......without the insane religious bullshit tacked on? That's one of the things that drove me away from the Republicans is the fact that they have to bring religious values into politics (well, that and the fact that they have been utter failures in recent years). But seriously, why can't we get a republican candidate that pledges to run on conservative fiscal principles without having to also throw in the obligatory horseshit about banning abortion and gay marriage. This is what disgusts me about both political parties. The dems want to give away the store and tax the living shit out of everyone in order to take care of them (), but at the same time I prefer many of their social policies over the fundy Repubs. I'd love to see a Republican candidate stand up to the religious wackos and leave religion out of politics. Give me fiscal conservatism while being social liberal.....which means not denying people freedoms based on religious values. Freedom doesn't cost anything compared to a nanny state.
They'd lose on such a platform. They need to fundie vote to win, and the fundies don't care about anything but their hate materializing in politics.
It has to do with the proven Rove strategy of “energizing your base.” If it wasn’t for putting wedge issues like abortion and expansive marriage on the ticket, both as a part of the candidates’ platforms and as referendum polls, George Bush never would have won two terms. These things get conservatives to come out on election day. It's perhaps one of the main reasons McCain won't win, both because he's too moderate to have that pull with the GOP base, and because the wedge issues have taken a backseat to economics and energy this election.
Every time I have thoughts like this, especially when talking "energizing the base", I wonder why there are so many people that think meddling in someone else's personal lives is so damn important.
Try not to oversimplify the issue; though I know the thread is basically about religion. For example; Bulldog is arguably the most religious (on a personal level) poster on the board though even he isn't after legislation that would outlaw gay relationships (I'm pretty sure he wouldn't vote against such, but I don't think he'd vote for it). On the other side you've got people who want to tell me how to raise my kids, enact laws to do things for "my" safety - laws, which in my opinion are passed eagerly by the State in order to form a new area of taxation. Lets not get into the "War on Drugs". Meddlesome busybodies all, and belief or non-belief in God isn't a qualification.
This is true. I have meditated on this issue for well over 20 years now, and have come up with three general reasons for which those who have authority try to increase that authority, by "meddling" more and more in the lives of those they can affect: 1) If your goals contradict my goals and I can control you, I can better attain my goals. This of course does not explain all "meddling" but it does explain some of it. 2) More insidious than that, and even further-reaching, is the very principle of power. One of the fundamental psychological problems of human beings is that very few people actually feel good about themselves. They have a need to feel like they are worthwhile. Having power over others makes you feel big and important, like you are better than others. I am convinced that a lot of "meddling" is just the need for self-realization that comes with having power over others (even if that "power" is nothing more than the power to vote, multiplied by the democratic system into rule of the majority over the minority). 3) The most devastating reason of all is the honest conviction that you know best what others need. I am convinced that significantly more harm has been done in the name of "This is for your good" in human history than in the name of "You are scum and I will crush you." This is why a system that gives its users some kind of validity, such as a political system, a philosophy, an educational system, or a set of religious beliefs, can do so much harm. When you have a way of convincing yourself and others that interfering really will produce what is "best" for them, there are very few limits placed on how far the "meddling" can go. Personally, I use the two rules of liberty and responsibility ("Liberty and responsibility should be equal" and "Liberty should be as great as the greatest responsibility a person can possibly handle") to determine what "meddling" is appropriate. The result is that there isn't a whole lot of "meddling" that is justified. Nevertheless, the corollary to that is that, when people do get themselves in trouble because of having to make their own choices, they shouldn't come running to "the government" for protection. You want liberty? Fine. So do I. But the cost of liberty is that you have to deal with the responsibility it entails yourself.
I've enjoyed our conversations on the topic over the years, they've been very interesting. The best thing about it is that while we both have very different core beliefs on various things, we can come to the same conclusion about this. I do want to touch slightly on your last paragraph though: Either this should apply equally to all facets of human endeavor or should be modified - there are many institutions that are built, by design, to provide "security" verse risk. Corporate law is a glaring example. The whole structure is as much a safety net as (say in the US) "unemployment insurance" and from my limited understanding each is conjoined with the other. The mere idea of government risk mitigation shouldn't simply be discounted because it invokes the idea of taxation or "nanny-state-ism". By mitigating risk, a society is better prepared to reap the rewards of that risk and thus advances. I'd hazard a guess that societies that don't mitigate risk, or even worse punish it do much worse. Also remember that societies that punish risk takers exist on both sides; the far right of the Taliban and the far left of North Korea are both stagnant societies whose sole lure is providing stability to the disenfranchised (but based on your precepts always replaces that stability with lack of liberty for those ruled!) Personally, I think Government should exist to provide its citizenry tools to excel and to provide some sort of risk mitigation. The main disagreement that US politics has in this regard is how much and the form that mitigation takes.
That, in fact, is explicitely included in the rules. To keep from making an "Asyncritus-length" post, I "abbreviated" the rules to a form that does indeed make them a bit too simplistic, especially the second one. In its expanded form, the second rule says: "The liberty a person enjoys in a given area should be as high as the responsibility he is capable of handling in that area, and no higher." The two parts of that rule (before and after the comma) are called "the major clause" and "the minor clause." The minor clause is called "minor" not only because it is expressed with fewer words ("and no higher") but, especially, because it is not the area where there is the greatest risk. Nevertheless, that minor clause is extremely important. Among other things, it defines the reason for which I am not an "unlimited libertarian." You have expressed very well the reason for that: Some risks cannot reasonably be borne by individuals. I would define a "nanny-state" in terms of the second rule by saying that when the government is trying to reduce risk (which is one form that responsibility takes) to a level that could be borne by the average person, that violates the major clause of the second rule and is thus illegitimate. But the mere principle of laws, of regulations, of government programs to provide protection in areas where people are not able to provide for themselves, does not in itself mean that we are in a "nanny state." Such a situation is in fact required by the minor clause of the second rule. Absolutely. The danger, and the violations of the rules, are as great from the "right" as from the "left." In fact, I originally got to working on these principles in response to abuses in religious systems, where a cult-like mentality had those in charge running just about every area of people's lives "for their own good." It must always be remembered that both rules of liberty and responsibility must be respected. It is not enough simply to reduce liberty and responsibility, while keeping them in balance. Yes, they have to be in balance, but the second rule says they should be as high as is reasonably possible. The minor clause must be respected, and it clearly implies that some limits are valid and even necessary. But the major clause must also be respected, and it clearly implies that people should only be protected from that which they just couldn't be expected to handle on their own. And one of the biggest applications of the rules of liberty and responsibility is, if not to answer that question, at least to define the parameters in which answers can be sought.
If fiscal conservatism is your big concern, the only way to be reasonably likely to get it in the modern U.S. is with a Democratic President and a Republican House or Senate.
Or, better yet, a Democrat as president and a small Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. With Reagan in the White House and the Republicans in control of the Senate, but the Democrats still in control of the House, we continued to get defecits and other problems. From what post-war history shows, a Democrat in the White House and the Republicans with a small majority in both houses is the system that gets us the best government. Democrats or Republicans in control of the whole thing is a good recipe for disaster, and a Democrat Congress and a Republican White House doesn't produce very good results, either.
This ties into what I think is a major problem with our legal system. There are no cookie-cutter humans. Many (certainly not all, and I don't always fall into this camp) believe that caring for someone who is mentally or physically unable to care for himself as a good thing for societies to do. How does one define the "average person" and what happens to those who are decidedly "below average" in a system with hard, fast rules? Of course, the problem (as detailed in my sig) is that people are bastards, and without hard, fast rules some individuals will take advantage of "the system". How does one design a society where rules can be interpretive without being too prone to abuse? Personally I believe in a combination of governmental structure and private humane concerns. I think there should be some mitigation to those concerns as well (Non-profit tax free status is an obvious example that we have currently). There's always the example of the 80/20 rule that can be applied, define "average" in such a way that it applies to 80% of the population; but in doing so understand that 20% might end up disenfranchised. I'm generally ok with such a situation, but then again I wouldn't be part of that 20%...
You have put your finger squarely on one of the major difficulties in setting up a "just" society. I use three "corallaries" with the rules of liberty and responsibility. (For now; there might be more one of these days, since I'm still working on the subject.) The third one addresses the very concern you raise: "It is impossible to define a level of liberty and responsiblity for a group of people in such a way that that level is ideal for all of them, so the second rule is necessarily violated in both of its clauses whenever a regulation applies to more than one person." IOW, the best you can do is come up with some sort of average, which will be too low for some and too high for others. The hope is that they will more or less balance out. However, the tendency is to aim for the "lowest common denominator" and set responsibility as low as is necessary for the least capable members of society. The result of that is a huge amount of wasted potential. I have not yet come up with any really specific propositions in my mind on how to deal with that situation, but my general working idea is that there should be some sort of "safety net" that is sufficient to prevent people from really living in misery because they just can't make the cut, but is not attractive enough to draw too many people due to irresponsibility. For example, instead of just handing out money on a "welfare" program, and trying to determine who is "qualified" to receive it, put in place a program that will provide housing, food, clothing, medical care, and whatever other basic necessities of life people can't provide for themselves, and for which there is no need to "qualify" other than by wanting it. But the catch is that is would not provide a level of comfort that would make it attractive to those who could provide for themselves. Cold-hearted? Sure. It would be nice to be able to say that we will provide the same level of comfort for those who can't provide for themselves as what the prosperous people can afford to buy. But it just doesn't work. Human nature being what it is, too many people will sponge off the system. The advantage to the system I propose is that it sorts out the "cutoff point" of the second rule more or less automatically: If you are willing to settle for the kind of simple housing, food, clothing and so on that the service provides, then it will be only because you can't provide anything better for yourself. So far, I haven't found anything better. Believe me, I have tried, and I haven't yet given up the attempt to find something better, but I'm not seeing any better way of doing it for now.
Async, What would you say to adding training/education to the minimal safety net? Would that make it too attractive, or would it make the people who chose the net likely to quickly step back out of it?
The sad thing Async is that I agree with you too much to actually argue. I'd play devil's advocate in order to do so, but I don't think I could pull it off.
Not sure just what you mean, but if I do understand correctly, I agree in principle. I have come more and more to the conviction that education is the key to a prosperous society. (But "education" should not be confused with what so many of our schools are providing these days, though that is a different discussion.) The key to a sound economy is a maximum of useful goods and services being produced. That means that it is beneficial to society to get people out of any "welfare" program and into doing something that is actually productive. But providing a useful service means having the education level necessary for doing so. In fact, I would almost be in favor of making education a requirement to be part of the "safety net" system I propose. The only ones who could continue to benefit from it without furthering their education would be those who simply are not able to advance their education. So you learn a trade. Not necessarily the trade you want, and certainly not something really technical (providing free training for engineers, doctors and airline pilots would have every college-age-student in the country willing to put up with a very difficult situation for a few years in order to avoid paying for his education), but basic education. Among other things, I would want everyone to be able to understand, speak, read and write correct (if simple) English. And do basic math. And then get some kind of vocational training, in some simple but necessary job where you can earn your own way in life. There are two basic reasons for that. One is what I already pointed out, that it is good for society as a whole to have people as productive workers (though I would already have them doing something, even if it was just sweeping streets with a broom) instead of as welfare beneficiaries. The other, though, is that such a system could easily produce, in the long run, what would be little better than a "slave-class" that was locked into it, unable to get out because they didn't have the education to do anything else, and unable to get that education because they were in the system. Even though I said I wouldn't put in place any "qualifications" for entering into the system, I would put in place rules for continuing to benefit from it. Doing the work you are given to do, keeping off drugs and excessive alcohol, keeping out of criminal mischief, and other such rules would be part of it. I think it is appropriate to help the helpless; I do not think society has any responsibility towards those who just want to mess up their lives and think that the rest of us should pay for it. I would be very open, and even favorably disposed a priori, to requiring education in some useful vocation as one of those rules you have to accept in order to benefit from the system.
Damn and here I thought gul might have brought up a point where we could disagree. I'm a little more liberal than you in this regard - I think quite a few professors would be quite happy spinning their intellectual wheels in a government run program. I could even see the university system being a profit making endeavor for the government; allow promising teachers access to things they need to test theories and take some percentage of the profit of those theories for a certain length of time before it becomes public domain. Of course, the scary part (especially for the more business minded) would be if this kind of low-risk scheme would cripple the business sector.
