my comment a bit more- and I apologize in advance for the wall of text.
I wasn't merely out to flame you, I meant it sincerely. In my opinion, all of my professional and personal experience with ideology and rhetoric has taught me that too many discussions aren't worth having because no resolution is possible: the parties involved are too invested in what people around here call "bubbles"- ideologies, on both left and right, that are circular and closed.
If someone is outside that circle, but still wishes to engage the issue, their options when they meet such an argument are pretty much limited to scorn and ridicule. That's why I went after knifecarrier so hard: since he maintained his ignorant and hateful position, I could only pile on demonstrations of just how wrong he was.
To get back to what I wrote, I saw in your argument the same reasoning that I find on far-right blogs and discussion sites, and based on earlier comments, it seemed to me that you were well-versed in that rhetoric. So what I saw first and foremost in your arguments was the assumption that the UN was to be avoided on principle. Since I don't agree with that assumption, I can only see them as unfounded and irrational.
That's what I meant when I said you left me with few alternatives: if you feel that the UN presents a moral danger to our country, then I cannot have a rational discussion with you, I can only point out the irrationality I see in the argument.
But I admit that I might be wrong- I could have read too much into your arguments. If that is the case, then I apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Which brings us back to your proposition: have we crossed wires? I don't know. If you do in fact believe that the UN is a moral danger, and US participation in it cannot bring any benefit, then no, we cannot have a decent discussion, and we'd be better off letting it drop. But If I've misjudged your position, then please correct my error.

Thanks for your response.

I'll tell you right off the bat I am here specifically to have conversations outside my "bubble". I want smart people who disagree with me to challenge my ideas. I'm wrong about stuff all the time, and I'm not going to remedy it by talking to people who are also wrong.

I'll even perhaps share a little too much. I post a lot. I'd be lying if I said I didn't base a certain amount of self-worth out of my experience here. My self-worth isn't a bubble either. If a person who I respect belittles me, I'm going to take that personally.

Whatever the case, I assure you I am willing to agree to disagree about something. If you think we can't go any further in a discussion I'll respect that, or at the least understand I need to rethink my position if discussion is to continue.


As for the actual discussion, I'd say we have a rats nest of crossed wires. I don't read right-wing blogs. I had to Google what a "freeper" was.

I wrote a response and deleted it, because I honestly have no idea what you think my argument is. What I wrote didn't seem to address what you were talking about at all. I invite you (no snark) to put words in my mouth and tell me what you think I'm arguing.

I can answer your question about the "moral hazard" of the UN. I'm guessing I consider it more of a hazard than you. I'm a small government kind of guy. That being said, if asked to describe the UN, terms like "stupid", "ineffectual", and "baby blue logo background" would come up before "moral hazard". My favorite UN story (and I apologize if I've already told it), is they used to have signs in the UN building which said "smoking strongly discouraged". That's the UN in a nutshell.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

I can answer your question about the "moral hazard" of the UN. I'm guessing I consider it more of a hazard than you. I'm a small government kind of guy. That being said, if asked to describe the UN, terms like "stupid", "ineffectual", and "baby blue logo background" would come up before "moral hazard". My favorite UN story (and I apologize if I've already told it), is they used to have signs in the UN building which said "smoking strongly discouraged". That's the UN in a nutshell.

I'm pretty sure that's apocryphal.

I've also found that the whole "big gov't vs. small gov't" discussion is mostly a red herring.

Whether you consider something "big government" or not is merely a question of how directly it affects your personal life, and whether you happen to agree with it.

Free health care? Basic necessity if you can't afford to pay privately. "Big government" if you can.

Interstate highways? Not considered "big government" as far as I can see.

One of the most expensive militaries in the world? Not "big government" to the same people who consider Obama a socialist.

Federal law enforcement? That's big government. Right?

State subsidies? Big government. Right? Except to those living in those states. They voted Republican because they hate "big government".


**** the "Big Government" term. It's bullshit.
It's a discussion that happens Only in America™, and it's designed to distract from what's really important about politics:
Whether they're beneficial to a majority of the governed people,
whether they are so with sufficient protection to minorities,
whether they're financially feasible,
whether they're legal, and
whether they're moral.

[subego]

Well, I try for some form of consistency, and I'm not trying to use the term as a weapon, so I hope I get cut some slack.

You'll get no argument from me that our military (which I support) is big government. I've even gone so far as to describe it as "socialist", the way that term gets thrown around these days.

Is free health care "big government"? Well if it's federal instead of state, it's bigger, right?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, I try for some form of consistency, and I'm not trying to use the term as a weapon, so I hope I get cut some slack.

You'll get no argument from me that our military (which I support) is big government. I've even gone so far as to describe it as "socialist", the way that term gets thrown around these days.

Is free health care "big government"? Well if it's federal instead of state, it's bigger, right?

Who the **** cares? The question is bullshit.

If your neighbor is lying bleeding on the sidewalk and you have the tools at your disposal to help him, is it communist to do so? Is it invasive of the government to write a law to require you to at least TRY to help, even if it's just calling 911? Is that Big Government?

It is completely irrelevant.

Is it necessary, affordable, feasible, and MORAL?


There is no such thing as "Big" government vs. "Small" government.

There is such a thing as INEFFECTIVE government. THAT, if you will, is "Big Government". Money wasted on inefficient workflows and bureaucracy. Filibustering. Partisan dumb****ery.
Because all that is overhead that can be eliminated through effective management of resources, and simple common sense and a sense of responsibility to the COUNTRY and its people. ALL OF THEM.


"Big government" is a lie, subego.

You've eaten it wholesale and regurgitate it like it has even the slightest shred of meaning.

[subego]

Okay. I'll use a different word.

[Spheric Harlot]

No: Ask relevant questions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Who the **** cares? The question is bullshit.
If your neighbor is lying bleeding on the sidewalk and you have the tools at your disposal to help him, is it communist to do so? Is it invasive of the government to write a law to require you to at least TRY to help, even if it's just calling 911? Is that Big Government?
It is completely irrelevant.
Is it necessary, affordable, feasible, and MORAL?
There is no such thing as "Big" government vs. "Small" government.
There is such a thing as INEFFECTIVE government. THAT, if you will, is "Big Government". Money wasted on inefficient workflows and bureaucracy. Filibustering. Partisan dumb****ery.
Because all that is overhead that can be eliminated through effective management of resources, and simple common sense and a sense of responsibility to the COUNTRY and its people. ALL OF THEM.
"Big government" is a lie, subego.
You've eaten it wholesale and regurgitate it like it has even the slightest shred of meaning.

I had an off-the-cuff response above that I'd use a different word. Now let me say the same thing seriously. My use of the term was intended to convey a certain meaning, and it's pretty obvious it failed to do so.

I'd like to explain where I'm coming from properly, but I have to question the value of doing so to someone who has stated (or at least very strongly implied) I'm a morally reprehensible, ignorant dupe.

[Spheric Harlot]

Not at all.

I'm saying that morally reprehensible people have tricked you into wasting your time answering questions that are in no way relevant to what those people are actually doing.

Feel free to counter my point.

I'd be most interested in two aspects:

a) What the hell is the "size" of a government? The number of agencies? Of government employees? Of laws? Of words in the constitution? The amount of taxation it generates? The amount of money spent on bureaucracy per citizen?
Is a six-page law on copyright "bigger" government than a one-page law?
Is a government that spends federal money on local highways "bigger" government than one that spends nothing on roads at all?

b) tying into that last one there directly: for any given definition of "bigger" vs. "smaller" government, how do you arrive at the conclusion that "smaller" is better? No roads, no federal police agencies, no taxation, no federal health programs, no federal research funding, no federal ANYTHING is truly "small" government.

c) How are either of these things relevant to the QUALITY of a government? To the quality of the laws, of the constitution? To the effectiveness of the parliamentary process making decisions on your behalf? To the loyalty of the representatives to the constituents that gave them their jobs?

[subego]

I honestly believe the issue here is what I stated in my first response. I'm not trying to use the term as a weapon, and you're responding to the fact most do.

All your assertions about the term are accurate. I'm serious about me using a different one. I used a loaded, and ultimately combative phrase when I shouldn't have and didn't mean to. Mea culpa.

I can talk about why I felt "small government" was an appropriate descriptor, but that could get into wall of text territory, as well as be dull.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well you have stated in the past that you fully support your military and its funding.

Which I find extremely interesting, given your stated position.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well you have stated in the past that you fully support your military and its funding.
Which I find extremely interesting, given your stated position.

There are things for which government is the best, if not ideal, solution. The military is an example.

However, I am under no illusions the issues which make me skeptical towards government solutions in general somehow don't apply to the military. First and foremost in this case being massive inefficiency. If our military was run by corporations we could kick twice the ass for one-tenth the cost.

That would be hell, though, so my hands are tied when it comes to an unhell-like solution. If we want it to work right, we need to pay through the nose.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Not at all.

I'm saying that morally reprehensible people have tricked you into wasting your time answering questions that are in no way relevant to what those people are actually doing.

Feel free to counter my point.

I'll try

I'd be most interested in two aspects:

a) What the hell is the "size" of a government? The number of agencies? Of government employees? Of laws? Of words in the constitution? The amount of taxation it generates? The amount of money spent on bureaucracy per citizen?
Is a six-page law on copyright "bigger" government than a one-page law?
Is a government that spends federal money on local highways "bigger" government than one that spends nothing on roads at all?

It's quite simple, "big" government is an expansion of the role of government. Government is a concept, not an object, and so you do yourself a disservice by getting hung up on meanings of the word "size" that are bound to objects as opposed to concepts. The fundamental question here is, given the premise of a new societal problem that needs solving (such as the issues surrounding a new technology), do you approach that problem with a top-down or bottom-up strategy? Does the central authority need to start policing a whole new behavior (putting all the new power/responsibility in the central authority)? That's big government. On the other hand, can the system simply be tweaked so that everyone acting in their own best interest will naturally come to the desired equilibrium (spreading the new power across all the people)? That's small government.

b) tying into that last one there directly: for any given definition of "bigger" vs. "smaller" government, how do you arrive at the conclusion that "smaller" is better? No roads, no federal police agencies, no taxation, no federal health programs, no federal research funding, no federal ANYTHING is truly "small" government.

That conclusion was foregone at the founding of the US. It's the entire reason we exist over here, as a reaction (or maybe an over-reaction if that's your opinion) to tyranny. The (our) whole concept of democracy is to try out the idea that the population all acting individually can regulate ourselves for the most part, with few explicit exceptions granted to the central authority by the people. Any deviation from that concept is a step from small government to big. And the general concept that the central authority should be empowered to expand itself as it pleases is a very big step in that direction.

This is a computing forum so let me give you a quick computing analogy. Suppose you are writing code, and you begin to address a new problem. You can use a strategy where your central controller tracks and directs all the objects to maintain the desired behavior, or conversely you can use a strategy where each individual object is stimulated to perform its small part of the desired behavior. Top-down vs bottom-up design. This has nothing to do with what the behavior is, how much money/resource it expends, how many different agencies/classes of objects or controller sub-units there are, or how many lines of code are needed. Now ignoring the question of why this is "right" or "wrong," do you understand the conceptual distinction between these two strategies, and that there is honest, non-bullshit debate about which one is superior and appropriate for different circumstances?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well you have stated in the past that you fully support your military and its funding.
Which I find extremely interesting, given your stated position.

There are things for which government is the best, if not ideal, solution. The military is an example.

However, I am under no illusions the issues which make me skeptical towards government solutions in general somehow don't apply to the military. First and foremost in this case being massive inefficiency. If our military was run by corporations we could kick twice the ass for one-tenth the cost.

That would be hell, though, so my hands are tied when it comes to an unhell-like solution. If we want it to work right, we need to pay through the nose.

Trying to connect "size" of government with the amount of money it spends is a red herring. The answer to the above question is simply that military has always been a role of the central government, as stated in the constitution. Military is not a "special case" in the sense that, like all other government functions, it needs to be explicitly granted to government by the people. And it was, when the constitution was ratified. The fact that it was ratified is what makes it special. The same with the highways, the postal service and the courts. The fact that these roles of central government were ratified as part of the constitution (including amendments) is what makes them "special" and what separates them from e.g. healthcare. These could spend 10x more _money_ than healthcare, and it still wouldn't make them "big government", since the issue is about government overstepping what's allowed to it by the people through the legitimate process of constitutional amendment, not about more money or less money.

So that's why I would argue that the amount of money spent/wasted by military, while itself important, is completely independent from the question of whether "big government" or "small government" is superior.

[subego]

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm talking theoretical and you're talking applied.

What is theoretically the best solution is independent of the solution adopted by the FF. They may overlap, of course.

To put it another way, I'm approaching "why would you support the military when you don't support program X?" as a philosophical question, not a constitutional one.

[subego]

Re: smoking discouraged.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/09/smoking-discouraged/46381/

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm talking theoretical and you're talking applied.

What is theoretically the best solution is independent of the solution adopted by the FF. They may overlap, of course.

To put it another way, I'm approaching "why would you support the military when you don't support program X?" as a philosophical question, not a constitutional one.

No, I'm talking about the theoretical/philosophical, and the philosophy adopted by the vast majority of people in the US is that government's powers are granted by the people, not vice versa. The mechanism for the granting of those powers just happens to be the constitution. Whether or not one cares about the constitution per se, one can still care that the people have explicitly decided long ago that the military should be given to the federal government, and the same cannot be said of other powers, especially the power to invent new powers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the true reason why you or someone like you would support a strong military while opposing progressive program X, even if X is well-intentioned doesn't waste nearly as much money as the military does.

[subego]

My true reason for supporting the military over program X is just what I said it was: there's not a better option for the military while presumably there is for program X.

It's weird to have someone tell me there's another reason. Shouldn't I know?



Edit: I'm worried this comes off as snarky. I'm not trying to be. I'm just way confused at this point.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ok so I remembered that you brought up big government in the first place, and that you said "I try for ... consistency," but I forgot you said that you attribute the military to big government so sorry about that. I just think that my explanation is more consistent

Some things you simply know will not work a certain way (like privatized or local implementation of the military). Ironically though, the "I just know it" method is one of them; we can't just consult an oracle for every policy decision, and we can't have one person running around doing whatever they want on the basis of their own common sense. The only way the "I just know it" method does work is if everyone agrees on what they all "just know," and that's the strategy behind the constitutional amendment system. If something is really true, like the fact that there's not a better option for the military, then enough people will agree to overcome the hurdles of the constitutional process. That's consistent, which is what you said you wanted

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well you have stated in the past that you fully support your military and its funding.
Which I find extremely interesting, given your stated position.

There are things for which government is the best, if not ideal, solution. The military is an example.

However, I am under no illusions the issues which make me skeptical towards government solutions in general somehow don't apply to the military. First and foremost in this case being massive inefficiency. If our military was run by corporations we could kick twice the ass for one-tenth the cost.

Dick Cheney, Halliburton and Blackwater are listening *very* closely to your argumentation, and furiously taking notes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Dick Cheney, Halliburton and Blackwater are listening *very* closely to your argumentation, and furiously taking notes.

I think they already got the brief.

Isn't Blackwater Xfinity now?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok so I remembered that you brought up big government in the first place, and that you said "I try for ... consistency," but I forgot you said that you attribute the military to big government so sorry about that. I just think that my explanation is more consistent
Some things you simply know will not work a certain way (like privatized or local implementation of the military). Ironically though, the "I just know it" method is one of them; we can't just consult an oracle for every policy decision, and we can't have one person running around doing whatever they want on the basis of their own common sense. The only way the "I just know it" method does work is if everyone agrees on what they all "just know," and that's the strategy behind the constitutional amendment system. If something is really true, like the fact that there's not a better option for the military, then enough people will agree to overcome the hurdles of the constitutional process. That's consistent, which is what you said you wanted

Isn't it more than "I just know"? I thought one of the main reasons Rome fell apart was they replaced the legions with Germanic mercenaries.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok so I remembered that you brought up big government in the first place, and that you said "I try for ... consistency," but I forgot you said that you attribute the military to big government so sorry about that. I just think that my explanation is more consistent
Some things you simply know will not work a certain way (like privatized or local implementation of the military). Ironically though, the "I just know it" method is one of them; we can't just consult an oracle for every policy decision, and we can't have one person running around doing whatever they want on the basis of their own common sense. The only way the "I just know it" method does work is if everyone agrees on what they all "just know," and that's the strategy behind the constitutional amendment system. If something is really true, like the fact that there's not a better option for the military, then enough people will agree to overcome the hurdles of the constitutional process. That's consistent, which is what you said you wanted

Isn't it more than "I just know"? I thought one of the main reasons Rome fell apart was they replaced the legions with Germanic mercenaries.

I don't know anything about that, but I do remember mercenaries being used by England in the movie Braveheart, yet England persists

If you're trying to say that some truths can be proven, some are just common sense, and most lie somewhere in between, then I agree (I'm just not familiar with your example). But I don't agree that this necessitates any inconsistency with the ideal of limited government.

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Dick Cheney, Halliburton and Blackwater are listening *very* closely to your argumentation, and furiously taking notes.

I think they already got the brief.

Isn't Blackwater Xfinity now?

[subego]

I'm not 100% up on my British history but my guess is they supplemented a comparatively large non-mercenary army. I'd presume made up of conscripts.

This is a guess though.

I do remember after Braveheart looking into the bit about Wallace inventing (or reinventing, I forget) the pike. That was legit.

[subego]

To address the meat of your post a little more, the main consistency I'm looking for is one of definitions. I like the military but don't like government. Despite this, I'm not going to try and weasel up some explanation of how the military isn't government.

Further, if I don't like government, when I'm gung-ho about a specific aspect of government, I have an obligation to explain that inconsistency.

If the rationale for that inconsistency is, well, rational, then I invite it. You can try to consistently apply a philosophy (in my case: I dislike government) to policy, but that's going to get you some pretty bad policy along the way.

If I was totally consistent with my philosophy I'd be proposing anarchy. The philosophical rubber has to meet the policy road at some point.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It is supposed to further human rights for people with disabilities in the world, similar to, say, the Human Rights Convention.

So in other words, it does nothing for US veterans? Pardon me, but why are we considering US Laws that have no material effect on US citizens and service members? Is it just so we can pat ourselves on the back? Create more red tape?

This furthers my position that US lawmakers are out of touch with their constituency.

Can anyone tell me what this does for US citizens?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

To address the meat of your post a little more, the main consistency I'm looking for is one of definitions. I like the military but don't like government. Despite this, I'm not going to try and weasel up some explanation of how the military isn't government.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, and I doubt you are either, but to me it sounds the same as if you'd said:

"when you add positive numbers, you get a bigger number, but when you add negative numbers you get a smaller number. I'm not going to try to weasel up some explanation of how these two opposite forms of addition really follow the same rule."

You don't have to weasel anything, because they're already the same rule. You could decide to forego the existing unified theory of addition in favor of two distinct redundant theories, one for positive numbers and one for negative numbers, the two being completely compatible with each other and arguably identical to each other, but the only reason to do this would be to put on airs of having a more complicated and nuanced philosophy than you really have. Again, not in a judgmental way, and in fact I find simplicity far more admirable than nuance, assuming both are already accurate.

Further, if I don't like government, when I'm gung-ho about a specific aspect of government, I have an obligation to explain that inconsistency.

If the rationale for that inconsistency is, well, rational, then I invite it. You can try to consistently apply a philosophy (in my case: I dislike government) to policy, but that's going to get you some pretty bad policy along the way.

I don't have to try to find a consistent and rational philosophy, because I was beaten to it by John Locke and the rest of the social contract philosophers, who described government as a limited set of powers bestowed by the people. The point is that any powers not explicitly bestowed by the people are not the government's to use. It's perfectly rational and consistent. We start(ed) with the premise that government has no powers at all, and then we address necessary exceptions (powers that must be granted to government in order to enhance our collective liberty). Of all the range of exceptions, some will be too strict and others too lenient... how do we decide? Well currently we simply refer to step 1; the people must explicitly grant a new power. The alternative would be some sort of logical standard which if passed would somehow automatically grant government a new power by pure logic alone. I wouldn't want that, and I can't think of any reason anyone would want that. If any new powers were so indisputably logical as to pass such a test, then it should be no burden for the people to agree to grant them anyway. This system is rational, consistent and simple: government deserves no powers except for those explicitly granted them by a supermajority of the people ("the constitution" is just a shorthand for this ideal, easier to invoke than accusing the government of "breaking the social contract", although it does sound a little more like an appeal to scripture). When the government tries to use powers not explicitly granted it by the people, that's when it becomes objectionable.

I wager that your personal position on the various facets of government is entirely consistent with the system I just described (because it is rational and I know you to be rational). Or to put it another way, can you give any counterexample of something that can't be accounted for by this model, such as any power granted by the people that you still object to, or any power that you support but which was not granted by the people (a supermajority per the constitution)?

(note: I don't mean to say that you are simply a blind follower of "the people's" opinion, but rather that in aggregate "the people" are actually quite a wise and appropriately cautious entity, and both you and they will ultimately arrive at the objectively correct answer)

[raleur]

Sorry for the delay in responding, fellas-end of the semester, so I'm up to my ears in papers right now.

Anyway, Sub, it seems I characterized you as just another tea bagger here to shout his religion at everyone. I apologize.

However, I wasn't doing so from simple mean-spiritedness: it's that your arguments are remarkably, almost word-for-word, similar to the arguments that Libertarians toss around all the time- so similar, that you can't blame me for thinking you're one of them. And, to go back to my main point, Libertarianism is one of those closed systems, essentially no different than a religion. But many libertarian (small "l") principles are not, and we can certainly talk about those.

Anyway, it seems the focus of the argument has moved on, and were now talking about the proper role of government- another libertarian favorite.

But regarding the treaty that started all of this: it costs us nothing to join, it forces nothing on us, and in no way interferes with our laws or citizens. Signing on to it amounts only to a restatement of the principles we claim to hold so dear, and in my opinion, that's something we need to do more often.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by raleur 

But regarding the treaty that started all of this: it costs us nothing to join, it forces nothing on us, and in no way interferes with our laws or citizens. Signing on to it amounts only to a restatement to the rest of the world of the principles we claim to hold so dear, and in my opinion, that's something we need to do more often.

Indeed, with the obvious addition.

I see absolutely no merit to what seems to be the claim of "if this doesn't do anything else for the US, then it's not worth it". The entire point of this sort of thing is to hold up your apparently high standards for the rest of the world to try and achieve.

[subego]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Sorry for the delay in responding, fellas-end of the semester, so I'm up to my ears in papers right now.
Anyway, Sub, it seems I characterized you as just another tea bagger here to shout his religion at everyone. I apologize.
However, I wasn't doing so from simple mean-spiritedness: it's that your arguments are remarkably, almost word-for-word, similar to the arguments that Libertarians toss around all the time- so similar, that you can't blame me for thinking you're one of them. And, to go back to my main point, Libertarianism is one of those closed systems, essentially no different than a religion. But many libertarian (small "l") principles are not, and we can certainly talk about those.
Anyway, it seems the focus of the argument has moved on, and were now talking about the proper role of government- another libertarian favorite.
But regarding the treaty that started all of this: it costs us nothing to join, it forces nothing on us, and in no way interferes with our laws or citizens. Signing on to it amounts only to a restatement of the principles we claim to hold so dear, and in my opinion, that's something we need to do more often.

No worries.

Looking back on it I can see how it might have appeared like I was only offering the illusion of decent conversation. I might be unpleasant to such a person myself.

I'd definitely qualify as a libertarian from a philosophical standpoint, but like I said above, things get complicated once the rubber meets the road. "Stock" libertarianism only works if everybody in your society has total freedom of movement.

Well, we don't have that. Only people with money have that freedom, and straight libertarianism puts those without money at the mercy of those that do.

Ironically, we could come up with a socialist system by which everyone gets enough money to move whenever they want. Then libertarianism will work.

Well, work better.



As an aside, if you don't mind a personal question, what and for whom do you teach?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Indeed, with the obvious addition.
I see absolutely no merit to what seems to be the claim of "if this doesn't do anything else for the US, then it's not worth it". The entire point of this sort of thing is to hold up your apparently high standards for the rest of the world to try and achieve.

Americans **** better and longer than anyone, but we don't need the UN ratifying it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm not trying to be judgmental, and I doubt you are either, but to me it sounds the same as if you'd said:

"when you add positive numbers, you get a bigger number, but when you add negative numbers you get a smaller number. I'm not going to try to weasel up some explanation of how these two opposite forms of addition really follow the same rule."

You don't have to weasel anything, because they're already the same rule. You could decide to forego the existing unified theory of addition in favor of two distinct redundant theories, one for positive numbers and one for negative numbers, the two being completely compatible with each other and arguably identical to each other, but the only reason to do this would be to put on airs of having a more complicated and nuanced philosophy than you really have. Again, not in a judgmental way, and in fact I find simplicity far more admirable than nuance, assuming both are already accurate.
I don't have to try to find a consistent and rational philosophy, because I was beaten to it by John Locke and the rest of the social contract philosophers, who described government as a limited set of powers bestowed by the people. The point is that any powers not explicitly bestowed by the people are not the government's to use. It's perfectly rational and consistent. We start(ed) with the premise that government has no powers at all, and then we address necessary exceptions (powers that must be granted to government in order to enhance our collective liberty). Of all the range of exceptions, some will be too strict and others too lenient... how do we decide? Well currently we simply refer to step 1; the people must explicitly grant a new power. The alternative would be some sort of logical standard which if passed would somehow automatically grant government a new power by pure logic alone. I wouldn't want that, and I can't think of any reason anyone would want that. If any new powers were so indisputably logical as to pass such a test, then it should be no burden for the people to agree to grant them anyway. This system is rational, consistent and simple: government deserves no powers except for those explicitly granted them by a supermajority of the people ("the constitution" is just a shorthand for this ideal, easier to invoke than accusing the government of "breaking the social contract", although it does sound a little more like an appeal to scripture). When the government tries to use powers not explicitly granted it by the people, that's when it becomes objectionable.
I wager that your personal position on the various facets of government is entirely consistent with the system I just described (because it is rational and I know you to be rational). Or to put it another way, can you give any counterexample of something that can't be accounted for by this model, such as any power granted by the people that you still object to, or any power that you support but which was not granted by the people (a supermajority per the constitution)?
(note: I don't mean to say that you are simply a blind follower of "the people's" opinion, but rather that in aggregate "the people" are actually quite a wise and appropriately cautious entity, and both you and they will ultimately arrive at the objectively correct answer)

This is an alien thought process to me.

Out of either naïveté or hubris, I believe there exists a political model which is objectively correct. Or at the least, I find value in the search.

To be clear, I'm not claiming my approach is any better, just way different. TBH, I find your approach interesting for that very reason, so don't take the difference as an indication I don't want to discuss it.


WRT my odd phrasing about the size of the military, sadly there are many people who deny this patently obvious connection between government and the military. They espouse anti-government sentiments which should apply equally to the military, but they don't want to apply them to the military because the military is something they like.

To put it another way, I chose the phrasing to clearly delineate myself from those people. If they didn't exist, I agree my phrasing would make zero sense.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Americans **** better and longer than anyone, but we don't need the UN ratifying it.

Yeah, but would you object?

[subego]

In the way I'm doing now, which is "go play your reindeer games... I'm too busy actually ****ing".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm too busy actually ****ing".

Yeah, except you're not.

[subego]

That's what you think. Better button up the asshole.

[The Final Dakar]

Here we go again...

[subego]

Again? I think that was someone else.

[The Final Dakar]

You keep joking when I call you out on this shit.

Originally Posted by subego 

So, basically to show we're nice people.
But we're not.

Originally Posted by subego 

That's what you think. Better button up the asshole.

Are you being difficult to keep the thread lively or do you have some kind of real reasoning that this should have been struck down? Or am I misunderstanding you or are you misrepresenting yourself?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Out of either naïveté or hubris, I believe there exists a political model which is objectively correct. Or at the least, I find value in the search.

I'm struggling with this a bit. What does "correct" mean? Does it mean it holds most closely to what the people under it want? Or does it mean it is best at delivering what the people "need" even if they don't think that's what they need? Or does it mean that the system no longer needs "tweaking" by legislators and we can finally close the doors of congress for good? Or something else?

[subego]

I know sometimes my humor is more subtle that it should be, but "Americans **** better and longer than anyone else" doesn't register on your joke detector?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I know sometimes my humor is more subtle that it should be, but "Americans **** better and longer than anyone else" doesn't register on your joke detector?

I find in political threads people frequently revert to humor to deflect questions they don't want to answer. I'm not going to pretend to recall the entire thread, but if you've already given a serious stance on this, I missed it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm struggling with this a bit. What does "correct" mean? Does it mean it holds most closely to what the people under it want? Or does it mean it is best at delivering what the people "need" even if they don't think that's what they need? Or does it mean that the system no longer needs "tweaking" by legislators and we can finally close the doors of congress for good? Or something else?

It means I think people are stupid, and I don't trust them. They get stuff very wrong at times.

I mean this in the MiB way: a person can be smart, but people are stupid.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I find in political threads people frequently revert to humor to deflect questions they don't want to answer. I'm not going to pretend to recall the entire thread, but if you've already given a serious stance on this, I missed it.

Our ability to **** was meant as an analogy (with humor) for our ability to pass disability laws, an ability which is apparently unquestioningly superior.

Since your response was to address whether I specifically am ****ing, I felt my non-constructive response was appropriate because you dragged the analogy off the rails.


The we're not nice thing was a flat-out joke. The rest of the world hates us, so I think it's funny to behave like "yeah! Just how we like it!"

[subego]

Also, I like having joke duels with you because you're funnier than me. That's how you get better.

[subego]

Also, also, my serious position is this whole thing is stupid and a waste of time. Just like the UN. I think it's ridiculous other countries can't get their shit together, and just as ridiculous anyone thinks the UN can do something about it.

To rephrase my objection: "go play your reindeer games... we're too busy passing actual laws".

[raleur]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I see absolutely no merit to what seems to be the claim of "if this doesn't do anything else for the US, then it's not worth it". The entire point of this sort of thing is to hold up your apparently high standards for the rest of the world to try and achieve.

I agree, but I should also point out that you probably don't see any merit to the claim because of those "bubbles" Sub and I have been discussing.

It comes down to some very basic principles regarding the nature of human interaction: if you find the values for those standards in broad communities ("It takes a village"), then the UN, however ineffective it might be, is basically a good thing, But plenty of people hold that those values are rooted in smaller communities (family, friends, church), and anything outside those communities is simply meddling, and could actually be harmful.

So, until you can find some common ground- that is, whether the UN can be a good thing- you'll just be tossing grenades at each other.

[subego]

Originally Posted by raleur 

I agree, but I should also point out that you probably don't see any merit to the claim because of those "bubbles" Sub and I have been discussing.
It comes down to some very basic principles regarding the nature of human interaction: if you find the values for those standards in broad communities ("It takes a village"), then the UN, however ineffective it might be, is basically a good thing, But plenty of people hold that those values are rooted in smaller communities (family, friends, church), and anything outside those communities is simply meddling, and could actually be harmful.
So, until you can find some common ground- that is, whether the UN can be a good thing- you'll just be tossing grenades at each other.

I'd say each thing has their strong suits.

OTOH, I think the larger in scope you get the more difficult it becomes to do properly.

I mean, I don't think it's a coincidence you have a lot of people supporting the treaty, and the fact the treaty will have no effect on our laws. Change that around and I think it would lose a whole lot of the support it currently enjoys.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Also, I like having joke duels with you because you're funnier than me. That's how you get better.

It's not a duel if only one of us is aware of what;s going on.

Originally Posted by subego 

Also, also, my serious position is this whole thing is stupid and a waste of time. Just like the UN. I think it's ridiculous other countries can't get their shit together, and just as ridiculous anyone thinks the UN can do something about it.
To rephrase my objection: "go play your reindeer games... we're too busy passing actual laws".

Yeah, except we aren't. It came to a vote. Is there a reason to vote against it other than what appears to be principle?

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

No worries.
Looking back on it I can see how it might have appeared like I was only offering the illusion of decent conversation. I might be unpleasant to such a person myself.
I'd definitely qualify as a libertarian from a philosophical standpoint, but like I said above, things get complicated once the rubber meets the road.

Yeah, I figured you were somewhere in that mix. I'm especially glad you admit that there are issues with libertarian theory- hardcore Libertarians are very difficult to talk to. If you haven't seen it, check out this article from a right-wing perspective. Having been to plenty of academic conferences, I've seen hardcore Marxists in action, and I think Locke is spot on in his comparison.

Originally Posted by subego 

"Stock" libertarianism only works if everybody in your society has total freedom of movement.
Well, we don't have that. Only people with money have that freedom, and straight libertarianism puts those without money at the mercy of those that do.
Ironically, we could come up with a socialist system by which everyone gets enough money to move whenever they want. Then libertarianism will work.
Well, work better.

Here, my friend, you have opened a huge can of worms! There are a lot of different flavors of libertarianism, both left and right- and a lot of problems for anyone who tries to make them work nice. Personally, I'm a civil libertarian, but I have lots of problems with economic libertarianism.

Originally Posted by subego 

As an aside, if you don't mind a personal question, what and for whom do you teach?

What, no guesses?
I teach philosophy at a local extension of the UT system. As you might imagine, it doesn't exactly bring in boatloads of money, which is why I keep the consulting business on the side.