Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 13 2012 @ 02:04 PM CDT

Quote by: damiengh Quote by: egobandit Quote by: Daugrin Maybe it's just time to fire up the base at MJ? How do cults work? Daug are you starting a cult, Ill join but Im not drinking the juice I wanna join the EGOBANDIT cult

this had my whole family laughing

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 13 2012 @ 02:11 PM CDT

Quote by: MotherofMeursault I hardly think I'm engaging in fear-mongering by pointing out some of the history of bad government decisions, and insisting on maintaining constitutional protections from larger ones. Nor do I see the failure in my logic: It makes sense to collectively 'do something rather than do nothing' ONLY IF the known outcome of doing something is a net positive. Since we don't know what will be done, or who will be doing it (and therefore cannot know the outcome), it is better for individual citizens to hang onto their own resources to use as their individual circumstances require.

oh the further on I go oh the less I know
Peter Gabriel

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 13 2012 @ 02:36 PM CDT

Quote by: dimm witness Quote by: Gaylen75 Just because Al Gore didn't invent the internet doesn't mean it isn't true. Why are there people who throw away logic for principle but never principle for logic? can I quote you on this? awesome!

As long as I can quote your quote.

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 13 2012 @ 02:46 PM CDT

Quote by: bud Quote by: MotherofMeursault I don't think it's possible. Societies don't make decisions or choose courses of action; only individuals can do those things. It depends on the criteria, but generally speaking I think the least amount of legislation is best. All legislation carries unintended consequences. The bigger the legislation, the bigger the unintended consequences. I view society as a group of individuals. How do we disagree here?

Yes, a society is multiple groups of individuals. Often the groups overlap because of shared interests (business, religion, recreation, etc), and groups can benefit from the associations of their members, but those are still individual decisions. It is an ecology of "island universes". The thing that makes all these groups function as a healthy society is not that they make big decisions together, but that they live under a specific set of shared values and the minimum laws required to secure them.

Quote by: bud What if the benefits outweigh the unintended consequences? Isn't this part of growth and progress?

Are you asking about the benefits/consequences to the individual or the benefits/consequences to society as a whole?

What I mean is, the benefits and unintended consequences of my individual actions may only affect me and perhaps my family. If they negatively affect someone else, like my neighbor, he can seek redress in the courts. That is the reason for criminal and tort laws. Likewise, the benefits may extend beyond my household and to my neighbor. This is the source of benefits to society.

But if you intend to generate benefits and consequences to society as a whole (something along the lines of, "You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette"), then you're talking about social engineering. I don't know of any historical examples of that that generated any real benefits.(Not to mention that that's also a series of individual decisions, but usually made by a highly unpleasant individual…!)

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 13 2012 @ 04:13 PM CDT

Quote by: MotherofMeursault But if you intend to generate benefits and consequences to society as a whole (something along the lines of, "You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette"), then you're talking about social engineering. I don't know of any historical examples of that that generated any real benefits.(Not to mention that that's also a series of individual decisions, but usually made by a highly unpleasant individual…!)

In a society/nation based on representational government and partial majority legislation how is possible to do anything without breaking a few eggs? Even a consensus based society requires sacrifices from some for the greater good. You can't please all the people all the time.

So how is this social engineering? And if it is - what is the alternative? Less government? Then how do we as people deal with the growing power and self interests of corporations and extra-governmental entities that have more and more effect on our daily lives and futures?

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 13 2012 @ 05:15 PM CDT

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 13 2012 @ 05:45 PM CDT

George is off the plantation...

Daug

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 13 2012 @ 05:51 PM CDT

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 13 2012 @ 06:16 PM CDT

Funny and interesting... and language *warning*!!

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 13 2012 @ 07:21 PM CDT

Quote by: bud Quote by: MotherofMeursault But if you intend to generate benefits and consequences to society as a whole (something along the lines of, "You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette"), then you're talking about social engineering. I don't know of any historical examples of that that generated any real benefits.(Not to mention that that's also a series of individual decisions, but usually made by a highly unpleasant individual…!) In a society/nation based on representational government and partial majority legislation how is possible to do anything without breaking a few eggs? Even a consensus based society requires sacrifices from some for the greater good. You can't please all the people all the time. So how is this social engineering? And if it is - what is the alternative? Less government? Then how do we as people deal with the growing power and self interests of corporations and extra-governmental entities that have more and more effect on our daily lives and futures?

The eggs we're talking about are other people. They are your fellow citizens, they have the same value to society that you have, and they are guaranteed the same rights and protections that you are. To use the force of the government to deny some of them their rights in the name of the greater good is unconstitutional. It's also the definition of tyranny. And it is outright social engineering: the disposal (or sequestering) of undesirables in the interest of advancing the society.

The notion of the 'greater good' can only ever exist as an abstract concept; it can't be used as a reasonable rationale for any behavior. That's because it can never be properly defined: everyone has a different idea of what it means. Historically, it's not uncommon for people who enforced the notion of the greater good on others to find themselves its next target.

Personally, I think the best way to deal with the (I believe very real) threat of corporations and extra-governmental agencies is to cut off their access to power by cutting off the government's ability to write laws and regulations that benefit those entities. A return to strict constitutional governance would make it impossible for Congress to grant advantages to anyone. That would naturally mean an enormous reduction in the size of government. But it would put an immediate end to invasive wars, imperial aspirations, domestic spying, crushing taxes, meddling in the affairs of other countries and a stable currency to name but a few.



And now, since the arc of the thread seems to be bending back toward global warming.........