Things you want the government to subsidize or stop subsidizing

[Antares JS]

Which is precisely what we deserve.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

-H. L. Mencken

 

[afadeev]

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

-H. L. Mencken

Technically, that above is an abbreviation of the actual (longer) quote:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

 

[jqavins]

I'm skeptical of this idea. Pornography with 18+ performers is legal, but its legality hasn't stopped child pornography from proliferating.

Sadly, I don't believe that legalization would completely get rid of all the bad things that are parts of prostitution. I do, however, believe it could vastly reduce them. I'm convinced that if all porn were illegal, a much larger fraction of it, and a larger overall quantity of it, would involve children and adult women under coercion. And I'm convinced that the same could be true of prostitution. And I'm completely certain that keeping it illegal is not helping anything except the profits of criminal pimps.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

And, according to numerous Supreme Court rulings, it can't impose religion in general either. Thus, any law that's based only on a religious notion of what's moral or evil is unconstitutional.

Correct. But like a lot of Supreme Court precedent, that one seems under constant attack these days. Look at the Alabama IVF ruling this week.

According to a concurring opinion of a justice on the Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama state constitution “encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.”

He wrote that Alabama law, “recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life — that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

He said the state constitution adopts a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life.”

I give him an A+ for honesty. Most lawmakers and justices won’t come right out and say they are blatantly basing their laws and judicial decisions on their personal religion, but this guy did.

All of that is in conflict with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, but what do you think the likelihood is it will be struck down by the current U.S. Supreme Court?

There’s a toxic topic to chew on! I’m outta here!

 

[jqavins]

Correct. But like a lot of Supreme Court precedent, that one seems under constant attack these days. Look at the Alabama IVF ruling this week.

According to a concurring opinion of a justice on the Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama state constitution “encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.”

He wrote that Alabama law, “recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life — that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

He said the state constitution adopts a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life."

That's terrifying and disgusting. Not the attitude, but that that attitude can make its way into a state supreme court opinion.

I give him an A+ for honesty. Most lawmakers and justices won’t come right out and say they are blatantly basing their laws and judicial decisions on their personal religion, but this guy did.

Well, alright, I guess I'll have to give him that one.

 

[Antares JS]

(2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate

Whether you're religious or not, we should all be able to agree with at least this. Then it just becomes a matter of deciding what constitutes a "person."

 

[afadeev]

Goes back to the same thing that General Smedly Butler of World War I said, we should never, ever go beyond 500 miles outside of our borders. What happens outside of that, is none of our business.

Might have been a thing to say around World War I. I'm not certain if that was appropriate even back then.
An utterly clueless thing to say in the 21st century, where US economy, trade, and security are dependent on events transpiring all around the world in the most direct way possible.
There is very little of impact or strategic importance to the US that is happening within 500 miles of our borders these days.

I guess that is another subsidy as well... playing "World Police." I'm cool with stopping that as well.

Are we subsidizing others, or are others subsidizing us?
By supporting US policies and initiatives, and acting as our force and values multiplier around the world !

a

 

[jqavins]

Whether you're religious or not, we should all be able to agree with at least this. Then it just becomes a matter of deciding what constitutes a "person."

Yes and no. But mostly yes. But some no.

In context, the word "therefore" is extremely important.

According to a concurring opinion of a justice on the Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama state constitution “encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.”

"Therefore" relates part two (with which we should all be able to agree) to part one, as if being created in God's image is the fundamental reason that each person has such value, not that human life is fundamentally valuable in and of itself. Which is OK, if one chooses to believe that only God gives life importance. But in this country, in which our constitution guarantees freedom from religion, it is completely unacceptable as the reasoning behind a court ruling. Not "human life has value" is unacceptable, but "human life has value because God made it" is unacceptable.

 

[Antares JS]

Yes and no. But mostly yes. But some no.

In context, the word "therefore" is extremely important.

"Therefore" relates part two (with which we should all be able to agree) to part one, as if being created in God's image is the fundamental reason that each person has such value, not that human life is fundamentally valuable in and of itself. Which is OK, if one chooses to believe that only God gives life importance. But in this country, in which our constitution guarantees freedom from religion, it is completely unacceptable as the reasoning behind a court ruling. Not "human life has value" is unacceptable, but "human life has value because God made it" is unacceptable.

In light of this response, I would be genuinely interested in your opinion on where the value of a human being comes from, and what your thoughts are on the lines of the Declaration of Independence regarding "being endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."

 

[jqavins]

Goes back to the same thing that General Smedly Butler of World War I said, we should never, ever go beyond 500 miles outside of our borders. What happens outside of that, is none of our business.

Here's an admittedly dubious analogy. The contiguous 48 states, which (along with DC) were the whole of the US at that time, is approximately 1.9 billion acres. If your house is on a 10 acre lot, that's 0.00000053% of the country. So, scale down that 500 miles accordingly, and nothing more than 0.027 miles (139 feet) from your property line is any of your business.

OK, kind of ridiculous. But there's a point. Wouldn't you call the fire department if your neighbor's house were on fire? If there were no fire department coming, because maybe you live out in the boonies in an unserved area; would you help your neighbor put the fire out? If your friend lives on a street, a whole town aver, that is besieged by gangs, would you help them defend their home?

On the scale of the world, the United States has friends and neighbors in other countries. Isolationism in light of the fact that we are able to help our friends and neighbors is not only against our direct economic and security interests, it's also despicable.

Do we interfere more than we should in various conflicts, or start such conflicts where we have no business? Certainly, we have and we do. Is that a reason to ignore the rest of the world's problems and look only within our own borders? HELL NO.

 

[jqavins]

In light of this response, I would be genuinely interested in your opinion on where the value of a human being comes from, and what your thoughts are on the lines of the Declaration of Independence regarding "being endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."

The value of human life comes from the fact that we're all human, and we're all in this together. My life has value to me and to those who love me. Your life has value for the same reasons. Since we're all equal, and (again) all in this together, we must each recognize that the other's lives have value, even if we are strangers.

The Declaration of Independence is rhetorical, a document meant to impress other nations of the world while we were already at war. It is not a legal document, and has no bearing whatever on constitutional or legal discussions.

 

[Orestes Mayo]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

It’s both. The government can’t impose a religion on you — freedom FROM an official religion. And the government can’t prohibit you from exercising your own religion — freedom OF religion.

Almost all of the controversy regarding religion and government or the laws has to do with how these two things can be in conflict.

Yes indeed. Add to the mix those that feel a "calling" to spread their religion whether you want to hear it or not.

 

[Orestes Mayo]

Here's an admittedly dubious analogy. The contiguous 48 states, which (along with DC) were the whole of the US at that time, is approximately 1.9 billion acres. If your house is on a 10 acre lot, that's 0.00000053% of the country. So, scale down that 500 miles accordingly, and nothing more than 0.027 miles (139 feet) from your property line is any of your business.

OK, kind of ridiculous. But there's a point. Wouldn't you call the fire department if your neighbor's house were on fire? If there were no fire department coming, because maybe you live out in the boonies in an unserved area; would you help your neighbor put the fire out? If your friend lives on a street, a whole town aver, that is besieged by gangs, would you help them defend their home?

On the scale of the world, the United States has friends and neighbors in other countries. Isolationism in light of the fact that we are able to help our friends and neighbors is not only against our direct economic and security interests, it's also despicable.

Do we interfere more than we should in various conflicts, or start such conflicts where we have no business? Certainly, we have and we do. Is that a reason to ignore the rest of the world's problems and look only within our own borders? HELL NO.

Im with you.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Whether you're religious or not, we should all be able to agree with at least this. Then it just becomes a matter of deciding what constitutes a "person."

This isn’t exactly how I would put it, but if the point is that taking a human life is wrong, then of course I agree. And I agree that the matter of what constitutes a human life becomes very important.

I think probably everyone agrees, regardless of religion, that a living, breathing, thinking, self-aware person existing independently in the world is absolutely a human being with a human life. Beyond that, not everyone agrees, and most of the definitions are based on religious concepts, like a soul.

For example, some religions might say that God creates a soul or a human life at conception. Other religions say that life begins when a baby first draws breath. You can see how those two definitions can be in conflict, especially if there’s a medical necessity to choose between two lives to save one. If the law chooses one definition over another, based on a religious definition, then doesn’t that mean the government is imposing a religious dogma on people who don’t share that belief?

In the case of the Alabama IVF case, the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that the unimplanted frozen embryos produced during in vitro fertilization fertility treatments are human beings, protected by Alabama law, based on the Justices’ understanding of the Christian Bible.

I guess Alabama gets the government Alabama deserves, but I’m going to hope I don’t get the government Alabama deserves!

 

[Hobie1dog]

Time to add this one to the ignore list

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Time to add this one to the ignore list

Didn’t you say that 20 posts ago?

Here it is:

Past time to hit the ignore button....again

 

[Orestes Mayo]

This isn’t exactly how I would put it, but if the point is that taking a human life is wrong, then of course I agree. And I agree that the matter of what constitutes a human life becomes very important.

I think probably everyone agrees, regardless of religion, that a living, breathing, thinking, self-aware person existing independently in the world is absolutely a human being with a human life. Beyond that, not everyone agrees, and most of the definitions are based on religious concepts, like a soul.

For example, some religions might say that God creates a soul or a human life at conception. Other religions say that life begins when a baby first draws breath. You can see how those two definitions can be in conflict, especially if there’s a medical necessity to choose between two lives to save one. If the law chooses one definition over another, based on a religious definition, then doesn’t that mean the government is imposing a religious dogma on people who don’t share that belief?

In the case of the Alabama IVF case, the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that the unimplanted frozen embryos produced during in vitro fertilization fertility treatments are human beings, protected by Alabama law, based on the Justices’ understanding of the Christian Bible.

I guess Alabama gets the government Alabama deserves, but I’m going to hope I don’t get the government Alabama deserves!

Well said.

 

[Wrightme43]

Yep.
Because anarchy is vastly inferior to the government we have, even if some find it trendy to complain about its deficiencies.
BTW, the government we have is precisely the government we deserve.

View attachment 631883

It is odd, how the reponse to the removal of a wicked government is presented as anarchy. It seems it has been presented as the answer for so long that it has become a ingrained response.

Do you believe absent a force able to take all of your property, and lock you in a cage, take your children, and money, that you would behave differently?

Do you believe I need to be forced to things against my will with those same threats?

Do you believe most of this country is wicked and would do evil if not forced to behave?

Do you believe that I and my neighbors are not capable of transactional business with each other without force and extraction by "government"?


Not knocking you brother, at all!

I promise. I am asking you to think on these things.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

It is odd, how the reponse to the removal of a wicked government is presented as anarchy. It seems it has been presented as the answer for so long that it has become a ingrained response.

Do you believe absent a force able to take all of your property, and lock you in a cage, take your children, and money, that you would behave differently?

Do you believe I need to be forced to things against my will with those same threats?

Do you believe most of this country is wicked and would do evil if not forced to behave?

Do you believe that I and my neighbors are not capable of transactional business with each other without force and extraction by "government"?


Not knocking you brother, at all!

I promise. I am asking you to think on these things.

I think we need government.

 

[John Kemker]

It is odd, how the reponse to the removal of a wicked government is presented as anarchy. It seems it has been presented as the answer for so long that it has become a ingrained response.

Do you believe absent a force able to take all of your property, and lock you in a cage, take your children, and money, that you would behave differently?

Do you believe I need to be forced to things against my will with those same threats?

Do you believe most of this country is wicked and would do evil if not forced to behave?

Do you believe that I and my neighbors are not capable of transactional business with each other without force and extraction by "government"?


Not knocking you brother, at all!

I promise. I am asking you to think on these things.

No, I do not believe that I will behave differently. I believe that others will behave differently. Not everyone else, but enough others that it would be a problem. Also, government handles things like infrastructure that would otherwise not be paid for. Don't tell me "but, people will pay for infrastructure through private enterprise." Nope. Won't happen, despite our best wishes. What infrastructure is built through private enterprise will not be uniform, nor necessarily up to the current quality:cost ratio that we're currently getting. Some may be better, but other may be worse. We'd definitely NOT have universal telephone service to rural areas without government. Nor would we have serviceable roads to as many backwoods areas as we now do.

That said, we definitely have MORE government than we need.

 

[jqavins]

It is odd, how the reponse to the removal of a wicked government is presented as anarchy. It seems it has been presented as the answer for so long that it has become a ingrained response

When the proposal is to eliminate the government, with no proposal to replace it, then there would be no government. That's anarchy; that's what the word means.

Do you believe absent a force able to take all of your property, and lock you in a cage, take your children, and money, that you would behave differently?

Yes. I don't think I behave any worse. I don't think most people would behave any worse. I do think some would behave a lot worse.

Do you believe I need to be forced to things against my will with those same threats?

I don't know you, but probably not.

Do you believe most of this country is wicked and would do evil if not forced to behave?

Most of it, no. But some of it.

Do you believe that I and my neighbors are not capable of transactional business with each other without force and extraction by "government"?

Not exactly. I do believe that you and I and our neighbors will fail to do business without frequent conflict unless there are clear, specific, and enforceable rules of business, despite our best intentions. And that means there needs to be a way of creating, adjusting, and enforcing those rules.

I also believe that we need things like roads, emergency responders, (sadly) a military, and other things that people can't provide for themselves, but must be provided collectively, and that someone has to be in charge of.

 

[Wrightme43]

I respect your opinions, but I do disagree, the idea that some ideas are so good they must be enforced at gun point strikes me as arrogant and wrong.

You would have to agree that governments have been absolutely the world champions of industrial scale slaughter, and destruction. Even in the wars considered "just" in modern history, the civilian death toll has consistently been greater than the uniformed combatants. The infrastructure destruction is done intentionally in the name of people who often vehemently disagree with action of those in power.

 

[rocket_troy]

We've seen what happens in the absence of government - the regions are run by warlords and they don't exactly have a pristine reputation for community interest.
We've seen what happens when law enforcement is even temporarily compromised in cases of natural disasters: looting, violence, destruction and worse in some cases. That all happens pretty damn quickly, even with the sniff of a breakdown of order.

TP

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I respect your opinions, but I do disagree, the idea that some ideas are so good they must be enforced at gun point strikes me as arrogant and wrong.

You would have to agree that governments have been absolutely the world champions of industrial scale slaughter, and destruction. Even in the wars considered "just" in modern history, the civilian death toll has consistently been greater than the uniformed combatants. The infrastructure destruction is done intentionally in the name of people who often vehemently disagree with action of those in power.

What is it that you feel like you should be able to do that government is preventing you from doing at the point of a gun?

 

[jqavins]

You would have to agree that governments have been absolutely the world champions of industrial scale slaughter, and destruction. Even in the wars considered "just" in modern history, the civilian death toll has consistently been greater than the uniformed combatants. The infrastructure destruction is done intentionally in the name of people who often vehemently disagree with action of those in power.

I do agree; I grant you all of that. And I continue in my belief that the alternative, life without any government, is worse. The particular ills you've mentioned above are all about war. I think we can all agree that war is bad, but government is far more than that.

We've seen what happens in the absence of government - the regions are run by warlords and they don't exactly have a pristine reputation for community interest.

For example, Afghanistan after the Soviets left, before the Taliban came to power, and the condition that allowed them to come to power. For example, the aftermath of the breakup of Yugoslavia.

And this raises another point. Government, whether you believe it's a good thing or not, is inevitable. Someone inevitably starts to give orders and push others around. Governments will pop up like weeds if something is not cultivated instead, so we'd better cultivate the best government we can.

And with that, I think we'll have to agree to disagree

 

[Antares JS]

And this raises another point. Government, whether you believe it's a good thing or not, is inevitable. Someone inevitably starts to give orders and push others around. Governments will pop up like weeds if something is not cultivated instead, so we'd better cultivate the best government we can.

Exactly this.

True, perfect egalitarianism will never happen; hierarchies are inevitable. The best we can do is try to set up a government that puts halfway decent people in the high positions in the hierarchy.

 

[Orestes Mayo]

I think we need government.

of course we do.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

of course we do.

Seems obvious, right?

 

[Dotini]

Feudalism was an interesting stage in the evolution of European government. It echoes still. My little fishing cabin is just over the Toandos from Bill Gates' massive complex.

I'd like the government to stop subsidizing billionaires, and try to pay our debts and balance the budget.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Exactly this.

True, perfect egalitarianism will never happen; hierarchies are inevitable. The best we can do is try to set up a government that puts halfway decent people in the high positions in the hierarchy.

And a mechanism for throwing people out of power in an orderly, non-violent way, like through elections.