How the powerful convince you to hate the oppressed.
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
Perhaps. But I shared an article that attempted to explore why we sometimes view protesters negatively, and you guys responded with negative views of protesters. Instead of arguing against the article's message, you acted it out.
Is it oppressed or disadvantaged?
I agreed with much of the essay Goat linked, but found the term "oppressed" not to be one I would have used.
To make my point, I would like to relate my many small claims court appearances as someone suing a person from a position in which I had the advantage. I wasn't the only entity which I observed with an advantage. Others with an advantage included car dealers, government agencies, landlords, employers, retailers, hospitals, and the list goes on.
We all dealt with people who had a need. Some needed a place to live. A car repair required to earn a living. A sickness to be cured to continue working. The oppression came in getting these people to sign contracts or place themselves in a situation whereupon they put themselves at a disadvantage. The final oppression being having a small claims court judge declare the disadvantage person a loser.
Lots of Americans and others around the globe find themselves at a disadvantage against powerful entities.
I agreed with much of the essay Goat linked, but found the term "oppressed" not to be one I would have used.
To make my point, I would like to relate my many small claims court appearances as someone suing a person from a position in which I had the advantage. I wasn't the only entity which I observed with an advantage. Others with an advantage included car dealers, government agencies, landlords, employers, retailers, hospitals, and the list goes on.
We all dealt with people who had a need. Some needed a place to live. A car repair required to earn a living. A sickness to be cured to continue working. The oppression came in getting these people to sign contracts or place themselves in a situation whereupon they put themselves at a disadvantage. The final oppression being having a small claims court judge declare the disadvantage person a loser.
Lots of Americans and others around the globe find themselves at a disadvantage against powerful entities.
Speaking for myself, my reaction to protestors usually has a lot to do with my thoughts about the merits of the protest. If I'm sympathetic to their cause, I'll probably be sympathetic towards them -- and vice versa.
I imagine I'm not alone. But that pretty much sums it up for me.
I suspect most if not all of us feel the same way. The reason it's important to think about articles like the one I shared, though, is that we aren't always as in command of our own thoughts as we think we are. Even the most logical and objective among us can be "fooled," so to speak, by weak arguments and emotional appeals. Having too much confidence in our own ability to respond to something objectively is a dangerous thing.
I refer you back to an earlier post I made about "underdogma" -- this is precisely what I'm talking about.
I don't think I agree that "power infects everything we do." Or, at least, we probably have very different views about power and what constitutes it. So far as my life goes, I have more power than Wal-Mart does -- because it's my choice whether I choose to shop there (or work there), etc. Contrast that with government. I'd love to be able to opt out of Medicare and Social Security. But I don't possess the power to do that.
Now, I realize that a company like a Wal-Mart has a massive amount of influence over the macroeconomy -- because they've successfully gained millions of loyal customers and the market presence that comes with that. But, when it comes to my personal little microeconomy, they have only as much power as I cede them: I always maintain the right to avoid having anything to do with them.
Anyway, you seem to view the world through a lens of disparate power -- which probably has a lot to do with why you're a liberal. Government can be and should be the great equalizer. I, on the other hand, view government as a usurper of power that would otherwise be left in our own hands -- which, IMO, is where it's better served. And that probably has a lot to do with why I'm not a liberal.
Wouldn't that depend on who I am?
If I was seeking employment at a Fortune 500 firm and the CEO refused to hire people of my ethnic makeup, then his racism means everything to me.
If, on the other hand, I was a white male student of this sociology professor at Boston College who recently made very disparaging public comments about white males, then her racism would mean everything to me.
She claimed she couldn't be racist because she's black. She's not being oversimplistic -- she's simply wrong. Of course a person can be black and racist -- even if one subscribes to the silly notion that prevailing power is a necessary prerequisite. In her classroom, she maintains pretty much total power, doesn't she?
I think you have hit on the main difference between liberals and conservatives. For me, yes, disparate power is a problem. And, yes, government (as the representative acting body of the community) can do something about it. In other words, for me, government is not an ends, but a means.
For you, government itself is the problem. Less government isn't a means. It's an ends.
Now, I'll broaden the brush a little bit, because I'm going to refer not to you specifically, but to some other conservatives on here. But we liberals are often accused of wanting a more powerful government for its own sake. This is utterly ridiculous. A stronger government isn't a value. It's simply a tool to accomplish other values. But I think this mistaken understanding of liberalism comes directly from the view that you've espoused, because for conservatives, a smaller government isn't a tool. It's a value in and of itself.
In an ideal world, I'd prefer to have no government. If all of humanity could simply do what was in the best interests of the community at all times, government would be redundant. The reason I want the EPA to exist and to have genuine teeth isn't because I think there is some inherent value in having the government protect the environment; it's because I know that the people who should be protecting the environment - us - won't do it. Because of human nature, certain things just won't be done properly on an individual level, at least at this point in our development as a species, and so we must do them on a communal level. "Government" is simply the mechanism by which we do that, nothing more.
I understand it. And I understand what you think of it.
Wong has a unified theory of oppression that you bought. His theory about the subtle forces of oppression uses a number of premises that are not acceptable.
In addition to those I already mentioned:
Protests are not always by oppressed people. (G-7 protests all over the world and wherever they meet)
Student protests in Tienamin square are not analogous to any thing that goes on here. There the oppressor is a unified force. Here it isn't. For purposes of this argument, I'll stipulate that there is oppression In the U.S. Wong is still wrong.
If we have oppression it is hugely diversified among business, government and its myriad of authorities, police power, (different from governmental oppression) race, religion, labor, and societal norms. All of these forces and more have been the subject of demonstrations and protests. There can not be any unified theory of oppression because the subjects of the protests are so diverse.
A couple of more points. You really need to get off of that idea that conservatives see limited and less government as a single answer to our problems or even the most important answer. It makes you look like a political simpleton.
Once again, study the differences between the French and American revolutions. It will show how wrong Wong is.
Everything you just wrote only serves to highlight your lack of reading comprehension.
Actually I think you are right
I was trying to hard to read substantial substance into Wong's point. My first impression was correct. This is simply another ho hum hit piece that you anxiously bought into. The case for hate of either protestors or oppressed simply isn't made. That is the sum and substance of it.
You really should study the difference between the French and American revolutions. You will learn that Wron's views about oppression, protests and how protests are used to resolve problems are pretty weak.
I agree with this. I see families where some are very successful and others live like paupers all because of choices they made. Of course there are people who have a lot more influence than I have but that doesn't mean that I'm oppressed. Like you say the people of North Korea, Cuba, etc are oppressed and really don't have much control over their destiny. Your last sentence sums it up pretty well.
Nah
This passage shows Wong totally does not understand his own point. Neither do you.
Now, keep in mind, not even the people repeating this will actually believe it -- America's pop culture and actual history are both full of heroes who broke the law and destroyed shit when the system failed them (you know Batman ain't got no permit to fly that plane). To this day we applaud when oppressed peoples in other countries do it. So when someone says we should ignore a movement because they're a bunch of "thugs" and their bleeding heart friend points out that the same could be said of the Founding Fathers, they'll shift gears immediately. "Are you honestly comparing the protesters in Ferguson with brave imprisoned heroes like Thomas Paine? He campaigned for freedom!"
Once again. You and Wong need to think about the differences between the French and American revolutions, how they apply to today, what changed after each and what didn't, the kind of people who led each, the purpose of the Declaration, and why the signers of the Declaration insisted it be unanimous.
Last edited:
One more thing
Wong would show me he understands more if he'd discuss why Lincoln "oppressed" the confederate "protest". His piece is nothing but garden variety left wingism.
I think there is something to the concept, but it is so general as to not make sense in context. Yes, people use the "hey look over there" in this context, but they do it in many other contexts as well. We use standard politics against the oppressed seems to be the idea. Yep. I have a friend railing against a minister buying a $60 plane. That is similar but with a different target.
When I saw the thread, I thought the article would be different and more tailored. As this thread shows, we have issues in discussing the down and out. One is our heritage. Puritans tied doing well with pleasing God. Our southern friends were not immune. Plantation owners made fun of working whites, the term "cotton picking" was not used to degrade blacks but whites who worked the fields. Obviously, to them, a white had made terrible choices to be reduced to working the fields. Today many Americans buy into a just world fallacy. People are wealthy because they deserve it, people are poor because they deserve it.
The other part is the debate cheapens our own accomplishments. Look, I've made it halfway up the ladder. To suggest I did so with assistance of white privilege makes my trip up the ladder cheapen. I have a vested in opposing the very concept of white privilege.
Lastly, people halfway up the ladder tend to fear being knocked down the ladder. Few people ever fall up the ladder. If something happens to the ladder, I run a serious risk of going down. So the pressure is to preserve the ladder at all costs. Amazingly it was Mussolini who noticed this sort of thing. He was a defender of the aristocracy, he ran suggesting the wealthy and powerful deserved their wealth and power. What amazed him was how he dominated the vote in the middle class. He never tried to win middle class votes, he was just scared to death of the rabble. It turned out, shopkeepers were as terrified of the rabble as he. So there is a natural bonding among people with some power to hold onto the status quo of some power over the possibility of no power.
None of this is to apply to any specific political debate as there are nuances in politics. Rather, generically speaking, people like to believe the world is fair, we like to believe any success we have is due solely on our effort and abilities, and those of us off the ground fear anything that might tip the ladder. All that combined makes it harder for people without power to gain power. Power is seen as a zero sum game. If homeless gain power, it has to come from the homed. If I'm homed, I don't want to lose my power.
When I saw the thread, I thought the article would be different and more tailored. As this thread shows, we have issues in discussing the down and out. One is our heritage. Puritans tied doing well with pleasing God. Our southern friends were not immune. Plantation owners made fun of working whites, the term "cotton picking" was not used to degrade blacks but whites who worked the fields. Obviously, to them, a white had made terrible choices to be reduced to working the fields. Today many Americans buy into a just world fallacy. People are wealthy because they deserve it, people are poor because they deserve it.
The other part is the debate cheapens our own accomplishments. Look, I've made it halfway up the ladder. To suggest I did so with assistance of white privilege makes my trip up the ladder cheapen. I have a vested in opposing the very concept of white privilege.
Lastly, people halfway up the ladder tend to fear being knocked down the ladder. Few people ever fall up the ladder. If something happens to the ladder, I run a serious risk of going down. So the pressure is to preserve the ladder at all costs. Amazingly it was Mussolini who noticed this sort of thing. He was a defender of the aristocracy, he ran suggesting the wealthy and powerful deserved their wealth and power. What amazed him was how he dominated the vote in the middle class. He never tried to win middle class votes, he was just scared to death of the rabble. It turned out, shopkeepers were as terrified of the rabble as he. So there is a natural bonding among people with some power to hold onto the status quo of some power over the possibility of no power.
None of this is to apply to any specific political debate as there are nuances in politics. Rather, generically speaking, people like to believe the world is fair, we like to believe any success we have is due solely on our effort and abilities, and those of us off the ground fear anything that might tip the ladder. All that combined makes it harder for people without power to gain power. Power is seen as a zero sum game. If homeless gain power, it has to come from the homed. If I'm homed, I don't want to lose my power.
There are lots of laws, situations and responsibilities that we would all like to opt out of. We may not have the power to simply opt out, but we do have the power to conduct our lives in spite of these obstacles. We can for example, supplement our Social Security retirement with our own capital and purchase supplemental medical insurance.
The disadvantaged folks reach retirement and rely to a large degree on Social Security and Medicare. Circumstances which bring these people to be so reliant vary greatly. One fact does stand out, all too many Americans end up relying on these programs. Thus the notion that someday all Americans can have the option of opting out just isn't in the cards. So we must face up to this fact and plan accordingly.
Well, that's not really how I'd put it. Rather, I'd put it that we all exercise a great deal of control over our destinies (including, but not limited to, financially).
This is a careful choice of words. For one thing, I recognize that control isn't absolute. There is such a thing as chance. People obviously can't choose the conditions of their birth -- some are born into wealth, some into poverty, and most of us somewhere in between. A guy like LeBron James may have been born into tough circumstances -- son of a 16-year-old single mother, etc. etc. But he was also born with a rare talent. Of course, he also had to work hard to develop that talent -- in addition to simply keeping his nose clean. So, like most everybody else, his success was a mixture of matters of chance and matters of choice. For another, "deserve" is a pretty loaded term. I can't say with a straight face that Floyd Mayweather, Jr. "deserves" the $150 million he made in the recent fight. But I would say that he fairly earned it. And those are two different things.
Where we get to in life is mostly -- not entirely -- determined by the sum total of our actions, choices, etc. This is not a fallacy -- it's the truth. Recognizing this doesn't mean discounting the role of chance and circumstance. It just means that chance and circumstance aren't ultimately determinative. If they were, then it really wouldn't matter what the hell any of us did. Why work hard in school? Why work hard to develop skills? Why eat healthy? Or, why not take drugs? Why not rob a bank? Why not cheat on your spouse? If our choices and actions don't have a determinative bearing on our outcomes, then we're free to make any choice we want without consequence.
I think everybody understands this is nonsense. I suppose the disagreement comes down to degree: just how much of a role do our behaviors play in affecting outcome, as opposed to matters of chance and circumstance?
I like to compare it to the Battle of the Bulge. We all know that some people are genetically predisposed to be overweight. Others seem to be able to eat like pigs and stay rail thin. There's no question that with one's weight, as with life itself, mere chance plays a key role. But that doesn't mean that anybody who wants to lose weight and engages in a pattern of behavior that will promote weight loss can't successfully lose weight. Their genes play a critical role -- but, ultimately, it's the behaviors which primarily determine the outcome.
Last edited:
I was merely making a point about power. I have the power to disassociate myself from Wal-Mart -- or pretty much any other so-called "powerful" private entity. I do not, however, possess the power to opt out of Social Security and Medicare, programs which we're all compelled to participate in for our direct individual benefit (which distinguishes them from collective efforts of the public sector: infrastructure, national defense, etc.
This reality belies the notion of the Progressive vision of government as the great equalizer.
As proven by the growth in the income and wealth gaps over the past several decades, "the Progressive vision of government" since the New Deal has been far from the "great equalizer". A safety net for all too many who find themselves needing it but hardly a great equalizer.
Most conservatives and liberals should agree the gaps don't make for a healthy economy. We all should also agree only our economic system itself can provide for more equity. Those who own or manage most of the nation's wealth have the power to make these changes. I believe they will. After all, it is in their best interest over the very long haul to do so.
Which is why I pointed out plenty of people seem to do drugs and get by with no problem whatsoever. If you are the son/daughter of a movie star/billionaire, or sports star you can make hosts of bad choices and (barring an OD) seemingly get by just fine. Heck, that Bieber kid seemed to make bad decisions by the bucketful and I'm not sure it has hurt him. There are people who are seemingly immune to this. As near as I can tell (and I've spent no time researching) Lindsey Lohan is still free and rich after a host of arrests. And others who are hyper susceptible. One pot arrest which prevents financial aid and really set back a smart but very poor kid.
My guess is Madoff's family is still doing well. Bernie's son Andrew was worth $16 million when he died of lymphoma. Dying younger sucks, but it had nothing to do with working alongside his father in the ponzi scheme that made the money.
And to point at the pre-Clinton family that conservatives hated, plenty of Kennedy's made horrible choices and got by just fine.
Some people get to make dozens, hundreds of mistakes, and life turns out well. Others make the one and it's pretty much over. Being arrested for pot, cocaine, DWI (just to name a few) should have similar consequences. It doesn't, not even close. And now with these private companies, we have modern day debtor's prison. For some, getting a speeding ticket for 75 miles over is a minor inconvenience while others literally end up in jail for going 10 mph over.
Everyone, EVERYONE of us makes bad decisions. I have. But the wealthier you are, the less those bad decisions impact your life (disclaimer, obviously excepting fatal bad decisions). The poorer you are, the more likely the EXACT same bad decision will be a significant roadblock. Suggesting bad choices alone makes the difference seems to ignore the fact that we all make bad choices without close to equal results. Heck, as OJ showed, murder isn't necessarily a trip to prison for everyone (not that his life was great afterward, but it wasn't prison until he committed another crime).
I've never been convinced that "the gap", as a relative measure, is anything to be concerned about. I mean, it makes for good red meat for populist politicians. But, I doubt the well-being of the typical American would suddenly be better if, tomorrow, the cumulative wealth of the Forbes 400 was cut in half -- despite the impacts this would have on "the gap." How much money Warren Buffett & Co. have doesn't have the slightest bearing on what kind of standard of living somebody can expect by earning a plumber's wages.
I do, however, think that we should be concerned about the wherewithal of the lower and middle classes as an absolute measure. And I think much of what we've done in the past century or so is a huge reason why it's languished. As Mitch Daniels eloquently put it a few years ago, "“If government spending prevents pain, why are we suffering so much of it?” But I'm skeptical that we can "solve" these problems with any kind of public policy. The affected people have to be the primary drivers of the solution....leading horses to water, and all that.
But we're getting off point here. The point I made that you responded to was about disparate power. And all I was saying was that we all have the power to tell Wal-Mart (or any other private entity we don't want to do business with) to pound sand. We do not, however, possess that power when it comes to things the government decrees -- because we're compelled to participate in most of them under some Orwellian understanding of a "social contract" that none of us, to my knowledge, ever actually signed.
I think those are good points.
I do think there is something inherently different about the powerful using these tactics against the powerless and the other way around. It's difficult to put into words, but when someone uses the greedy minister as a means to slander all religion, well, what harm are they really doing religion? Not much. Like crazed's Wal-mart, we each have the power to decide what religion gets from us individually, but none of us hold the power to really attack religion's grip on America.
On the other hand, when large media companies and people with political influence focus on an outlier negative to slander all, say, Occupy protesters, or whatever, they can do genuine harm.
In other words, these types of tactics absolutely have more real-world effects when performed by people who already hold power.
If you simply deleted half their wealth, no, that wouldn't help anyone. But if took half their wealth and moved it around, it would help people a great deal.
The Forbes 400 is worth over $1.5 trillion. If you took half of that and divided it by every man, woman, child and baby in America, everyone would get a check for about $2,500. Might not seem like a lot to you, but for many poor families, that's huge money.
Look at it another way:
The top 1% hold about 35% of the wealth. This means they hold 53 times the mean wealth of the bottom 99%. if you took half their wealth and divided it among the rest of the population, the average American would see his personal wealth - again this is every man, woman, child and baby - go up by about 27%. I don't know about you, but a 27% increase to my savings and investments would absolutely have a big effect on my life.
I understand your point, but the gap has become so broad that I don't think it's true. I think the rich in our society have become so rich, that their wealth absolutely does affect the well-being of the rest of us.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Don't we have to judge the validity of the protest? Martin Luther King was a man with whom I would have marched with if I was alive in those days because his cause was a just one. When the Occupy Movement happened a few years ago I truly couldn't tell exactly what they were protesting against. Goat, really what was their message? Today we have people protesting to get a $15 an hr minimum wage. This is so ludicrous that I would call all of them crazy whether they were dressed like those PETA people or not. Even the unions in Los Angeles who want a higher wage don't want it for their people because it would cost jobs. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...UM_WAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/05/27/la-unions-argue-exemption-15hr-minimum-wage-law
So I say again don't we have to judge the merits of a protest instead of just blindly rejecting or accepting them?
Sure. The point is, you probably don't judge them by their merits. Instead, you've been tricked by clever rhetoric to dismiss them.
Ultimately, the point of the article was that it's easy to be tricked into thinking a certain way about something by someone who has a vested interest in your opinion. Recognizing the fact that we are vulnerable to being tricked is an important first step toward preventing it.
The more confident someone is in their own objectivity, the less I am.
I disagree with that. $2500 would make a difference in the very short term but in the long run I don't think it would amount to much of anything.
Yeah, look at all the sports figures that make millions and most of bankrupt within a couple years after getting out of sports. They may have had a hard time growing up (so did I) but they had a ticket out but blew it.
Maybe you don't appreciate how poor many people are. Imagine if a family of four with no savings suddenly had $10K. If the kids are still young, that money could be put away and end up making college affordable down the line. Or maye it pays off some credit card debt that, through interests and fees, would otherwise cost four times as much to actually pay off.
It seems to me that this statement...
and this statement....
are directly contradictory. They can't both be true. And this is a great example of why I've never been convinced that the gap, in and of itself, is a problem in need of fixing. The gap is a relative measure. And, if it's true that deleting half the wealth of "the rich", however defined, wouldn't help anybody else, then wouldn't that back up what I'm saying? After all, that would quite obviously narrow "the gap." Well, if the gap is the problem, then why wouldn't deleting half the wealth of rich people help anybody?
We should be focusing on the absolute measure of how well non-rich people are faring -- which is a different concept than the relative measure of how non-rich people are faring as compared to rich people.
To be sure -- and Lord knows we've tried to improve peoples' lives in this way. The problem is that it just hasn't worked as imagined. What it's done instead is precisely what Ben Franklin said it would do way back in the mid-18th century (I've posted his thoughts here before and I know you've read them, so I won't post them again).
There is no grand public policy scheme that's going to alleviate poverty -- not, anyway, in any meaningful way. We can treat the symptoms of it for a period of time. But if, for instance, everybody got a $2,500 check, how soon do you think it would be before they were once again in need?
I'll make the comparison again to weight loss. It's no secret our society has an obesity problem. But banning large sodas isn't going to reverse it. No public policy will. Instead, people who are struggling with obesity are going to have to take it upon themselves to address their own problem. Any one person doing so might not mitigate society's obesity problem, but they can sure as hell mitigate their own.
and this statement....
are directly contradictory. They can't both be true. And this is a great example of why I've never been convinced that the gap, in and of itself, is a problem in need of fixing. The gap is a relative measure. And, if it's true that deleting half the wealth of "the rich", however defined, wouldn't help anybody else, then wouldn't that back up what I'm saying? After all, that would quite obviously narrow "the gap." Well, if the gap is the problem, then why wouldn't deleting half the wealth of rich people help anybody?
We should be focusing on the absolute measure of how well non-rich people are faring -- which is a different concept than the relative measure of how non-rich people are faring as compared to rich people.
To be sure -- and Lord knows we've tried to improve peoples' lives in this way. The problem is that it just hasn't worked as imagined. What it's done instead is precisely what Ben Franklin said it would do way back in the mid-18th century (I've posted his thoughts here before and I know you've read them, so I won't post them again).
There is no grand public policy scheme that's going to alleviate poverty -- not, anyway, in any meaningful way. We can treat the symptoms of it for a period of time. But if, for instance, everybody got a $2,500 check, how soon do you think it would be before they were once again in need?
I'll make the comparison again to weight loss. It's no secret our society has an obesity problem. But banning large sodas isn't going to reverse it. No public policy will. Instead, people who are struggling with obesity are going to have to take it upon themselves to address their own problem. Any one person doing so might not mitigate society's obesity problem, but they can sure as hell mitigate their own.
I appreciate being poor because I've been there. I know for a fact I wouldn't want to live in a country that takes half of anyone's wealth and gives it everyone like that. I wouldn't want money like that because I have far to much self-respect for that. It's as close to outright theft as it can possibly get (it is theft but the government wouldn't go to jail for it). Just the idea of that ever happening in our country actually disgusts me.
I know what being poor is because I grew up that way. I know my mom and dad wondered sometimes how we were going to get by but somehow we did. I don't think you appreciate people's mentality. Sure it would help a few people in the long run but overall I don't think it would make much difference at all. How do you explain Sports Illustrated estimated in 2009 that 78 percent of NFL players are bankrupt or facing serious financial stress within two years of ending their playing careers and that 60percent of NBA players are broke within five years of retiring from the game. If millions doesn't make a difference in the long run why do you think $10,000 will.
'Because of human nature, certain things just won't be done properly on an individual level , at least at th
One Word.......ZIMBABWE!
I think this goes to the point I was trying to make earlier, some people are generations removed from knowing how to make good decisions. I don't know about you, I also was raised fairly poor. But I had parents who demanded certain things from me, and tried to teach me lessons. There are a lot of poor who do not have that at all. Their chief instruction comes from the drug gang. I honestly don't know how to break the cycle. But I can't help but feel blaming the kid for getting involved in a gang as a youth as "just making a bad life choice" isn't solving the problem. I get people who say that because Mr and Mrs Smith are lazy and don't want to work we should tough love to force them to starve. I may not agree, but I can see the rationale. But I'm not sure starving Mr and Mrs Smith does anything to help their 4 year old son and 3 year old daughter.
It is also true that many lottery winners end up in the gutter. Again, giving people money who have no life skills doesn't necessarily solve the problem. It just gives them a heck of a good time on the way back down. In the example above, how do we get Mr and Mrs Smith's children to learn the lessons that many of us are taught by parents? I think the range of disagreement her is pretty small. Just handing Mr and Mrs Smith a check won't necessarily improve anything, kicking them out of their section 8 to live under the railroad bridge probably won't either. Once we eliminate these two extremes we like to assume the other side wants, what is left?
How many times we seen the traditional media butcher reporting, understanding and due diligence?
I understand your point, crazed. In essence, it's an application of the Invictus philosophy: I am the master of my fate, the captain of my own soul. Looking at the world exclusively from your own perspective, i.e., from the perspective of your personal little microeconomy, that makes perfect sense, because "it is", and it accounts for all of the data available . . . from that very limited perspective.
But that's a personal philosophy designed for the purpose of one making his or her way in the world. It does not inform, nor does it offer any principles for, the consideration of others' perspectives or the development of rules for the members of society in their interactions with each other as a whole. In fact, in that context the Invictus philosophy would likely result in individuals saying "Enh, what can you do . . . ."
So if you want to adopt that approach for your personal little microeconomy perspective, that's fine, go for it. But please don't be surprised if others don't adopt that approach from an overall societal rules - government - standpoint. Because I think the application of that philosophy on a broader basis than one's own little microeconomy perspective is out of context, counterproductive, and, when you expect others to adopt that approach too, downright tyrannical.
Except that I'm not the one seeking to impose anything on anybody. It's those who see it as society's role to provide for them who do that. Who, really, is being tyrannical here? I'll ask it again: can I opt out of Social Security and Medicare? I'll stop paying into them and, as such, disclaim any right to the first penny from either one of them. Deal?
Oh, of course not. And it's "tyrannical" for me to even ask it.....but not at all tyrannical for others to compel me to participate. No, no.
All I'm really asking is to be left alone. What others want to do -- including collectively with other willing people -- is entirely up to them. That's not tyranny -- it's the antithesis of it.
