Do you know what it means to be an AtheistVoter?
It means I vote for the separation of church and state, because religious delusions should have no influence on my life…or yours.
It means I vote on the side of science, because science is where we find the answers, not in holy books.
It means I vote for peace, not war, because we only have this one life to live, and killing people — any people at all — is an unforgivable crime.
It means I vote for the environment, because the promises of priests that their gods won’t allow harm to come to us are meaningless.
It means I vote pro-choice, because there’s nothing magical about a fetus’s “soul” that trumps the rights of women.
It means I vote for equality and against racist and sexist policies, because all human beings have equal rights.
It means I vote against policies that prop up the rich and promote income inequality, because there are no divine rights that favor one person over another…and because without godly authority, fairness should be our moral guide.
It means I vote for LGBTQ rights, because religious prohibitions are null and void, and we should place a greater value on human happiness than the book of Leviticus.
It means I vote for health care for all, because life is precious and everyone deserves equal support in maintainng it.
It means I’m going to get out and vote tomorrow, because making our government more rational requires the cooperation of a community, and we all have to do our part.
but… but… the dictionary!
It means I vote for peace, not war, because we only have this one life to live, and killing people — any people at all — is an unforgivable crime.
Hyperbole? Self-defense, Hitler, blah blah.
Well, nice idea, but I can’t do that. The Redhead and I cast our ballots by mail two weeks ago. The rethuglicans got very little support at this household, for your reasons.
But, but… That just makes you a good person, not an atheist. Proof the slymepit are right!
johnharshman @2
Your point is what?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls @ 3
High five to you and the Redhead! I voted already too!
*High five and a tankard of grog to Riley*
For free drinks on election night at the Pharyngula Saloon and Spanking Parlor, just show us your “I voted” sticker.
Al Dente,
I was asking a question. Was that particular bit hyperbole, or does PZ really mean that no homicide can be justified under any circumstances?
Well, whaddya say to that?
PZ for President!
(Unfortunately, most of ’em having been indoctrinated & duped, the American public are too damn fool to do what’d be good for them.)
johnharsham, #2
Yes, he clearly means if you shoot someone who is about to stab your 3-year old son in the heart, you’ve committed an unjustifiable act.
I think setting the bar at a level where people are expected to append “unless in self-defense” to your “don’t kill anyone” statement isn’t unreasonable at all.
#1, please spell my name right.
#2, irony should be carefully rationed.
#3, when you say “killing people — any people at all — is an unforgivable crime” there isn’t much room for nuance.
I dread tomorrow. The fight against religious encroachment is already tipping in their favor. Especially here in Texas, most of the abortion clinics have shut been shut down. Both GOP candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor are activist creationists. The Tea Party is active everywhere and the GOP may take a majority in Congress. Aron and me already voted, and we’re trying to rally people here, but it is hard.
johnharshman, #12
I’m sorry for the wrong spelling.
I think this addresses your point 3:
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls @ 7 & 8
Ahhhhhhh. Mighty fine grog there, Nerd. Thanks!
As for election night drinks, I didn’t receive an “I voted” sticker this year. Will a FFRF “Keep Religion OUT of Government” sticker work?
Fortunately, I have a candidate for Governor who looks like he matches all the above.
Unfortunately, he’s anti-GMO, anti-nuke, pro-organic.
I haven’t seen anything about CAM in his platform. He supports single-payer, free at point-of-service, all medically necessary services, but doesn’t detail if CAM is part of those services.
johnharshman
please use commenters names
Ditto. Vote-by-mail is great: no worrying about trying to get time in my schedule to make it to the poling booth or having to wait in line for hours.
Conservatives, of course, hate it because it means that they can’t close the poling stations early on college campuses and inner cities, where people might vote liberal.
Jebus, Johnharshman, at various points:
You don’t have to agree with PZ, you know. Yes, Killing is Always Bad and Never Acceptable might be emphatic; it might be idealistic (sez you); and you might simply disagree with it. But it’s consistent and defendable. No freakin’ hyperbole there; just good ol’ fashioned pacifism. You don’t have to like pacifism or think it’s tenable but, sheesh, it’s not cloud cuckoo land.
The fact that johnharshman can think of no other way for society to function than to kill some people is unforgivable. Derailing with a straw man is just annoying.
#19 & 20: You’re all assuming that PZ does mean this completely literally and unequivocally. I have my doubts. Is condescension really the best strategy here?
We could argue about pacifism, but that wasn’t my intent. I was, as I’ve said, asking a question. It isn’t a question you can answer.
Heh. All that applies here in Oz, too, and this not-atheist voter votes just that way.
So.
That’s a “No” on copy/pasting names.
What if somebody who lacks a belief in god votes against those things?
@21
Um, it’s what he said. so why shouldn’t he have meant it literally and unequivocally? I just don’t find it a particularly odd or strange thing to say but I find it odd and strange that you do.
@johnharshman:
I’d like to live in a world where self defense excuses aren’t necessary. Where violence isn’t the cultural norm for conflict resolution, where education, socialisation and (last resort) medication ensure no one has reason to suffer intentional violence, let alone being killed.
Archaic concepts such as excusable, intentional homicide should be obsolete. Is that such a difficult concept?
You sound a bit like christians who oppose abortions, but aren’t dedicated enough to their ideology in the face of real human suffering and grudgingly allow exceptions for rape and incest. Follow your beliefs to their natural conclusions, don’t give up half way because it gets too hard.
@ Alison Parker
They’re still an atheist. Being an atheist does not lead one to social justice. Skepticism does. I started giving a shit about social justice due to my lived experience and because I challenged my thoughts. Skepticism led me to be a nonbeliever.
There’s not much I can vote for today. The democrats here are pro life and gun shootin’ happy. It’s like having almost all republicans running for office. I refuse to vote against myself, so my ballot is going to be pretty empty. I fucking hate it here.
Alison Parker @24:
Well, then obviously PZ uses his powers as the Pope of Atheism to excommunicate them.
(Seriously, though: I’m not sure if you’re new here, but PZ is all too aware of the fact that there are atheists who don’t share his values.)
Alison,
Then they are an atheist and an asshole, bigot or ignoramus -depending on what they voted against.
Some of those objecting to johnharshman’s question @2 assume that PZ did mean what he said about killing anyone being an unforgivable crime literally (Suido@26, and I think woozy@19, 25, bigwhale@20), while saad (@11, 14) assumes the opposite. Which suggests that it was a reasonable question.
Sure there is – there can be situations wherein killing someone is necessary, and/or justified, but that still doesn’t make it a good act. You can be morally opposed to the fact that you had to do something while acknowledging that it still had to happen.
I’m voting Democratic myself, and hope a majority of voters everywhere do the same. In Minnesota, while Mark Dayton isn’t perfect he literally saved our bacon by beating Tom Emmer in 2010 and he merits re-election today.
#31 carlie:
I don’t think that works. If it’s an unforgivable crime, then it cannot be justified. Words have meanings, after all.
Of course, for me, absolutes like “unforgivable” are in themselves incompatible with rationalism. I can’t see a way to justify moral absolutes of any form.
Oh, and that would also lead to an uncomfortable argument in favor of the anti-choice brigade, who’d just argue that that unborn life form is part of the set of people.
Personally, I prefer the moral question to be strictly relative, that is, as long as something is the smaller “evil” (and of course that gets in trouble when someone finds an even smaller one, as it should), then it’s neither unforgivable nor a crime (at least from a standpoint of morality), no matter what it is. It might still count as a bad thing, of course.
Depends on the situation. If one is in an area where a Democrat has a lock on the election, but is in essence a Republican, then voting third party progressive is just about the only way to send them a message that their own base doesn’t approve of their actions.
carlie @ 34:
A better way to send a legislator a message is to actually send them a message supporting an action you favor. For example, writing or calling your legislator to support this issue would do more than voting for a third party who happened to be more progressive on that particular issue:
This Is What Happened When I Tried Banning Conversion Therapy in Minnesota
I appreciate each and every one of you who get out the vote today. Because for the first time in my life, I won’t be voting in the midterms. Because flu.
Yes, vote! I have been working for a candidate, Anndrea Starzak, who has a chance of unseating a 26-year Republican incumbent who was recently indicted on corruption and fraud charges. She’s pro-choice, pro-womens equality, understands the need for sustainable development, wants to protect the environment, gets the importance of investment in infrastructure for local economies, and so on. It’s exciting to think we might win! It will be very close, either way. This could swing the balance of power in the NY State Senate.
With that said…
Yes.
Whether PZ’s position on this is absolute or nuanced doesn’t really change the application of his view to voting politics. You’re being pointless and tedious. Thunderdome seems like a good venue to hash out the merits of absolute pacifism.
… I vote for the separation of church and state, … on the side of science, … for peace, not war, …
Unfortunately, none of those will be on my ballot today.
I will, however, get my chance to vote for either of two Republicans for governor (one of whom bought the Democratic nomination, with 1%er money). Whoopee, Florida politics! :-P
Please pass me some of that grog, Nerd – even the dregs of the barrel will do.
Here’s our incumbent in good ole Jawja:
Sometimes it’s simpler than all that. I was feeling very disheartened about my ballot today, because my Republican governor will be reelected. My conservative, Catholic Representative will be reelected, my Republican state representative will be reelected. But I still went and voted and it was so easy for me to be an atheist voter because the most important things on the ballot were tax levies.
1.) Yes on public school levy renewal. That’s a no brainer, what atheist doesn’t want a well educated populace? Hell, what voter? Oh, the selfish and short sighted religious school voters, that’s who.
2.) Yes on drug treatment levy renewal. Because we ought to recognize by now that draconian prison terms aren’t solving the problem.
3.) Yes on health and human services. I mean, right? Human beings shouldn’t be allowed to suffer unduly for their circumstances.
4.) This was a biggie. Yes on a new sales tax to fund repairs to the historic Union Terminal building which houses the Cincinnati Museum Center. Partly because it’s a beautiful, historic work of Art Deco architecture and adds character to the city, but also, it’s cheaper to fix that than to build a new museum and if there’s one thing Cincinnati needs, with Ken Ham just over the river and his billboards everywhere, it’s a real science museum with accurate information about the fossils on display and their place in the history of life.
#26 Suido:
Leaving aside the loaded “excuses”, sure, so would I. Do we live in that world? Does pretending we live in that world help make it real? (My answers would be “no” to both questions.)
johnharshman:
Well, that’s not how it actually works. Since we already have laws forbidding “homicide” which aren’t likely to be overturned, there probably isn’t much to vote about on that front. (Of course, abortion and assisted suicide, for example, can be cast in those terms, but that’s taking us a long way from the initial context about “peace” and “war.”) Anyway, when it comes to starting a war, there would need to be a justification for that war. It’s not the default state, which requires none, while we supposedly need to muster some kind of intellectual defense for peace. It’s the other way around. So, why should we start a war? You mentioned Hitler, but that was not a case of us (i.e., non-Nazis) starting a war, and more generally voting (or whatever) on whether or not we should defend ourselves* is not a case of starting a war.
*When that is what’s actually happening, not when we’re supposedly attacked (or about to be attacked, maybe, etc…) by fictional villians that paranoid people make up.
People should probably brace for the Republicans to retake the senate. I’m mostly glad about that, but I imagine most commentators are going to be sad about it. side note: I voted a week ago, and not for a single Democrat. A lot of third parties, and one Republican.
#42 consciousness razor
I meant “homicide” in the general sense of killing human beings. War counts. Nobody said anything about starting a war, and in fact self-defense has been mentioned. But if in fact “killing people — any people at all — is an unforgivable crime”, then it doesn’t matter who started it; defending yourself, assuming that’s a euphemism for killing the people who are attacking you, is one of those unforgivable crimes. Unless of course, as I have hypothesized, PZ was indulging in hyperbole.
No, if you mean “hyperbole” in the sense of an exaggeration, that doesn’t make any sense. Your interpretation would mean what he said is confusing or just plain false. It’s not the case that all “killing” in general is wrong, but more specific things like murder and war and so forth. It’s kind of difficult to imagine you really have a problem understanding what it means on the face of it (as well as PZ’s intended meaning which is something else), so I’m not sure if you actually want to pose a question that you really need answering or if you ought to put forward some specific criticism (besides saying “Self-defense, Hitler, blah blah” as if that clarified anything).
#45 consciousness razor:
If there’s another meaning of hyperbole, I’m unaware of it. If it’s not the case that all killing in general is wrong, then you either disagree with PZ or he didn’t actually mean what he said. My suspicion is the latter, and I don’t know how you can avoid one of those alternatives. I do know what it means on the face of it: it means that all killing of human beings is wrong, so wrong as to be unforgivable. What PZ’s intended meaning was is, yes, unclear. Note that different people in this very thread have interpreted it in different ways.
I do disagree with what PZ said. I don’t know if I disagree with what he meant. Do you know? If so, how?
Would all you meanies please leave johnharshman alone? He’s Just Asking Questions, people!
What the fuck is wrong with you?!?
I mean it’s one thing to have that opinion, it’s another to have it, and then also troll people with that absurd little turd in the punch bowl.
Oh look, michael is continuing to be an inane, trolling windbag.
If anyone cares to learn more about our mysterious visitor, I did a roundup of some random-ish comments of his here, a while back. Here ya go: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/10/06/thunderdome-55/comment-page-1/#comment-862539
A taste:
See also here: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/10/06/the-supreme-court-loses-a-game-of-chicken/
He’s got a real bad case of Devil’s Advocacy. Can’t quite shake it.
@sallystrange
I don’t like the republicans and I don’t like the Democrats. At this point the best thing from my political leanings is if the federal gov’t just stop doing things for awhile. I made that post mostly because of the first sentence as I think its important for people to not get their hopes up as basically every model has the republicans retaking the senate. everything else was an after thought.
@anteprepro
As I said in that thread, Marxism/Communism is inherently committed to the labour theory of value (LTV), in that Marx spins out both the justification for workers’ collectively owning the means of production and his account of how capital must exploit the worker out of the true worth of his labour from the LTV. I don’t know of any Marxist that has fundamentally changed that picture (if you know of one please provide a reference). Insofar as the LTV is wrong, and obviously so, Marxism is untenable. The relationship between labour and value is not one-to-one and virtually no economists has thought that in like 100 years. The LTV is as dead in economics as Lamarckianism is in biology. So yes if someone is an honest to blog Marxist and holds the LTV they are engaging in fundamentally magic thinking that is embarrassing at this point.
If you wish to save that position, you have to do one of two things. Demonstrate that mainstream consensus on this point is wrong, or reformulate Marx to not be committed to the LTV. I’m waiting because I have not run across either in the literature. And given that I have an extensive academic background in political philosophy I should have at this point. I’m more than willing to discuss this in thunderdome or whatever.
Ah, a professional trolling wanker….Thunderdome with you. *engage non-existent hushfile for terminal trolling*
michael kellymiecielica @50:
Really? You think that’s a good idea?
How the fuck are the millions of people-men and women, children and the elderly-going to survive without the government assistance they require for food? Or housing? This is one of the problems with making asinine statements like you did. You’re thinking about things from your perspective, rather than a bigger picture and looking to see how OTHER PEOPLE would be impacted by a government that stopped working. It’s not all about you, and if the government stopped doing things for a while, a lot of people would suffer. Are you that callous and indifferent to the suffering of others that you would wish for people to starve?
That doesn’t even begin to touch upon the many functions of the government in society. If the government stops doing things, what about schools? What about infrastructure? What about defense? What about the CDC?
Your comment boggles my mind with its mind boggling willful ignorance.
And for the record, the Marxist-the LTV connection is so strong that wiki has this sentence in the opening of the article of the LTV: “At present this concept is usually associated with Marxian economics,…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
michael kellymiecielica @50
Sounds like a common or garden libertarian.
michael kellymiecielica @43:
::blinks:: You’re *glad* about the possibility of a GOP win in the elections across the country? Are you that incapable of looking at how policies impact other people? Is your head shoved that far up your ass that you don’t care how people would be made to suffer even more under the GOP than the Democrats? Are you that apathetic to the suffering of other people that you genuinely don’t care if people have equal rights? Do you not care that under the GOP, women’s rights will continue to be under assault?
By god, people like you disgust me.
The GOP is anti-science, anti-woman, anti-LGBT, anti-children, anti-poor, anti-middle class, anti-education, anti-People of Color, anti-immigration, anti-secularism and so much more. All they want is to ensure that rich white heterosexual men continue to hold all the power and they’re doing virtually everything in their power to see that this status quo continues and you want to help them?
From this GAY, Person of Color-someone the GOP would love to see kept as a second class citizen-FUCK YOU.
Actually, it was also a slogan from the far left during my radical campus days. The problem with communism, is that nobody gets a personal advantage if everything is for the common good, so nobody works hard. The problem with liberturdism, is that the common good goes by the wayside for personal profit and bigotry, with the pretense that hard work succeeds.
Those governments that are successful, tread the middle ground, and avoid the extremes. As anybody who looks at the world-wide evidence without a bias can attest to.
Well, I voted. I left the first page blank, mostly, as it was un-opposed Republicans. I did fill in the blank for women’s names, where present. I mostly was there to vote against making schools teach to the tests. I had to guess a bit on some of the rest … I was really a single-issue voter. Well, I voted against my Rethuglican congresscritter (he wears a cowboy hat) and for the retired teacher, but that may be a waste of ink.
(I got to help on a field trip today, that really brought out the importance of education. )
I’ve always thought that a good ballot should include “none of the above”, which if it get the majority vote, all listed candidates are dismissed, and they cannot run on the next ballot, which is held a few weeks later. The people in places like Louisiana or Illinois could breathe a sigh of relief when voting.
That’s the same thing as saying you want to increase the sexism, racism, anti-LGBTQ, and religious bullying already present in our lives.
You sound like a cool person.
…….aaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnd West Virginia went completely down the shithole. I feel ill. Why do so many here vote against their own self interests? Oh, yeah….propaganda appealing to their base instinct of fear wrapped in a steaming pile of bigotry. I don’t know what to say…I’d like to wake up….
Hey, maybe they like having unknown, hazardous chemicals in their rivers.
@microrapter # 61
Democrats were in charge when that happened. The republicans, true to form, pointed the finger at the dems (yes, they did drop the ball), yet they should have been happy that the government did absolutely no regulation. I mean, republicans got EXACTLY what they wanted. They don’t want any EPA involvement…….and look what happened.
Looks like we are all going down the shit hole. Very likely that the GOP is gonna have more control of the House, and it is looking like they might gain control of the Senate. At very least, as it is right now, they have gained enough seats that they will now have enough power to guarantee that nothing productive will get done until next election.
My only hope at this point is that the Republicans somehow finally reveal how terrible they are to the eternally ignorant and complacent public. But I suppose if that was gonna happen, it should have happened years, even decades, ago. The American people remain fucking clueless.
As a disabled person on SSD, medicare, etc., I’d just like to take a moment to say “fuck you” for wanting me to stop eating, taking medicine, having housing and heat and medical care and transportation, or having cost-of living increases in the below-poverty-level amount I get for these things from the insurance I paid into while you take your little “Oh, I’m tired of reality” time-out.
Nerd #58
I absolutely LOVE this!!!
Except that it would create an ElectionsIndustryForProfit.
But the first one would be a Joy To Behold.
[I want to insert a gif of Homer Simpson doing “What’ll I do, what’ll I do?”]
Well, that all went about as poorly as could be on the state and national level. But all my levies passed! Yay for healthcare, education, and science museums!
Also, I’m a bit unrealistically optimistic about my U.S. House district. In spite of having an incumbent Republican in what has traditionally been a very Republican district, which has been further gerrymandered into what I have considered complete uncompetitiveness, in a midterm election that favored Republicans, the Democrat took 42% of the vote. Oh sure, that’s still a Republican landslide, but for a lackluster Democratic candidate in a gerrymandered district? It tells me there’s hope. I may not have to wait ten years for the next redistricting before I have a chance at being represented by someone who’s not a religious right nutbag.
Well, my single-issue went my way. Teachers are not going to be judged by test scores. (One of my references in my search for a teaching job was the spokesperson for that victory.)
Everything else is pretty much toilet.
@Tony (and a few others)
Do not for a second to presume you know my political motives, or why I voted the way I did, especially as I didn’t take time to flesh them out. I will now explain my motives and other things. A couple of quick things about me, I’m queer and I also work in higher education as an adjunct professor at a community college. In other words, I didn’t vote on myopic self-interest. If I only voted on myopic self-interest I would be an utterly loyal (and unthinking) Democratic partisan. Furthermore, I would likely be one of the people who suffer if fed gov’t just stopped doing things. It’s a devil’s bargain but from where I sit it is the correct one to make.
Forgoing that you interpreted my statement in the most uncharitable way possible, why yes I do think that if the fed gov’t just stopped working the net result would be a positive for the world. It is true that this would cause a hell of a lot pain for a lot of people, i.e. people on SNAP and/or SSI (among others). However, it would also mean things like the poor person of color wouldn’t have their life fucked over by the war on drugs, or really poor brown people wouldn’t be killed in the Middle East because of the USA militaristic adventurism. Now I might be wrong on this calculation but given the untold damage the federal gov’t does, the war on drugs alone is a holocaust in slow motion, I really do think the fed gov’t is a net evil in this world.
Now you are likely to object that Republicans are unlikely to correct the examples I cited. This would be correct, but I’m not longing for a republican led gov’t that does things. I longing for a gov’t so gridlocked and hyper partisan that ceases to function because from where I sit that is the best we can do in the current political environment. If the shoe was on the other foot with a republican in the white house, I would hope for a Democratic congress.
Given that Bush and Obama have basically destroyed the rule of law in this country (see half of the entries on the Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog) I find it extremely dangerous to have a united gov’t at this time. I’m not going to vote for any Democrat that hasn’t denounced Obama and his actions because Obama’s actions are so monstrous in the realms of civil liberties and the rule of law that I believe it is morally prohibited to support the jackass in any way. Obama (and Bust etc.) should be in jail, he’s a war criminal that has repeatedly violated the Geneva Conventions. Obama has destroyed basically any chance of removing the Bush era abuses in the basics of limited (liberal) constitutional gov’t that they are probably in the system forever and certainly there for a generation.
I am completely unmoved by any sort of argument that Republicans are worse on the issues I have highlighted. First I am no longer sure that is true: Bush, unlike Obama, never claimed the power to assassinate Americans citizens at will without anything that even looks like due process. Second, even if it is true, I find the argument that republicans are worse is a bit like pointing out that being broken upon the wheel is worse than being drawn and quartered. Well, yeah but who gives a fuck?
In the same vein, I so prioritize the rule of law and civil liberties because as long as those are safeguarded we (general we) are free to advocate for our preferred policies in other areas. But, when things like habeas corpus are not respected, as it hasn’t been in a long time and this disregard was codified in the NDAA 2012 by Obama and company, we (general) are not free to even walk down the street unmolested.
Now you basically accused me of being a moral monster by prioritizing my self-interest over the interest of other people. Let me return the favor but with the added bonus of being you know true. Anyone who voted for Obama in 2012 (whether or not this is you I cannot say) is perfectly fine trading the core safeguards of liberal representative democracy, as well as the lives and dignity of non-American brown people, for a shitty healthcare law and a slightly smaller cut to the social safety net. That’s fucked up and anyone who did so should be ashamed of themselves. They are cowards who were brought with bread and circuses. You (the Obama 2012 voter) have blood on your hands. I do not. Do not lecture me on myopic moral considerations if you have made such a repugnant loathsome decision because you are just so gosh darn scared of Republicans being in power for a little bit. It is decisions like that are largely to blame for the state the country is in. I only think slightly better of 2016 Democratic voters.
TL:DR Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You are not entitled to question my motives from a fucking throw away sentence on a blog comment.
@Jafafa Hots
I’m sure it is a small comfort to the victims of the war crimes perpetuated by Obama, Bush and company that hey at least their blood paid for your livelihood. I mean they don’t know you, have nothing to with you and live in abject poverty themselves, but at least their murder went towards something. Likewise, the people, like my sister, that have had their lives ruined by the war on drugs certainly get warm fuzzies that you are having your medical expenses paid for.
It is extremely unfortunate that many, many people are in situations like yours; however it is utterly immoral to privilege any person above another in terms of moral consideration. Insofar as the harm done by the federal gov’t outweighs the good, as I believe it does, yes the world be better off without it as a whole.
And fuck you for privileging your life over the untold lives that the federal gov’t has either snuffed out or severely damaged.
Your idea, after careful calculation, is that things like SNAP and things like all of our Wars On Everything™ are part of a package deal, inseparable from one another? What you’d like is for the entire government, all of it, shut down — and that’s because somehow (no actual calculation involved) you’ve determined it’s a net evil? Or is it instead that you would like specific programs and policies ended, while you don’t really give a fuck about others like SNAP? Your conclusion that “I might be wrong, but I think I’m right” doesn’t help me figure out which one it’s supposed to be.
You sit on a different planet, is that it? To start with, for certain values of “function,” we already have a non-functioning government. Congratulations, I guess, for living in the best of all possible worlds.
But you think that shutting down something like SNAP (again, your example) is something that must happen in our current political environment (along with all other government functions, because you say so), since the alternatives are just … what? Impossible? Unthinkable? Not your cup of tea? You haven’t thought this through at all, have you? Maybe try something like that before you give us your next rant.
Because better and worse, or “morality” in other words, has nothing to do with your line of thought. If we could even call it that. It seems you couldn’t think your way out of a wet paper bag.
That’s not just incoherent, it’s totally out of line. Go fuck yourself.
michael, #68 and 69
Cool. Now make the case that a Republican Senate will work to stop the war on drugs and military interventions in the Middle East.
Until then you’ve just written a few paragraphs in loose, watery shit.
@consciousness razor
“Your idea, after careful calculation, is that things like SNAP and things like all of our Wars On Everything™ are part of a package deal, inseparable from one another? ”
Practically, yes I do think these issue are currently inseparable given our political culture. I do not want to see SNAP shut down; however, the only group of people who have been consistently on the right side of the issues I think are the most important want to shut it down. It’s a trade off that, practically speaking, I am willing to make. The Democrat establishment has utter betrayed the core of liberal Representative democracy. I will not support them. People who do support them are completely immoral. Practically, if I am forced to choose between SNAP and habeas corpus, I will pick habeas corpus every single time. And I think it is the only moral choice.
“But you think that shutting down something like SNAP (again, your example) is something that must happen in our current political environment (along with all other government functions, because you say so), since the alternatives are just … what? Impossible? Unthinkable?”
The people who are willing to fight for SNAP and related programs (the Democrats) have already thrown the issues I care about under the bus and enacted the all manners of abuses, so yes given the current political make-up the choice for “ending the war of terror abuses and keeping SNAP” is not a choice I have. I do not have this choice because the Democratic establishment is simply not held to the fire by the rank and file because Republicans are just so gosh darn scary.
“Because better and worse, or “morality” in other words, has nothing to do with your line of thought. ”
No, the choice between Republicans and Democrats are morally equivalent to me that it doesn’t matter if the Republicans would be (somehow!) slightly worse on the issues I have highlighted. Much in the same way that doesn’t matter morally Mussolini got the trains to run on time. Both groups are so morally bankrupt that I wouldn’t vote for most of them, which is I voted mostly third party.
“That’s not just incoherent, it’s totally out of line. Go fuck yourself.”
It is not incoherent. Obama largely won the election in 2012 because the his team scared so-called liberals with the Tea Party so badly that his massive betrayals of liberalism were largely ignored by rank and file Democrats. People who voted for Obama in 2012, whether they realize it or not, did trade a slightly smaller cut to the social safety-net for the continuation of the Bush era abuses. They need to own up to this. The policies are a packaged deal because ti the same administration doing them.
@Saad
“Cool. Now make the case that a Republican Senate will work to stop the war on drugs and military interventions in the Middle East.
Until then you’ve just written a few paragraphs in loose, watery shit.”
It is not my position that Republican senate will do anything of the sort. It is my position that the divided gov’t will so paralyze the gov’t that no new horrors will be coming down the pipe. Honestly, that is best we can hope for at this point given how the 2012 election played out.
Sounds pretty watertight to me. Congress would be outraged when Obama tries to authorize military actions or implement more drone strikes against those “poor brown people” abroad. If there’s one group Republicans will not want to see killed, it’s poor brown people abroad.
How to quote
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
It’s good to see michael kellymiecielica is willing to sacrifice so many other people (of course not himself) on the altar of his righteousness. Seriously, go fuck yourself.
Michael #69
Actually, yes we are. If you want all of your motives to be understood you have to fucking state them. You didn’t do that, so people drew the most likely conclusion.
Hyperbole and false equivalence? Yup, that’s a middle-of-the-roader for ya.
Hey, michael: when chalking up the War on Drugs to the big, bad federal government….are you simply presuming that individual states or local police would stop being racist, drug-busting thugs without the federal government, or in your moral calculus are really wishing to get rid of all government, infrastructure, and safety nets as well? Either way, I think your calculations are a bit off.
anteprepro,
Well, you see every divided government always results in exactly zero new laws being enacted. So naturally this one will to. Thus, no harm will come from within the government over the next couple of years, and the atrocities of the wars on drug and terror that michael laments will just gently go away.
*snicker*, I doubt that, but then, I’m not an idiotlogue….
Saad,
I’m also sure Romney and McCain would have stopped the war on terror and stopped the war on drugs and would have saved untold lives, if only we didn’t vote for Obama the warmonger and police statist. Blood on our hands indeed.
A hint for people who feel compelled to yell about Both Sides: Tether yourself to fucking reality and get some fucking perspective. Try at least the tiniest bit of fucking nuance. No, Both Sides are not equally bad. No, there is no magical alternative option. Deal with reality. Get a fucking grip.
QFMFT. The sides are different, except to nihilists, extremists of either side, or those not paying attention while repeatedly wanking themselves off….
And in case it even needs to be said: michael is an idiot and is talking out of his ass when he says that abolishing the entire fucking government would be a net benefit for mankind. Maybe, insofar as the American military is a harm to the world, but the American economy is also pretty damn important to the world as well, and God fucking knows there are already enough starving to death and dying from inadequate health care in the world. His perspective gives the illusion of utilitarianism because of just how awful violent deaths, and just how awful the U.S. military has been. But forcing one of the biggest economies in the world and a massive country in its own right into an anarchy just so that it will stop bombing the Middle East? The costs outweigh the benefits. And it is the most ridiculous, impractical, over-the-top and reckless way to prevent war anyway. It’s like burning down your own house instead of buying smoke detectors.
michael kellymiecielica @69:
I don’t care what your motives were. You voted Republican and that’s a horrible thing to do. You reasons don’t matter one iota to me you shitstain.
anteprepro
QFT. No, both sides are not equally bad. They are both responsible in some part for our neo-con foreign policy, but there is one party that is doing everything it can to take away abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, minority right, etc. I live in a state so red that the only thing that prevented our state legislature from making sodomy illegal last year (no, really, it was a topic of conversation on the fucking legislative floor) was fear of federal law, and I sure as fuck don’t have any republicans or states’ rights libertarians to thank for that.
michael @73:
It’s laughable that you criticized me for reading into your motivations (when I did no such thing. I recognize that certain horrible things would happen with the Republicans in charge-things MORE horrible than if the Democrats were in charge-and I criticized you for voting for the group that would shit on more people and cause more suffering you blinkered fucknuggett) and yet here, you’re attempting to mind read all the people who voted for Obama. You seem incapable of thinking with a shred of nuance. I *know* that Obama’s administration has quite a few problems (Guantanamo Bay, the continued drone bombings overseas, and the increased surveillance state being a few big problems), but I recognize that things would be WORSE under Republican control. As I want to minimize the potential damage, I vote for the party that would cause the least damage (while still standing a chance at winning). And there are many reasons to be fearful of the Tea Party. They wants guns everywhere. They want to turn back the clock on the rights of Black people, women and LGBT people. For all that the Democratic Party has some serious problems, they aren’t working to turn back the rights of millions of Americans to anywhere near the same degree. That right there makes the Democratic Party the better choice in the horrible two party system we have. That you can’t or don’t recognize this further shows that you don’t give a shit about other people.
chigau @75:
We’ve already seen how much michael cares about others. What makes you think he cares to make his comments easier to read?
toska:
It still boggles my mind that is even possible in fucking 2014. I am lucky to live in a blue state. So fucking lucky. I would only be luckier if I were in fucking Canada or England instead.
anteprepro, #81
That’s probably number 1 in my most hated “arguments” people put forth when trying defend the indefensible. I’m trying to think of real world examples when both sides have been “equally bad” and I really can’t come up with one. I don’t know. I guess if two rapists were fighting.
michael’s suggestion of bringing the entire damn government to a halt being the way to oppose unjust foreign policy is absolutely ridiculous. It actually sounds like a joke.
anteprepro
Even in a red state, it boggles my mind, too. I was shocked, but I guess nothing should shock me anymore.
Saad
Not to mention his comment to Jafafa Hots, which seemed to suggest he believes that the wars our government wages in the middle east directly pay for social benefits. That has to be a joke, right? Right?
To further Tony! on the Tea Party: The Tea Party exists largely due to racism and classism. Full stop. Just go back to the origins. Anti-Obama rant in fucking February, one fucking month after Obama’s fucking inauguration, leads to people mailing teabags to the White House as a “Boston Tea Party”-like protest against non-existent tax increases. This leads to full-fledged protests by April, alleging that they are just against taxes and shit like that. They pretended to be a libertarian movement, but that was just a fig leaf, a paper-thin disguise. People immediately started noticing all the garbled talking points and racist signs. It was ridiculously obvious how the most ridiculous, racist right-wing lies about Obama had extra traction in the Tea Party (birth certificates and secret Muslims and Benghazi anyone?) Eventually, it became a controlled controversy, a subset of the Republican party. It is just a categorization of the Republican’s most extreme wing, which unsurprisingly is racist as fuck.
If you aren’t afraid of the Tea Party, you are either in a privileged position or you just aren’t paying fucking attention. Actually, probably both in most cases.
See also:
People seem to be thinking I am saying that Republicans and Democrats are both equally bad, generally or in total. I am emphatically not saying that. I took pains, clearly not enough; to make sure I wasn’t interpreted in that way. I’m instead saying that both parties are morally equivalent from my underlying political frame work. Democrats do have the better policies overall. Democrats are much closer to my ideal positions on healthcare, education, the environment, social safety net, science and so forth. Republicans are completely terrible on these issues.
However, I think it is wrong to give, say, education equal weight to the rule of law and the basic liberties or worse yet give something like the social safety net a higher priority than constitutional gov’t. My claim instead is that both parties are morally equivalent because both parties are roughly the same on the limited set of issues of the rule of law and the basic liberties. Both Bush and Obama are war criminals that have violated the Geneva conventions. Both Bush and Obama have rendered the fourth amendment a dead letter. Both Bush and Obama have greatly expanded the surveillance state and the state secret privilege. Both Bush and Obama have rendered the executive branch basically lawless, unaccountable to either congress or the courts. Insofar as both parties act in the same ways in this limited set of issues they are both, equally, morally bankrupt to me. I do not see a substantial different in this area between the two parties, despite having substantial differences in others. If there is a substantial difference in the rule of law etc, please name it. That the Republicans are terrible in other ways does not justify supporting the Democrats in my view and I think very, very poorly of people who think it does as it amounts to prioritizing secondary concerns over core, fundamental liberal (in the broadest most inclusive sense of liberal) issues. This is why I mostly voted third party.
Another way of putting the above point is, of course, that the respect for the rule of law is a necessary condition for a political party to be worthy of support. Insofar as the Democrats do not support the rule of law, they are a non starter for me (as are the Republicans, generally).
Now the question arises why I place so much importance on the basic liberties that I’m willing to give up so much to ensure they are respected. First, unless one is a consequentialist (which I am not, and I guess we can haggle over the preferred normative theory but I think that might be unproductive) some issues have to be given more weight logically at the theory level as the justification is not derived from the action’s impact on the world. (For the consequentialist this work is done by the actions effects on the number of people and ranking is carried out by how perversely the policy is) Second, it strikes me as beyond obvious that the basic liberties ought to always enjoy hieratical priority as it doesn’t matter if a person enjoys, say, a social safety net in a situation in which the gov’t can indefinitely detain people without trial. The reason being, of course, enjoying due process rights is necessary to be secure in your person, which in turn is necessary to be able to even have ground projects and to try to live a fulfilling life for everyone and anyone. I don’t see how this can be wrong. A social safety net is prudent and some people do depend on it, but everyone depends on the gov’t not having the power to run roughshod over people because reasons.
A second consideration for me, through I’m far more likely to get push back here, is I don’t think people have positive rights (rights to things, like food) and insofar as the social safety net is concerned with positive privileges it isn’t a matter of right, but of prudence and preference. And even if people do have positive rights it is not at all clear to me that is entirely the concern of the state as opposed to society as a whole. This is not to say that the (gov’t) social safety net is unneeded, or should be dismantled or that the gov’t doesn’t have a large role to play here. It very well might be a requirement of a just society, but it is of a lower priority than the basic liberties.
And before someone accuses me of pulling this out of my ass (or whatever), my line of thought on this point is being greatly influenced by Rawls, who is likely the most important political thinker and liberal of the last 100 years.
Now there are two issues of right that I, while I would vehemently disagree with, can respect if it does led to people supporting the Democrats. The two issues are reproductive rights and LGBT (and other minorities) equal protection under the law. NOTE: LGBT equal protection under the law directly affects me. I don’t even prioritize my own equal protection in this area, so please don’t think I am making such a consideration lightly.* Both issues are matters of basic liberties and insofar as that is true it becomes less clear how you should prioritize them against the other basic liberties. It is in the ballpark of morally acceptable to me to make this trade. I still think this is foolish in that a women’s bodily autonomy is not being respected if the president decides to kill her because unverified reasons even if she has access to abortion on demand (paid for by universal healthcare). Likewise, it doesn’t really matter if two gay guys can get legally married if either of them can be indefinitely detained because reasons. However, the person who does vote along these lines still needs to make sure their vote is going to be instrumentally effective (I don’t think this argument flies if the person is in either a safe blue or safe red district/state) as it is still an absolutely terrible moral calculation to have to make. And the person needs to disavow any and all actions the Democrats are doing with the other basic liberties and be crystal clear they are only voting on reproductive rights and/or equal protection under the law.
*In a perverse (and unrealistic) society in which I was forced between picking having habeas corpus respected or having my marriage rights respected I still pick habeas corpus. I would go so far as preferring a hypothetical and greatly unjust society in which habeas corpus is respected even if it meant that sodomy would always be punishable criminal offense.
Now some selected responses…
@Tony
And you voted for a war criminal and people who support a war criminal you dense fuckweasel. What we are disagreeing about is the underlying reasoning about why my vote (or your vote) was the proper call. In other words our substantial disagreement is not in who we voted for by why we voted the way we did.
And what I am saying is this is a blinked and naive consideration, and even if one does do a straight utility calculation it still is not clear that one support the Democrats. Honest to blog I think supporting the democrats at this time will, ultimately, lead to more suffering and more people being hurt in the long run. Let me explain: it is absolutely true that a Republican led gov’t would do more harm than, overall, than Democratic one in terms of the 2014 (2012) election. However, insofar as not punishing the Democrats for betraying the core of liberalism only encourages Democrats to be more like Republicans and push the entire political spectrum to the right in the country it is imperative that we do not support the jerks. It would have been better, for everyone, if we suffered a Republican led gov’t in 2012 than to have the Bush era abuses cemented into the system that the reelection of Obama brought about.
Look over the last 40ish years the country has been drifting to the right. Both today’s Democrats and Republicans are more conservative then their ~70’s counter parts. I think this is mainly, but not exclusively, being driven by two dynamics. First the Christian Right is absolutely great at making sure they get what they want or they go home. The extreme right is absolutely willing to lose the battles to win the war by either running people to the right of the establishment or by not showing up to vote. (see the tea party wave in 2010) This creates tremendous pressure in the Republican party to be ideologically “pure.” At the same time the left has an almost pathological need to making sure they don’t ever lose a battle, even if doing so costs them the war. Politicians are not to be trusted to do anything other than that which will garner the most votes. As a elected democrat if I know there is literally nothing I can do, short of being strictly identical with the current republican party, that will mean my left flank will not stay home or vote for someone else, it is my best interest to track as far to the right in action as I can as this allows me to capture the left and the middle. This naturally creates pressure in the Democratic party to be as centralist as possible. In long run, this is infinitely more damaging than losing a single election. Having Ford for president for 4 years is bad, but it is not nearly has bad as having 40 years of a political climate which is becoming more steadily conservative.
So I ask you, is there anything the Democratic party can do that will mean they will lose your vote? If the answer is no, how, exactly, do you plan to put pressure on them to actually follow through with what they have promised? Why shouldn’t elected Democrats, in terms of instrumental rationality, betray the left if they act as a captured voting block?
Actually I’m not mind reading at all, several people in this thread have point blank stated that they voted Democrats because Republican rule, at anytime for any reason, is unacceptable to them. It is also the case that the entire rhetoric that comes up in conversations like this is always about how much worse the Republicans are.
But you do not care. You simply do not care about the rule of law or civil liberties or basic fundamental elements of any liberal society. You are not willing to fight for these things because when a traitor in you midst cements such issues into the system your behavior does not punish the jerk but awards him for it. liberals should hate Obama, they should want him removed from office. But instead we get the death of liberalism with tremendous applause
@Zenlike
Fuck you. I quite clearly stated that, being queer and working in higher education, Republican rule is NOT in my immediate personal self-interest. If the left bolted from Obama as they should have done in 2012 a Romney presidency would have hurt me a great deal, personally. I still didn’t vote for Obama and I would have gladly suffered through a Romney presidency. So fuck you. I’m literally voting in such a way that it would negatively effect my life because I think it is best for everyone. SO fuck you. I’m literally am doing the thing you said I am not doing.
@Saad and anteprepro
Nope and nope. I am not presuming that (largely) non-function federal gov’t is going to magically going to end the issues I prioritize. Nor do I think that individual states will stop prosecuting the war on drugs. Nor do I think a republican senate is going to mean no new laws at all. Having a non functioning federal gov’t is not ideal, and it is not what I want. What I ideally want would be for the Obama to have ruled like he said he was going to in 2008. You both are trying to attribute my claim that “a divided gov’t is the best we can hope for” as if it is my ideal theory position. It is not. It is very not much ideal and I see only as a harm reduction method because divided gov’t just slow down and stops doing things. If I only voted off ideal theory considerations I would never vote for a divided gov’t.
@anteprepro
I am not unafraid of the tea Party; it’s a problem that needs to be solved. But, I don’t think the tea party is enough to warrant voting for Obama and I think liberals tend to overstate the short term damage the tea party would cause.
But do you know what scares more than a tea party in power in 2012? A Tea Party in power 10 years from now after it’s just a thing for the president to assassinate American citizens based on unvetted national security claims or the federal gov’t having the power to indefinitely detain “terrorists” because reasons. Thanks to Obama being re-elected the Democrat rank and file signed off on both policies, so yeah if the Tea party ever does get in power (I would place good odds on this, sadly) we get to deal with the horror of the tea party empowered in those delightfully immoral ways. Thanks Obama! Thanks partisan Democrats!
@chigau
thanks. I’ve been wondering how to do block quotes for awhile.
michael kellymiecielica
You seem very concerned that both parties are moving to the far right, but why do you think voting Republican will help with this? You say that continuing to vote Democrat encourages them to keep moving right, but I think voting Republican tells Democrats they need to move further right to get your vote. I can see voting third party, but voting for a far right party to tell Democrats not to be so right winged is backwards.
Also, your willingness to see anti-sodomy laws as long as you have habeas corpus is ridiculous. Why don’t you think equal treatment under the law is an important civil liberty?
michael kellymiecielica:
While I concede that the plan of gridlocking the government to stop harmful state actions is creative, it does sound naive. If both parties subscribe to those views you oppose, it seems reasonable to suppose that only illiberal legislation would pass, as the Capitol and the White House would be blocking each other in all the other issues.
Now, I do have a problem with the fact that American voters are electing so many conservative legislators. I don’t think this will change how US foreign policy is done (hardly anything changes that), but it does set a bad example for the world. Less advantaged countries look up to US politics, and giving greater prominence to the GOP will likely embolden all those nasty politicians in the third world who like to scapegoat minorities (and women). Many of them have been quite vocal already, and I believe they’ll benefit from having their US counterparts leading both houses of the Congress.
michael kellymiecielica
Yeah, you said voting for Democrats was immoral and since they’re both
equally badmorally equivalent…Except you’re not the one on SNAP or SSI that’ll be dying if it’s shut down. My family will be and so will a vast majority of the poor brown people you claim to want to help. Well, the racial injustice they face will certainly end if they’re all dead right? The only reason to worry about the War on Drugs (so much so you want a government shut down since it’s immoral) before keeping people alive is if you’re okay with all of them dying and care more for the white dudes in jail for smoking a doobie.
So a big hearty FUCK YOU. And don’t try this “But I didn’t say that!” nonsense, we can scroll right up and read what you wrote moron. You’d think someone in education would know that words mean things…
michael kellymiecielica:
Can I ask what good a guaranteed right to life is if you starve?
A world in which everyone is dead fits your perfect-freedom-utopia ideally. If no-one is alive, no-one can infringe one another’s rights, and since you do not believe in positive rights, no-one is being deprived of anything by being dead, so long as they weren’t killed.
A silly ol’ consequentialist might suggest there would be some minor side effects to such a world, but what’s that in the face of perfect liberty?
How can anyone say this with a straight face?
Romney would have been worse on *everything*. Under him, we’d likely have gone to war too. I guess Michael doesn’t believe in minimizing harm. Rather, he wants to maximize it. He spends all this time whining about the problems with the Obama administration then talks about how he voted for Republican?! Like that’s somehow better. Way to go shitstain.
A “right to food” is a preference?! We need food to survive you blinkered fuckwit! Without sustenance, how long are the rights that you approve of going to last? Not long, bc we’ll suffer and die.
Such a privileged fuckface.
@toska
I don’t. When did I say this!??! I generally don’t vote for Republicans. The most common vote I cast this election was “no selection” because most races were uncontested, judicial races, or were missing third parties. The second most common vote was for the green party, than the libertarian party depending on who was on the ballot and which one was more likely to get more traction in that race.
I voted for one (1) Republican, house of representatives in IL-2. I only did so because 1) I find my Democratic congressman particularly loathsome, 2) there was no third party in that race, and 3) I’m in such an overwhelming Democratic district it doesn’t matter who I voted for. I took the Republican vote there to mean “no.” If any of those 3 factors were to change I wouldn’t have bothered voting in that race.
Again, where did I say that? I only said habeas corpus is more important than equal protection. This does not mean, nor imply that equal protection is unimportant.
@dõki
This is likely true, which is why I don’t vote to divide the gov’t nor take any action to see it come about. It is only the outcome I hope for given the current political climate. It is not ideal.
But insofar as that is true, all it does it provide even more reason to not engage with the system via the formal channels.
@Jal
This is not a cogent response to anything I said. Let me help you out, a cogent response would be:
1) An argument for why I should not prioritize the basic liberties in the way I do.
OR
2) an argument that Republicans are substantially worse on the basic liberties.
Look you unbelievably dense, unmitigated malicious fuckwit throughout this entire conversation SNAP/SSI was being used as a token of a social safety net program that people depend on for their livelihood. As is clear from context, at no point when I was talking about SNAP/SSI did I mean just SNAP/SSI as if I have a particular problem with those programs. I also cited healthcare and education (among other things) because all of those issues are of lesser importance than the basic liberties. Do you know what other program is less important and I would gladly see completely dismantled for a return of the basic liberties? federal student loans! Now, guess what federal program I am, indirectly, dependent on for my livelihood? Federal student loans! So no I am not asking people do something I am not unwilling to do myself. Hell I would trade federal student loans for basic liberties over SNAP/SSI for basic liberties as well.
It’s beyond sad I had didactically state that.
That you have a piss poor understanding of the impact of the war of drugs doesn’t not mean I do, or reality accords to your preconceptions. There is no policy change that would benefit people of color more than ending the war on drugs. This is one reason why I prioritize it so much. Our drug policies, with institutional racism, act as a de facto Jim Crow laws creating a perpetual powerless underclass. This is one big reason why many many people of color are continually caught in poverty and depend on programs like SNAP/SSI. Insofar as the war of drugs creates poverty (and it does!) is the same degree you should prefer ending it over funding SNAP/SSI if faced with that choice.
So fuck you for inferring the worst possible motive onto my position from your inability to imagine cogent factors.
@Anri
Because even if I starve I had the opportunity to try to prevent that from any means at my disposal, assuming I wasn’t forcibly prevented from acquiring it.. Do you have an actual argument why people are entitled to with the sword, ultimately, take resources from me to feed themselves?
In any case, even if I just upend this sure to be long and boring discussion and grant people have a right to food, the right to not be killed by presidential drone (a right we no longer enjoy because of Obama) still clearly takes precedence.
@Tony
Note: I didn’t vote for Romney in 2012 if there was any confusion, I voted for Gary Johnson through I was close to voting for the green party person.
If I wanted to maximize harm I would have voted for Obama. I believe Obama’s re-election IN THE LONG TERM was more damaging than Romney being elected for 4-8 years even on straight utility calculation grounds. The reason again being Obama’s re-election guaranteed the Bush era civil liberty abuses are a basically permanent part of our system. Wheres as if we suffered 4-8 years of Romney the next Democrat could have gotten them out. Now neither party is going to work on getting rid of them because the left told the democrats vis-a-vis 2012 “don’t worry about habeas corpus, we consider a shitty health care law are worth while trade!”
I have stated this, or some variant, like three times. Are you that slow on the uptake?
michael kellymiecielica @ 102:
First of all, a good bit of the benefits you have received in your life have come from resources taken from others BY THE SWORD (scare chord), aka: taxation.
Either you are repudiating these benefits, which makes you an idiot, or you believe you deserve them and others don’t, which makes you a hypocrite, or you’re unaware of them, which makes you both.
My argument is that human society is a good thing on balance, and that it only functions when people are required to surrender more of their wealth to it than they would do so via voluntary charity. Do you have arguments to the contrary?
Well, we certainly wouldn’t want to bore you with arguments over real people really starving due to holes in the real-world safety net caused by conservatives being in power due to stupid people voting for them. Perhaps you’d find such arguments rather less boring if you were one of those people yourself – but that’s just me being a silly consequentialist again, right?
By all means, let’s not sully the argument by refusing to assume a spherical cow.
Oh, and by the way, I didn’t bring up the right to food – you did. If you want to change your position on that, that’s fine: do so and good on ya. But you don’t get to just weasel out of it like you tried to do above.
As far as which right takes precedence, which problem is killing more actual people?
I know, I know – I’m cheating by bringing real-world consequences into it. Totes unfair.
michael, #94
Explain how the Romney presidency would have been best for everyone.
Don’t even try to say Romney would have been an anti-war, anti-drone, and anti-war on drugs president.
Go.
michael kellymiecielica @102
Maybe I’m missing something, but if the choice is between (1) a government that will only pass illiberal legislation, or (2) a government that will pass illiberal legislation but also offer more protection for minorities, reproductive rights, etc..; I’m not sure why you’d think that the former is better than the latter.
To my #104:
Shit, that’s not what you said. Learn to reading comprehension, Saad.
@Saad
I know you already realized you misread what I said but I want to make sure people are getting this reasoning. A Romney presidency would have been more damaging for everyone in the short term, but if the left punished Obama for his betrayals on Civil Liberties when the next democratic president got into power their would have been a lot of pressure to remove them. Insofar as the re-election of Obama cemented the Bush era abuses into the system it is to the same degree that Obama is that much more damaging in the long term.
@Anri
Haven’t I already to the degree that is required for my underlying framework? Throughout this entire conversation I have stated that I consider social safety net spending less important, and I have stated several times I would trade programs in this area that I directly benefit from in exchange for the return of the basic liberties. I have also stated that I consider social safety net spending to be prudent. I even stated it might be a matter of justice. My issue is I don’t see how it can be a matter of right. Insofar as a person’s rights places duties onto others, i.e. your right to not be assaulted entails the duty on me to not assault you, it strikes me as these things can only be negative because otherwise you end up with things like your right to food places a duty on me to provide you food even if I am not in a position to do so practically.
You can see this problem really easily if we switch to sex. Sex is a human need that is only slightly less important than food for human flourishing. Perhaps sex, or at least the opportunities to engage in sex, should be treated as a right because of this. (Side Note: Nussbaum takes a very similar line in some version of her capacities approach.) But, and this is a kicker, to say a person has a right to sex is to say they are entitled to another’s body. That’s obviously wrong.
I will also note how dismissive you are of state power.
Then don’t. I know a great deal of the academic literature on these issues. I’m almost certainly one of the best read people in political philosophy on this blog. Excuse me if I don’t want to engage in an argument that I almost certainly know more about than the person trying argue with me about it.
Oh and none of the above changes even if I was on SNAP, as I have been in the past.
This point is not in dispute between us. I am at a complete lost to explain why you think it is. I have already stated, like 4 times, that I find the social safety net to be prudent. That society as a whole function better when there is a robust social safety net can justify to programs; they do not make the programs a matter of right. Another way of saying this is a legitimate gov’t (which the US is not) will respect the basic liberties, while a fully just one will be legitimate and have a robust social safety net.
Still waiting…
Not that it matters, ultimately, but probably the drone program anyway, especially in the long term.
Not so much cheating as engaging in pointless blather. I already stated I am not a consequentialist. Consequentialism, because it doesn’t respect the separateness of persons and many other things, is a profoundly immoral normative theory. I’m not moved by those consideration unless you want to take the time to try to convince me to be a consequentialist. But I find that unproductive because you almost certainly will not be able to produce an argument I haven’t seen before.
I’m well aware being a contractarian what bullets I am biting, and one of them is I don’t (can’t) take consequence into account when making moral decisions. I am unsure if you are aware of what bullets you have to bite.
Go read Bernard William’s “Against Utilitarianism” and get back to me because I think the argument destroys any form of consequentialism.
michael kellymiecielica @ 107:
Sorry for the pause – OT at work.
Before we go any further, I just wanted to verify a few things really quickly, if you don’t mind.
First –
Do you actually think equating sex and food in this manner is a good argument?
Second –
This statement suggests that 1) you think drones kill more people than malnutrition, and 2) that you don’t believe that the number of deaths matters. Am I correct in this analysis?
Thanks.