Printable View
I would think and have seen/heard to some extent both viewpoints in some of the groupings you mention. Generally speaking maybe but not total. Yes some but not all.
Great example of how we see things so differently. You are both correct from your viewpoint. ;)
No. It is fundamental.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
More government = good.
Less government = good.
On a fundamental level a person believes one or the other.
Chrisl
This is strict anarchism and statism and very very few people are die hard anarchists or statists.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
I don't believe either of these. I believe that
more government thing A = bad
less government thing A = good
more government thing B = good
less government thing B = bad
I am willing to bet very good money that the vast majority of people are just like me and the disagreements are over what are the A and B things that some people want the government to do more of, and other people want it to do less of.
I like the word semantics to generalize this. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Since it's DNC week I would like to say that in my view there is one unsurpassed illustration of semantics:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmercer
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement"
Folks love less Government until an issue arises affecting them personally. Then they quickly become "More Government" champions. No different than folks who have a vested interest and then wish the Government would go away.
It's just not as simple or fundamental.
Not true. At least for the former. I believe "strict anarchism" would apply if my statement would have been: "NO government = good" which I did not say.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
I may need to clarify. I am not talking about extremes. Anarchism on one end or Totalitarianism on the other end. I am also not talking about "right" or "left", Democrat or Republican.
One can get caught up in the minutiae all too easily and lose focus on the fundamentals. Let's make the U.S. as it is today the scale.
Generally, if a person believes that to be a better place, the U.S. needs greater government intervention, their scale would tip toward "more government than we have right now = good."
Generally, if a person believes that to be a better place, the U.S. needs less government intervention, their scale would tip toward "less government than we have right now = good."
Minutiae can cloud the fundamentals:
"I think the government is far far too involved in people's lives. But I also believe that tougher immigration laws should be enacted. Therefore, I'm not a "less government = good" kind of person."
or
"Too much government intervention? There's not enough. Our behavior as a society is nowhere near where it needs to be in regard to how we treat the environment. Big corporations thumb their noses at any laws we may have; we absolutely need more regulation in those areas just to name a few. I do think drug use should be decriminalized though. Therefore, I'm not a "more government = good" kind of a person."
Minutiae aside, in regard to the above examples: Yes you are. And, yes you are.
If the word "fundamental" is a road block here, then I think anyone, if they were honest, including being honest with themselves, would say that one or the other statements below apply to them:
"Generally, I believe more government than we have now would be good."
"Generally, I believe less government than we have now would be good."
ChrisL
Yes, if your position depends on the present state it can not be fundamental. When you presented a fundamental binary choice between the two absolutes of either 'less government=good' or 'more government=good' you made it either one extreme or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
But even your current choice isn't flexible enough.
Where would you put a 'Trump supporter' who wants less government involvement on regulating their business, but more government involvement in protecting it from foreign competition through say tariffs? Or a 'Clinton supporter' who wants more government involvement guaranteeing her minimum wage and benefits but less government involvement in telling her who she can marry and raise children with?
Your rendering of the examples you gave is biased towards 'less government=good' purity. Meaning that if among 1000 issues a person wants less government involvement on 999 and more on a single issue you are labeling them in the 'more government=good' camp.
The only person who would qualify as a 'less government=good' camp would be the one who wants it on every single issue imaginable - less taxes, less military, less social services, less law enforcement, etc. than what we have now. I don't know if such a person exist among the 300 million american citizens, the probability is so low.
You and I will have to agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
ChrisL
That's certainly fine, however set theory and measures is not a matter of opinion, it is a math issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
I mean it's not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with your categorization, it's just not particularly useful because as you've defined it it puts virtually all americans in one of your categories and virtually none in the other.
It is analogous to saying 'the fundamental distinction between people is among those who want to breathe air and those who don't'. Yes, it is a distinction and there may be somebody who wants to breathe water or dirt instead of air.