User insights

[Citizen]

I'll bet that you think you really made a good argument there - devoid of anything tangible though it may be.

You use underlying and implied thoughts as if they are factual statements of his contentions. It would seem you are more applying you own spin to the prose.

Huh!?!?!

Do you really not see how the premises I mentioned underlie his arguments?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Again I see attributing to another, other than what they said. No one say anything remotely like "find a (forget wonderful) candidate who will not only do no harm, but stop the harm."

IMO - what Skidmark has said is that if you do not vote for the best candidate (in your opinion), then you have given up/forfeited the most effective tool at your disposal.

History just has not proven this at all.

History actually has shown non-compliance and not doing what is expected from the people as the biggest tool at our disposal.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I agree but am very very picky. If the slaves can choose a master who will only beat them once a day instead of 10 scenario.

The only problem is noone I ever voted for ever won, I think because they would have actually reduced the violence.

Instead we have a long history of one president after another systematically increasing the violence. Reagan increased it way more than Carter, Bush more than Reagan, Clinton more than Bush, Bush more than Clinton, Obama more than Bush, Romney or McCain would have increased it the same or more than Obama.

I have a problem with the religious like reverence people have for voting. OMG! you didn't partake in the sacrament this year! What a heretic!

You're right about that. And when I vote L it is generally an experiment of faith. Perhaps an L will be put into the white house one day and the results will be disappointing.
But I know what the results are of the Rs and Ds. I have a long history to look at to see.
So my options are:
* not vote, which is a valid way to protest the system
or
* vote for the L guy, who makes all the right promises but hasn't had the chance to prove it one way or the other.

Also don't feel bad. I vote every time and have never voted for anyone that won.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I'll bet that you think you really made a good argument there - devoid of anything tangible though it may be.

You use underlying and implied thoughts as if they are factual statements of his contentions. It would seem you are more applying you own spin to the prose.

Seems a little unfair. Conversations are full of implications worthy of regard. This direction started with the statement "If you vote you can whine" or something like that.
Surely the implication is "if you don't vote you can't whine" for whatever reason.

 

[The Wolfhound]

I envy those who vote for a particular candidate because they support them.

I find the majority of my votes are to DEFEAT someone I perceive as capable of causing much greater harm. There are but a few of the politician class I would vote FOR. The best opportunity for change is in the primary stage. Once the party has chosen candidates, there is little affect other than picking the perceived lesser of the evils. Again though, the concept of government will be inflicted upon us whether we agree or approve or not remains. Failing to participate means you took no opportunity to mitigate the harm government WILL cause. I respect a vote for a failure candidate as there was a chance (unless the game is truly rigged, and that, is a separate discussion) that the candidate could win. No vote at all, is choosing to take no action against policies that government will enact. That may as well be approval.

When I stand upon my soapbox and try to inspire citizens, I implore them:
This nation is a republic, not a democracy. For a republic to function it cannot be a spectator sport watched from the couch. We must be involved at every level and let our elected representatives know our approval, our disapproval and our desires. They work for us, and neither they, nor we, should ever dare forget it.

And if you doubt the existence of that soapbox, come out to an Appleseed. I can be found atop that box more than once a month.

 

[user]

I think I did have an insight, once, but it didn't hurt me none.

1) People in the Eighteenth Century sort of assumed that when we all engaged in "the social contract", that we had the power to bind our heirs to that contract as well. When what actually happens is that the contract gets renegotiated with every new generation. And the terms change depending on the balance of "bargaining power" every few years. At some point, The System will lose "the mandate of Heaven", and the workers will go on strike. But that time comes only when the just-plain-folks decide they have nothing to lose but their chains. And until they realize that the golden handcuffs they're wearing ARE chains. Until that happens, they're willing to get "nickel-and-dimed to death".

2) I almost always vote "none of the above"; I used to be politically active, and have thought about public office myself from time to time. But I always come up with the same conclusion: no one in his right mind would want that job - that's why those who are in office at any particular time are mostly crazy. (Morrissey is just one of the most obvious.)

 

[skidmark]

Nevada did it. Minnesota is trying to do it. http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/major-win-none/

(formerly) Great Britain wants to do it. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petiti...ne-of-the-above-option-for-all-uk-elections-2

All I ask is that the losing candidates be required to pay for the subsequent election. (Sort of a civil penalty for "defrauding the public" kind of thing.)

stay safe.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP People in the Eighteenth Century sort of assumed that when we all engaged in "the social contract", that we had the power to bind our heirs to that contract as well. When what actually happens is that the contract gets renegotiated with every new generation. And the terms change depending on the balance of "bargaining power" every few years. At some point, The System will lose "the mandate of Heaven", and the workers will go on strike. But that time comes only when the just-plain-folks decide they have nothing to lose but their chains. And until they realize that the golden handcuffs they're wearing ARE chains. Until that happens, they're willing to get "nickel-and-dimed to death".

I'd be curious to learn more.

I ask because Thos. Jefferson wrote James Madison a letter in which Jefferson suggested that. He was wrestling with exactly the question of whether a current generation could bind a future generation. One of the solutions he suggested was that maybe it would be better to have a new constitution every new generation. He recognized people are being born every day, so it would be impossible to literally have each new generation vote on a new constitution--you'd be having an election every day. So, he suggested a vote on a new (or amended?) constitution every so many years, the number of years meant to approximate a generation.

Separately, I had to chuckle about the mandate of Heaven. Isn't that a Chinese justification for the emperor's legitimacy? Great way to get that point across!

However, I think you're pulling our leg about having only one insight.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

1) People in the Eighteenth Century sort of assumed that when we all engaged in "the social contract", that we had the power to bind our heirs to that contract as well. When what actually happens is that the contract gets renegotiated with every new generation. And the terms change depending on the balance of "bargaining power" every few years. At some point, The System will lose "the mandate of Heaven", and the workers will go on strike. But that time comes only when the just-plain-folks decide they have nothing to lose but their chains. And until they realize that the golden handcuffs they're wearing ARE chains. Until that happens, they're willing to get "nickel-and-dimed to death".

2) I almost always vote "none of the above"; I used to be politically active, and have thought about public office myself from time to time. But I always come up with the same conclusion: no one in his right mind would want that job - that's why those who are in office at any particular time are mostly crazy. (Morrissey is just one of the most obvious.)

Nice phrasing!

At that time most (europeans at least) still thought they were in liege to a divine ruler too.

Many are starting to realize that there is no social contract, and we owe no leige to a single person or an oligarchy of many.

 

[skidmark]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liege

Definition of LIEGE

1
a : having the right to feudal allegiance or service <his liege lord>
b : obligated to render feudal allegiance and service
2
: faithful, loyal

Back when there were leige lords the only folks who could render allegiance and service to them were nobles of lesser rank. Merchants (when they came about) and serfs were pretty much told what to do as regards what the lord of the manor wanted done but were left to settle their personal squabbles among themselves by any means short of (formal) trial by combat.

The social contract is not some document or oath that everybody signs/swears to. It's a nice shorthand for explaining why the lesser folks get along with each other - like when folks make a somewhat orderly line to get on the bus instead of al rushing when the doors open. Obviously the "social contract" is broken when the masses smell the blood of bargains awaiting as the doors are opened on Black Friday (which now seems to have gone past Black Thursday to Black Wednesday).

But if there is no social contract what keeps people from bludgeoning each other over minor insults?

stay safe.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liege



Back when there were leige lords the only folks who could render allegiance and service to them were nobles of lesser rank. Merchants (when they came about) and serfs were pretty much told what to do as regards what the lord of the manor wanted done but were left to settle their personal squabbles among themselves by any means short of (formal) trial by combat.

The social contract is not some document or oath that everybody signs/swears to. It's a nice shorthand for explaining why the lesser folks get along with each other - like when folks make a somewhat orderly line to get on the bus instead of al rushing when the doors open. Obviously the "social contract" is broken when the masses smell the blood of bargains awaiting as the doors are opened on Black Friday (which now seems to have gone past Black Thursday to Black Wednesday).

But if there is no social contract what keeps people from bludgeoning each other over minor insults?

stay safe.

Since we don't have a "class" system, the idea of liege continues in another form here. But you knew what I was getting at.

Give me a break. Humanity's inclination not to bludgeon each other. Social Contract is not short hand for that. Social contract is the means others delude people that we owe allegiance to the state, and the idea that without the state we all would be raving lunatics, killing each other. Yet history has proven this just not to be the case.

Every king is a despot. Every sovereignty, every asserted power, every superstructure and political structure ever was built on a fundamental crime. And for us to say, like, Well, we all came together at some point in the past and we all kind of consented and agreed and this is the way it is… No, everything is built on these unjustifiable acts and usurpations of power and we intentionally obscure that to ourselves to pretend, well, it’s a system and we’re all participating. No, that’s a slave morality. You’re just trying to justify why you live in an unjust world.- Cody Wilson