Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians by HKCavalier

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The kind of government I don't like is the kind promoted by self-righteous bigots who think they have the right to force their opinions of "the right way to live" on others. Apart from that, I'm pretty much in favor of law and order. Despite our 'thought experiments' on this board, I'm not really ready to embrace anarchy. Certainly not in the immediate future.

What gnaws at you and Signy is that I don't buy the ruse that your fundamental philosophy of government is any different Auraptor's. You all want to see people 'brought to heel'. You just have a different idea of what they ought to be forced to do.

It disturbs me greatly when a family goes down the drain because dad is gone and mom is on drugs, when their children are neglected or (worse) beaten up; when people who don't smoke are forced to endure the smoke and the risk from people who do; when everyone is afraid of their neighbor with good reason; when people live wretched lives because of the greed and power of others. I'll bet these things disturb you too. I doubt that you could walk by a parent beating their kid in public with a shrug of your shoulders and say Well, that's their business.

I think we have an 80% overlap in "what" we want. The difference is HOW we think we're going to get there. Hero, Auraptor, and Finn believe in government violence. You? You believe in personal violence. And me? I personally don't believe in violence at all. I've come to realize that if you use violence to obtain a peaceful end, it just ain't gonna happen.

If "the government" is prohibited from using violence where does the "abuse of government power" come in? I think I understand your fears and goals but you seem to consistently misrepresent mine. I'm tempted to say

you but I'm gonna chalk it up to your lack of imagination.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You? You believe in personal violence. And me? I personally don't believe in violence at all. I've come to realize that if you use violence to obtain a peaceful end, it just ain't gonna happen.

I don't quite know what you mean by 'belief' in violence, or why you think I believe in 'personal violence', whatever that means. But you're kidding yourself when you try to pretend that the government intrusion you're so fond of doesn't involve violence.

Neither the government nor the individual can afford to rule out violence as an option. But it should only be in response to violence. It's the initiation of violence that should be condemned.

So, when a government agency busts down the door to stop abuse, as long as there's good reason to believe that it's actually going on, I'm all for that. The problem comes when you start concocting schemes to stop bad things from happening beforehand - preventative law. I've seen very few of these plans that don't involve the initiation of violence by the state, essentially forcing people to follow their dictates or face the consequences - which are ultimately violent.

I don't believe in personal violence. But I do believe people should have the freedom to decide when and where violence is warranted. If they decide wrong, in the eyes of society and the law, they'll pay the price. But it seems you aren't satisfied with that and want to make sure they don't have the option, that they are prevented from making the wrong decision in the first place.

Which brings us back to "the ends justifies the means". If parents must be bound and shackled to prevent abuse, that's what you'll do. Or, to put it another way "... me and mine gotta lay down and die so you can live in your better world"

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And you have repeatedly ignored my posts that - unlike you- I DO have a problem with violence.

You say that. But you don't have a problem with passing a law that says Bob has to pay the government a portion of his income, or men with guns will kidnap him and put him in prison.

You don't have a problem with passing a law that says if Bob gets caught driving with a blood alcohol level, men with guns will kidnap him and put him in prison--even if he hasn't hurt anyone or damaged any property.

Of course, there are steps between Bob getting caught and men with guns, such as trial, conviction, fines, refusal to pay fines, etc. But skipping to the end, you find men with guns.

So pardon me if I don't take you seriously when you say you have a problem with violence. I didn't ignore those posts--I just don't believe them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't believe in personal violence. But I do believe people should have the freedom to decide when and where violence is warranted. If they decide wrong, in the eyes of society and the law, they'll pay the price. But it seems you aren't satisfied with that and want to make sure they don't have the option, that they are prevented from making the wrong decision in the first place.

People will always have the option of making "bad" decisions. But some societies seem to foster better decision-making than other.

Quote:
Which brings us back to "the ends justifies the means". If parents must be bound and shackled to prevent abuse, that's what you'll do.

No... I don't see where you got that idea. You're like CTS, you have this idee fixe that nothing can seem to dislodge and as a result you're not worth talking to. You are making no attempt whatsoever to understand what I'm saying. So thanks for the dance, but we're not getting anywhere.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There may be some retailers here and there who refuse to levy that tax, but yet again I can think of several non-violent and even non-governmental ways of dealing with that problem.

I can too. None of those non-violent and non-governmental ways involve government or enforceable legislation, see?

If all you want is government solutions with no enforcement/violence and no "men with guns" at the end of solution, I am ALL FOR IT. Tell me where to sign. Let's go. Doesn't matter if it is prevention or punishment. Count me in.

Tell me though, how are you going to take Bob's car keys away and put him into rehab against his will without "men with guns" at the end of that solution? I'm stumped there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My position is: I would rather prevent the whole mess in the first place.

And you can't use the law to prevent the whole mess, against the citizen's will, without the use of threats of violence that you are willing to carry through.

I am all for non-legal, non-forceful means of prevention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeantX

Now, pointing out that government could provide services to the people it represents makes me an authoritarian - how exactly ? You skipped over that part.

The other thing you seem to not comprehend - is that the people of most developed countries - all but the US in fact - and many developing countries - decide that that's how they want their government to run, and how they want their society to be. Novel concept that - people getting together to have a say in their own society. Oh wait, that's called democracy, I believe. So, if they freely and democratically choose those things, does that make them authoritarians ?

Just wondering, because you seem unclear on the concept of what it means to be an authoritarian.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I can too. None of those non-violent and non-governmental ways involve government or enforceable legislation, see?

So you're really not against violence, what you're really against is laws. I get it now.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So you're really not against violence, what you're really against is laws. I get it now.

Uh..no.

I am against violence, but I recognize there is no way to escape violence. So I am willing to reluctantly accept violence doled out in small denominations, as punishment for violence already incurred, as deterrent to others.

I am not against unenforceable laws. I am against enforced laws (which means backed up by violence) that go beyond retaliation for initiated violence.

I am not against unarmed governments. I am not against armed governments that uses the arms to only defend itself and nothing else. I am against armed governments that uses those arms to force citizens, through threat of violence, to live a certain way-- even when citizens haven't yet hurt anyone else and may never hurt anyone else.

As I understand it, you endorse armed governments and enforced laws that force innocent citizens to live a certain way. That way causes less violence in the long run, in your view, so the threat of violence is justified. To you.

It is not to me. Prevention is the job of community, not of armed governments and their enforced laws.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, if they freely and democratically choose those things, does that make them authoritarians ?

It certainly can, depending on what they choose. This recognition of this threat was really the subtle genius of our constitution. Its framers realized that the "tyranny of the majority" was potentially more dangerous than that of the monarchy the were rejecting. That's why they put so much effort into spelling out strict limits on how the majority can use its power.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Which brings us back to "the ends justifies the means". If parents must be bound and shackled to prevent abuse, that's what you'll do.
No... I don't see where you got that idea.

Well, this is sort of the same conversation I'm having with Rue - and as I said there, maybe I'm wrong about you guys. But you do seem to support all kinds of regulation and laws that force people into your way of thinking - not to protect people from force, but to use it coerce them into doing what you thing is right. Whether its educating their children the way you want, practicing medicine the way you want, doing business the way you want, it's all the same. You do make some pretense at defending these views as protecting some (usually abstract) victim. But when pressed it doesn't matter. Even when the only people being harmed by an activity are those involved, you still insist the government, or rather, the majority, should dictate to individuals how to go about living.

I'm saying that if there isn't a victim, if what I'm doing has no significant, unwelcome effect on others, then the government should leave me be. If you agree with that, then we are on the same page and either I've misinterpreted your views, in which case I apologize, or you've changed you're mind, even better.

Quote:
You're like CTS, you have this idee fixe that nothing can seem to dislodge and as a result you're not worth talking to. You are making no attempt whatsoever to understand what I'm saying. So thanks for the dance, but we're not getting anywhere.

If you truly feel that way, you should definitely stop talking to me.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 9:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeantX

If you believe the repubicans, the constitution only protects you (in very limited, specific circumstances) from the federal government. Anything else is fair game.

But even given an expansive non-repubican version of the constitution, nowhere do I see constitutional protections from public schools, public hospitals, public roads, public libraries, public utilities, public health services in general, public police, a public judicial system, or any other public resource or service, or indeed the taxes that pay for them.

So your argument that somehow the constitution protects you from the horrific abuse of democratically chosen and publicly funded services - laughable.

***************************************************************
And you really need to learn what it means to be an 'authoritarian'. Because - seriously - it doesn't mean - "anything and everything I disagree with".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 9:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So I am willing to reluctantly accept violence doled out in small denominations, as punishment for violence already incurred, as deterrent to others.

This, I believe, is your absolute first mistake and the reason why we'll never agree. Violence as a deterent to violence doesn't work. The truly violent are either strung out, or whack-jobs, or so caught up in the passion of the moment that the one thing they're NOT thinking about is the distant future, which for them is 10 minutes from the moment. Your system will absolutely not work the way you think it will.

And everything else in your post swirls around that first error. It would be refreshing indeed if you could write at least ONE post about government didn't dwell on violence. So as I said to Sarge, unless you can get your head unstuck from your fascination on violence, we'll never get anywhere with this discussion.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So your argument that somehow the constitution protects you from the horrific abuse of democratically chosen and publicly funded services - laughable.

Sadly, I have to concede that you're right on this point. Though I can't really laugh about it. The constitution is really only as good as the will of the people to follow it. Bush was right in that sense, it's just a piece of paper. The fact is, most people these days don't understand the need for strict limits on governmental power and are more than willing to scrap them in favor of bread and circuses.

So, you can gloat over sharing the majority opinion with these people, but it's hardly a compelling argument that it's good policy.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The fact is, most people these days don't understand the need for strict limits on governmental

So does this make you an authoritarian? Because YOU certainly seem to know how people "should" lead their lives! Or merely an elitist?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The difference being that people might actually democratically, constitutionally and freely CHOOSE by consensus to have their government work for them and their society.

Your problem isn't with government - it's with ANY social consensus with which you happen to disagree. And that would be with anything other than a frontier existence cut off from anyone but your 'own' little family group, mediated in very small amounts through barter. You would feel just as constrained nearly everywhere.

You are anti-social.

But that doesn't make me an authoritarian. Nor does it make my positions unconstitutional. Nor does it mean that just because people chose not to structure the entire society to meet your little fantasy world that something is wrong with them.

And you trying to confuse the actual issues is a position not worthy of further reply.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah Rue, I think "antisocial" is prolly the best description of/ reason for the arguments that we're getting.

How dare society tell them to drive on the right side of the road?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:52 AM

Nah... you guys are still missing the mark by a mile.

I'm against bullies. Doesn't matter whether it's one person lording it over the masses, or the angry mob persecuting the outlier.

What you can't get your head around is the basic concept of live-and-let-live. I really haven't got a problem with society consensus, I'm usually with them. Community is a necessary and enriching part of life. But it's not an excuse to push people around. Or at least I don't think it should be. As long as your plans allow for people to opt out, I'm fine with them.

But that's the part you can't tolerate. If you could, if you had some fundamental respect for those who happen to be in the minority, I doubt we'd have much to disagree about.

I think there's a basic disconnect between us, because you seem to be operating under the assumption that if it's the democratic will of the people, it's inevitably good. I've seen too much to buy that. At best, democracy buys us a more stable form of government. At worst, it gives us wholesale slaughter. It's certainly no guarantee of justice.

If I could get you to answer one question, straight up, it would be this: What's so wrong with letting people decide for themselves? Why must we, as SOP, come to some consensus and then force that 51% + opinion on everyone? Obviously there are situations where this isn't practical, but shouldn't we limit those as much as possible, and seek to increase freedom rather than curtail it?

I guess that's where my misunderstanding of your opinion lies. You really seem to have a basic desire for everyone to be on the same page, even when letting them decide for themselves would pose no burden on you.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 11:23 AM

FLETCH2

I think it's to do with amicability and fairness and it is as big a human psychological buggaboo as "Authoritarianism."

There are people that hate it when things are no fair, especially if someone has an undeserved advantage over someone else. It's a strange human flaw. In the UK at least people that are poor themselves with still reach into their pocket to give money to folks in a worse possition than themselves. On the other hand the idea of the loafer, the guy that gets money for doing nothing really p***** them off.

The advantage of collective action appart from the fact that it agrigates risk, is that it's seen as "fair" A regulation that applies to all doesn't discriminate against any one person over the interests of any other.

The hot button point for Siggy seems to be the idea that things are unfair, or that any one person gets an unearned advantage over another.

She's a romantic :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 11:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeantX

You are confused.

You equate government services as desired by a vast majority with bullying. And you do so even if people can 'decide by themselves' not to use those services.

You say you want people to be able to opt out - but only, apparently at your discretion on your issues. Let me give you and example - human sacrifice. Should people be able to opt out of the unbearable injustice of a prohibition on human sacrifice ? Or is that a larger social value that holds over everyone, in your mind ?

Now if there is one social value you won't negotiate, then there might be others. And the question becomes - where do you draw the line ?

Your problem is that while your reasoning mind says - yeah, I can understand drawing some socially indelible lines as a group, your personality says - but not any line I disagree with. Those I want to opt out of. And other people, well they can opt out of the things I don't care about, too. Which amounts to - no, you really don't see drawing any socially derived lines at all.

Push come to shove, the only society you accept and care about is all about - you.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You equate government services as desired by a vast majority with bullying. And you do so even if people can 'decide by themselves' not to use those services.

Forcing people to pay for services that they don't want is a kind of bullying, yes.

Quote:
Let me give you and example - human sacrifice. Should people be able to opt out of the unbearable injustice of a prohibition on human sacrifice ?

I think I've been quite clear that the line where government intervention is appropriate is exactly this kind of thing. You keep trying to blur this issue and insist - quite dishonestly, because you know better - that I'm in favor of allowing such attrocities. If you really can't see a difference, it's fairly astounding. There's a big difference between telling people they can't kill for fun, and telling them that they'll be punished if they don't buy insurance.

Quote:
... your personality says - but not any line I disagree with. Those I want to opt out of. And other people, well they can opt out of the things I don't care about, too. Which amounts to - no, you really don't see drawing any socially derived lines at all.

Wow... I'll try again. The line isn't just whim. The line is where people are committing violence against others. That's where it's right and proper for the government to step in. That's where it's not just a matter of personal choice. But if that isn't going on, I don't think its right for any group, no matter how small or large, to force it's will on another.

Quote:
Push come to shove, the only society you accept and care about is all about - you.

You keep coming back to this, maybe because dressing me up like a "witch" makes it simple for you. And maybe simple is all you can handle. Or maybe personal insults are all that's left when your argument falls apart.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 12:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 12:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeantX

I understand better than you think. You SAY you draw the line at 'violence'. But then, violence to you is whatever YOU don't agree with. Taxes ? VIOLENCE ! Seat belt laws ? VIOLENCE ! Anything that impinges on you in any way YOU don't personally agree with ? VIOLENCE !

I'm done here.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 1:02 PM