US Politics: Tragedy of the Commons? What's that?

[Mad Monkey]

Something always strikes me about the absolute conviction with which many Liberals detest Conservative leaders in their personal capacities. The way in which George W. Bush or Palin or Huckabee etc are absolutely villified comes to mind.

My question is: Do you have distaste for Right wing leaders/heroes because of their association with an idealogy that you despise, or because you genuinely believe that these people are indidividually more "evil" than their Left wing counterparts?

Are you sure that you're not confusing vitriolic mudslinging with personal animus? Many people (I'm not sure why you think it's just left wingers) revel in the collective freak out whenever a politician gets caught saying or doing something rude and ill-mannered. However, I don't know if there are really an unusually high number of people on the left who believe that right-wing politicians are personally evil and malicious in their day to day lives. I'm sure Bush, Palin, Huckabee, etc. are nice people and good neighbors.

The difference between me and some people is that I don't care at all about that. Not in terms of politics, at least. I don't vote for people based on how much I'd like to live next to them, I vote for them based on how well they can govern a country.

I do think that some morals and values issues should be considered important, but for me, "I don't want you to be President" doesn't automatically equal, "You must be rude, uncouth, and immoral". Someone can be a jerk but a good politician, and someone can be very nice and kind but a terrible leader.

Unless we have some statistics or something, I might have to chalk this one up to confirmation bias (we notice when our favorite politicians get reamed unfairly, but we don't notice when it happens to the opposition, so therefore it must be worse for us than for anyone else).

[TrackerNeil]

Yeah, I know, taking Mr. Rant the Day Away serioulsy is a bad idea, but what am I supposed to make of such people?

YES! My drag name was formerly "Tawdry Hepburn", but that may now be displaced by "Rantha Dayaway."

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Scott, in my view, and far be it for me to speak on behalf of God, but I would think that while He would not want the state to force anyone to be a Christian, He would be in favor of the state preventing people from committing sinful acts, be it murder or adultery or abortion etc.

After all, surely one less murder being committed would please HIM, whether the people who are forced by the State to withold from murder are Christians or not. And if it is true that He considers all sins to be equal, then what holds true for murder should hold true for any other sin that can be forcibly prevented too.

Now the above post was merely in direct response to your post, which went there, and not to derail this thread into a religious discussion. Maybe you can start another one of your always thought-provoking philosophical threads so we can discuss this issue further over there.

The point is merely for the sake of this thread that if you are a true believing Christian, then of course you would be in favor of Christian values being applied everywhere. Hence Huckabee's position is perfectly understandable.

I'm pretty sure, although I can't speak for all denominations, that it's also a sin to not be a Christian. Like, you'll get sent to Hell for eternity for rejecting Christ.

So by your reasoning the State should force people to be Christians, too.

[DanteGabriel]

Scott, in my view, and far be it for me to speak on behalf of God, but I would think that while He would not want the state to force anyone to be a Christian, He would be in favor of the state preventing people from committing sinful acts, be it murder or adultery or abortion etc.

Oh great googly moogly, this sentence is just so full of Wrong, it's hard to even know where to start on this.

If God wanted something besides our own consience to compel us to be good, he never would have put that damn tree in the garden. Free will is important. Allowing people to make choices is important. If everyone were forced to be good, choosing to be good has no moral power.

You should restrict your philosophizing to the desirability of racial homogeneity.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

Faith garnered by fear of reprisal from the State is not faith. Huckabee wants to use the State to force people to behave like Christians whether they share his faith or not. How is that any different from a devoted socialist wanting use the power of the State to force large land holders to surrender their property to the State?

Both want to use the monopoly of force to require people to behave as they believe they should behave. Both are, in my opinion, abuses of the trust people place in the State to do only what needs to be done.

[Mad Monkey]

FNR,

Faith garnered by fear of reprisal from the State is not faith. Huckabee wants to use the State to force people to behave like Christians whether they share his faith or not. How is that any different from a devoted socialist wanting use the power of the State to force large land holders to surrender their property to the State?

Both want to use the monopoly of force to require people to behave as they believe they should behave. Both are, in my opinion, abuses of the trust people place in the State to do only what needs to be done.

I think I get where he's coming from though. For some people, the outward and public demonstration of faith-based principles is inherently pleasing to God. That's why school prayer was such a big issue; it wasn't enough to simply give people the right to pray wherever they wanted to, they needed explicitly-designated times of the day where prayer was mandatory or socially compelled.

I don't agree, but if your viewpoint is that the display of faith is good enough even if you don't share it, then it seems reasonable to use law or social pressure or any other tool you have to get that. "Fake it until you make it"...

[Free Northman Reborn]

FNR,

Faith garnered by fear of reprisal from the State is not faith. Huckabee wants to use the State to force people to behave like Christians whether they share his faith or not. How is that any different from a devoted socialist wanting use the power of the State to force large land holders to surrender their property to the State?

Both want to use the monopoly of force to require people to behave as they believe they should behave. Both are, in my opinion, abuses of the trust people place in the State to do only what needs to be done.

As I said, let's take this to another thread, but if we use the example of murder, are you saying that God would not be in favor of the state preventing people committing murder? And if He is in favor of state prevention of this sin, then why not others?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MM,

Oh, for me it's right up there with mandating all school children take a loyalty oath to the State at the start of every school day. You don't use force to demand faith or loyalty. They are earned or they are false.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

You do not need religuous faith to hold that there should be laws against murder. That's a red herring.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I think I get where he's coming from though. For some people, the outward and public demonstration of faith-based principles is inherently pleasing to God. That's why school prayer was such a big issue; it wasn't enough to simply give people the right to pray wherever they wanted to, they needed explicitly-designated times of the day where prayer was mandatory or socially compelled.

I don't agree, but if your viewpoint is that the display of faith is good enough even if you don't share it, then it seems reasonable to use law or social pressure or any other tool you have to get that. "Fake it until you make it"...

No that is not my position. Instead, I have two main reasons for saying that Huckabee's agenda is entirely justifiable.

Firstly, a lot of what's considered sin - Christians would argue ALL of what's considered sin - leads to the procreation of misery to others. Lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, bearing false witness etc. etc. So sin has a negative effect on all of society, not just on the soul of the indivdiual who commits it. Hence forcibly preventing a murder is surely pleasing to God, as it reduces human suffering.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the fundamental directive of Christ to his followers is to go to all the world and make the people his disciples. In other words, to actively follow a missionary agenda. And if public prayers in schools cause just one extra person to be familiar with Christianity and become a Christian, then it is achieving that directive.

I would argue that public displays of Faith would capture far more than just one individual for Christianity. Atheists would of course call it religious indoctrination of the young. And maybe it is that, but it is still effective in furthering the evangelical goal.

Hence Huckabee's position is entirely consistent with his faith.

[Free Northman Reborn]

FNR,

You do not need religuous faith to hold that there should be laws against murder. That's a red herring.

No it is not. Let's say you had a state where murder would be legal unless the state enforced Christian values. In your view, would God be in favor of state enforcement of Christian values or not?

[DanteGabriel]

No it is not. Let's say you had a state where murder would be legal unless the state enforced Christian values. In your view, would God be in favor of state enforcement of Christian values or not?

This is a stupid argument based on an even stupider hypothetical. Please do what you said you would do and put it in another thread.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

Huh? Has there ever been a State where murder was legal or the act of killing another, without good cause, was not considered "murder"? One of the fundemental purposes of the State is to protect the lives of its citizens. If murder is not illegal the State serves no purpose.

[MerenthaClone]

Well, Tracker has already said that Right-Wingers are more Dangerous that A.Q. terrorists.

Yeah, I know, taking Mr. Rant the Day Away serioulsy is a bad idea, but what am I supposed to make of such people?

They vote, after all.

See, here's the thing. I live in the US. In the US, in the last decade, I was far more likely to be killed by a right-wing terrorist than a Muslim one. More importantly, my chances of being killed by a Muslim extremist are vanishingly low, whereas my chances of having harm done to me or my loved ones by right wing politicians through their laws is actually extremely high. Yes, that harm done by politicians is less harmful than me dying, but it is far more likely, so yes, in a risk assessment, the chance of a right wing politician being involved in causing me direct bodily harm is actually substantially higher since my chances of being injured by a Muslim extremist are practically fucking nil.

Personally, I don't give a shit about offending AQ members. What I do give a major shit about is the people they are attempting to recruit and how easy it is for them to be swayed, because I'd kind of like AQ to not ever get more members. Bush was probably their number 1 recruiter, but Palin isn't helping. Then, of course, there's her fucking word salad that equates baptism with torture, and then, on top of that, somehow states that forced baptism is a good thing! Its kind of 10 kinds of disgusting.

Also, hate on Palin all you want, but she should be respected for two things: her understanding of how to fleece cult-of-personality right-wingers, and her sheer brazenness in being the woman who abandoned her job as governor halfway through her term and then gets on stage and says, with a straight face "if I was in charge...: That's honestly a piece of work.

I would argue that public displays of Faith would capture far more than just one individual for Christianity. You atheists would of course call it religious indoctrination of the young. And maybe it is that, but it is still effective in furthering the evangelical goal.

Public displays of faith are something Jesus explicitly spoke out about when he reprimanded the man ostentatiously giving charity. The reasoning behind the charity was important to Jesus, not the end result. The same would, in my opinion, apply to other actions.

No it is not. Let's say you had a state where murder would be legal unless the state enforced Christian values. In your view, would God be in favor of state enforcement of Christian values or not?That's not what he was saying, though. He's saying that a state can have the moral authority to oppose and prevent murder without Christianity entering into it at all. The fact that Christianity is also opposed to murder is completely incidental and unrelated.

[Durckad]

It's consistent with his faith but not very consistent with his love of a certain document.

That's what makes him a hypocrite. Not just his faith but that armed with his Constitutional masturbation and Pro-Theocratic ideals. The fact that he also loves to jam with Ted Nugent is just a bit of icing on an otherwise overly sweet cake.

Santorum's much the same FWIR.

[Wise Fool]

Yeah that's utter nonsense. There's no "consistency." People - politicians especially, and their drooling fanboys on the internet - pick and choose what to call "sins" and try to get government to squash, and which ones to ignore. And surprise surprise, what they consider sinful AND needing to be eradicated by government means is that which they already believe is wrong somehow (i.e. gay marriage). And the many, many other things Biblical verses condemn, well, that's less important. Especially all that hogwash about caring for the poor or loving your neighbor. Then it's all about complaining about "takers" and ranting deliriously about torture-baptisms of terrorists. Sooooo Christian.

Fuck that noise. The only god people like Huck worship is the god of money and power. Idolaters all.

[Nunki]

As I said, let's take this to another thread, but if we use the example of murder, are you saying that God would not be in favor of the state preventing people committing murder? And if He is in favor of state prevention of this sin, then why not others?

Indeed, why would he not be solidly behind state policies of wealth redistribution? Wasn't Jesus big on giving to the poor? Now of course Libertarian Christian types might lament that such progressive taxation denies the wealthy of the blessed opportunity to have voluntarily given those particular dollars to charity, but surely the brute force of the state would lead to an outcome more pleasing to the Lord?

[Free Northman Reborn]

FNR,

Huh? Has there ever been a State where murder was legal or the act of killing another, without good cause, was not considered "murder"? One of the fundemental purposes of the State is to protect the lives of its citizens. If murder is not illegal the State serves no purpose.

I use murder as the example, because the answer to the question is then surely an easy one. But the next step in the argument is to then substitute murder with perceived "lesser" offenses, and then ask the same question again. Surely you can see the simple argument that I'm making.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

I believe in smaller government. I have for decades. I think it is as wrong for the State to tell me I can't buy or make beer (it's bad for you) as it is for the State to tell me I can't buy or make beer because it's "unChristian" to do so.

If my actions harm another or may serve to harm another the State may, in my opinion, regulate. Otherwise, leave me the hell alone.

[sologdin]

I doubt that any secular state has ever prohibited murder for the reason that murder is considered sinful in scripture. more likely the causality flows the other way.