Consensus in Politics

[nutronjon]

I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the insults might actually stop if you moved beyond that quaint little principle of yours and actually tried. The fact that you don't read responses to you which don't blow smoke up your *** means you'll keep repeating the same mistakes and you'll keep receiving insults.

 

You're feeding a self-propogating cycle here, nutronjon. Open your eyes... please. It's downright painful to watch you do this so consistently.

 

Excuse me, but what you have written is not on the subject of this thread, and you used inappropriate language, at which point I stopped reading.

[nutronjon]

Exploitation is not the exclusive domain of capitalism. Every economic/government system has their hands in exploitation. To overlook that fact is to distort the truth. Capitalism, as I stated previously, gives every person the chance or opportunity to change their lot and to achieve success. Not all will, but all have the chance.

 

 

 

Taking care of others is not the exclusive domain of women. For thousands of years men contributed just as much by hunting/gathering/farming/laboring to provide food and shelter for their spouses and offspring. Your comment denotes an extremely gender-centric view point and lack of understanding of the other genders role during those thousands of years. Just because the males traditional role was not birthing and child care does not diminish the value of our contributions. This is the kind of militant feminism that does not seek equality, but instead seeks superiority by devaluing the other gender and seeking to frame them as less important.

 

This one line that you wrote has severely diminished anything you could contribute in my mind because of the fallacies and ignorance inherent in it.

 

 

 

I am very delighted to read that your children have been taught a good work ethic. You either obfuscate or fail to realize that you do in fact receive something in return for that volunteer work. You receive a feeling of self worth and "goodness" by doing that. That is still a payment for services rendered. It is not a monetary or resource payment, but an intrinsic one.

 

You also fail to realize that in order to "volunteer" your basic needs must be met first. If your basic needs (food, shelter, security, etc.) are not met then you either die or start working to obtain them. What ever payment you earn beyond what is required to meet your basic needs, whether it be monetary or intrinsic, is still something you work for. It is a rare individual that can put his basic needs aside in order to work for others, and even then he is getting paid in a way.

 

Your arguments overall show an extreme bias in favor or your gender to the point of devaluing males, and a lack of basic understanding of anthropology and psychology. You may think I am just calling names, but I am actually calling you out for the fallacy in your arguments and misrepresentation of the human condition that you are propagating.

 

Can you edit this to everything is about the subject, and not about me?

 

I was addressing this statement. The idea of socialism is that every person will do their part for the betterment of all. This is not how things work in a practical sense though. It is in our nature to try to get the most while doing the least.

 

Do you want to argue the above statement is true, or would you like to argue that it is completely not true.

[InfiniteNow]

Excuse me, but what you have written is not on the subject of this thread, and you used inappropriate language, at which point I stopped reading.

 

Oh, for the love of Thor, you are such a royal PITA. :)

 

 

 

[jackson33]

Nitack; Your post (151) is probably the best I've ever seen (factually), yet relaying the 'principal' of personal responsibility. You took a great deal of time and I thank you...Did you know, the Greeks had a 6,000 minimum to make a quorum, which if not in attendance would send out people and drag people to a session (male land owners), splashing them with red paint.

 

Nutron; When arguing a point, knowing its going to draw controversy, name calling should be expected. On this site, I am a little surprised your not getting more confirmation or agreeable comments...

 

Actually, the US Federal Government is not a democracy, was never intended to be and the founders deplored populace involvement in 'National Interest".

The first was, equalization of member states (Sovereign nations) into a Union. Then RI (little dog, even then) and Virginia the big dog were on equal grounds for the most part. All the colonies were democratic, town halls and all, but not the Federal, under the 'Articles of the Confederacy' or the 'Constitution'...

 

On your last post; Again remember States are independent units and by 'Federal Constitution' can instigate socialism to near any level they want.

Minimum wage, Health Care and a host of issues are already very different.

The Federal, should limit its involvement and does until the issue begins to overlap other rights. California and Wyoming have nothing in common, economically to socially and should never be mandated to be, to make a point.

I would agree, dialog/argument on issue's involving 'National Interest', are important, but its up to each states representation to voice those opinions.

[Nitack]

Can you edit this to everything is about the subject, and not about me?

 

Your the one who first disparaged my entire gender and then offered up yourself and your offspring as shining examples of the virtue and selflessness of man. I simple shot your argument down with extreme prejudice. :)

[Nitack]

Excuse me, but I do not read anything that begins with an insult.

 

Read: I do not respond to anything where I am called out for gross inaccuracies and outright fallacy.

[nutronjon]

Your the one who first disparaged my entire gender and then offered up yourself and your offspring as shining examples of the virtue and selflessness of man. I simple shot your argument down with extreme prejudice. :)

 

I am not, nor I should I be, the subject this thread. If you want to make a thread where I am the subject, call my attention to it. If you speak curteously, I will respond. In that thread, you can quote me to show where I disparaged your gender, it doesn't belong here, unless you are arguing women have always had equal rights and equal economic opportunity and have always enjoyed good wages, and independence, and therefore, it is true people don't give service unless they are paid and can get ahead, and that my argument is therefore untrue.

[freeztar]

Let's try to focus on the thread's subject: Consensus in Politics

 

To restate my earlier position, consensus can not be reached in politics.

 

I believe that the dichotomous system which has evolved to become the majority stance is inadequate for achieving anything close to consensus. IMHO, as soon as we stop waving our white and black flags and work towards a grey flag, the better off we will be.

[nutronjon]

Let's try to focus on the thread's subject: Consensus in Politics

 

To restate my earlier position, consensus can not be reached in politics.

 

I believe that the dichotomous system which has evolved to become the majority stance is inadequate for achieving anything close to consensus. IMHO, as soon as we stop waving our white and black flags and work towards a grey flag, the better off we will be.

 

I always thought the US stood for government by consensus of the people. I thought this is what we were defending in the American Revolution and two world wars. Thomas Jefferson stood for government by a consensus against those who were responsible of the Federalist papers. Several presidents were elected with the notion that they best represent the common people.

 

The very philosophy that is behind the democratic republic of the US, is based on the belief that we are rational beings capable of governing ourselves by consensus.

 

"In Western political philosophy, the principles of constitutional government often have been based on a belief in a higher law- a body of universal principles of right and justice that is superior to detailed, everyday law." World Book Encyclopedia.

[Nitack]

I always thought the US stood for government by consensus of the people. I thought this is what we were defending in the American Revolution and two world wars. Thomas Jefferson stood for government by a consensus against those who were responsible of the Federalist papers. Several presidents were elected with the notion that they best represent the common people.

 

The very philosophy that is behind the democratic republic of the US, is based on the belief that we are rational beings capable of governing ourselves by consensus.

 

You are very incorrect here as well. The founding fathers did not have as much faith in the common man as you seem to think. The philosophy behind a democratic republic was that the common person could not be trusted to make governing decisions, but that they could elect the best from their respective colonies who could be trusted with those decisions.

 

Your claim about the revolution and the two world wars is also incorrect. We were not fighting in order to secure consensus government, we were fighting because the colonies had no REPRESENTATION in parliament yet were still taxed and regulated by that body. In World War One the United states entered the war after a serious of hostile acts by the Germans and finally the tipping point was the Zimmerman Telegram. You remember that right? The telegram where the United States was promised to Mexico if they would enter the war and attack the US. There was no altruism here, it was purely self defense and self security. In World War Two we had similar reasons for entering. Where you got that WWII was fought to secure consensus government confounds me. Remember that little thing called Pearl Harbor? Where the US was attacked by Japan, an ally of Germany. All of the humanitarian pleas in the world to intervene due to the holocaust were ignored. The US leaders knew of the ethnic cleansing but chose to stay out of the war until it was clear that the national security of the US was in jeopardy.

 

Also, please cite your source for your claim about Thomas Jefferson. Because with my degree in American Government, and the books I have read with Jefferson as the focal point (Founding Brothers and American Sphinx both by Joseph Ellis), this is the first I have ever heard that Thomas Jefferson was an advocate for consensus government. He was a strong advocate for states rights and a decentralized government, but no where did he write that a "consensus government" or even a direct democracy was the ideal. In fact, he was an ardent believer in REPUBLICANISM, which meant he believed in representative government.

 

Were you ever going to address the multiple holes I poked in your earlier arguments or were you still of the mindset to ignore posts that don't agree with you?

[nutronjon]

You are very incorrect here as well. The founding fathers did not have as much faith in the common man as you seem to think. The philosophy behind a democratic republic was that the common person could not be trusted to make governing decisions, but that they could elect the best from their respective colonies who could be trusted with those decisions.

 

Your claim about the revolution and the two world wars is also incorrect. We were not fighting in order to secure consensus government, we were fighting because the colonies had no REPRESENTATION in parliament yet were still taxed and regulated by that body. In World War One the United states entered the war after a serious of hostile acts by the Germans and finally the tipping point was the Zimmerman Telegram. You remember that right? The telegram where the United States was promised to Mexico if they would enter the war and attack the US. There was no altruism here, it was purely self defense and self security. In World War Two we had similar reasons for entering. Where you got that WWII was fought to secure consensus government confounds me. Remember that little thing called Pearl Harbor? Where the US was attacked by Japan, an ally of Germany. All of the humanitarian pleas in the world to intervene due to the holocaust were ignored. The US leaders knew of the ethnic cleansing but chose to stay out of the war until it was clear that the national security of the US was in jeopardy.

 

Also, please cite your source for your claim about Thomas Jefferson. Because with my degree in American Government, and the books I have read with Jefferson as the focal point (Founding Brothers and American Sphinx both by Joseph Ellis), this is the first I have ever heard that Thomas Jefferson was an advocate for consensus government. He was a strong advocate for states rights and a decentralized government, but no where did he write that a "consensus government" or even a direct democracy was the ideal. In fact, he was an ardent believer in REPUBLICANISM, which meant he believed in representative government.

 

Were you ever going to address the multiple holes I poked in your earlier arguments or were you still of the mindset to ignore posts that don't agree with you?

 

Trying to get this kind of information off the Internet is getting a lot worse. It is easy to see why we have disagreements. A lot has changed since everyone has been educated to serve the Military/Industrial Complex.

 

Thomas Jefferson held that though the people might make mistakes, governments could usually rely on the public's good judgment.

 

"I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. . . . They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves."

 

-- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787

 

A Bio. of America: A New System of Government - Feature

 

Jefferson might have died a wealthier man, if he had not sank so much of his money into his efforts to have free public education for all children. Not all of the founding fathers were as literate in the classics as Jefferson was. Nothing is more important to democratic republic than literacy in the classics, because this is where all the talked of Nature's Laws and Human Rights comes from.

 

The America Revolution was very much a holy war, with people fighting for human rights and with the belief that God wanted us to be free. The book Founding Faith addresses this subject, and was well researched. I started a thread for discussing the book last week. When Jefferson fought against the Federalist, he argued the people who had just fought for their freedom, would not accept being made subjects, by those who wanted to imitate England in government form.

[Nitack]

Trying to get this kind of information off the Internet is getting a lot worse. It is easy to see why we have disagreements. A lot has changed since everyone has been educated to serve the Military/Industrial Complex.

 

When called out for your lies, claim that everyone else is brainwashed... that is the cornerstone of good debate.

[Nitack]

When the outright lies of Nutronjon are called out for what they are she refuses to address the issue but instead changes the subject to some other tangent. Is anyone who is actually looking for an intellectual discussion still in this thread or can we accurately determine that it has turned into the sounding board for a left wing nutjob?

[jackson33]

I always thought the US stood for government by consensus of the people. I thought this is what we were defending in the American Revolution and two world wars. Thomas Jefferson stood for government by a consensus against those who were responsible of the Federalist papers. Several presidents were elected with the notion that they best represent the common people.

 

The very philosophy that is behind the democratic republic of the US, is based on the belief that we are rational beings capable of governing ourselves by consensus.

 

"In Western political philosophy, the principles of constitutional government often have been based on a belief in a higher law- a body of universal principles of right and justice that is superior to detailed, everyday law." World Book Encyclopedia.

 

"Democracy is no more than MOB rule" where 51% of the mob can force compliance to 49%. Jefferson.

 

Jefferson, as most of the founders worried the average individual 'White Male Property/Business owners' would base decisions on person interest, with regards to National or International Issues or put another way would not become informed.

 

Madison/Hamilton, in writing the 'Federalist Paper' were promoting the acceptance of the 'Constitution'. So to speak, advertising for the acceptance by the various colonial legislatures, through the appropriate people. Neither these papers or the Constitution itself was dependent on any person, who was not WHITE, MALE, OWNED PROPERTY or deemed vested in the interest of the fledgling Republic.

 

The Revolutionary War, was fought against a force that had rejected the Declaration for Independence. The Declaration itself, was based on opposition to the then King of England, but as Jefferson said when submitting his text of the document ("This pretty well has been the view of American's, in the 17th and 18th centuries"). Although 'Taxation w/o representation' is often used for cause, it was a relatively minor point. Actually this taxation, involved whats known as a 'Stamp Act', which had been in progress with in England for some time. As for a 'Holy War' or a fight for human rights....NO. The rights granted under the Amendments AFTER the Constitution was ratified, offered those rights. Even then, they cames from George Mason's Virgina 'Rights of People' and they came in most part from the English 'Magna Carta' written in 1215 AD.

 

 

Freestar; It would be hard to discuss a consensus, with out an understanding where that consensus should come from. In a 'Representative REPUBLIC' and my opinion, that should be from the representation of the total states. Consensus, then would be the majority of the three branches of the government, in some cases or if needed. Many things, now law and frankly argued today are and have never been those from the majority of Individuals.

Its this unique character of rule, I believe, that has made our system work.

 

 

Nitack; Not everything or every one who disagrees with any ideology is necessarily a 'nutjob' either from the left or right. Just as the opposing sides during the late 18th century fought over issue, they have many times through our history. Frankly and even with up to a hundred times the people, there is less today than then.

[Nitack]

Nitack; Not everything or every one who disagrees with any ideology is necessarily a 'nutjob' either from the left or right. Just as the opposing sides during the late 18th century fought over issue, they have many times through our history. Frankly and even with up to a hundred times the people, there is less today than then.

 

Not every one, but you concede there are some, and do not deny that I am in fact referring to a genuine 'nutjob'.

 

Our two parties today would have been considered of the same political leaning compared to our early parties.

 

An additional point that I would like to inject, is that our very system of government promotes ONLY two parties in the long term. Not necessarily any particular parties, but there can only really be two. It has to do with the fact that we have a winner take all system and use districting to give individuals from different areas a distinct voice.

 

Imagine this scenario if you will: There is a great awakening where masses of people come to realize that they actually believe in socially liberal/progressive policy and simultaneously believe in fiscal discipline and small government. That would put them into the position of not adequately being represented by either party as their views in some aspect puts them at odds with the stated beliefs and historical identity of both Democrats and Republicans. Where do they turn? To the Libertarian party. They believe in fiscally conservative policies, small government, the importance of self reliance, and individual freedoms (as in I don't care what OTHER people do in THEIR bedrooms). A.K.A. Socially Liberal/Fiscally Conservative. So they go out and VOTE. Here is how the election plays out. By a miracle that any mathematician would call impossible, each district and state has a 51% to 49% split. The Libertarian candidate in each district gained 49% of the vote. The other 51% was either all republican or all democrat, both parties winning the same number of districts. This happens for three straight elections (Senators have a six year term and only a third of them are up for reelection every two years). Now, you have a congress that is exactly divided between democrats and republicans despite the fact that each of those parties only had a quarter of the popular vote. The Libertarian party which had almost half of the country in their favor, and almost double the amount of votes of any other party, has not a single seat in congress and no say in the government.

 

A far fetched scenario yes, but it is completely possible with in the election system we have.

[jackson33]

Every political strategist today, is aware of your scenario. They are using the system, to gain some form of political control. However these are parties, not our government or what in the end has restraints on possible action.

 

A good example would be the perceived rise of Obama, with the assistance of media having an interesting story. During the early days of democratic caucus, people chose from 6-10 candidates. In these caucus (not secret ballots), the winner or winners were a composite of of voters making a second, third or forth choice ending up in the winners column.

 

The US demographics have dramatically changed, during the past 50-90 years as more and more joined the total voting block. We now have virtually every person, with a personal interest in which party is in charge and whether an individual or a corporation its that party that matters. To counter this we have two major parties, biding for this changing voter block.

 

Wasn't it Jefferson, that felt liberalism would result naturally from the government that was formed and it should be the system to prevent total control of any one philosophy. The fact, over 50% of US families now receive some form of government assistance, every month and growing annually, tell me the system is still working. Add to this, demands by various city or states populations on their local government, knowing their local taxes will rise are on the rise.

 

I have read many post on many 'political' forums that come from American's who would make 'Nutron' seem conservative. The one thing that continues to surprise me, is it usually comes from older folks who IMO should know better.

The younger folks, for whatever reason, grow out of their idealistic attitudes generally before their first vote.

 

I do agree, the original system was 'Best person' to address 'National Interest or policy'. How many different ways can there be to do, just that?

[Nitack]

Wasn't it Jefferson, that felt liberalism would result naturally from the government that was formed and it should be the system to prevent total control of any one philosophy. 1 The fact, over 50% of US families now receive some form of government assistance, every month and growing annually, 2 tell me the system is still working. Add to this, demands by various city or states populations on their local government, knowing their local taxes will rise are on the rise.

 

1. So if that figure is accurate, you are telling me that OVER 50% (a majority) are receiving government assistance. Hmmmmm... that reminds me of something... oh yes. We discussed this quite heavily in my Democratic Theory class. It is called Tyranny of the Majority. That is when a minority in a democratic system is held hostage to the will of a majority in a way that puts the interests of the majority disproportionately above the interests of the minority. You know we have actually seen a stunning example of the Tyranny of the Majority in our history as well. It was the 1930's in a central European country. Rampant inflation and an unsettled population gave the perfect opening for a scapegoat to be created and the rise to power of one of the most influential men in history. The country was Germany, and the man was Adolf Hitler. He was democratically elected and through the popular will of the people of Germany (with some motivational speeches on his part) he launched a campaign that left millions of Jews dead. An extreme example, but completely true. I consider the theft of billions of dollars from hard working Americans in order to be redistributed to be a very troubling notion as well. You say "government assistance", I call it institutionalized theft from those who earned the money that funds those programs.

2. Your definition of a working system and mine are drastically different. I define a system that protects the opportunity of every person to EARN a decent living (civil rights, free education for all, etc.) a working system. Not everyone will succeed, but everyone has the chance to. A system where over half the population get wealth and resources that have been forcibly redistributed (the penalty of jail time for non-compliance is a threat) from the minority... well I can call that a number of things, but theft, thuggery, communism, and socialism all come to mind.