i did not intend to imply it is ok to enact policies regardless of cost. like i said, it is a matter of balance of interests. genocide would never be acceptable, becos no matter what benefit you incur, the cost in terms of loss of life is per se unacceptable. but again, when you compare the potential for an anarchic collapse of all regulatory institutions, the benefit of no taxes at all is minimal and affects only a few, but the cost to many is high. im not talking about maximizing one at the expense of another. im talking about striking a balance between cost and benefit. again... to a certain point, advertising costs increase revenue. after that, you're wasting money. but there is an optimal point where, on the whole, you are striking the perfect balance between cost of advertising and increased revnue. that is the point i am talking about with respect to government. there will always be costs and burdens involved, but the goal is to try to help as many as possible for the least cost. it's a delicate process.
Ok. I'm totally cool with this.
anyway, to an extent, yes i favor the established order. our current system has been rather successful thus far and i favor working within it to improve it. i also understand that slow and steady progress is more tenable than a dramatic upheaval. if the system becomes truly unfair, it will naturally right itself... as we did when we began a revolution against the british monarchy. however, the fact that you are here debating about changes rather than out in the streets calling for revolution shows that you too do not find the status quo so oppressive as to demand immediate and dramatic change. you do benefit from it and your benefits are sufficient to bear the costs and continue to advocate for change. if the costs were truly unconscionably oppressive, people would revolt. on the whole, i am on your side in favor of dramatically reducing government. but i try to see it in terms of small steps in that direction. it is similar to the old missouri compromise... 13 change proposals that if placed together would have been untenable to the masses and would never have been enacted. but you split them up and tackle them one at a time, and they all end up being carried out. becos people resist change in large doses unless hard pressed. we've not gotten to that point yet.
I'm not out on the streets calling for revolution because I don't believe in violent upheavals, soulsinging. Civil war is the last thing this country needs. Rather, what this country needs is to simply understand where its happiness comes from. And the answer to that is neither government nor business.
I'm not out on the streets calling for revolution because I don't believe in violent upheavals, soulsinging. Civil war is the last thing this country needs. Rather, what this country needs is to simply understand where its happiness comes from. And the answer to that is neither government nor business.
well, id agree with that. but a values change is even more difficult to produce than a policy change. i also dont think the system is so bad as to need to be scrapped. i think small shifts in policy can produce social change though. look at civil rights... it had to occur piecemeal. now it's kind of ridiculous to argue that it's ok to deny women jobs or segregate blacks. but those gains had to be made on small steps in policy... people who were ahead of the curve making small changes that people could stomach. eventually the people began to realize these were good things and the resistance weakened and the trickle became a flood. but it's a slow process to get moving. when you try to grab too much, you engender a backlash. but it's a nuanced process of capitalizing on popular sentiment for a beginning at change, and letting your work speak for itself.
and bummer about violent upheaval... im dying for a chance to have a revolution like my irish ancestors
well, id agree with that. but a values change is even more difficult to produce than a policy change. i also dont think the system is so bad as to need to be scrapped. i think small shifts in policy can produce social change though. look at civil rights... it had to occur piecemeal. now it's kind of ridiculous to argue that it's ok to deny women jobs or segregate blacks. but those gains had to be made on small steps in policy... people who were ahead of the curve making small changes that people could stomach. eventually the people began to realize these were good things and the resistance weakened and the trickle became a flood. but it's a slow process to get moving. when you try to grab too much, you engender a backlash. but it's a nuanced process of capitalizing on popular sentiment for a beginning at change, and letting your work speak for itself.
Of course. But at the same time, the civil rights movement was, at its best, defined by clear principles that their dectractors constantly wanted to "compromise" with.
I'm not expecting or even asking for rapid change. It would be a disaster. I'm simply not going to water down something that would lose all meaning in the process.
and bummer about violent upheaval... im dying for a chance to have a revolution like my irish ancestors
"Dying" would definitely be an appropriate word there. Leave that death-for-a-better-life shit to the Catholics.
Of course. But at the same time, the civil rights movement was, at its best, defined by clear principles that their dectractors constantly wanted to "compromise" with.
I'm not expecting or even asking for rapid change. It would be a disaster. I'm simply not going to water down something that would lose all meaning in the process.
"Dying" would definitely be an appropriate word there. Leave that death-for-a-better-life shit to the Catholics.
i've got 20 years of training in that sense
but yes, it is important to be guided by clear principles. i guess i just see a clear line between principle and policy and figure it's pretty hard to enact principle in a governmental sense. even civil rights... they refused to compromise the principles, but the enacted policies WERE compromises most of the time. but by being aware of both, they managed to get almost all the policies they needed to achieve the principles desired. they kept a clear eye on the prize, but were willing to make concessions along the way that kept it moving forward, rather than hitting a wall and stalling. both players are needed though... the malcolm x's pushing for no compromise and action now are needed to keep the fire lit, and the movers and shakers to guide the movement and temper it into one that was as effective as it was just. when you push for too much based on principles, you get a backlash... for instance, abortion. the principle of sexual liberation was way ahead of common values. when one day it was magically a constitutional right, people dug in and the movement stalled. abortion has only gotten harder since that day, not easier. if that had been handled in legislative acts open to public discourse, i think we would have much more fair and sensible policies on abortion now, rather than the cultural war we have today.
I'm not expecting or even asking for rapid change. It would be a disaster. I'm simply not going to water down something that would lose all meaning in the process.
well said.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Hehe...me too! I still take two showers a day to try to wash off the guilt
but yes, it is important to be guided by clear principles. i guess i just see a clear line between principle and policy and figure it's pretty hard to enact principle in a governmental sense. even civil rights... they refused to compromise the principles, but the enacted policies WERE compromises most of the time. but by being aware of both, they managed to get almost all the policies they needed to achieve the principles desired. they kept a clear eye on the prize, but were willing to make concessions along the way that kept it moving forward, rather than hitting a wall and stalling. both players are needed though... the malcolm x's pushing for no compromise and action now are needed to keep the fire lit, and the movers and shakers to guide the movement and temper it into one that was as effective as it was just. when you push for too much based on principles, you get a backlash... for instance, abortion. the principle of sexual liberation was way ahead of common values. when one day it was magically a constitutional right, people dug in and the movement stalled. abortion has only gotten harder since that day, not easier. if that had been handled in legislative acts open to public discourse, i think we would have much more fair and sensible policies on abortion now, rather than the cultural war we have today.
Well, these are all interesting points. Certainly compromise is something required by the public arena where multiple viewpoints contradict each other. But compromise and simple imposition are not the same thing. I think a lot of the things you mention (abortion, sexual liberation, etc) are struggles that happen because of imposition, not necessarily compromise. Natural compromises on those issues would settle around the individual, but we've turned them into divisive "social issues" that often times create more problems than they solve. In other words, we've made a lot of things that should be personal decisions into governmental ones, and that largely bodes poorly for a diverse society such as our own.
Hehe...me too! I still take two showers a day to try to wash off the guilt
Well, these are all interesting points. Certainly compromise is something required by the public arena where multiple viewpoints contradict each other. But compromise and simple imposition are not the same thing. I think a lot of the things you mention (abortion, sexual liberation, etc) are struggles that happen because of imposition, not necessarily compromise. Natural compromises on those issues would settle around the individual, but we've turned them into divisive "social issues" that often times create more problems than they solve. In other words, we've made a lot of things that should be personal decisions into governmental ones, and that largely bodes poorly for a diverse society such as our own.
well, i would agree with you 100% there. i dont like government regulating personal choice very much at all. but i have a hard time classifying taxation in that category. it's kind of a necessary evil... the only certain thing in life aside from death as they say but even so, regarding taxes as an imposition upon you, 1) it does not seem capable of engendering the kind of populist sympathy that helped civil rights succeed, at least not at the moment, and 2) would you rather combat the imposition in the methodical manner of civil rights that proved so successful, or the polarizing manner of abortion that stalled the movement?
well, i would agree with you 100% there. i dont like government regulating personal choice very much at all. but i have a hard time classifying taxation in that category. it's kind of a necessary evil... the only certain thing in life aside from death as they say
Hehe...how would a classification of "necessary evil" override a classification regarding "personal choice"??? A government that forces you to do something specific with your money has everything to do with "regulating personal choice", whether or not it is a "necessary evil".
Anyway, I really hate the statement "necessary evil"...it is the leper's bell of the unimaginative and criminal.
but even so, regarding taxes as an imposition upon you, 1) it does not seem capable of engendering the kind of populist sympathy that helped civil rights succeed, at least not at the moment, and 2) would you rather combat the imposition in the methodical manner of civil rights that proved so successful, or the polarizing manner of abortion that stalled the movement?
1) you're probably right. That, however, doesn't make anything I say invalid, nor does it make me lose any interest in the principles.
2) it's not an either/or choice. And to suggest that somehow the civil rights movement wasn't "polarizing" is ridiculous. Furthermore, I'm not sure how the abortion movement is "stalled". It won. Regardless, I don't feel I'd have to mimic either.
Comments
Ok. I'm totally cool with this.
I'm not out on the streets calling for revolution because I don't believe in violent upheavals, soulsinging. Civil war is the last thing this country needs. Rather, what this country needs is to simply understand where its happiness comes from. And the answer to that is neither government nor business.
well, id agree with that. but a values change is even more difficult to produce than a policy change. i also dont think the system is so bad as to need to be scrapped. i think small shifts in policy can produce social change though. look at civil rights... it had to occur piecemeal. now it's kind of ridiculous to argue that it's ok to deny women jobs or segregate blacks. but those gains had to be made on small steps in policy... people who were ahead of the curve making small changes that people could stomach. eventually the people began to realize these were good things and the resistance weakened and the trickle became a flood. but it's a slow process to get moving. when you try to grab too much, you engender a backlash. but it's a nuanced process of capitalizing on popular sentiment for a beginning at change, and letting your work speak for itself.
and bummer about violent upheaval... im dying for a chance to have a revolution like my irish ancestors
Of course. But at the same time, the civil rights movement was, at its best, defined by clear principles that their dectractors constantly wanted to "compromise" with.
I'm not expecting or even asking for rapid change. It would be a disaster. I'm simply not going to water down something that would lose all meaning in the process.
"Dying" would definitely be an appropriate word there. Leave that death-for-a-better-life shit to the Catholics.
i've got 20 years of training in that sense
but yes, it is important to be guided by clear principles. i guess i just see a clear line between principle and policy and figure it's pretty hard to enact principle in a governmental sense. even civil rights... they refused to compromise the principles, but the enacted policies WERE compromises most of the time. but by being aware of both, they managed to get almost all the policies they needed to achieve the principles desired. they kept a clear eye on the prize, but were willing to make concessions along the way that kept it moving forward, rather than hitting a wall and stalling. both players are needed though... the malcolm x's pushing for no compromise and action now are needed to keep the fire lit, and the movers and shakers to guide the movement and temper it into one that was as effective as it was just. when you push for too much based on principles, you get a backlash... for instance, abortion. the principle of sexual liberation was way ahead of common values. when one day it was magically a constitutional right, people dug in and the movement stalled. abortion has only gotten harder since that day, not easier. if that had been handled in legislative acts open to public discourse, i think we would have much more fair and sensible policies on abortion now, rather than the cultural war we have today.
well said.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Hehe...me too! I still take two showers a day to try to wash off the guilt
Well, these are all interesting points. Certainly compromise is something required by the public arena where multiple viewpoints contradict each other. But compromise and simple imposition are not the same thing. I think a lot of the things you mention (abortion, sexual liberation, etc) are struggles that happen because of imposition, not necessarily compromise. Natural compromises on those issues would settle around the individual, but we've turned them into divisive "social issues" that often times create more problems than they solve. In other words, we've made a lot of things that should be personal decisions into governmental ones, and that largely bodes poorly for a diverse society such as our own.
well, i would agree with you 100% there. i dont like government regulating personal choice very much at all. but i have a hard time classifying taxation in that category. it's kind of a necessary evil... the only certain thing in life aside from death as they say
Hehe...how would a classification of "necessary evil" override a classification regarding "personal choice"??? A government that forces you to do something specific with your money has everything to do with "regulating personal choice", whether or not it is a "necessary evil".
Anyway, I really hate the statement "necessary evil"...it is the leper's bell of the unimaginative and criminal.
1) you're probably right. That, however, doesn't make anything I say invalid, nor does it make me lose any interest in the principles.
2) it's not an either/or choice. And to suggest that somehow the civil rights movement wasn't "polarizing" is ridiculous. Furthermore, I'm not sure how the abortion movement is "stalled". It won. Regardless, I don't feel I'd have to mimic either.