Logic Should Prevail

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]forlife wrote:
This thread has already devolved into a string of personal attacks, but I’ll take a shot at addressing the topic.

In my opinion, political differences aren’t due to logical inconsistencies. Not really. People may twist logic to suit their preconceptions, but that’s not the root of the disagreement. It usually comes down to differences in values.

There are intelligent, educated people on both sides of the aisle. As with most subjects, there are no black and white answers to complex social problems. All you can do is understand the ramifications of different policies, and determine which policy best achieves the values you want to promote.

If you’ll forgive the stereotypes for illustrative purposes, let’s go with this example. Republicans value hard work, and understandably feel they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Others should work as they do, and will be rewarded accordingly.

Democrats value helping others, particularly those that can’t help themselves.

Both values are admirable, but how they play out is the root of policy disagreements.

Personally, I think there should be a balance. People shouldn’t be rewarded for sitting on their ass, but they should be taught to and given the opportunity to fish. If they’re incapable of fishing, the government should help them. If they’re unwilling to fish, they’re on their own. [/quote]

I’ll agree on some level, I just think we shouldn’t use the government to do so. Charity should be a voluntary endeavor, not forced through taxes. I t should be a persons choice to support or not support something.

You will find people will give more of themselves if doing it for something they care about, but when they are taxed to a point where it hurts them financially and it really doesn’t do all that much good, they will become resentful and/or not have the ability to really give.

does that make sense.

So to do so through the government makes it so it is no longer voluntary. And as such could be construed as a violation of individual rights.

82

I see what you’re saying. The belief that people should or shouldn’t be required to help others is also a value statement.

Some people see helping the helpless as a moral obligation that is appropriately mandated by the government. Others think it should be individual and voluntary. Both are logical, it’s just a difference in values.

Personally, I have no problem with the government helping people that truly need the help. In some cases, if the government didn’t do it, nobody would, and I find that unacceptable.

That said, I don’t think people should be helped beyond what they truly need…and that line is itself a value judgment.

83

[quote]forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying. The belief that people should or shouldn’t be required to help others is also a value statement.

Some people see helping the helpless as a moral obligation that is appropriately mandated by the government. Others think it should be individual and voluntary. Both are logical, it’s just a difference in values.

Personally, I have no problem with the government helping people that truly need the help. In some cases, if the government didn’t do it, nobody would, and I find that unacceptable.

That said, I don’t think people should be helped beyond what they truly need…and that line is itself a value judgment.[/quote]

I understand but the premise of our country was to protect individual rights, not moral obligations.

not saying this in a smartass way, but I thought you would be on board with that idea.

84

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Here’s one that I’ve read on here before.
Give or take this is what it has sounded like
“People that receive money from the gov’t shouldn’t be allowed to vote”

Would this include SS pensions? unemployment? welfare? all of the above? some other area or combination that I don’t know of?
Logical? or not?
[/quote]

Interesting concept. If one does not contribute to society and never has perhaps they should have less rights in that society. Would this encourage them to stop living off the state? With some it wouldn’t make a difference as they do not vote anyway. However, it’s my guess that none of them were allowed to vote until they were productive members of society we may eventually have a different country, a better country.[/quote]

To continue with that, what if someone were to be laid off? injured? can’t find a job in their field? Do they not deserve to vote? It’s a touchy subject.

85

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying. The belief that people should or shouldn’t be required to help others is also a value statement.

Some people see helping the helpless as a moral obligation that is appropriately mandated by the government. Others think it should be individual and voluntary. Both are logical, it’s just a difference in values.

Personally, I have no problem with the government helping people that truly need the help. In some cases, if the government didn’t do it, nobody would, and I find that unacceptable.

That said, I don’t think people should be helped beyond what they truly need…and that line is itself a value judgment.[/quote]

I understand but the premise of our country was to protect individual rights, not moral obligations.

not saying this in a smartass way, but I thought you would be on board with that idea.
[/quote]

Like I said though, it’s rarely black and white.

Individual rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe the government has the moral responsibility to provide those rights to its citizens, even if it requires taxation to do so. You might argue that taxes infringe on your own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to some extent you would be right. But sometimes ensuring those rights for some requires at least partially sacrificing those rights for others.

Most people agree that taxes are necessary, to some extent. This disagreement is more around what is and is not acceptable to support through taxes. It’s a very gray area, and is ultimately driven by your core values and by your prioritization of those values.

86

This is sort of a meld of thoughts I had between this thread and something that kilpaba said in the eugenics thread. What he said about the human body is that there is only so much energy that can be channelled to different areas of the body. For example, if you channelled too much the body’s energy towards growing huge muscles, other systems would be affected, ie immune system, cognitive f’ns, etc.
Optimization(long-term gain, short-term consequence) vs Maximization(short-term gain, long term consequence)
Anyway, the thought-meld that I’m talking about is what if this were applied to the taxes that people have to pay. You select where you want your taxes to go.
An immediate drawback I see would be that certain areas would have a surplus while others would have a deficit(is that the right word?).
Obviously a positive would be that you’re deciding where your tax dollars will be spent.
A certain ‘check’ to this (if you can call it that), would be a sort of dry run of the taxes, where all the tax payers select where they would like their taxes to go, without them being sent or given yet, and then you see where there is too much and where there is not enough.
A simple(but dangerous?) way of doing this would be electronically, b/c it could be updated and adjusted immediately.

87

IMO, taxes should be collected for things that everyone uses. Roads, defense, communication, certain recreational things(public gyms, fields, courts, etc), health care(I’m Canadian, I’ve grown up with it my whole life, and IMO, everyone gets sick sooner or later, although I think people that don’t remove themselves from certain high-risk activities should be penalized, ie high bf%, smoking, illegal drug use), and those are the ones just off the top of my head.

88

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying. The belief that people should or shouldn’t be required to help others is also a value statement.

Some people see helping the helpless as a moral obligation that is appropriately mandated by the government. Others think it should be individual and voluntary. Both are logical, it’s just a difference in values.

Personally, I have no problem with the government helping people that truly need the help. In some cases, if the government didn’t do it, nobody would, and I find that unacceptable.

That said, I don’t think people should be helped beyond what they truly need…and that line is itself a value judgment.[/quote]

I understand but the premise of our country was to protect individual rights, not moral obligations.

not saying this in a smartass way, but I thought you would be on board with that idea.
[/quote]

Like I said though, it’s rarely black and white.

Individual rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe the government has the moral responsibility to provide those rights to its citizens, even if it requires taxation to do so. You might argue that taxes infringe on your own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to some extent you would be right. But sometimes ensuring those rights for some requires at least partially sacrificing those rights for others.

Most people agree that taxes are necessary, to some extent. This disagreement is more around what is and is not acceptable to support through taxes. It’s a very gray area, and is ultimately driven by your core values and by your prioritization of those values.[/quote]

That is not how that was supposed to be.

The government was not supposed to infringe on those rights, not to provide them.

If one follows your route one can invent all kinds of “rights” and then, by carefully balancing them against each other, draw the noose tighter and tighter until there is no more room to breathe.

89

Orion, that is a fair point, and is yet another example of a value statement. You believe the government shouldn’t infringe on the rights of its citizens, and I believe the government should actively protect and preserve those rights.

It’s a difference in values, not in logic.

90

[quote]forlife wrote:
Orion, that is a fair point, and is yet another example of a value statement. You believe the government shouldn’t infringe on the rights of its citizens, and I believe the government should actively protect and preserve those rights.

It’s a difference in values, not in logic.[/quote]

No, that is also a difference in realism vs moonbatery.

To believe that a government that can invent nebulous “rights” and justify every expanding powers with them without doing exactly that is a pipe dream.

It does not really bother me, because the whole thing is beyond the point of no return anyway, but this naivete is exactly the reason why the system will fall.

91

[quote]forlife wrote:
Orion, that is a fair point, and is yet another example of a value statement. You believe the government shouldn’t infringe on the rights of its citizens, and I believe the government should actively protect and preserve those rights.

It’s a difference in values, not in logic.[/quote]

Sounds like two sides to the same coin.

92

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Orion, that is a fair point, and is yet another example of a value statement. You believe the government shouldn’t infringe on the rights of its citizens, and I believe the government should actively protect and preserve those rights.

It’s a difference in values, not in logic.[/quote]

Sounds like two sides to the same coin.[/quote]

If by two sides of the same coin you mean “raping a concept so long and hard until it means exactly the opposite of what was intended” I agree.

93

Isn’t that the reason law(I’m thinking wild west days, sheriffs etc) was created(was it created or already there in some other form?) b/c not everyone respected each other or their property?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an advocate of a police state(and never will be) but I don’t think that all disputes can be settled by just those involved, and that is why some police/law/judicial presence is necessary.
The problem nowadays, IMO, is that the third party(police/court) too often, stick their nose in places they don’t belong. The concept(is it a concept?) of policing has gotten out of control with the creation of so many laws, and those that are authorized to enforce those laws using those powers irresonsibly.

94

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Here’s one that I’ve read on here before.
Give or take this is what it has sounded like
“People that receive money from the gov’t shouldn’t be allowed to vote”

Would this include SS pensions? unemployment? welfare? all of the above? some other area or combination that I don’t know of?
Logical? or not?
[/quote]

Interesting concept. If one does not contribute to society and never has perhaps they should have less rights in that society. Would this encourage them to stop living off the state? With some it wouldn’t make a difference as they do not vote anyway. However, it’s my guess that none of them were allowed to vote until they were productive members of society we may eventually have a different country, a better country.[/quote]

To continue with that, what if someone were to be laid off? injured? can’t find a job in their field? Do they not deserve to vote? It’s a touchy subject.[/quote]

I don’t mean to picking on you, so don’t take it that way, but you’re train of thought here is what’s part of the problem in this country in the first place. You’re automatically connecting someone who needs help to the government “helping.”

Why does the government need to step in with stuff like unemployment? What’s wrong with people saving their money and being prepared for emergencies, like loss of jobs?

95

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Isn’t that the reason law(I’m thinking wild west days, sheriffs etc) was created(was it created or already there in some other form?) b/c not everyone respected each other or their property?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an advocate of a police state(and never will be) but I don’t think that all disputes can be settled by just those involved, and that is why some police/law/judicial presence is necessary.
The problem nowadays, IMO, is that the third party(police/court) too often, stick their nose in places they don’t belong. The concept(is it a concept?) of policing has gotten out of control with the creation of so many laws, and those that are authorized to enforce those laws using those powers irresonsibly.[/quote]

Wow this thread is taking off now that we’ve silenced the one malcontent.

Anyway, Matty I could not agree with you more. We are constantly passing laws which weigh heavy on the populace. And how logical is it to have an over policed state? Handing your rights over to a government that has shown that it will abuse them at will (when it benefits them) is a bad idea and as I said illogical for the citizenry.

96

There would most definitely have to be a pre-written set of rules to determine what constitutes a non productive citizen. Initially I submit the idea that we elevate work history over any temporary unemployment issue. For example if the person has been working steadily for 10 years and finds himself out of a job, for the first time that should not effect his voting status. However, if the person has been unemployed more than he’s been employed over the past ten years that might be something to look at. Also, if someone is legitimately injured I see no reason to take away voting rights. Finally, I don’t care if the person can or cannot find a job in their field. If they don’t have a job they best find one within six months or there should be negative repercussions. However, if they do find one within that six month time frame they should be rewarded. But the bonus goes down for every month not employed. This would create incentive which by the way is why people are motivated to do things. If they know they have a big cushion called unemployment how hard are they trying?

97

[quote]ZEB wrote:

There would most definitely have to be a pre-written set of rules to determine what constitutes a non productive citizen. Initially I submit the idea that we elevate work history over any temporary unemployment issue. For example if the person has been working steadily for 10 years and finds himself out of a job, for the first time that should not effect his voting status. However, if the person has been unemployed more than he’s been employed over the past ten years that might be something to look at. Also, if someone is legitimately injured I see no reason to take away voting rights. Finally, I don’t care if the person can or cannot find a job in their field. If they don’t have a job they best find one within six months or there should be negative repercussions. However, if they do find one within that six month time frame they should be rewarded. But the bonus goes down for every month not employed. This would create incentive which by the way is why people are motivated to do things. If they know they have a big cushion called unemployment how hard are they trying?[/quote]

I agree, those seem like they would be effective outlines.
Let’s continue this.
What about full-time students(x amt of hours/wk class & study)? retired seniors? any others that come to mind?

98

Voting should be a privilege. It is something earned, not something you have a right to by virtue of the fact that your happening to be fucking breathing at the moment. For one thing, you should have to pass a basic civics test (in English); for another thing, if you’re a net beneficiary of income transfer policies, you should not be entitled to the privilege of voting.

Logic will never prevail in any human endeavor - least of all the public square. Logic is only a tool; it doesn’t decide outcomes. I can reach a myriad of diffent positions from the same starting point using logic. Our conclusions don’t depend on the tools were using, at least not mostly; our concusions depend mainly upon our philosophy about how the world works. Mostly this “philosophy” is implicit. Most of one’s own (not to mention that of otehrs) philosophy is un-articulatible. If not even un-reachable.

Philosophers will never be kings; and kings will never be philosophers. I’m not so sure I’d have it any othe way. If it were otherwise we could hand over our decisions (in the public square; in our own lives) to computational analysis.

99

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

There would most definitely have to be a pre-written set of rules to determine what constitutes a non productive citizen. Initially I submit the idea that we elevate work history over any temporary unemployment issue. For example if the person has been working steadily for 10 years and finds himself out of a job, for the first time that should not effect his voting status. However, if the person has been unemployed more than he’s been employed over the past ten years that might be something to look at. Also, if someone is legitimately injured I see no reason to take away voting rights. Finally, I don’t care if the person can or cannot find a job in their field. If they don’t have a job they best find one within six months or there should be negative repercussions. However, if they do find one within that six month time frame they should be rewarded. But the bonus goes down for every month not employed. This would create incentive which by the way is why people are motivated to do things. If they know they have a big cushion called unemployment how hard are they trying?[/quote]

I agree, those seem like they would be effective outlines.
Let’s continue this.
What about full-time students(x amt of hours/wk class & study)? retired seniors? any others that come to mind?
[/quote]

If our premise is that the person has to be productive, or at one time was productive over a period of years students cannot vote and those retired can. This shouldn’t matter much to most students as only about 25% of them vote in most cases anyway.

What do you think Matty?

100

[quote]ZEB wrote:

There would most definitely have to be a pre-written set of rules to determine what constitutes a non productive citizen. Initially I submit the idea that we elevate work history over any temporary unemployment issue. For example if the person has been working steadily for 10 years and finds himself out of a job, for the first time that should not effect his voting status. However, if the person has been unemployed more than he’s been employed over the past ten years that might be something to look at. Also, if someone is legitimately injured I see no reason to take away voting rights. Finally, I don’t care if the person can or cannot find a job in their field. If they don’t have a job they best find one within six months or there should be negative repercussions. However, if they do find one within that six month time frame they should be rewarded. But the bonus goes down for every month not employed. This would create incentive which by the way is why people are motivated to do things. If they know they have a big cushion called unemployment how hard are they trying?

[/quote]

Do you really want to go down the road of means-based and merit-based voting rights?

Who would determine who is eligible to vote?

What’s to stop a powerful interest group like say… a major corporation from linking hiring to party affiliation?

This has been done before… feudalism comes to mind.