| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| so who's it going to be, for reals. |
| Newt Gingrich |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| Mitt Romney |
|
42% |
[ 17 ] |
| Mitch Daniels |
|
10% |
[ 4 ] |
| Ron Paul |
|
17% |
[ 7 ] |
| Tim Pawlenty |
|
10% |
[ 4 ] |
| Sarah Palin |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Rick Santorum |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| Jon Huntsman |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| Some complete outsider |
|
12% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 40 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2379
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
There is a pretty big difference between believing that the government is best suited to handle issue X, and loving moar government just for moar governments sake.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bart
Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kenshiro wrote: | Anyone who claims that they completely don't need government and/or don't get any measurable benefits from it is clearly insane and not in touch with the world around them.
HOWEVER:
There is a difference in the way this logic is stated and the way it is often used. The idea that we all benefit from having certain government programs and regulations in place is obvious, but this argument is often used to support the idea that if some government is good then more must be better, and there is a logical fallacy between those two ideas; the one very much does NOT guarantee the other. |
I have never heard anyone make that argument. Can you give examples? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kenshiro
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh, fuck. Now I have to go digging through old facebook feeds to find the evidence. I'll be back in a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart
Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If the argument is often used, wouldn't it be easy to find examples? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darqcyde
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 8366
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kenshiro wrote: | Anyone who claims that they completely don't need government and/or don't get any measurable benefits from it is clearly insane and not in touch with the world around them.
HOWEVER:
There is a difference in the way this logic is stated and the way it is often used. The idea that we all benefit from having certain government programs and regulations in place is obvious, but this argument is often used to support the idea that if some government is good then more must be better, and there is a logical fallacy between those two ideas; the one very much does NOT guarantee the other. |
I think you need to look at the bigger picture with this.
We Americans, in general, as a society, tend to think "more is better". Whether food portion size, vehicle size, house size, TV screen size, bank account size, number of lovers, etc. I'm not sure whether it's a cause or effect of our rampant consumerism, but one definitely influences the other.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2379
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that boiling things down to complete generalities like that is pretty much useless in dealing with actual real world issues and is more appropriate for philosophy students masturbating their acadamia peens.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darqcyde
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 8366
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's foolish to think things like that are mutually exclusive. Politics has EVERYTHING to do with personal philosophies.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2379
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But i'm pretty sure almost no one holds a philosophy of government for governments sake because we exist in a world of nuance. The thought process behind it is better described as a scale of how much people think government should be responsible for. Attempting to boil it down to more government or less completely ignores the fact that the question is actually Should the government handle problem X or not?
I challenge you to find anyone that isn't a complete fringe lunatic respected by next to none that makes claims like "Government should handle X because yay more government".
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darqcyde
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 8366
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree. If there's a problem we always take a "more" approach first.
We send more troops. We spend more money. We make more laws. We make more regulations. We make more requirements. We add more code. We work more hours. We charge more. We build more. We mine more. We refine more. More, more, more.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2379
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So farm subsidies are the same as nasa. Law enforcement is the same as foreign aid. PBS is equivalent to INS.
I mean hey it's all just "more" government.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kenshiro
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Posts: 38
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | | I challenge you to find anyone that isn't a complete fringe lunatic respected by next to none that makes claims like "Government should handle X because yay more government". |
Ah! I see the problem now! I've just been looking for love in all the wrong places.
On the internet, as in life, it's all about location, location, location. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darqcyde
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 8366
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | So farm subsidies are the same as nasa. Law enforcement is the same as foreign aid. PBS is equivalent to INS.
I mean hey it's all just "more" government. |
What I'm saying is that Americans treat "more" the same as "better" in many, if not most, cases.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2379
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darqcyde wrote: | | Monkey Mcdermott wrote: | So farm subsidies are the same as nasa. Law enforcement is the same as foreign aid. PBS is equivalent to INS.
I mean hey it's all just "more" government. |
What I'm saying is that Americans treat "more" the same as "better" in many, if not most, cases. |
Which is relevant in cases of government how? No one says "lets make the biggest bureaucracy ever" They say "government needs to handle this" and government is created to handle an issue.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darqcyde
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 8366
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They most certainly do, they just don't realize it. People regularly want things that could only be readily accomplished with more government involvement i.e. bigger government. Just because they're ignorant of what it takes to achieve what they want doesn't change the reality of it.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2379
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darqcyde wrote: | | They most certainly do, they just don't realize it. People regularly want things that could only be readily accomplished with more government involvement i.e. bigger government. Just because they're ignorant of what it takes to achieve what they want doesn't change the reality of it. |
So first back this up with some data, and second explain how this is necessarily a bad thing as the tone of your posting has been implying such.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
