I had counted you among the "friendly" posters. Did I do something to change that?
If there's one thing I've discovered, it's that the written word is HORRIBLE for conveying tone. It is a blank slate on which anyone can read into it motives and feelings that just aren't there.
I am still a friendly poster to you, and remarks in my last post were (while esoteric) trying to make the same point you just did towards me. It seemed like you were angrier and more adverserial than usual.
My response however was not meant to be a continuance of that. You can still count me as a friendly poster, although I do seem to be diametrically opposed to your position on government in this thread.
My "miscommunication" statement was specifically pointing out an opinion that you seem to be skipping around on definitions and details of your argument. I have done this myself when writing a lot of responses quickly, and is why I mentioned the possibility that maybe that's why it is happening.
In the end, I can only deal with what's written, and what you have written doesn't seem to be all that you were meaning, because I'm pretty certain I was addressing your arguments (as they were worded) properly, yet you say I am not addressing what you meant.
I guess I should have just asked for clarification, rather than speculating on causes.
As the man once said, "here, sir, the people rule." While I realize this is an ideal and not always the reality, it's certainly a good goal, don't you think?
Absolutely, but "rule what?" is the question, and the answer is "not me".
Not to sound condescending but it does sound like you haven't read much of the history of the Constitution and its makers. They had just come out of having their lives micromanaged and were set to have that removed from possible control by the government.
That which governs best, governs least... and that sort of thing.
They really wanted to restrict controls to just the securing of physical security and means so that people could choose individually, or as free collections of individuals, what was a greater end.
There were some that saw merit in protecting vague social characteristics, like western ideals of enlightenment from savagery, but mainly we have the concept of laying off individual "social" solutions.
Isn't it the purpose of all laws to shape society? Why do we even have laws if they're not supposed to have an effect?
I think there is an equivocation on the word "shape", when one moves from discussing its ability to protect itself and grow (management of physical attributes), to making its constituents conform to ideas regarding their own wellbeing.
You can even say that maybe within an entire generation you get a mega-majority agreement on something, but then future generations will become slaves to that paradigm.
By which I took to mean "mandates that the government gives itself." That was how I took it in context. Maybe I misunderstood?
Yes, I was referring to your "mandates of the people" comment. I just shortened it. Thus even with people on board, the government has restrictions.
I would add this point. If the people are in agreement on something in the majority you suggest, on a social issue, then why would they need laws at all to support it?
Obviously, since we the people can't really come to an agreement, that requires some kind of compromise. Sometimes we compromise with majority rule. Sometimes we compromise with the lesser of two evils.
This is exactly why social issues are not supposed to be within the domain of the government.
Clearly having someone to call on is good for your well-being, right? Doesn't promoting marriage lead to that? Doesn't that give an incentive for folks to have life-partners?
No. Absolutely 100%, no. The study you presented told you exactly what I did. Support mechanisms are important, which did not necessarily involve longterm relationships nor marriage. It is not surprising that marriage would have an effect in older men as older men (given social realities) would be more likely to have married significant partners. But that does not conclude that marriage is necessary nor sufficient.
And the study went on to point out more important characteristics for survival.
Would you be for laws trying to literally reshape society by getting people to trim down, go vegan, go atkins, or some other health fad of the day?
And I would repeat an earlier point. Masturbation has been found to help men live longer. Should it be in the realm of the government to support this? I love porn and jerking off and would still say NO WAY. In addition, it is also now known that childbirth when one is young helps prevent breast cancer. Shall we help society by encouraging young girls to get pregnant? Well I might like to see that too, but I don't think the government can nor should get involved at that level of OUR LIVES.
All your study did suggest, if the gov't wanted to promote something, is good support centers where people can find help when they need it, and better care within the medical system such that people feel they are getting support from people that can help them.
You don't believe that promoting fuel-efficient vehicles and changing attitudes about fossil fuels is altering social policy? I sure do.
If the gov't went about this by putting out posters and giving credits to people who belong to greenpeace, when there was nothing but a "feel green" reason to do so, maybe I'd agree with you.
You seem to be missing the very real point here. We are talking about a real, physical resource. The amount in which it is being consumed, and its natural limits, means there is an end and technology must change to reflect that natural reality.
In addition, the way it is being consumed is affecting physical lives. Thus changes in technology can alter our physical well being, in addition to facing the reality of a dwindling resource.
So energy policies help protect our everyday physical security and prosperity. And if we did not do this, we WOULD find ourselves in some pretty dire straights.
Investing in such technology can also help us build economically for the future.
You cannot produce a credible analogy to this in promoting marriage. That is purely a social agenda.
I disagree. People's happiness and quality of life is a very real thing.
You misunderstood. While I agree with what you just said, the HOW of gaining happiness and having a high "quality of life" is subjective. I did not mean whether that is important is subjective.
They have the right to use the machinery of government to implement the social policy that they think is best. I have the right to try to stop them within the means provided me in the Constitution to do so.
The Constitution bars them from using the machinery to implement social policy as they think best. That they will try, does not mean that they have the right to do so.
You can look to Republicans and Democrats own arguments for support of this. On issues they do not like promoted they quote the Constitution, and writings of Jefferson, to show the boundaries of gov't influence. They just behave hypocritically when it is on the agenda they want pushed.
That is EXACTLY what Jefferson warned against, and why he said we'd end up having bloodshed from time to time. Eventually majorities would lose sight of the boundaries of gov't and seek to impose social agendas on the rest. There is not even supposed to be a compromise, except that of hands off.
Thus if they do use the machinery of government to tell you how best to live, you have the right to open conflict, because they are misusing the machinery.
What are we supposed to do, Holmes? Make it illegal to vote if you're going to vote Republican? Doesn't that make us as bad as they?
Both republicans and democrats abuse the power of government for social policies, so I wouldn't suggest voting or not voting for either.
What we all have to do is fight for the limitation of government in any way we can. I forgot who said it but they said it right: Ballot Box, Jury Box, Cartridge Box.
That is exactly what we have.
(added in)
I think the government is not there to make sure everyone WILL live in a fashion that is best for themeslves and everyone else.
The government is there to make sure anyone can live the best or worst life imaginable, and not affect others in a significant manner.
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-09-2004 05:34 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2