[PLUG-TALK] How to be a good Democrat

[Russ Johnson]

* Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-10-20 15:06]:
> 
> What did I tell you about duplicate messages?

Sorry. I forgot to use the proper keystroke after a weekend of not
having to worry about it. 

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> > * Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-10-19 23:12]:
> > > And, of course, you consider yourself one of those "exceptions"?
> > > This is just arrogance.
> >
> > Why shouldn't I consider myself an exception?
> 
> Why shouldn't you consider everyone smart?

Just as the courts are "supposed" to consider everyone innocent until
proven guilty, I assume smart until proven silly. 

> > I recognize the stupidity of others actions without any help from
> > another being.
> 
> Are you kidding me?  Do you think stupidity is some objective thing like
> brown eyes that you can recognize in others and will be simply true
> regardless of observer or other informing information?

Oh, sometimes it takes some time, but the silly ones show themselves
quite readily. Most of the time, talking to them for a while is all
that's required. 

> I think the folks that consider "most people stupid" just aren't creative
> enough to interpret the situation in a way that shows the other person
> making appropriate decisions.

But all decisions ARE NOT APPROPRIATE. Some are downright stupid. Many
are simply silly. It's like the time Hyundai was fined for runoff. They
built catchbasins for the runoff as if it were an average year for
rainfall. I guess they didn't get the memo (from God?) that said
rainfall was going to be a record breaker. When the runoff catchbasin
overflowed into the local river, the state fined them. Stupid decision,
as it wouldn't have happened, had it been an average year. 

> You have this arbitrary and completely subjective idea of what it means to
> be stupid.  Basically, it means "not like me" (since you're an exception
> and "not stupid" and expect everyone to consider themselves exceptions).

All we have is our own scale. 

> > You are continually telling everyone in the plug list how they should
> > behave.
> 
> I am absolutely NOT telling people how to behave.  I'm describing a method
> of action that is consistent with the base assumption that goodness
> requires forgiveness, love, and respect, and that should be your guide.

And you "suggest" that we should all conform to these standards. In so
far as you berated Rich the other day for wanting to spam spammers. In
my book, suggesting and telling are synonymous. 

> > Isn't that arrogance on your part?
> 
> I'm open to discussion.  If you think there's a flaw in my reasoning,
> let's hash it out.  If you think there are contradictions in my axia,
> point them out and see if we can't refine them to reconcile.

I'm always open to discussion. As I said in my message to Russell, I
don't judge the "people" as much as the decisions they make. I've seen
the same person make silly decisions, and then turn around and make a
fantastic decision. Of course, this is all "in my opinion" and opinions
vary.

> Now, I'm aware of basic "incompleteness", here, and I think that's just a
> problem with the way the human brain works.  It's unfortunate that logic
> itself is flawed.

There's a difference. I don't think that "logic" in itself is flawed. At
the same time, I understand the species we are is not a logical animal.
We can (usually) work things out logically. Will we? Most likely not. 

> Anyway, I don't see myself as telling people what to do so much as telling
> people that their actions are inconsistent with the basic fundamental idea
> of being good which is a necessary requirement for all of the other things
> they expect from civilization.

And in so doing, you point out (tell) the "proper" way of behaving, in
your opinion. So, boiled down to it's simplest form, you tell people how
to behave. 

> > You fail to recognize that you may not be the keeper of the right
> > answer.
> 
> I think I'm constantly aware of the fact that I probably am wrong.  I just
> don't know any better, yet.

OK. 

> > Or, if you do, you fail to recognize that we all have the ability and
> > the right to choose NOT to do as Jeme says.
> 
> I don't fail to recognize that, either, or else I'd go insane wondering
> why people weren't following my every command.  I think I'm capable of
> looking around and seeing people not doing as I say and extrapolating the
> idea that they are, therefore, capable of not doing as I say.

Well, that goes along with my idea that we're all insane to a degree
too. Some are just more insane than others. 

> > Everyone is arrogant to a point. Some are just more blantant about it.
> 
> Not JUST more blatant, but more arrogant and less aware.  Being aware of
> your tendencies toward arrogance can help you reduce their occurance and
> influence.
> 
> Nobody's perfect; some just try harder than others.

I would not want to be perfect. It would be exceedingly boring to be
perfect. I started having a LOT more fun when I realized that. So I
don't even try to be perfect any longer. 

> I don't think you made a study at all.  I think you had an assumption and
> interpreted your observations in such a way that they did not conflict and
> that was deemed proof of the assumption.

No, actually, it was the reverse. At one time, I held humanity in such
high regard. Then I started listening to the collective song that
humanity sings. I found that much of it was horrible to listen to. So I
listened to the words. What they said just didn't make sense. Logically
or otherwise. 

> > Most people are just going through life without a clue.
> 
> That doesn't even mean anything.

Why not? They're going through the motions. They get up in the morning,
do things, and go to bed at night. They do this because that's what they
were told is "normal". They have no plans, they have no dreams. They
vote for the guy the paper says to vote for. They don't look for other
information that may or may not agree with what they read. 

> > Or, they are making decisions based on some notion of a higher calling
> > that isn't born out in any sort of logic.
> 
> Assumptions are rarely born out of logic.  You need assumptions, or axia,
> in order to construct a logical system.  The assumptions themselves become
> the "higher calling".

I said decisions, not assumptions.

> > I discarded his statement, because he didn't back it up. It's a nice
> > theory, now prove it.
> 
> How would you "back it up"?  It's functionally equivalent to all those
> "thinning the herd" argument that people who don't understand evolution
> spew all the time.

His argument was that this was the republican plank or something like
that. I asked him for references to where this was stated. 

> > > Another example is allowing the poor to go cold and hungry because YOU
> > > don't think they work hard enough to have things they need.
> >
> > Again, I have no problem with giving a hand-up. I have major
> > difficulties with giving hand-outs.
> 
> And again, there's no difference except your personal expectation of the
> recipients' intent... which you can't possibly know.

Not at first, no. But if someone makes a habit of taking hand outs,
their intentions become clear. That's one of the things I agree with
that Jesus supposedly said, "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime." 

So, I figure, in this instance, I'm in good company. Assuming, of
course, that Jesus was real. 

> > There are ways of staying warm and fed that don't require illegal
> > activity, and don't require hand outs. We've abandoned them in favor of
> > welfare. No, you can't live in a downtown apartment when you use them,
> > but your warm and fed, and you did it yourself.
> 
> Actually, most of the people I know who live in downtown apartments are
> living on some kind of public assistance.

Yeah, I did find that most of the buildings I looked at were section 8.
That's one of the reasons I'm living in Aloha. 

> And what exactly do mean by "did it yourself"?  Are you saying that
> finding a rich person and doing whatever they say for the ability to eat
> is a noble and honorable way to live?  That's what most folks call an
> "honest living" these days.

I don't do "whatever they say". I have specific tasks, and they have
specific expectations. My boss (and his boss, etc) are not rich. They
have more than I do, this much is true. But they are not "rich by any
stretch of the imagination. 

But yeah, I see no problem with trading hours for dollars. It seems to
work, and if done right, can result in much goodness. 

> But personally, I'm appalled by a system that leaves control over the
> basic means of survival (food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education,
> etc.) in the hands of those that would use that control to improve their
> own standing and withhold those things from human beings who do not
> actively seek to please the controller.

So you are saying that everyone (including those that are too lazy to do
it themselves) deserve food and shelter? You should move to China. 

> The choice for most Americans is to find a rich cock and suck it in order
> to get bread and water.

You can start your own business. That's one example. 

> > It's a proven fact that people on welfare have a low self image, while
> > those who have gotten themselves off welfare and take care of themselves
> > have a higher self image.
> 
> First, I'd question whether anything about self-image can be called a
> "proven fact"... but I digress...
> 
> Perhaps these people have a low self-image because there are people like
> you telling them they're not good enough and not trying hard enough and
> are losers that are worth nothing.
> 
> If we stopped treating the poor like shit, perhaps they wouldn't feel so
> bad about themselves.

Do you realize how self-perpetuating welfare is? 

> > In case you think I'm talking out the side of my mouth, I have been a
> > recipient of food stamps and other forms of public assistance. But,
> > unlike many of the folks I've met, I didn't want to stay on public
> > assistance. I worked my tail off to climb out of the sewer and make my
> > own way in life.
> 
> And now you're a corporate dependent instead of a state dependent.  Lucky
> you.

And I'm much better for it. I actually do something (accompish something
beside creating more mouths to feed) and work for a company with people
that care for the rest of humanity. The company I work for sponsors a
local school, helps with lots of other projects around the area, and
we're not even profitable yet. 

> > We've seen, throughout our short history, that as the population of
> > voters increases, and more of the "majority" is represented, that he was
> > right in some other of his statements.
> 
> Which other statements?

I was thinking specifically where he talked about how if full democracy
were to be implimented in England, an agrarian society would result. 

In our case, as more folks get the vote, it becomes more and more
muddled as to what "fair" is. 

> It's true that as democracy decreases, deregulation and private power is
> increasing.  That's the story of the last twenty-five years of American
> development.  And as a result, people work more for less and the rich get
> richer.

If private power is increasing, why are people working more for less and
the rich getting richer? If private power were increasing, it seems to
me that it would be getting better for all, not just the rich. 

It seems to me that democracy is INcreasing, and with deregulation,
things are getting worse for the masses.

> 
> Or are you simply saying that he's right about the purpose of government
> because the rich have been getting richer as the government gains power
> and becomes less beholden to the people as a whole?

Which is it? Is private power or government power increasing?

> I do understand the context.  He was warning his fatcat friends against
> doing the right thing by the people, else they would lose their fatcat
> status and become unwashed masses.  It's a fine example of FUD.

Just out of curiousity, what would you do? Would you spread everything
equally among all the people? What would cause anything to actually get
done? Now, I would probably continue to work were I work, because I
enjoy it. But the guy digging a ditch really has no insentive to
continue working if he hates his job and he'll still get food, shelter,
medical etc. for nothing. 

How would you motivate those "unwashed masses" to do the jobs they don't
enjoy?

-- 
Russ Johnson
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
http://www.dimstar.net

Top post? http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Is it a co-incidence that there are 42 characters, including spaces, in the following sentence:

"Answer to life the universe and everything"