Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[hrothgar]

Please stop the petty bickering between ldrews, hrothgar, and Zelandakh. If you want to argue about politics, that's fine. If your posts are trollish, that's acceptable as free speech.

 

But I don't think any of us are interested in the name-calling and personal attacks. We all know how you feel about each other, it's time to give it a rest.

 

You do understand the rank hypocrisy of claiming that trolling is acceptable because of "free speech", but name calling and personal attacks are not because you find this type of speech annoying?

[ldrews]

The citizens do not have a right to impose the social contract on unwilling residents.

However, the government, as the properly constitution agent of said citizens does.

(Feel free to reference "Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force as a defining characteristic of the state")

 

 

The government certainly has the ability to impose the social contract through the use of overwhelming force. To me that does not constitute a "right". Unless, of course, you subscribe to the doctrine that "Might makes Right".

 

To me the use of force in that way is inherently immoral. The fact that I sometimes passively participate does not make it any less immoral.

[hrothgar]

The government certainly has the ability to impose the social contract through the use of overwhelming force. To me that does not constitute a "right". Unless, of course, you subscribe to the doctrine that "Might makes Right".

 

To me the use of force in that way is inherently immoral. The fact that I sometimes passively participate does not make it any less immoral.

 

De gustibus non est disputandum

[hrothgar]

The government certainly has the ability to impose the social contract through the use of overwhelming force. To me that does not constitute a "right". Unless, of course, you subscribe to the doctrine that "Might makes Right".

 

To me the use of force in that way is inherently immoral. The fact that I sometimes passively participate does not make it any less immoral.

 

De gustibus non est disputandum

[awm]

It may be worth thinking about how the social contract applies to children.

 

It's pretty obvious that a small child has very little chance of survival on his or her own. Infants are not really equipped to feed themselves, nor to make informed decisions about entering into contracts. But realistically we are not going to let children "attempt to survive" on their own; besides being cruel this will basically be the end of the human race!

 

So despite all the rhetoric about "sovereign individuals" the reality is that children are going to rely on other people to help them survive and make critical decisions on their behalf, at least up to some "age of majority" where they are deemed able to make their own decisions and have some realistic chance of survival without significant help. These other people will in many cases be the child's parents, but there are often situations where the parents may be unavailable or incompetent in some way, and other caregivers will take over.

 

The question then, is whether the caregivers are "owed" anything for taking care of the child during his or her formative years, whether the caregivers have some particular responsibility to the child (who, after all, is not generally able to select his or her own caregivers and is somewhat at their mercy at least in the early years), and what sort of contracts the caregivers can enter into on the child's behalf.

 

I would argue that modern society provides a great deal to young children -- in particular they are provided with a right of food and shelter (even if their parents are not able/willing to provide such), with a basic education (even if their parents are not sufficiently educated/interested to provide such), with basic health care including vaccines (even if the parents are poor/not doctors/crazy anti-vaxxers, etc), and with protection from various abuses by unscrupulous or incompetent caregivers... as well as the basic protections all citizens receive. In exchange, the children are obligated to follow the laws of the society when they grow up (including paying taxes, etc) at least until they undertake whatever methods are necessary to switch to a different society.

 

There was basically no way to get "informed consent" from a newborn to such a deal, and keeping this in mind there are presumably ethical limits to such bargains ("you will be a slave for the rest of your life" is NOT an acceptable "obligation"), but the principle of requiring some repayment (once the child becomes an adult) for the resources spent on his or her upbringing seems sound.

[ldrews]

It may be worth thinking about how the social contract applies to children.

 

It's pretty obvious that a small child has very little chance of survival on his or her own. Infants are not really equipped to feed themselves, nor to make informed decisions about entering into contracts. But realistically we are not going to let children "attempt to survive" on their own; besides being cruel this will basically be the end of the human race!

 

So despite all the rhetoric about "sovereign individuals" the reality is that children are going to rely on other people to help them survive and make critical decisions on their behalf, at least up to some "age of majority" where they are deemed able to make their own decisions and have some realistic chance of survival without significant help. These other people will in many cases be the child's parents, but there are often situations where the parents may be unavailable or incompetent in some way, and other caregivers will take over.

 

The question then, is whether the caregivers are "owed" anything for taking care of the child during his or her formative years, whether the caregivers have some particular responsibility to the child (who, after all, is not generally able to select his or her own caregivers and is somewhat at their mercy at least in the early years), and what sort of contracts the caregivers can enter into on the child's behalf.

 

I would argue that modern society provides a great deal to young children -- in particular they are provided with a right of food and shelter (even if their parents are not able/willing to provide such), with a basic education (even if their parents are not sufficiently educated/interested to provide such), with basic health care including vaccines (even if the parents are poor/not doctors/crazy anti-vaxxers, etc), and with protection from various abuses by unscrupulous or incompetent caregivers... as well as the basic protections all citizens receive. In exchange, the children are obligated to follow the laws of the society when they grow up (including paying taxes, etc) at least until they undertake whatever methods are necessary to switch to a different society.

 

There was basically no way to get "informed consent" from a newborn to such a deal, and keeping this in mind there are presumably ethical limits to such bargains ("you will be a slave for the rest of your life" is NOT an acceptable "obligation"), but the principle of requiring some repayment (once the child becomes an adult) for the resources spent on his or her upbringing seems sound.

 

A child does not choose to be born (at least I think that) and therefore incurs no obligation to its parents or society. However, an argument can be made that society has some kind of claim because of the resources spent in raising the child. A possible resolution might be to present the child, at the age of maturity, a bill for the costs, repayment to be scheduled. The mature child may choose to accept the obligation as part of remaining a member of the society, or refuse the bill and leave the society. Now we have informed and conscious agreement to the social contract.

 

Of course the social contract must be comprehensible in its entirety in order for the agreement by the individual to be effective.

 

I have often thought that the rights, privileges, and obligations of citizenship should be accepted by conscious agreement at the age where such consciousness is present. And revokeable at any time with consequent loss of rights and privileges.

[hrothgar]

Now we have informed and conscious agreement to the social contract.

 

The decision not to withdraw from the social contract is more than sufficient.

 

If folks don't like it here in the US, then can always - say - run off to Mexico...

 

Alternatively, if you are going to live in a country, you are damn well expected to live by its laws, ridiculous claims about your moral right to violate them aside...

[ldrews]

 

Alternatively, if you are going to live in a country, you are damn well expected to live by its laws ridiculous claims about your moral right to violate them aside...

 

That would certainly be true for visitors, green card holders, and naturalized immigrants. They all had a choice to come or not. Not so with people born in the US. So you are merely "enslaving" the future generation in order to placate your sense of unease. But that is to be expected from people in a privileged class.

 

Would you apply the same reasoning to Germany in the 1930's where the prevailing social contract included the Holocaust? After all, Hitler was freely elected and the populace, in general, did not object. They were "damn well" expected to live by its laws, ridiculous claims of moral rights aside.

[hrothgar]

That would certainly be true for visitors, green card holders, and naturalized immigrants. They all had a choice to come or not. Not so with people born in the US. So you are merely "enslaving" the future generation in order to placate your sense of unease. But that is to be expected from people in a privileged class.

 

Would apply the same reasoning to Germany in the 1930's where the prevailing social contract included the Holocaust? After all, Hitler was freely elected and the populace, in general, did not object. They were "damn well" expected to live by its laws.

 

How does the old saying go...

 

“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

 

Congratulations on concluding this experiment so efficiently.

 

(Though honestly, asserting that paying taxes violates your own personal morals was pretty much equally effective at shutting down intelligent conversation)

[cherdano]

1. I think quite a few people who object to ldrews being called "troll" don't understand the term. It's not a meaningless insult, but rather has a fairly precise meaning.

A troll is someone who tries to sabotage discussion by generating outrage. This is done by posting insincere opinions or provocative opinions, not for the purpose of generating more interesting discussion, but in order to generate outrage. I.e., they are trying to get the discussion off track by making posts that pretend to be genuine opinions, but in fact are just made because they hope they would make other posters upset.

 

2. I get the sense that many of the moderators haven't read as many ldrews posts as, e.g., Zel. If Zel's seemingly infinite patience (see e.g. the climate change thread) finally runs out with someone and he starts calling them an f*cking a*hole trollish piece of s*t, then maybe it is worth consider the possibility that this someone has proved again and again that their role in this forum is to choose to be a f*cking a*hole trollish piece of s*t. This may or may not have anything to do with their real life personality; for all we know they may have chosen a more productive role even in online forum under other circumstances (say, a forum with actual moderation). But it should be a strong suggestion about their BBF personality.

 

If you don't think it is accurate to call ldrews a "troll", maybe you should revisit the post where he suggested that NFL players who choose to kneel peacefully during the national anthem at NFL games should be called "terrorists". Maybe, like nige1, you really think that there is value to be gained by discussing the subtle differences between a group of people conspiring to kill large numbers of civilians in order to terrorise an entire population, and a group choosing to kneel down during the national anthem. Maybe ldrews thinks that. Maybe ldrews really thinks they should both be labelled "terrorists". Personally, I don't think ldrews is that idiotic, and he only posted it because he thought it might beget upset responses from BBF posters sympathetic to the BLM cause.

 

There is a reason trolls get banned in well-moderated forums - their existence makes the discussion worse. That's not an unfortunate side effect of their contributions - it is their goal.

 

Of course, banning trolls is a hassle for moderators (they might try to come back etc.), and hence there are good selfish reasons for BBF moderators not to ban trolls. But I would be a little more sympathetic if they were able to admit that the only reason not to ban trolls is the hassle involved - BBF itself would undoubtedly be better off if trolls were to get banned.

[awm]

I believe that every individual is sovereign. By that I mean that every individual has a right to attempt to survive, that every individual owns their own body, that every individual owns the products of their own labor, mental or physical, and nobody else has a legitimate claim against those things. By the same token, an individual has no legitimate claim against those same things owned by other individuals.

 

Emphasis mine... note that this statement directly makes a case for the pro-choice position on abortion. A woman owns her own body and nobody else (including a fetus) has a legitimate claim against that. The fetus might have a right to attempt to survive (outside the womb) but except very late in a pregnancy this is just impossible.

 

Note that one of the big "wins" for Trump was appointing Neil Gorsuch, and that many voters supported Trump specifically because they were worried about the abortion issue if another liberal Justice were appointed. it is interesting to see such a statement from you.

[ldrews]

How does the old saying go...

 

 

 

Congratulations on concluding this experiment so efficiently.

 

(Though honestly, asserting that paying taxes violates your own personal morals was pretty much equally effective at shutting down intelligent conversation)

 

You evaded the question again. Would you use the same reasoning?

 

and so, you are saying that using force (robbery) or the threat of force (extortion) to extract money from unwilling citizens is well within your moral code? That is good to know about you.

[ldrews]

Emphasis mine... note that this statement directly makes a case for the pro-choice position on abortion. A woman owns her own body and nobody else (including a fetus) has a legitimate claim against that. The fetus might have a right to attempt to survive (outside the womb) but except very late in a pregnancy this is just impossible.

 

Note that one of the big "wins" for Trump was appointing Neil Gorsuch, and that many voters supported Trump specifically because they were worried about the abortion issue if another liberal Justice were appointed. it is interesting to see such a statement from you.

 

You raise a very contentious issue, even among libertarians. I don't personally have any axe to grind on the issue but pro-choice does follow from the concept that a woman owns her body. But you will find plenty of libertarians on the other side of the issue as well.

[ldrews]

1. I think quite a few people who object to ldrews being called "troll" don't understand the term. It's not a meaningless insult, but rather has a fairly precise meaning.

A troll is someone who tries to sabotage discussion by generating outrage. This is done by posting insincere opinions or provocative opinions, not for the purpose of generating more interesting discussion, but in order to generate outrage. I.e., they are trying to get the discussion off track by making posts that pretend to be genuine opinions, but in fact are just made because they hope they would make other posters upset.

 

2. I get the sense that many of the moderators haven't read as many ldrews posts as, e.g., Zel. If Zel's seemingly infinite patience (see e.g. the climate change thread) finally runs out with someone and he starts calling them an f*cking a*hole trollish piece of s*t, then maybe it is worth consider the possibility that this someone has proved again and again that their role in this forum is to choose to be a f*cking a*hole trollish piece of s*t. This may or may not have anything to do with their real life personality; for all we know they may have chosen a more productive role even in online forum under other circumstances (say, a forum with actual moderation). But it should be a strong suggestion about their BBF personality.

 

If you don't think it is accurate to call ldrews a "troll", maybe you should revisit the post where he suggested that NFL players who choose to kneel peacefully during the national anthem at NFL games should be called "terrorists". Maybe, like nige1, you really think that there is value to be gained by discussing the subtle differences between a group of people conspiring to kill large numbers of civilians in order to terrorise an entire population, and a group choosing to kneel down during the national anthem. Maybe ldrews thinks that. Maybe ldrews really thinks they should both be labelled "terrorists". Personally, I don't think ldrews is that idiotic, and he only posted it because he thought it might beget upset responses from BBF posters sympathetic to the BLM cause.

 

There is a reason trolls get banned in well-moderated forums - their existence makes the discussion worse. That's not an unfortunate side effect of their contributions - it is their goal.

 

Of course, banning trolls is a hassle for moderators (they might try to come back etc.), and hence there are good selfish reasons for BBF moderators not to ban trolls. But I would be a little more sympathetic if they were able to admit that the only reason not to ban trolls is the hassle involved - BBF itself would undoubtedly be better off if trolls were to get banned.

 

I would think that if you consider me a troll and that my posts have no value, that you would simply ignore me. I do try to ask provocative questions to further meaningful discussion. Otherwise what seems to occur is endless repetition of echo chamber opinions.

 

So please, put me on ignore.

[Winstonm]

If you cut through the horse dung of libertarian ideology, you find at its heart the juvenile arrogance of self-importance.

[ldrews]

 

Alternatively, if you are going to live in a country, you are damn well expected to live by its laws, ridiculous claims about your moral right to violate them aside...

 

In the US the prevailing social contract is that a woman may have an early term abortion. This is established law and has been so for many years. So why are there still protesters around abortion clinics? Aren't you saying that those protesters should stop protesting or leave the US? After all, they are expected to abide by the social contract regardless of their "ridiculous" claims of morality.

[hrothgar]

You are saying that using force (robbery) or the threat of force (extortion) to extract money from unwilling citizens is well within your moral code? That is good to know about you.

 

I believed that I addressed this earlier when I noted that this had all been settled at the time Whiskey Rebellion....

 

But, to be more explicit.

 

Yes. I like the fact that the government enforces the laws.

Moreover, I don't have a problem if force needs to be used to ensure compliance.

 

Note: I don't think that force should be the government's first option, nor do I believe that any use of force by the government is appropriate.

Indeed, I have a lot more sympathy for BLM than I do for the police.

 

However, since you have gone and created a strawman...

 

If confronted with a hypothetical sovereign citizen who refuses to pay their taxes, I think that the government is justified in seizing said individual's property and locking them up.

If said individual attempts to use force to resist, I have no issue with the government responding in kind.

 

I don't get particularly worked up over Ruby Ridge or Waco.

I would not have been at all sorry if the Bundy standoff ended up with a bunch of dead "sovereign citizens".

[hrothgar]

In the US the prevailing social contract is that a woman may have an early term abortion. This is established law and has been so for many years. So why are there still protesters around abortion clinics? Aren't you saying that those protesters should stop protesting or leave the US? After all, they are expected to abide by the social contract regardless of their "ridiculous" claims of morality.

 

Drews, if you want to have a "discussion" stop attributing random straw man opinions to me.

 

1. Laws can be modified and the social contract can change with the times.

2. I see nothing wrong with non intrusive protests around abortion clinics.

 

I have never made claims to the contrary

 

I am trying to be civil here, but you are really starting to test my patience.

[ldrews]

I believed that I addressed this earlier when I noted that this had all been settled at the time Whiskey Rebellion....

 

But, to be more explicit.

 

Yes. I like the fact that the government enforces the laws.

Moreover, I don't have a problem if force needs to be used to ensure compliance.

 

Note: I don't think that force should be the government's first option, nor do I believe that any use of force by the government is appropriate.

Indeed, I have a lot more sympathy for BLM than I do for the police.

 

However, since you have gone and created a strawman...

 

If confronted with a hypothetical sovereign citizen who refuses to pay their taxes, I think that the government is justified in seizing said individual's property and locking them up.

If said individual attempts to use force to resist, I have no issue with the government responding in kind.

 

I don't get particularly worked up over Ruby Ridge or Waco.

I would not have been at all sorry if the Bundy standoff ended up with a bunch of dead "sovereign citizens".

 

And herein lies our irreconcilable differences. You are a true statist. I am a libertarian. All of our disagreements come from this difference. Whether it Clinton, Trump, Repubicans, Democrats, we just simply see things through different colored lenses.

 

We are inherently political enemies. We will meet on the political battlefield. I will continue to confront you, challenge you, discredit you as best I can. Have a good day and Happy New Year!

[hrothgar]

And herein lies our irreconcilable differences. You are a true statist. I am a libertarian. All of our disagreements come from this difference. Whether it Clinton, Trump, Repubicans, Democrats, we just simply see things through different colored lenses.

 

We are inherently political enemies. We will meet on the political battlefield. I will continue to confront you, challenge you, discredit you as best I can. Have a good day and Happy New Year!

 

If you had half a brain or could formulate a semi coherent argument, I might actually care.

 

Regardless, Eat ***** and die.

[ldrews]

If you had half a brain or could formulate a semi coherent argument, I might actually care.

 

 

I seriously doubt it.

[hrothgar]

I seriously doubt it.

 

You might fancy yourself as smart, but you were unable to carry on a "discussion" for more than three posts without resorting to claims about subjective morality, Hitler comparisons, and inventing strawmen to argue against.

 

I readily admit that I find your presence annoying, but don't confuse this with respect.

 

Rather, you're the newsgroup equivalent of an ingrown toenail or an anal fissure.

 

Annoying, unpleasant, hard to get rid of, but ultimately inconsequential.

[nige1]

I am trying to be civil here.

Hrothgar's New Year Resolution? :)

[y66]

From The inside story of Doug Jones’s win in Alabama -- A top Doug Jones staffer explains the Alabama win. By Ezra Klein at Vox:

 

“The day before the Washington Post story came out, we were behind by one point, 46 to 45,” says Joe Trippi. “And the day before the election, we were ahead in our own survey by 2 points. We ended up winning by 1.8.”

 

This, Trippi says, was the reality of the Alabama Senate election. It was a dead heat when it started. It was a dead heat the day it ended. And a lot of what the media thinks they know about what happened in between is wrong.

 

Trippi, who managed Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign, was the chief media strategist on the Doug Jones campaign. And in this conversation, he tells the inside story of that effort. The sexual abuse allegations against Roy Moore, for instance, played a more complex role than many realize — the Jones campaign found that they often re-tribalized a race they were trying desperately to de-tribalize, and would occasionally boost Roy Moore’s numbers.

 

Trippi says the central insight of the Jones campaign was that many voters, including many Trump-friendly Republicans, are already exhausted by the chaos and hostility of Trump’s Washington, and they're open to alternatives. That was the opportunity Jones exploited, and it’s a lesson Trippi thinks is a model other Democrats could learn from in 2018.

[blackshoe]

Started reading the last three or four pages of this, then wondered why I should bother. What a waste of bandwidth. :(