Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:

Correct me if I'm misremembering, but haven't numerous books been written by progressives lamenting that low-income whites continually vote against their own economic interests?

idk man, i don't read books. let's assume it's true. what point are you trying to make? help me out i'm not doc

People do vote against self interest. And progressives complain, because their idea of greater good is different from others' ideas.

Is it only a positive thing to do if by "greater good" we mean a larger role for government in our day to day lives, larger investment in alternative energy technology, and support for pseudo-environmental causes like zoning restrictions in CA that drive up property taxes for those fortunate enough to have owned before the restrictions were put in place?

i don't think "greater good" is what you're saying it is here.

Fair enough. But in some of our most educated, highest income, and progressive areas of the country, this is what the people want the government to do. I'm saying we don't need more of this version of MonkeyBoy's utopia. We already have it in S.F.

What? My Utopia? Can you read at all what I said? First you completely ignore "always," which very much changes the meaning of the sentence. And now you up the ante by making up some nonsense about me calling this a Utopia? I know you can read, so I can only assume this is slight of hand to ignore my point and distract with nonsense.

And when did I say I wanted more government? We can add more effective regulations in the needed areas (financial industry, for example) and still end up with smaller government if we offset it with downsizing our military and making smart choices in other areas. This big government thing is what libertarians say to scare themselves and others. Maybe the idea of the government making sure people don't rip off consumers fills you with dread and keeps you up at night, but I don't think that's true for most people. Keep your scare tactics to yourself. If you want to wet your pants at zoning regulations in CA, go right ahead.

Roger Dorn wrote:I think some aspects of parliamentary democracy are intriguing, particularly having more than two viable parties. I often find both the Repubs and Dems to be terrible.

There are several industries that have both parties wrapped around their fingers, the financial industry is an obvious example -- break laws and rip off billions, nearly crashing the world economy and causing widespread hardship, and not a single person arrested and little changes made to the laws. And it's like nobody even cares. Bizarre.

But if I look at which industries I'd like to be successful (alternative energy over fossil fuels, for example), they all seem to be more in bed with democrats. And then there's the fact that the GOP has never seen a backwards ass social view that it didn't like.

Roger Dorn wrote:I think some aspects of parliamentary democracy are intriguing, particularly having more than two viable parties. I often find both the Repubs and Dems to be terrible.

Counter point: Italy

Werthless wrote:When are citizens educated on the issues and willing to look to the greater good rather than vote their own interests? It's laughable that you think this might exist, which by your wording "it's actually pretty nice," you think so.

In general, people tend to have a longer term, "bigger picture" view of things the more educated they are. The "greater good" thing sort of comes along for the ride. People who've had the opportunity & the encouragement to broaden their perceptions have a more 'inclusive' view of their society - their kind. They're more inclined to sample the foods, the dress, the arts of other cultures, and to find harmonious aspects of them therein. More inclined, when codifying the way they & their tribe do things, to include those others on more equal footing, and to continue in that direction when opportunities present themselves.

I believe there is a fair body of evidence of the truth of this observation.

Monkeyboy wrote:Thank goodness you have gotten to the real core of our nation's problems, zoning policies in California. Meanwhile, you're party nearly bankrupted us with their calls for no big government in our business.

The Libertarian party has had too little influence on national politics.

It's not low income whites who vote against their economic interests, it's Southern whites who do. Outside the South, white voting patterns are very different.

Monkeyboy wrote:What? My Utopia? Can you read at all what I said? First you completely ignore "always," which very much changes the meaning of the sentence. And now you up the ante by making up some nonsense about me calling this a Utopia? I know you can read, so I can only assume this is slight of hand to ignore my point and distract with nonsense.

And when did I say I wanted more government? We can add more effective regulations in the needed areas (financial industry, for example) and still end up with smaller government if we offset it with downsizing our military and making smart choices in other areas. This big government thing is what libertarians say to scare themselves and others. Maybe the idea of the government making sure people don't rip off consumers fills you with dread and keeps you up at night, but I don't think that's true for most people. Keep your scare tactics to yourself. If you want to wet your pants at zoning regulations in CA, go right ahead.

Hey, I'm in favor of "more effective regulations in needed areas" and "smart choices in other areas!" Sweet! Now what does that have to do with a more educated electorate and citizens who vote, not according to their own narrow self-interest, but for the greater good?

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:When are citizens educated on the issues and willing to look to the greater good rather than vote their own interests? It's laughable that you think this might exist, which by your wording "it's actually pretty nice," you think so.

In general, people tend to have a longer term, "bigger picture" view of things the more educated they are. The "greater good" thing sort of comes along for the ride. People who've had the opportunity & the encouragement to broaden their perceptions have a more 'inclusive' view of their society - their kind. They're more inclined to sample the foods, the dress, the arts of other cultures, and to find harmonious aspects of them therein. More inclined, when codifying the way they & their tribe do things, to include those others on more equal footing, and to continue in that direction when opportunities present themselves.

I believe there is a fair body of evidence of the truth of this observation.

But do they make for more effective government? Do they result in societies that codify laws protecting freedom? I doubt there is any relationship, causal or even observational, between education (above a certain minimum level) and increasingly effective government.

I believe, yes, a democracy benefits from having an electorate with a basic education level. However, I doubt that increasing the education past X years results in better government outcomes (less corruption, more freedom, higher economic growth, etc). The United States is more educated now than at any time in our history, and it's difficult to argue that it's operating at its peak, either with respect to process or outcome.

Werthless wrote:Hey, I'm in favor of "more effective regulations in needed areas" and "smart choices in other areas!" Sweet! Now what does that have to do with a more educated electorate and citizens who vote, not according to their own (1) narrow self-interest, but for (2) the greater good?

Sometimes those two things align. Sometimes they don't.

Set aside the very real likelihood that with respect to predicting behavior, your presumably preferred model of human action is as fraught with deficiencies as practically any other; it's like you like the idea that people might be mostly be narrow, and self-interested, and self-absorbed, and small, and loathesome

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:Hey, I'm in favor of "more effective regulations in needed areas" and "smart choices in other areas!" Sweet! Now what does that have to do with a more educated electorate and citizens who vote, not according to their own (1) narrow self-interest, but for (2) the greater good?

Sometimes those two things align. Sometimes they don't.

Set aside the very real likelihood that with respect to predicting behavior, your presumably preferred model of human action is as fraught with deficiencies as practically any other; it's like you like the idea that people might be mostly be narrow, and self-interested, and self-absorbed, and small, and loathesome

I think that's what helped produce the economic powerhouse that is the United States of America, and that it likely produces better outcomes than if we elected representatives who thought they could make better decisions for us than we could. Isn't that why many liberals oppose anti-abortion laws, because they trust the mother to make decisions that are in her own, best self interest?

Roger Dorn wrote:I think some aspects of parliamentary democracy are intriguing, particularly having more than two viable parties. I often find both the Repubs and Dems to be terrible.

The most favorable thing about parliamentary democracies is that the executive and legislators are on the same side, because if the parliament freezes up and can't pass a major measure, the whole government falls and you have new elections. The downside is that you can get way too many parties and end up with Italy, or I guess, Israel.

TenuredVulture wrote:It's not low income whites who vote against their economic interests, it's Southern whites who do. Outside the South, white voting patterns are very different.

This may be true, but actually a lot of people don't vote their economic interests. Many vote their morality, even if that causes their personal finances to take a back seat. For many, even the very well educated, even those with PhDs in economics, it is not easy to see where their personal and even the nation's best economic interests lie. Economists told us how much we would benefit by applying an unfettered free-market approach from our side to the mercantilist/communist China and corruptocracy that is Mexico. Hasn't worked as intended. It always amazes me how conservative economists can argue for free trade with a communist nation. Hey guys, the state owns half the companies and they make sure those companies win.

Werthless wrote:But do they make for more effective government? Do they result in societies that codify laws protecting freedom? I doubt there is any relationship, causal or even observational, between education (above a certain minimum level) and increasingly effective government.

You must be kidding.

Your only chance of being correct about this is if you essentially ignore the last 500 years of western civilization.



what do I win, Johnnie?

Werthless wrote:I think that's what helped produce the economic powerhouse that is the United States of America, and that it likely produces better outcomes than if we elected representatives who thought they could make better decisions for us than we could. Isn't that why many liberals oppose anti-abortion laws, because they trust the mother to make decisions that are in her own, best self interest?

the pertinent terms in the post you're responding to there are "self-absorbed", "small", and "loathsome".

You really need to revisit the fantastic conception of america's economic history that apparently saturates your grey matter. There's lots of hokum you're carrying around in there.

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:What? My Utopia? Can you read at all what I said? First you completely ignore "always," which very much changes the meaning of the sentence. And now you up the ante by making up some nonsense about me calling this a Utopia? I know you can read, so I can only assume this is slight of hand to ignore my point and distract with nonsense.

And when did I say I wanted more government? We can add more effective regulations in the needed areas (financial industry, for example) and still end up with smaller government if we offset it with downsizing our military and making smart choices in other areas. This big government thing is what libertarians say to scare themselves and others. Maybe the idea of the government making sure people don't rip off consumers fills you with dread and keeps you up at night, but I don't think that's true for most people. Keep your scare tactics to yourself. If you want to wet your pants at zoning regulations in CA, go right ahead.

Hey, I'm in favor of "more effective regulations in needed areas" and "smart choices in other areas!" Sweet! Now what does that have to do with a more educated electorate and citizens who vote, not according to their own narrow self-interest, but for the greater good?

I have no idea. You're the one who brought up me wanting bigger government, out of the blue, for no reason at all, and with no evidence for it. I was just responding to your assertion.

Dudes on Fox news just identified "faith" as a WHAM! song

F F S CONSERVATIVES

Bucky wrote:Dudes on Fox news just identified "faith" as a WHAM! song

F F S CONSERVATIVES

GOD DAMN ANDREW RIDGELEY TRYING TO STEAL GEORGE MICHAEL'S SOLO THUNDER!

got in a big fight with my mom today because she kept on saying obama is a dictator and the first lady has no class. kept saying that a first lady shouldn't be doing aerobics and having drool come out of her mouth. finished my dinner and just walked out

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/eric-ho ... TaEwvq9LCQ

Just in case anyone cares Holder says the President has the legal recourse to use drones against Americans on U.S. soil. Wow.

Werthless wrote:But do they make for more effective government? Do they result in societies that codify laws protecting freedom? I doubt there is any relationship, causal or even observational, between education (above a certain minimum level) and increasingly effective government.

i want 2 preserve these sentences 4ever

Just became FB friends with an Uncle that's constantly posting these dumbass (usually untrue) anti-Obama pics. Regretting friending him. Posted a retort to his latest, also regretting this decision...