U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

[DMC]

4 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Yeah I said in a different post yesterday that people should be registered automatically on their 18^th birthday. I also think we should have compulsory voting, so long as there’s a none option, and frankly, if none wins a plurality of the vote, there should be a new election like six weeks later with new candidates. And while we’re at it, can we please shorten the **** out of our election cycles. These long, expensive elections force EOs to constantly be fund raising rather than legislating and governing.  

As you suggest, shortening election cycles is only possible by rectifying campaign financing.  I'm fairly ambivalent about compulsory voting - its impact has been shown to be negligible once you correct for automatic registration, voting on weekends/holiday, etc. - but I'd be ethically opposed to any punitive measures.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, Vin said:

Well forcing someone to go out of their home and do something that they don't want to do, on their own time without them having done anything to hurt anyone under threat of punishment rubs me the wrong way . It might sound petty but I just don't like compulsion unless it's absolutely 100% necessary .

It’s like the bare minimum one could ask for to fulfill your civic duty to the republic. Lines are too long? Fine, triple the number of polling places. The election is on a weekday? Fine, make it a national holiday, or move it to the weekend, or better yet, both. Or even better yet, pass a national law that creates mail in voting in every state. We can make voting a whole lot easier.

[Vin]

20 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

So it's not 100% necessary to use what little democracy we have to vote for the people who take important decisions for our and our children's future? Sure.
By that reasoning, democracy is not 100% necessary either. Might as well go back to having unelected monarchs.

This is preposterous . Sure ,real democracy is dragging people to the booths at gun point.

What happened to live and let live ? Or is that just valid when it matches the agenda you like ?

[Vin]

3 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

It’s like the bare minimum one could ask for to fulfill your civic duty to the republic. Lines are too long? Fine, triple the number of polling places. The election is on a weekday? Fine, make it a national holiday, or move it to the weekend, or better yet, both. Or even better yet, pass a national law that creates mail in voting in every state. We can make voting a whole lot easier.

I think a lot of people would appreciate that and that it would increase turn out but it's wrong to actively force someone to do something simply because you believe it's right . 

Has the left  gone so far that compulsion has become OK ? 

[LongRider]

6 minutes ago, Vin said:

 

What happened to live and let live ? Or is that just valid when it matches the agenda you like ?

Voting at gunpoint?   Oh the huge manatee!  

[Vin]

19 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Voting at gunpoint?   Oh the huge manatee!  

I don't know how to respond to this really. 

[James Arryn]

22 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Anti-racism, like other crucial political concepts, such as liberty, is capable of a variety of definitions. Just as Isaiah Berlin divided liberty into positive and negative liberty, so we might divide anti-racism into two opposing forms.

One we can call conservative anti-racism. This is the more restrictive definition. Conservative anti-racism denies the claim that some races or ethnic groups are superior to others and that the superior groups have the right to treat individuals belonging to the inferior groups in a way they would acknowledge as immoral if the individuals were part of their own group.

Progressive anti-racism defines racism much more broadly, and affirms that any preference for one own’s race or ethnic group is deeply immoral. Clearly this differs from the first definition, because I can clearly prefer some individuals to others without behaving immorally towards the ones I do not prefer.

In practical terms we can see this difference between conservative anti-racism and progressive anti-racism in the differing attitudes conservatives and progressives tend to take on the question of whether it is racist to express ethnic self-interest in immigration policy. In short conservatives do not tend to think expressing ethnic self-interest in immigration policy is racist, but a majority of progressives do (although there is a complication here, as we shall see).

Ethnic self-interest is expressed in immigration policy where members of one ethnic group support the immigration of members of their own ethnic group, or oppose the immigration of members of different ethnic groups, with a view to increasing or maintaining their own ethnic group’s share of the overall population of the country in question.

A study by the University of Birkbeck (London), conducted shortly after the triumph of Trump, revealed the following about the attitudes of Trump and Clinton voters on the racism of ethnic self-interest as expressed in immigration policy.

The survey found that 73% of white Clinton voters said white Americans who wanted to reduce immigration to preserve their group’s share of the population were racist, compared to 11% of white Trump voters.

So, a majority of white Americans clearly don’t think what I’ve labelled progressive anti-racism is true, but a majority of Clinton supporters do, and a small minority of Trump supporters agree.

This, I would suggest, is the essential intellectual divide between progressives and conservatives. Progressives define racism broadly, as the expression of any preference to live among one’s own ethnic group and to thereby ensure continuity of a community’s culture and institutions (or even the maintenance of the ‘privilege’ cultural Marxists claim ethnic majorities always enjoy) while conservatives define it more narrowly.

Although, it has to be said, this is not quite the true statement of the progressive view. The same survey, by the University of Birkbeck, highlighted that only 18% of white Clinton voters thought that a Latino or Asian American who wants to boost, via immigration, their own ethnic group’s share of the population is being racist. In other words, ethnic self-interest, as defined above, is not actually objected to per se by most progressives.

Specifically then, progressive anti-racism differs from conservative anti-racism because it adheres to the claim that any attempt by certain majority ethnic groups to maintain their majority status, via immigration policy (or any other sort of policy) is racist. However, if and when the ethnic majority has become a minority the progressive will likely shift to claiming that the dominant ethnic group, dominant that is in virtue of economic or cultural strength, as opposed to raw demographic weight, still has no right to an ethnically self-interested immigration policy, while all the ethnic groups still defined as oppressed or disadvantaged do. In short progressive anti-racism ultimately bottoms out on the neo-marxist view that western nations are racist patriarchies, inherently oppressive, an analysis leavened no doubt by theories of intersectionality and all the rest of it. 

 

This old bullshit argument.

Okay, I’m going to cite the single most ‘racist’ act in American history, by your definition. I’m going to point out something that overtly and exclusively benefited one specific race, and on the other hand intentionally and clearly cost one other specific race. And everyone knew it, in fact it was very high profile and well documented. Ready?

The elimination of slavery.

See this is the problem with this bullshit rhetoric, what you define as ‘narrow’ actually means ‘in a vacuum’ and with no regards to context. This is how privileged people confuse the encroachment of limitations on their privilege with being attacked. But part of that is the nature of conservatism. As a movement it began out of people who felt ‘atracked’ by the onset of liberalism, and speaking psychologically, studies show conservatives always exhibit much higher levels of fear of their environment and a sense that they and/or their identified group are being treated unfairly. Always. Regardless of what’s going on, they always have, and always will.

Hitler’s whole thesis in MK was how true Aryans were losing a culture war. Read up on lynchings; people who openly admitted to lynching African Americans pretty universally cited a sense of being under attack, being forced to kowtow to..well, political correctness wasn’t a term then, but essentially that, ie often ‘northern attitudes’ and the lynchings were their ‘taking a stand’. Here’s a quote from an acquired lyncher from 1955, in the Emmet TIll case (14 year old Chicago boy mutilated and murdered for allegedly wolf-whistling at a white woman when visiting family in Mississippi):

 

Well, what else could we do? He was hopeless. I'm no bully; I never hurt a nigger in my life. I like niggers—in their place—I know how to work 'em. But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, niggers are gonna stay in their place. Niggers ain't gonna vote where I live. If they did, they'd control the government. They ain't gonna go to school with my kids. And when a nigger gets close to mentioning sex with a white woman, he's tired o' livin'. I'm likely to kill him. Me and my folks fought for this country, and we got some rights. I stood there in that shed and listened to that nigger throw that poison at me, and I just made up my mind. 'Chicago boy,' I said, 'I'm tired of 'em sending your kind down here to stir up trouble. Goddam you, I'm going to make an example of you—just so everybody can know how me and my folks stand.'

J. W. Milam, Look magazine, 1956

I’ll give another illustration:

In 2016 72% of US adults were Christian. But 92% of US lawmakers were Christian. Several polls have ‘athiest’ as the quality that most disqualifies a person from high office...people would even support homosexuals, Muslims, sometimes even criminals for office above an atheist. The next time a major Presidential candidate doesn’t loudly and repeatedly cite his faith will be the first.

But US Christians feel, to an overwhelming degree, that they are under attack. When you control 92% of the authority and you feel you are under attack....that’s a you problem. That’s confusing any encroaching limitations on your privilege with being ‘under attack’. That’s defining prejudice along ‘narrow’ lines. 

[Darth Richard II]

32 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Voting at gunpoint?   Oh the huge manatee!  

Sea Lions.

[IamMe90]

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

This old bullshit argument.

What argument are you referring to? The post you quoted appeared to me to be a fairly neutral, if incomplete, analysis of how progressives and conservatives view racism. I'm not sure I'd disagree with it in broad swathes, although as I mentioned, it isn't fully explanatory. 

BTW I understand it's tempting to inject that user's posting history into the post, but I am talking about just the content of this post alone. 

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, Vin said:

I think a lot of people would appreciate that and that it would increase turn out but it's wrong to actively force someone to do something simply because you believe it's right .

Cut the crap. Humans live in societies, not as individuals. Each and every one of us has to do things we don't really want to on a daily basis. Societies collectively decide what they see as "rights" and what they see as "duties" for what is perceived as the greater good at a given moment. Your libertarian bullcrap is basically just saying you want rights without duties.

Now when we're talking about democracy, the problem is whether democracy is a right or a duty. Well the thing is, it's a bit of both. In the U.S. it seems to be essentially defined as a right. In France, it's defined as a non-compulsory duty. In Belgium it's a duty, and you can be fined if you don't vote.

1 minute ago, Vin said:

Has the left  gone so far that compulsion has become OK ? 

Again, cut the crap. This has little to do with the "left-right" divide. Depending on who you ask, compulsory voting could be a right-wing or a left-wing position. In actuality, both conservatives and liberals could agree that democracy is a duty, albeit for different reasons. Only libertarians have this fantasy that society is all about protecting "natural rights" and that people should be left alone when they want to. Well, if you want to be left alone, I'd say you should go live in the woods... Or build a rocket and colonize Mars. And have fun with a society in which everyone wants to have rights and non-compulsory duties. That should work for like three weeks tops.

 

[Kalbear]

39 minutes ago, Vin said:

I think a lot of people would appreciate that and that it would increase turn out but it's wrong to actively force someone to do something simply because you believe it's right . 

We literally do this all the time. This is what a nation of laws actually does. 

39 minutes ago, Vin said:

Has the left  gone so far that compulsion has become OK ? 

Compulsion is always going to be okay; the alternative is anarchic styles of government. Most of the left isn't particularly fond of that.

[DanteGabriel]

I do believe citizens of a democracy have an affirmative duty to be educated and active participants in the process. The atmosphere of polarization might not be so bad if it parties (by which I mean the racist-ass Republican Party) couldn't win national elections by suppressing votes and feeding their narrow base a steady diet of fear and bullshit.

[Vin]

I pay my taxes and don't hurt anyone. Other than that I don't think the government should dictate my life . 

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, كالدب said:

Compulsion is always going to be okay; the alternative is anarchic styles of government. Most of the left isn't particularly fond of that.

Neither is the right as a matter of fact. It's just that left and right base their morality on slightly different sources and arguments and thus will value slightly different rights and duties. But both left and right tend to agree that individuals mechanically sacrifice some of their individual freedom by living in societies. Call it a social contract. Call it a republic. Call it the rule of law. Call it whatever you want, but it's what has allowed humanity to survive thus far.

Yeah, I'm in a foul mood tonight. But people who keep preaching about their rights deeply annoy me. FFS even my 20-month old son understands he can't do everything he wants, and that's the way it is, because he can't catch the pigeons he's running after to feed himself or change his own diapers. How come grown men don't even have that level of responsibility?

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Vin said:

I pay my taxes and don't hurt anyone. Other than that I don't think the government should dictate my life . 

Okay, but you get that there are a whole lot of laws in there that you are compelled to obey which don't directly fall into either of those situations, right? And even both of those are contentious to various people?

The notion that compulsion is somehow the worst thing imaginable is a typical libertarian thinking point, which tends to be a really great idea until you corner them on whether they'd rather have a kid starve or be compelled to feed them by the government. 

So no, the idea that compulsion is OMG bad isn't really going to fly. I get that you think it's bad, but the removal of compulsion towards a more libertarian, anarchical situation has resulted it massive inequity every.single.time it's been practiced.

[DanteGabriel]

15 minutes ago, Vin said:

I pay my taxes and don't hurt anyone. Other than that I don't think the government should dictate my life . 

Yeah, it's a short step from making you vote once every year or two to gulags and the Ministry of Fear. 

Honest question: why do you claim to be a Democrat (or at least "the left") if your overriding belief seems to be government non-interference in daily life?

[Gertrude]

1 hour ago, chiKanery et al. said:

I wrote a paper about this in college, and I’ll give you the cliff notes thesis with updated data...

Yeah, I like this a whole damn lot. It's crazy to think we'd want the people we elected to represent us and make laws, govern us, etc. to actually do their job, right? I don't want them out campaigning for half a year or spending over half their time fund raising so they can afford to not represent us during that time.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, كالدب said:

So no, the idea that compulsion is OMG bad isn't really going to fly. I get that you think it's bad, but the removal of compulsion towards a more libertarian, anarchical situation has resulted it massive inequity every.single.time it's been practiced.

I'll go one step further: it's never been deliberately practiced, and hopefully never will be. It's only vague attempts to go in that direction that have been disastrous ; the real thing would be considerably worse. The real thing is when nations fail and civilizations crumble. Bloody ugly is what it is.

If compulsion doesn't come from government it'll come from somewhere else. And none of the alternatives to democratic government are particularly nice to consider.

It's especially mind-boggling when you think of environmental problems and the like that our species is confronted with today. Let's say everyone in the world can consume whatever they want and pollute as much as they want because that's FREEDOM motherfucker. And half of humanity at least will be wiped out in less than a century while the rest will be wishing they hadn't survived. That's the true nature of freedom as libertarians describe it: complete irresponsibility. Utter selfishness and stupidity.

Freedom is supposed to be opposed to the arbitrary, not compulsion itself. It's about developing personal responsibility and reason to understand the rules by which you have to live, not rejecting those rules. It is about choosing your chains. That's why compulsory voting alone can never deprive people of freedom: by forcing people to be informed citizens and participants in the political process, you give them the power to help decide the rules they will have to live by. By having people vote you potentially make them free. Blistering barnacles and seven hells, that's philosophy 101.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMBouazizi said:

As you suggest, shortening election cycles is only possible by rectifying campaign financing.  I'm fairly ambivalent about compulsory voting - its impact has been shown to be negligible once you correct for automatic registration, voting on weekends/holiday, etc. - but I'd be ethically opposed to any punitive measures.

Really? Got any lit on that?

Also, you ave to have some form of punishment, otherwise it's completely pointless to do it. It's kind of like conservatives saying they want to outlaw abortions without having a good answer as to what the punishment should be if someone gets one.

1 hour ago, Vin said:

I think a lot of people would appreciate that and that it would increase turn out but it's wrong to actively force someone to do something simply because you believe it's right . 

Has the left  gone so far that compulsion has become OK ? 

It's not a left-right issue. And as others have said, you get forced to do things you don't want to do all the time. On the spectrum of those things, this one is pretty damn small. 

[Vin]

I've voted democrat for the most part so that's why I guess but right now I think I'd be more accurately described as a centrist.  If the democrats seriously propose compulsion then I'll definitely vote against them .