homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home

This thread has been moved to Limbo.    
 - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Purgatory: Liberals and conservatives think differently (Page 2)

 
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Liberals and conservatives think differently
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
But then, I've never understood how SSM is a "liberal" position in the first place. Marriage is a conservative institution in the best sense of the word - promoting the stability and cohesion of families and the careful nurture of the children brought up in them. When it comes to same-gender marriages, then, the dispute is not so much between "conservatives" and "liberals" as between conservatives who mean what they say they believe and those who do so only selectively (i.e., when the couple resembles them anatomically).

That's the problem with arguments against same-sex marriage: they cannot be pressed too strongly or they become roundabout objections to marriage. I call it the "Oatmeal Crisp" argument: "It's an honorable estate - but you wouldn't like it!"

[ 17. April 2012, 01:23: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Indeed. Which is why some conservatives have declared their support for SSM. I think I've quoted from Senator Amanda Vanstone before on the topic.

It depends entirely on the set of assumptions you start from. Only a couple of days ago I followed a link here and read the comments on a UK article, and especially a comment that had several steps of conservative reasoning I agreed with thoroughly before it, for me, came crashing down a particular assumption.

It was quite literally 'conservative' reasoning because part of the premise was that Jesus came to fulfil the law, not get rid of it. And therefore Jesus would condemn homosexuals (contrary to the lovey-dovey touchy-feely view that Jesus was cuddly with everybody) because the OT law condemned homosexuals.

Which was written as something utterly self-evident. But to me it's not. As far as I'm concerned, the OT law only condemns homosexuals if you give it an incredibly cursory read, lift single verses from Leviticus entirely out of their context and think that 100% of the male population of Sodom was homosexual - an utterly ridiculous proposition when you think about it, but one that seems to be taken for granted by a remarkable large body of people. It's just assumed that Sodom was destroyed because the men of Sodom said "we want to have sex with them", and it's further assumed that the reason for having sex with men was homosexual orientation. The second assumption, in particular, doesn't hold up.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
... No government since 1867 has ever been elected at the federal level by being bible-thumpers. It will never happen.

The Abbotsford-Chilliwack area of my province is the only area I know of where the bible thumpers form a significant bloc of votes. Even there, the riding(s) often split, with e.g. a NDP MLA and a Conservative MP. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!

What I take away from this article is a reminder that other people aren't just curmudgeonly or obtuse - they really do think in different ways, and we need to adjust our arguments accordingly. But yes, ultimately we have to agree to disagree sometimes; the challenge is to work out exactly why the disagreement is occurring.

There you go equating Christianity with conservative politics. That requires facts not in evidence in Canada.

Not necessarily in the UK, either. According to this report from the think-tank Demos, religious people in the UK are more likely to be politically progressive than conservative. They define this as meaning:

1) Religious people are more likely to be "active citizens" (volunteering more, giving money to charity more etc);
2) Religious people are more likely to be concerned with equality than non-religious;
3) Religious people are more likely to place themselves on the left of the political spectrum.

So religious does not necessarily = conservative as the OP suggests.

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Those same conservatives who claim that it's "immoral" to involve people in Christian norms of alms-giving without their consent will turn around and tell you that it's the place of the state to force conservative standards of chastity on those who want no part of Christianity. How do you square that in a way that makes sense?

I don't. But then, I'm perfectly in favour of liberal standards of chastity. I'm essentially a libertarian, I favour as few laws and as little government as possible. In all areas of life.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
God didn't think so and from what we can tell Jesus wasn't negative on the issue of taxes.

So? Not everyone believes in God or Jesus, why should they be made to act as if they do?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
God didn't think so and from what we can tell Jesus wasn't negative on the issue of taxes.

So? Not everyone believes in God or Jesus, why should they be made to act as if they do?
I've got no problem with that, just conservatives who cop the same attitude as if it's Christian. I was at one time considered very conservative before the GOP took an extreme right turn and while I wanted accountability and reason in government spending (and still do), I never thought of taxes as theft. In addition to helping the poor, sick and disabled, there are a boatload of services that every citizen enjoys whether they think about it or not.

[ 17. April 2012, 09:28: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I never thought of taxes as theft.

I don't think of them as theft, I think of them as a transaction. I'm buying services, be they healthcare, transport infrastructure, garbage disposal or security. And as such, if there are things I don't want to buy I will campaign against my money being used to buy them.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tom Paine's Bones
Apprentice
# 17027

 - Posted      Profile for Tom Paine's Bones   Email Tom Paine's Bones   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I never thought of taxes as theft.

I don't think of them as theft, I think of them as a transaction. I'm buying services, be they healthcare, transport infrastructure, garbage disposal or security. And as such, if there are things I don't want to buy I will campaign against my money being used to buy them.
I don't think of them as theft, or as a transaction.
I see them as a contribution to the common pot.

My taxes don't buy the services I use.
Our taxes fund the services we use.

--------------------
This is the 'Age of Reason'.
These are the 'Rights of Man'.

Posts: 25 | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Okay then TPB, how about your taxes go to fund camps where, ooh let's see, small children are ritually whipped? Still so keen?

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Those same conservatives who claim that it's "immoral" to involve people in Christian norms of alms-giving without their consent will turn around and tell you that it's the place of the state to force conservative standards of chastity on those who want no part of Christianity. How do you square that in a way that makes sense?

I don't. But then, I'm perfectly in favour of liberal standards of chastity. I'm essentially a libertarian, I favour as few laws and as little government as possible. In all areas of life.
I think Mockingale hasn't clocked that you live in a different country, or that our political system isn't the same as his.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Paine's Bones:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I never thought of taxes as theft.

I don't think of them as theft, I think of them as a transaction. I'm buying services, be they healthcare, transport infrastructure, garbage disposal or security. And as such, if there are things I don't want to buy I will campaign against my money being used to buy them.
I don't think of them as theft, or as a transaction.
I see them as a contribution to the common pot.

My taxes don't buy the services I use.
Our taxes fund the services we use.

Bingo. And part of that is that there will always be "services" that some will want while others don't. Frankly, I'd have skipped paying for the war in Iraq and a paying for a lot of the perks for our legislators enjoy if I had my way. Sorry, but we all pay taxes that go for some things we don't want in addition to things we do. It isn't a transaction by a long shot.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Okay then TPB, how about your taxes go to fund camps where, ooh let's see, small children are ritually whipped? Still so keen?


Fortunately, that's illegal in just about all civilized countries, so no taxes would go for them. Additionally, in democracies the people do have elections and courts to turn to if things that are illegal or unconstitutional are attempted to be implemented. We're not talking about dictatorships or extremist theocracies here. Not even close to being a sound argument. And here in the U.S. injunctions are granted quite easily against nutty laws that are sometimes passed.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
As a Brit atheist it amuses and confounds me how bible belt republicans support so many political moves that seem the complete opposit of what Jesus preached.

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
And part of that is that there will always be "services" that some will want while others don't.

Which is why we vote for political parties who will support our own view of which services we want and which we don't.

quote:
Frankly, I'd have skipped paying for the war in Iraq and a paying for a lot of the perks for our legislators enjoy if I had my way.
Me too. The Iraq war is one of the reasons I voted to get rid of Labour.

quote:
Sorry, but we all pay taxes that go for some things we don't want in addition to things we do.
That's certainly a fact, but that doesn't mean it's a desirable one.

quote:
It isn't a transaction by a long shot.
Not the way you see it. But you and I think differently. The way I see it, it is a transaction. I don't see that society, or the government, has any right to any of the money I earn, but I know that some services have to be provided at the national level in order for them to be as efficient as possible. It follows that the way of providing those services that works out the cheapest for me is through taxation. It also follows that if goverment provision is inefficient, or they are spending my money on shit I don't want, then I must use what political power I have (my vote) to strive to replace the government with one that will do the job properly.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Sorry, but we all pay taxes that go for some things we don't want in addition to things we do.

That's certainly a fact, but that doesn't mean it's a desirable one.

quote:
It isn't a transaction by a long shot.
Not the way you see it. But you and I think differently. The way I see it, it is a transaction. I don't see that society, or the government, has any right to any of the money I earn, but I know that some services have to be provided at the national level in order for them to be as efficient as possible. It follows that the way of providing those services that works out the cheapest for me is through taxation. It also follows that if goverment provision is inefficient, or they are spending my money on shit I don't want, then I must use what political power I have (my vote) to strive to replace the government with one that will do the job properly.

If you can tell me how exactly we can each wind up paying only for the things we want I'm all ears. No matter what, in each election there are winners and losers and everyone will end up paying for things we don't. I've voted in every election since I came of age. I've been disappointed when I've lost, but have been more disappointed by a good share of the politicians I've helped put in power as they all (they know full well they can't or won't keep promises) - both conservative and liberal.

[ 17. April 2012, 11:09: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"

By holding on to ideas that are demonstrably wrong (and not just the latest fad), conservatives simply compound the error.

This is not to say that chasing after every new thing is good, either - both deny the evidence. We owe it to ourselves to at least evaluate the evidence and come to an honest conclusion.

The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.
This isn't true.

The facts on sex outside marriage are the most obvious one to have changed. Reliable contraception is a complete game changer. Without contraception or safe abortion, regular extra-marital sex is likely to ruin a woman's life or at the very least provide a serious medical condition for quite a few months (irrespective of what you think the status of a foetus is).

The facts on all the others have changed, although less severely. Because social acceptance is one of these facts.

That a Conservative would like to claim that the facts of extra-marital sex in a world without reliable and safe contraception are the same as those in one with reliable and safe contraception fails to surprise me. It does however make an excellent case study.

quote:
An ideological position: 'it is not the role of the government to provide subsidies for healthcare' - is not subject to challenge by the 'facts'.
That depends. If that is the only premise you have then that is possibly so. But if you also have the principle that "everyone should have healthcare" then your synthesis may be "Private charity should pick up the shortfall." At that point because you have more than one principle, a fact can show your bridge to be an illusion and your two principles to be in opposition. That fact is "Private charity does not even come close to covering this gap and in no society ever has". At which point you need to rank your priorities. Is a lack of taxation more important than people literally dying on the streets?

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
An ideological position: 'it is not the role of the government to provide subsidies for healthcare' - is not subject to challenge by the 'facts'.

That depends. If that is the only premise you have then that is possibly so. But if you also have the principle that "everyone should have healthcare" then your synthesis may be "Private charity should pick up the shortfall." At that point because you have more than one principle, a fact can show your bridge to be an illusion and your two principles to be in opposition. That fact is "Private charity does not even come close to covering this gap and in no society ever has". At which point you need to rank your priorities. Is a lack of taxation more important than people literally dying on the streets?
I'd also love to know how someone who is "pro-life" can take a stand that would deny someone health care with the end result being loss of life. That is more true here in the U.S. where one had best have a small fortune or have employer paid health benefits - and even then that's no guarantee you'll get the care you need.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Okay then TPB, how about your taxes go to fund camps where, ooh let's see, small children are ritually whipped? Still so keen?


Fortunately, that's illegal in just about all civilized countries, so no taxes would go for them. Additionally, in democracies the people do have elections and courts to turn to if things that are illegal or unconstitutional are attempted to be implemented. We're not talking about dictatorships or extremist theocracies here. Not even close to being a sound argument. And here in the U.S. injunctions are granted quite easily against nutty laws that are sometimes passed.
It's currently illegal, so what? Plenty of regimes have been and still are nasty, does that mean that their citizens should sit tight and pay their taxes like good folk? What the 'tax as moral good' argument misses is that governments are just (or at least) as subject to original sin as all the rest of us.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
If you can tell me how exactly we can each wind up paying only for the things we want I'm all ears.

We can't. One of us will win, one of us will lose*, and which of us is in which category is up for grabs every time there's an election.

.

*= with several additional possibilities where we both lose, of course.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Okay then TPB, how about your taxes go to fund camps where, ooh let's see, small children are ritually whipped? Still so keen?


Fortunately, that's illegal in just about all civilized countries, so no taxes would go for them. Additionally, in democracies the people do have elections and courts to turn to if things that are illegal or unconstitutional are attempted to be implemented. We're not talking about dictatorships or extremist theocracies here. Not even close to being a sound argument. And here in the U.S. injunctions are granted quite easily against nutty laws that are sometimes passed.
It's currently illegal, so what? Plenty of regimes have been and still are nasty, does that mean that their citizens should sit tight and pay their taxes like good folk? What the 'tax as moral good' argument misses is that governments are just (or at least) as subject to original sin as all the rest of us.
AFAIK, we're talking about civilized countries, not brutal regimes. Day and night difference - at least come up with a sensible argument. And as I've said to Marvin, even in civilized countries there are going to be things each of us as individuals don't want to pay for. That doesn't mean taxes can't and aren't being used for moral purposes. And in democracies, it's our responsibility as voters to make governments honest by punishing the politicians when they don't. Again, we don't always succeed but that is no excuse to give up or deny that taxes can be used for moral good. When we fail to do that people can and do die for any one of a number of reasons.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Civilised countries, as in ones where you agree with how the government spends its money?

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
According to this report from the think-tank Demos, religious people in the UK are more likely to be politically progressive than conservative. They define this as meaning:

1) Religious people are more likely to be "active citizens" (volunteering more, giving money to charity more etc);
2) Religious people are more likely to be concerned with equality than non-religious;
3) Religious people are more likely to place themselves on the left of the political spectrum.

So religious does not necessarily = conservative as the OP suggests.

It woudl be nice to call in that report as evidence that Christians are more left-wing than non-Christians in Britain, but I'm afraid its not really strong enopugh for that. Rather loose definitions on all sides and badly mangled stats I think (not in the study but in the way its reported - this is of course true about 97.93% of all journalistic or political comment supposedly based on statistics [Snigger] )

As far as I remember there is some good evidence that churchgoers in England are much more likely to be "liberal" on race and immigration and asylum seekers and more welcoming of ethnic diversity than the general population are. And there is perhaps some weaker evidence that they are on average more conservative on sexual behaviour, most notably male homosexuality.

But apart from those two issues, neither of which is exactly a surprise, I've never heard of any strong evidence that churchgoers politics differs very much from others of their age or class. Doesn't mean there isn't any, but I've never heard of it and that Demos report isn't it.

That's still nothing like the general perception in the USA that churchgoing Christians are more right-wing than average (which of course might not be true either, but its what most Americans seem to think)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't. But then, I'm perfectly in favour of liberal standards of chastity. I'm essentially a libertarian, I favour as few laws and as little government as possible. In all areas of life.

And I believe in liberty. That's why I vote for a government stronger than corporations, a decent health service so freedoms aren't crippled by illness and injury, and any of a number of other issues. I believe that many laws preserve freedom. And that trying to get rid of laws is like trying to get rid of rules in a football match. You might want rid of the offside rule, sure. But what about the "eleven players on a pitch" rule? Or the rules about foul tackles? And do substitutes make for a better game?

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Frankly, I'd have skipped paying for the war in Iraq and a paying for a lot of the perks for our legislators enjoy if I had my way.

Me too. The Iraq war is one of the reasons I voted to get rid of Labour.
Me three (although I was in a Monkey With a Red Rosette seat last election - 68% Labour vote).

quote:
Not the way you see it. But you and I think differently. The way I see it, it is a transaction. I don't see that society, or the government, has any right to any of the money I earn, but I know that some services have to be provided at the national level in order for them to be as efficient as possible.
Here I disagree. Because 95% of what is necessary for both my job and my lifestyle comes from the society. I am worth a hell of a lot of money to where I work. And few could do it better. But what do I need that's provided by society. Computers. Not invented by me. And the internet - the regulation is necessary. Medical care. Shoulders of giants stuff. Pay it back and forward. A functional economy. All things the government and the society has influenced. I may earn what I do and would earn a lot more on commission. But all the opportunity to do that and not be a subsistance farmer has come from my society.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Again, we don't always succeed but that is no excuse to give up or deny that taxes can be used for moral good.

Well sure. And some burglaries are done purely in order to feed starving families.

The trouble is that we have differences of opinion over what constitutes "moral good". And even where we agree about it, we have differences of opinion about the most morally right way to achieve it. The ends don't always justify the means.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Again, we don't always succeed but that is no excuse to give up or deny that taxes can be used for moral good.

Well sure. And some burglaries are done purely in order to feed starving families.

The trouble is that we have differences of opinion over what constitutes "moral good". And even where we agree about it, we have differences of opinion about the most morally right way to achieve it. The ends don't always justify the means.

I thought you didn't believe taxes were theft. I don't and the government assisting in taking care of the shortfall in caring for the truly poor, sick and elderly benefits all of society in the long run.

[ 17. April 2012, 13:03: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't. But then, I'm perfectly in favour of liberal standards of chastity. I'm essentially a libertarian, I favour as few laws and as little government as possible. In all areas of life.

And I believe in liberty. That's why I vote for a government stronger than corporations, a decent health service so freedoms aren't crippled by illness and injury, and any of a number of other issues. I believe that many laws preserve freedom.
So do I. That's why it's "as little government as possible" rather than "no government at all".

quote:
Here I disagree. Because 95% of what is necessary for both my job and my lifestyle comes from the society. I am worth a hell of a lot of money to where I work. And few could do it better. But what do I need that's provided by society.
"Provided by society" and "provided by government" are not the same thing.

quote:
Computers. Not invented by me.
No, but you (or your workplace) bought your computer yourself, thus providing an income to the people who did invent them. You didn't pay tax so that the government could simply give one to everybody.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I thought you didn't believe taxes were theft.

I was merely debunking the "because something can be used for good it must therefore be a good thing" line of argument.

It's not just taxation though, I friggin' hate having to work and having to pay for stuff as well. But I realise that, just as I wouldn't work for nothing, neither will anyone else - so I have to hand over some of my cash in order to get them to give me the stuff I want. And, just as I won't hand over cash for nothing, neither will anyone else* - so I have to work to earn that cash in the first place.

All these things are necessary evils. And so is taxation. But just as I try to work as little as necessary to get the cash I need, and spend as little cash as necessary to get the stuff I want, so I seek to pay as little tax as necessary to get the services I need government to provide.

quote:
I don't and the government assisting in taking care of the shortfall in caring for the truly poor, sick and elderly benefits all of society in the long run.
All of society?

.

*= apart from the welfare office, of course. [Razz]

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And I believe in liberty. That's why I vote for a government stronger than corporations, a decent health service so freedoms aren't crippled by illness and injury, and any of a number of other issues. I believe that many laws preserve freedom.

So do I. That's why it's "as little government as possible" rather than "no government at all".
But that won't give what I want. You can have a government with no decent public healthcare system. It's just about twice as expensive to do things that way and still leads to more epidemics and people dead in the streets.

What I think you mean is "Enough government to do the jobs I think should be done". Less is possible. It just isn't desirable.

quote:
"Provided by society" and "provided by government" are not the same thing.
In a representative democracy (as we have), the job of government is to reflect the wishes of society.

quote:
No, but you (or your workplace) bought your computer yourself, thus providing an income to the people who did invent them. You didn't pay tax so that the government could simply give one to everybody.
I'm not aware CERN gets royalties from the internet. Alan Turing was working for the government at Bletchley Park, the National Physical Laboratory when he created the designs for a stored computer program, and Manchester University (i.e. Government funding again) later.

The Internet was again the invention of a (US) government project (ARPANET) and the World Wide Web was invented by an international government funded research centre (CERN - and Tim Berners-Lee).

For that matter the protocol used for internet addresses (TCP/IP) was also created as a part of ARPANET but created later. There were plenty of commercial competitors at the time - but TCP/IP as a networking language won because it was given away. It therefore enabled web commerce in a way that a technically better system for which the inventors were directly paid simply wouldn't have.

The income to all these people, and more, is provided via taxation. That is in part because the private sector and direct payments suck at primary research. Because you never know what you are going to get back. So no, buying a computer did not provide money to the people who invented them except through taxes. And they were all released on a "Pay It Forward" basis.

Now the private sector is good at sweeping in at the end and monetising things. But done too early they would have set patented and licensed infrastructures and the web would be fundamentally broken (remember the old days of AOL not connecting to the internet? Like that).

One of the reasons I pay tax is so that this state of innovations and this giving away research where such benefits everyone can be maintained.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You can have a government with no decent public healthcare system. It's just about twice as expensive to do things that way and still leads to more epidemics and people dead in the streets.

Did you read my post about some things being far more efficient (and therefore cheaper for me) when done on a national basis, and thus requiring funding through taxation?

quote:
What I think you mean is "Enough government to do the jobs I think should be done".
Yes, I thought that went without saying.

quote:
quote:
"Provided by society" and "provided by government" are not the same thing.
In a representative democracy (as we have), the job of government is to reflect the wishes of society.
Which bit of society?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!

The article expresses the dichotomy in terms of 'openness to new ideas'.

The consequences of openness to new ideas surely depends on where you stand. If you were brought up in a secular, liberal environment, then the only way you'll become a socially and theologically conservative Calvinist Christian is by being open to new ideas.

Also, where do charismatics fall in this? My experience is that they are on the one hand doctrinally quite conservative (at least in theory), but at the same time anxious to pay attention to 'the new thing that the Lord is doing'.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You can have a government with no decent public healthcare system. It's just about twice as expensive to do things that way and still leads to more epidemics and people dead in the streets.

Did you read my post about some things being far more efficient (and therefore cheaper for me) when done on a national basis, and thus requiring funding through taxation?
The one doesn't logically follow from the other. There are many things that would be cheaper if done by slave labour. Forcing people to help by means of slave labour is immoral whether or not it is cheaper.

You don't get to talk about muggings as immoral when you accept the results when they are actually cheaper. In that case it's demonstrated that the coercion isn't what you are objecting to, it's the cost. A mugging is inherently wrong and would be doing evil to do good. But when it's cheaper to do things this way it doesn't change the nature of the coercion or that it's doing evil to do good.

quote:
quote:
What I think you mean is "Enough government to do the jobs I think should be done".
Yes, I thought that went without saying.
It doesn't. There are things I want done that the government would IMO be the best and most efficient organisation to do that I don't want to grant the government the powers necessary to do.

quote:
quote:
quote:
"Provided by society" and "provided by government" are not the same thing.
In a representative democracy (as we have), the job of government is to reflect the wishes of society.
Which bit of society?
As much as possible. That's why we have elections. It's an ugly compromise but I can't think of better.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I don't and the government assisting in taking care of the shortfall in caring for the truly poor, sick and elderly benefits all of society in the long run.

All of society?

.

*= apart from the welfare office, of course. [Razz]

One of the reasons our health care costs and insurance premiums are so outrageously high here is due in large part to those without insurance. When they get sick the only "doctor's office" that sees them is the E.R. - the most expensive care on the planet. Having worked in a major medical center as an auditor, I can tell you hospital ER's are losing money and they way they make up for it is hiking rates for everyone else who can pay and insurance companies hike their premiums. Several major hospitals have started providing free regular clinic care plus providing regular medications to their "frequent flyers" who have chronic conditions and no coverage and fall through the safety net cracks. Those patients couldn't afford the regular maintenance care their conditions - asthma, diabetes, etc. and so would go until they hit a crisis then hit the ER and rack up huge bills that weren't paid. They've cut their losses on those patients in half. That is going to save everyone else in the long run. It's also no secret why western nations who have some kind of national health care system are healthier that we are in the U.S. Those are just a couple of examples of how everyone benefits.

*The above doesn't count the other additional patients that do get care because of tax dollars.

[ 17. April 2012, 17:56: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599

 - Posted      Profile for Mockingale   Email Mockingale   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Okay then TPB, how about your taxes go to fund camps where, ooh let's see, small children are ritually whipped? Still so keen?

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Those same conservatives who claim that it's "immoral" to involve people in Christian norms of alms-giving without their consent will turn around and tell you that it's the place of the state to force conservative standards of chastity on those who want no part of Christianity. How do you square that in a way that makes sense?

I don't. But then, I'm perfectly in favour of liberal standards of chastity. I'm essentially a libertarian, I favour as few laws and as little government as possible. In all areas of life.
I think Mockingale hasn't clocked that you live in a different country, or that our political system isn't the same as his.
Look, you speak English; we speak English.

Your flag is red, white and blue; so is ours.

The name of your country contains the word "United," as does ours.

Half of the programs on your televisions are courtesy of us.

I think there's less difference than you think, and to the extent that you find us problematic, we learned it from you, dad.

We have libertarians in this country, as well. At the same time, we have plenty of pseudo-libertarians who hate paying taxes but would love for the government to crack down on sweaty perversions.

Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
If there's one thing I've learned about America from chatting with Americans, both IRL and in places such as this, it's that we and the Americans have different concerns. Over your side of the pond, a prospective president has to convince the electorate he's God-fearing, over here we try and keep God under wraps. Your economic axis is shifted to the right of ours, and our healthcare system is screamingly socialist compared to Obamacare. We're still recovering from empire and so any politician who wrote this would get shot down in flames, we think your gun rights are for crazies and our whole sphere of influence and concern is different: we don't look across the Pacific, but do look to Europe. Try reading the British papers sometime (not the world section) and you'll see what occupied the British mind: half of it is stuff you won't care about.

So kindly don't judge other people's positions by American standards, or expect other counties' political factions to fit into American categories. Seeing the world as USA-centric, or trying to paint it in your image, is what gets you resented in so many parts of the globe. Your original riposte to Marvin - about 'conservative' sexual ethics - was about 3,000 miles wide of the mark.

They say that the liberals are meant to be the open minded ones ...

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I think there's less difference than you think, and to the extent that you find us problematic, we learned it from you, dad.

If you're going to run with this particular analogy, you're going to have to address the massive teenage rebellion phase you went through a couple of centuries back, followed by the massive dust-up with your own housemates.

Whether you like it or not, there are some serious cultural and philosophical differences between English-speaking countries even though there is also some shared history.

Certainly, the political spectrum is not the remotely the same. Much of what Dinghy Sailor said from a UK perspective is also true from an Australian perspective. Then again, UK and Australia aren't quite the same either, but in the political sphere they would be closer to each other than either of them would be to the United States.

Obama is not, by our standards, a left-winger. He's somewhere on the right. But in America you've got people treating him like a foul communist.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
We have libertarians in this country, as well. At the same time, we have plenty of pseudo-libertarians who hate paying taxes but would love for the government to crack down on sweaty perversions.

The Archbishop of York recently had a tantrum* that David Cameron is 'behaving like a dictator' because he wants to convert gay civil partnerships into gay marriages. Even in opposition, official Conservative policy was fairly consistently in favour of civil partnerships.

Of course Thatcher and Major did indeed show the inconsistency you decry.

* I'm sorry; there may be reasonable and intellectually honest arguments against gay marriage, but what the Archbishop said wasn't one of them.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
LOL. Methinks the archbishop has a fairly loose grasp on how laws are made.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
LOL. Methinks the archbishop has a fairly loose grasp on how laws are made.

Archbishop Sentamu is form Uganda. He's got more experience of dictators than most of us and the defining characteristic of a dictator is populism.

I hesitate to describe Cameron a dictator, he is definitely a populist, as is the ConDem government. ++John may have a loose grasp on how laws are made in the UK, but he isn't so far out about the motive behind which laws get changed.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
LOL. Methinks the archbishop has a fairly loose grasp on how laws are made.

Archbishop Sentamu is form Uganda. He's got more experience of dictators than most of us and the defining characteristic of a dictator is populism.

What? No it isn't. The defining characteristic of a dictator is the suppression of dissent.

In whatever form dissent takes, whether it be opposition parties in the legislature, or independent courts that can deliver decisions the dictator doesn't like. Or members of the public expressing a contrary view.

[ 18. April 2012, 10:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I hesitate to describe Cameron a dictator, he is definitely a populist, as is the ConDem government.

Better a populist than a statist.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
LOL. Methinks the archbishop has a fairly loose grasp on how laws are made.

Archbishop Sentamu is form Uganda. He's got more experience of dictators than most of us and the defining characteristic of a dictator is populism.

I hesitate to describe Cameron a dictator, he is definitely a populist, as is the ConDem government. ++John may have a loose grasp on how laws are made in the UK, but he isn't so far out about the motive behind which laws get changed.

+Sentamu also worked as a lawyer before switching to theology.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228

 - Posted      Profile for MSHB   Email MSHB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
the defining characteristic of a dictator is populism

That sounds more like the defining characteristic of a demagogue than a dictator.

Dictators can do quite well in a climate of fear and terror (Stasi, anyone?). Demagogues are the ones who play up to the crowd's emotions and get them on side.

If you pander to popular sentiment, you are a populist. If you succeed, you are a demagogue.

--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade

Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
LOL. Methinks the archbishop has a fairly loose grasp on how laws are made.

Archbishop Sentamu is form Uganda. He's got more experience of dictators than most of us and the defining characteristic of a dictator is populism.

I hesitate to describe Cameron a dictator, he is definitely a populist, as is the ConDem government. ++John may have a loose grasp on how laws are made in the UK, but he isn't so far out about the motive behind which laws get changed.

+Sentamu also worked as a lawyer before switching to theology.
Aha. In other words, he probably has a very good grasp of how laws are made but hopes his listeners don't.

I think that's worse.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Sentamu also worked as a lawyer before switching to theology.

Aha. In other words, he probably has a very good grasp of how laws are made but hopes his listeners don't.

I think that's worse.

Practising law (he was an advocate, in Uganda) is not the same as making laws, ie legislating. He whould have known what the law was, but could have been very hazy about how it got to be that way.

btw, I'm sticking to my guns about dictators. Keeping the proletariat onside is the basis of any dictator's power base, which isn't so different from populism.

[ 18. April 2012, 11:45: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
btw, I'm sticking to my guns about dictators. Keeping the proletariat onside is the basis of any dictator's power base, which isn't so different from populism.

You can stick to your guns all you like, but it's arrant nonsense. The Stasi have already been mentioned to you. It's perfectly possible to be a dictator in power while most of the population isn't on side but doesn't have sufficient means to get rid of you. I mean, look at Syria! Look at Libya for years and years. In fact, look at any dictator who gets overthrown by popular revolution, and work backwards to figure out how they got overthrown if populism was the basis of their power.

By the way, I find it quite scary that you're suggesting someone could rise to the status of Archbishop after having been a lawyer who didn't understand where laws came from. What kind of selection process are you running over there?

[ 18. April 2012, 12:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
btw, I'm sticking to my guns about dictators. Keeping the proletariat onside is the basis of any dictator's power base, which isn't so different from populism.

You can stick to your guns all you like, but it's arrant nonsense. The Stasi have already been mentioned to you. It's perfectly possible to be a dictator in power while most of the population isn't on side but doesn't have sufficient means to get rid of you. I mean, look at Syria! Look at Libya for years and years. In fact, look at any dictator who gets overthrown by popular revolution, and work backwards to figure out how they got overthrown if populism was the basis of their power.
Syria's going.

Gaddafi ceased to deliver (the bread and circuses dried up) then he fell.

So long as there is an out group and you can be seen to be the 'people's champion' against them, you have a method of surviving. The outgroup can be part of the internal population (intelligentsia, minorities) or external (running imperialist dogs, 'Islamism' even) and you can get a free hand to do all kinds of things without the people rising up against you.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
By the way, I find it quite scary that you're suggesting someone could rise to the status of Archbishop after having been a lawyer who didn't understand where laws came from. What kind of selection process are you running over there?

You're involved in the law-drafting process (IIRC) but could you, even if permitted, interpret law? To put it another way, do you drive a car? Can you fix it, let alone design one? Making something and using it are very different.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
By the way, I find it quite scary that you're suggesting someone could rise to the status of Archbishop after having been a lawyer who didn't understand where laws came from. What kind of selection process are you running over there?

You're involved in the law-drafting process (IIRC) but could you, even if permitted, interpret law? To put it another way, do you drive a car? Can you fix it, let alone design one? Making something and using it are very different.
I'm not TALKING about understanding the intricacies of the law drafting process. I'm talking about the basic realisation that laws are passed in Parliament by a majority of votes, and that the Prime Minister is the head of the party with the most votes.

Which is truly basic legal stuff.

If Cameron is a dictator for wanting to change a law over opposition, then every single Prime Minister you've ever had, and every single one I've ever had, is a dictator. Because every government in living memory has changed laws despite the change being opposed by someone. Every time that a law doesn't pass with 100% of the votes on the floor of a house of Parliament.

To describe that as dictatorship is an utter mockery of the word.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
PS I drive a car. I can fix a couple of small things on it, not much.

What I don't do is think that my mechanic chants magical incantations over the engine when I leave it with him. I know that he's got certain kinds of tools in his workshop, and that eye of newt isn't one of them. [Roll Eyes]

Also, the notion that a lawyer is just 'a person who uses laws' is absurd. What the hell are they charging people money for, then? Are you suggesting I can hold myself out to others as an expert car driver?

[ 18. April 2012, 12:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If Cameron is a dictator for wanting to change a law over opposition, then every single Prime Minister you've ever had, and every single one I've ever had, is a dictator. Because every government in living memory has changed laws despite the change being opposed by someone. Every time that a law doesn't pass with 100% of the votes on the floor of a house of Parliament.

To describe that as dictatorship is an utter mockery of the word.

I stated that dictators are populists. I stated that Cameron is a populist and the ConDem government is populist.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools