Politics - Jason X

[Eumaios]

Yeah, I've read about the redistricting decision also.  I think the argument isn't really about racism.  If you're a Republican and a certain segment of the population voted a certain way, you'd likewise try to mitigate that deficit.  It only matters that Latinos are the primary population subject to the gerrymandering because they're easily distinguishable as an ethnic group.  Trust me, if those Latinos voted en masse for Republicans, it would be the Democrats trying to find some way to diminish their electoral impact.  It makes for great politics for some Democrats to call Republicans crazy, but I think that tactic has started to become an albatross for the Democrats in most statewide (and certainly presidential) elections.

 

I personally detest gerrymandering, but I don't see how we can get away from it.  It makes a mess of things, but both parties have done it and will continue to do so.  Granted, I would probably be less sanguine about it if it were republicans who were screwed.  Double Granted, I live in California, and I'm still pretty sanguine.

[redneckdevil]

Gerrymandering needs to go

[ShadySands]

I personally detest gerrymandering, but I don't see how we can get away from it.  It makes a mess of things, but both parties have done it and will continue to do so.  Granted, I would probably be less sanguine about it if it were republicans who were screwed.  Double Granted, I live in California, and I'm still pretty sanguine.

 

Just take it out of partisan hands. Some places already do this with non partisan commissions and computer modelling.

 

Edit - Pretty sure Cali already does something similar to this

 

Edit2 - You're right about people wanting to be the exploiters of the system vice stopping the exploitation though

Edited September 13, 2017 by ShadySands

[Eumaios]

We *did* vote for this in California, but I'm not sure it's really the answer.  Someone will always win and making a commission just so someone else can pack it full of clandestine partisans seems iffy too.  I mean, at least when the Republicans or Democrats screw you over with redistricting, you know who did it.  On the other hand, while I'm not as confident about commissions and the court, I don't mind the idea of using computer models.  That's open to abuse, but I'm not sure it would be as bad.  People have been trying to use the courts, commissions, and all manner of other methods to rein in Gerrymandering for years.

 

...But, I don't want to be the guy who whispers that there's nothing you can do so do nothing at all.  Satan has used no more powerful argument than that.  Even if it is in vain, we should still try to create better policy.  Like redneckdevil said, it's gotta go.

[Guard Dog]

[injurai]

Is that supposed to mean isolationism? Because America would die.

[Guard Dog]

Is that supposed to mean isolationism? Because America would die.

 

Non-interventionism and isolationism are not the same thing. 

[injurai]

Non-interventionism is irresponsible to maintain as an ultimate policy.

[smjjames]

Well, the debate is how much non-intervention should be done. Also, I notice how North America, Central America, and the Carribean are left out on the libertarian one, heh.

 

The thing though is that back in the days (19th century mostly) when you'd mostly be fine with ignoring most things on the other side of the ocean and it'd be no problem, things were a heck of a LOT less globally interconneced as we are now, so, it's literally impossible to not be completely non-interventionist.

 

Not to mention that we're freaking the biggest and strongest military (okay, China has us beat in sheer manpower, but manpower isn't everything) and practically one of the primary engines of the world. I get being less interventionist military wise, which I'd agree with.

 

Also, here's something I read on why Democrats have such problems with foriegn policy ideas and how come Republican policy has dominated for so long. https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/5/16220054/democrats-foreign-policy-think-tanks

Edited September 14, 2017 by smjjames

[injurai]

Libertarians love their bananas.

[Eumaios]

I take it that you're a libertarian, Guard Dog.  Most of the libertarians I know are disgruntled Republicans who grew tired of various aspects of the Republican party.

 

I sympathize with the libertarian ideals, but I've come to view them in the same way I view communism.  Sure, one worships equality while the other venerates freedom, but neither are workable.  If men were perfect, we wouldn't need communism or liberarianism.  Communism and libertarianism rely on the perfection of men.  It's kind of backwards, though.  Communism relies on men forgoing the primary benefit of their own efforts in order to maintain a balanced society.  Libertarianism relies on lesser men not being jealous of their more able (or affluent or simply luckier) neighbors.  As individuals, some men might be able to put aside their baser instincts for the purpose of creating a perfect society, but humanity as a whole cannot rely on people acting contrary to human nature.  Society can tame human nature in the bulk for a time, but it's like keeping a tiger in a cage.  The tiger might appear docile in its cage, but it always look out at you and sees dinner.

 

I think I read that on the bathroom stall at the local tavern.  'Course the same stall suggested nuking 'em all until they glow.  How's that for non-intervention?

[smjjames]

He's not 'L as in Looney' Libertarian though I don't think.

[Orogun01]

Is that supposed to mean isolationism? Because America would die.

What makes you think that America would die?

[injurai]

The economics of it.

[smjjames]

Libertarians are fine with trade I believe, they just want to emulate the pre-WWI (and WWII) 'let Europe have their squabbles, we're not getting involved' kind of non-interventionism/isolationism. But even THEN, we still did the imperialistic streak that never left us.

 

Not sure how far L(and l)ibertarians would want to take the diplomatic drawdown that Trump is doing though....

Edited September 14, 2017 by smjjames

[Eumaios]

I won't put words in injurai's mouth, but from my own perspective it's just as important for the United States to maintain the lines of communication as to protect any other vital national interest.  It's harder to do that if you're isolationist, but I'm not sure all libertarians are that extreme.  In light of that idea, I should extend to Guard Dog the same courtesy of letting him speak for himself.

[Orogun01]

The economics of it.

I don't claim to have an extensive knowledge of economics, but after reading up on the subject from an alternative point of view I can safely opine that the notion is ridiculous. Specially when these interventions serve the interests of the global banking elite and not the one's of nations. America benefits naught from interventionism and loses a lot.

[Fiach]

I don't think it hurts to keep in mind the ulterior motives. The video serves as a springboard for debate which Ben Number 3 carries out here. However, In many ways, his position reminds me of the scene from Life of Brian. What have the British ever done for us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo

I personally believe that the British empire was on the balance a force for good in the world and I've been hoping the population has started to have some pride in itself again. A little bounce in it's step and a move away from the hang-dog mope a dope attitude that it developed over the past couple of decades. "Self-love, my liege, is not so vile a sin, as self-neglecting."

 

​I hope no one points out the French connection of that quote.

I'm pretty sure the people of Ireland, The Raj etc. Would be inclined to disagree, British achievements were gained on the backs of slavery, genocide and economic rape .

[Eumaios]

To you, Fiach:

 

The world is as it is.  Some people want to strip the British empire of any good by diminishing every accomplishment and magnifying every sin.  To be clear, there were sins aplenty in the British empire.  What empire has ever existed with an unblemished record?  An even better question is, what nation existed with an unblemished record?  There's plenty to commend the British, but I won't blindly praise them.  It nevertheless strikes me that some people will blindly scorn them.

 

Look, this will probably be a useless post to make, regardless of the fact that I believe it to be true.  Nonetheless, I will make it.  Then I will stop posting regarding the British empire.

 

We live in a world where the powerful have held sway, but at some point our collective conscience began to demand more than ever could have been expected previously and that conscience worked retroactively.  Not that the ancients were bereft of conscience or that there weren't detractors in the Roman (or any other) empire.  I likely have more insight about ancient attitudes than many of the people here, but that's beside the point.  During that time, even as people became more conscientious than their predecessors, when some people saw the injustice of the strong having power over the weak, there was a certain inertia that prevented real change.  The eventual change we see in the world today.  The idea that everyone should have a say in his or her own affairs and that there was worth in aboriginal peoples who may have been overcome, overpowered, or even enslaved by their neighbors didn't appear whole cloth by enlightened people in the twentieth and twenty-first century.  It was a gradual occurrence brought on by people of good will.  Sadly, this well meaning ideal transcended from something wholesome and good into a sort of useless navel gazing that has been the basis of more 'enlightened' people patting themselves on the back because they had the leisure to relax and despise the world as it is, usually a kinder gentler world than any of their ancestors would ever have considered possible.  This world , like the attitudes it has fostered, grew over time and those attitudes reflect a certain advancement.  If it's counterfactual to suggest that any other empire of such breadth and width would have been equally brutal in its birth, it is also counterfactual to suggest that any other empire of such breadth and width would not have been equally brutal.  All such history is clever and entertaining, but it is not real.  We have one history.

 

For good or for ill, we live in the world with a set past that has already occurred.  Now, for my part, I don't believe time exists, at least not in the way people express it.  It's a peculiar thought in my head that time is simply a function of change and that our construct of time is simply a way of breaking things into categories.  Perhaps that idea is too clever by half.  Perhaps it's simply dumb.  However, time does serve one purpose, and that is to express one flow of change that cannot occur in any other direction.  The past, as they say, is the past.  There is no history in which the British empire didn't exist.  It happened the way it happened and nothing can change that.  Would we have all the good things we have without the British empire?  We can never know.  Would we have been bereft of some of the things that we enjoy and take for granted?  Likewise.

 

So, repudiate those things that were bad about the British empire.  Sure.  However, there were a lot of people in the fray, and pretty much all of them had the same motivations on a larger or smaller scale.  So, at some point, leave the righteous indignation in the past and think about the future.  ...And if you think the way to a peaceful and more enlightened future is to keep dredging up past sins and accusations, I'll contend you're wrong.  Human beings have been citing centuries old slights for thousands of years as the basis for making the world a worse place.  I'd say our time is better spent looking at the past critically, but not in judgment.

 

Having written all that, I will read any response, each and every word, but I won't reply to this specific subject.  ...Not because I can't see arguments coming to which I could respond, but at some point it becomes necessary to put out what you have to say and let someone get the last word.  Mostly because I lack time, but also out of fair play.  Someone will get the last word.  Since I've used so many now, I might as well give that honor to you.

[Malcador]

Libertarians see a huge chunk of Asia as their business?

[213374U]

Now, for my part, I don't believe time exists, at least not in the way people express it.  It's a peculiar thought in my head that time is simply a function of change and that our construct of time is simply a way of breaking things into categories.  Perhaps that idea is too clever by half.  Perhaps it's simply dumb.

Nope. Certainly not a dumb idea. Sadly not an original one either, however.

 

As for the rest of your post, I think you are simply arguing past one another. Nobody is disputing that history is what it is -- but the argument that events couldn't have occurred much differently is unfalsifiable, so not very useful. The fact that some good may have come out of <empire> does not invalidate the observation that empires, by their very nature, are sociopolitical constructs that are exploitive and predatory. You are no doubt going to find resistance trying to get some people to accept any particular view of what constitutes "good", as well.

[Orogun01]

Ah good example might be China. By all means, they have archived much in terms of wealth and power, but that doesn't make me want to live there. Economic progress is important, but neither a guarantee for societal progress nor a guarantee for well being. One doesn't have to be a developed culture to be a happy one.

What do you use as that measure of happiness? Most of the developed world has run down and industrial areas that rival the worst of China. If it's such a miserable place were people are poor then how come is one of the biggest markets for movie and games, with companies going so far as to censor themselves to appeal to the Chinese standards.

[injurai]

I think suicide rates are an objective measure on the socio-economic immobility and livelihood pressures of the lower and working class. If those rates are seen in white collar jobs, that just is indicative that intellectual workers are not operating out of lower and lower socio-economic levels. But often high suicide rates seem to be correlated with either rural isolation, or a highly well off strata that has bootstrapped itself off the lower rungs of society. I'd tend to expect high suicide rates in areas that also rate high in happiness, given we're not talking about a place like Nepal.

[Eumaios]

 

Libertarians see a huge chunk of Asia as their business?

Seems more like they just didn't bother to put Asia on their map.  <.<

[Gfted1]

List of countries by suicide rate.