Obviously what we want is a lot more guns

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: too close

Post by henry quirk » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:01 pm

"people need governance"

Well, my contention is the American system is supposed to be about a narrow focus of power, a severely limited authority, with most of the power residing with individuals. That is: people need proxies, not directors.

#

"most people, have a social conscience and also feel sympathetic"

Nice, but not particularly relevant. I want my proxies to do their jobs as described, not interpret those descriptions through the lens of their own sensibility. If that's not possible for any person, then go do sumthin' else.

In context: the federal constitution is pretty damn clear about what, for example, Congress can't do but I'll be damned if they don't go ahead and do it anyway, abetted by a royal Executive and schizoid Judiciary (I refer, as example, to the ACA, a blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation pronoted by Obama, rammed through by Congress, given a pass by the Supreme Court).

Again: the American system has failed to the extent it has strayed from the notion of mostly small, mostly neutral governance.

#

Trying to not break the law: would you describe the my own pragmaticism outlined above as me just trying to not break the law?

Walker
Posts: 4080
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re:

Post by Walker » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:03 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:29 pm
"Responsible legislators are not biased by what "Folks" believe they have a right to do."

As employees they damn well better take into account the reasonings of their employers, and -- at the same time -- they damn well better adhere to their job descriptions.

Ignoring the employers (or, catering to a small vocal subset) and ranging far a'field from what they were hired to do is a sure recipe for termination (or dictatorship, if the employers don't reign 'em in).
That sounds about right, and for that reason, encourage a kid to match the Job qualifications and description for creative designer, if you think he or she has the capacity. But be impartial in the assessment, because staying inside the box can be a comfortable life, and stepping outside of it should be an urgent and choiceless imperative. Besides, those who can match the qualifications of exceptional creative designers are rare.

Next job level, the best of the most exceptional fitting the job demands, designer being an example.

:D

Belinda
Posts: 1491
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re:

Post by Belinda » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:21 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:01 pm
"people need governance"

Well, my contention is the American system is supposed to be about a narrow focus of power, a severely limited authority, with most of the power residing with individuals. That is: people need proxies, not directors.

#

"most people, have a social conscience and also feel sympathetic"

Nice, but not particularly relevant. I want my proxies to do their jobs as described, not interpret those descriptions through the lens of their own sensibility. If that's not possible for any person, then go do sumthin' else.

In context: the federal constitution is pretty damn clear about what, for example, Congress can't do but I'll be damned if they don't go ahead and do it anyway, abetted by a royal Executive and schizoid Judiciary (I refer, as example, to the ACA, a blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation pronoted by Obama, rammed through by Congress, given a pass by the Supreme Court).

Again: the American system has failed to the extent it has strayed from the notion of mostly small, mostly neutral governance.

#

Trying to not break the law: would you describe the my own pragmaticism outlined above as me just trying to not break the law?
Because of what you wrote about my hypothetical doctor's motives, I thought that you presumed that not breaking the law was most people's normal motivation. I hope that you are more mature than that.

Very generally, the more optimistic you are about people's innate ability to prosper and be peaceful the more you support a small governing body.

Most nations are huge enough to need what amounts to a large governing legislating body. Because of the diversity of individuals' needs and interests there's need for a great deal of law making and law keeping. It's the complexity of the society that calls for complex governance.
I wonder , Henry, if you believe that your country is still made up of rural areas where enough people know and respect each other, and want similar life styles, that they can sort themselves out in any disagreement. I wonder this, because that way of life is surely rare, even in the vast rural spaces of the US.

People do need proxies, not arbitrators, in an ideal world where the rulers know the electorate's way of life really intimately from childhood ideally. However this is seldom the case. Modern life is so complex and various that a ruler has to either be more expert than the electorate or employs experts for their advice.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: too close

Post by henry quirk » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:19 pm

"Because of what you wrote about my hypothetical doctor's motives, I thought that you presumed that not breaking the law was most people's normal motivation."

But, B, that's not what I said. I said he was motivated by self-interest. In the particular example you gave, 'not breaking the law' is just one possible expression of that self-interest. In a different circunstance 'breaking the law' might very well be the viable expression of self-interest. For example: the law of a particular state may prohibit your doctor from practicing abortion. Your doctor has a life-threatening pregnancy on his hands. He, the Doc, decides to abort the pregnancy in defiance of the law. He does so cuz his self-interest (his self-defined and profession-defined identity and morality) demand he care for his patient and 'do no harm'. He assesses doing nuthin' in accord with the law will 'do harm' and so: he breaks the law, willfully.

Self-interest, the foundation for everything each of us does, can be expressed in as many differest ways as there are 'expressers'. What's a proper act of self-interest for one may not be so for another.

#

"I hope that you are more mature than that."

Best not to dwell on such things, B, cuz you'll likely be disaapointed.

#

"Very generally, the more optimistic you are about people's innate ability to prosper and be peaceful the more you support a small governing body."

I support minimal governance cuz individuals are more capable of successful self-direction than they've been led to believe. I advocate for small government simply cuz I believe most people, most of the time, can self-govern, can self-rely.

#

"Most nations are huge enough to need what amounts to a large governing legislating body. Because of the diversity of individuals' needs and interests there's need for a great deal of law making and law keeping. It's the complexity of the society that calls for complex governance."

The beauty of the American system, often overlooked, is: while a nation, the U.S. is made of fifty independent states, each with its own independent government (and each state has various villages, towns, cities that should self-govern).There's no need for a large, overarching federal cuz each state (specifically the citizens of each state [specifically the citizens of each community]) is supposed to self-govern and take care of itself. 'Cooperation' (that pesky self-interest again) is supposed to be what 'unites' the states, not the strong arm of the federal. For decades, a whole whack of folks have worked to erode and diminish 'state' in favor of a strong federal, for obvious reasons, and clearly in defiance of the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

#

"I wonder , Henry, if you believe that your country is still made up of rural areas where enough people know and respect each other, and want similar life styles, that they can sort themselves out in any disagreement. I wonder this, because that way of life is surely rare, even in the vast rural spaces of the US."

One need only spend time in California and then in my home state, Louisiana, to see the vast cultural differences that exist, differences determined by geography, economic demand, up bringing, etc.

Louisiana and California are practically aliens to one another. Values, thinking, goals couldn't be more different. Hell, even within a state like mine there are noticeable differences between, for example, north and south. And most definitely there are noticeable differences between country folk and city folk. As picayune as changing your own oil in the country and robotically taking it to the mechanic in the city; as profound as hunting ducks in the country and relying solely on what's in the grocery in the city; as real as two settling a difference between themselves and two runnin' to the courts without even speakin' together first in the city.

#

"People do need proxies, not arbitrators, in an ideal world where the rulers know the electorate's way of life really intimately from childhood ideally. However this is seldom the case. Modern life is so complex and various that a ruler has to either be more expert than the electorate or employs experts for their advice."

No, people need proxies who are mostly arbiters cuz when you can't settle it yourself, you heed that last, local, resort.

The way things go now: large, proactive government gets up in your business, buttin' in where its not wanted or needed.

The way it's supposed to be (in America): small government shuts the hell up and does nuthin' till you go to it, and then its response is narrow with a well-defined end point. And always, when government must be involved, local government takes precedence over regional and federal.

Belinda
Posts: 1491
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns

Post by Belinda » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:31 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:
The way things go now: large, proactive government gets up in your business, buttin' in where its not wanted or needed.

The way it's supposed to be (in America): small government shuts the hell up and does nuthin' till you go to it, and then its response is narrow with a well-defined end point. And always, when government must be involved, local government takes precedence over regional and federal.
You are well informing me and I appreciate.

In view of what I copied and pasted, above. How does small national government, and local authority social control, work in the case of universally available electronic communications, and also interstate mobility? In those cases there is need for national level control over , for instance, terrorist propaganda, and irresponsible gun owners and dealers.

You have informed me about the great variety of local cultures in the USA. Don't you think that in the USA as everywhere else cultures of belief and practice are intermingling without melding with each other?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: too close

Post by henry quirk » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:42 pm

"You are well informing me and I appreciate."

I'm in a mentoring mood and you're the beneficiary.

#

"How does small national government, and local authority social control, work in the case of universally available electronic communications, and also interstate mobility?"

Ideally, communications and movement are things all levels of gov ought to be silent on. If a verifable threat looms as result of either, local, regional, federal govs have emergency powers. The use of such authority is to be limited, narrow, and active only within the context of the particular threat. Americans aren't suppsed to live in a state of emergency, aren't supposed to turn a blind eye to indiscreet use of these emergency powers. But, more and more, we do, and, more and more, we do.

#

"In those cases there is need for national level control over , for instance, terrorist propaganda, and irresponsible gun owners and dealers."

Americans should be damned careful how we allow employees to to define 'emergency' and 'threat'. And, there's absolutely no need for any level of gov to interfere with the free flow of information and propaganda (citizens can, given half a change, act as self-filters) or with gun ownership or selling (the sins of a few cannot be foisted up on the many [or the one] and 'innocent till proven guilty' means just that, even if you own a gun).

#

"You have informed me about the great variety of local cultures in the USA. Don't you think that in the USA as everywhere else cultures of belief and practice are intermingling without melding with each other?"

Oh, there's some blending but not nearly to the degree that some believe or that some would like. Most of the blending is surface and mediocre, fundamental things remain mostly unadulterated.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:42 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:53 pm
Power is impartial, self-regulating, and manifests form according to conditions.
You are as nutty as a fruitcake.

Walker
Posts: 4080
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns

Post by Walker » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:24 am

:)

The world within appears.

Belinda
Posts: 1491
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re:

Post by Belinda » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:42 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:42 pm
"You are well informing me and I appreciate."

I'm in a mentoring mood and you're the beneficiary.

#

"How does small national government, and local authority social control, work in the case of universally available electronic communications, and also interstate mobility?"

Ideally, communications and movement are things all levels of gov ought to be silent on. If a verifable threat looms as result of either, local, regional, federal govs have emergency powers. The use of such authority is to be limited, narrow, and active only within the context of the particular threat. Americans aren't suppsed to live in a state of emergency, aren't supposed to turn a blind eye to indiscreet use of these emergency powers. But, more and more, we do, and, more and more, we do.

(Belinda replies): it worries me and many others that Americans don't feel a state of emergency. The proper response to state of emergency is not always Draconian policing and tanks and guns and so on but can and should be diplomacy in foreign affairs like some Americans have been famous for in the past: improvements to welfare of American individuals in need: aid to strangers on American territory: education for the masses like the best that America provides for richer individuals: free journalism: controls on environmental degradation.



#

"In those cases there is need for national level control over , for instance, terrorist propaganda, and irresponsible gun owners and dealers."

Americans should be damned careful how we allow employees to to define 'emergency' and 'threat'. And, there's absolutely no need for any level of gov to interfere with the free flow of information and propaganda (citizens can, given half a change, act as self-filters) or with gun ownership or selling (the sins of a few cannot be foisted up on the many [or the one] and 'innocent till proven guilty' means just that, even if you own a gun).
(Belinda replies):

Citizens act as self filters under ideal-ish social conditions because of their social consciences. Your style of conscience is becoming clear to me. Your conscience/consciousness is decidedly optimistic regarding the ability of individuals to resist social evils. I say "your" conscience/consciousness . You write clearly accompanied by real social observations and I am thinking that you maybe express a general right wing, conservative consciousness/conscience among Americans.This attitude among Americans ,as you describe it, seems to me to be more feelingly ingrained than it is in Britain.
#

"You have informed me about the great variety of local cultures in the USA. Don't you think that in the USA as everywhere else cultures of belief and practice are intermingling without melding with each other?"

Oh, there's some blending but not nearly to the degree that some believe or that some would like. Most of the blending is surface and mediocre, fundamental things remain mostly unadulterated.
(Belinda replies):Interesting. I'd like to read more.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:42 am

Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:24 am
:)

The world within appears.

Q E Fucking D.

Walker
Posts: 4080
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns

Post by Walker » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:56 am

Poor old Hobbes. What a rut.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:57 am

Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:56 am
Poor old Hobbes. What a rut.
You keep on giving.

Walker
Posts: 4080
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns

Post by Walker » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:01 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:57 am
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:56 am
Poor old Hobbes. What a rut.
You keep on giving.
So stuck on no, you can't even write anything of substance in your own ... thread.

Trying to distract from your own thread.

Like a dog that does a little poo poo in the food it can't eat.

The world within is ugly, and it manifests as bile.

Want some more?

:lol:

Belinda
Posts: 1491
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns

Post by Belinda » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:33 am

Walker, your latest post was unnecessary and obscene. It lacked anything of any use to man or beast.

Belinda
Posts: 1491
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns

Post by Belinda » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:35 am

If you had been in a bad temper I could overlook but your tone is smug and cold.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests