Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Voters have realized that government has moved into the business of favoring one group over another, and imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving", such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this list.)
So many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.
Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".
Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.
But now that government's main function has become to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes), more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them more than they favor people not like them.
Thus do candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get, and who favor those who "need more" over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government, get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.
Back when such matter were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate... and people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.
And in the timeless response to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), even the people who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.
And so, one by one, they gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial govenment that stays out of their lives, and throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position" - both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for that guy over there."
Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".
But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".
And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.
And the more people who go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, the more pressure this puts on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who desire stern-but-impartial government, to give up that desire, and follow.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 11-20-2012 at 11:11 AM..
Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.
But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.
1.) It turns into a pushing a shoving match, trying to get govt to help you more than it helps the other guy;
2.) Hardworking people who don't want govt favor, are persuaded one after the other to give up and seek favor; while NO people are ever persuaded to go the other way. The result is a slow slide into dependence, with no particular urge to stop.
Voters have realized that government has moved into the business of favoring one group over another, and imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving", such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this list.)
So many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.
Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".
Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.
But now that government's main function has become to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes), more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them more than they favor people not like them.
Thus do candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get, and who favor those who "need more" over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government, get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.
Back when such matter were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate... and people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.
And in the timeless response to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), even the people who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.
And so, one by one, they gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial govenment that stays out of their lives, and throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position" - both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for that guy over there."
Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".
But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".
And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.
And the more people who go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, the more pressure this puts on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who desire stern-but-impartial government, to give up that desire, and follow.
People used to vote for stern, fatherly figures who would enforce the laws fairly and impartially - Grover Cleveland, Abraham Lincoln, etc.
Now they vote the the guy "who understands my problems" - code words for "I think he will favor me and my groups, more than other people."
When was the last time you picked a tree-trimmer based on "how well he understands my situation", rather than "how good a job he does trimming trees"?
But your vote for President might well be based on how well you think he understands your personal situation, rather than how well he sets up departments to enforce voting laws or how well he picks generals for the armed forces... because, now that the govt is doing so much that directly affects how you relate to your doctor or how pretty and aesthetic your workplace is, and those things impact you more directly and immediately than that other, "boring" govt stuff, you naturally gravitate more toward the nice guy that toward the effective guy.
Which is another reason why the President (and the rest of his government) should simply keep their hands off EVERYTHING in your personal life.
Good luck finding a politician willing to so restrict his duties, though. They know where the money - and the votes - are. And they, in turn, are far more interested in money and votes, than in obeying the restrictions in some musty, 200-year-old document that few voters have even read, much less respected.
Voters have realized that government has moved into the business of favoring one group over another, and imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving", such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this list.)
So many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.
Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".
Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.
But now that government's main function has become to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes), more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them more than they favor people not like them.
Thus do candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get, and who favor those who "need more" over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government, get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.
Back when such matter were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate... and people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.
And in the timeless response to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), even the people who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.
And so, one by one, they gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial govenment that stays out of their lives, and throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position" - both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for that guy over there."
Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".
But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".
And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.
And the more people who go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, the more pressure this puts on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who desire stern-but-impartial government, to give up that desire, and follow.
I am reminded of OBummer's recent comment that he had a mandate to help the middle class!!!!!
What an idiot.
No, ODumbo, you have a mandate (the Constituiton) to help All Americans without regards to their race, creed, economic status etc. Playing favorites (permanent stragety of DemocRATS) is forbidden under the USC.
People used to vote for stern, fatherly figures who would enforce the laws fairly and impartially - Grover Cleveland, Abraham Lincoln, etc.
Now they vote the the guy "who understands my problems" - code words for "I think he will favor me and my groups, more than other people."
When was the last time you picked a tree-trimmer based on "how well he understands my situation", rather than "how good a job he does trimming trees"?
But your vote for President might well be based on how well you think he understands your personal situation, rather than how well he sets up departments to enforce voting laws or how well he picks generals for the armed forces... because, now that the govt is doing so much that directly affects how you relate to your doctor or how pretty and aesthetic your workplace is, and those things impact you more directly and immediately than that other, "boring" govt stuff, you naturally gravitate more toward the nice guy that toward the effective guy.
Which is another reason why the President (and the rest of his government) should simply keep their hands off EVERYTHING in your personal life.
Good luck finding a politician willing to so restrict his duties, though. They know where the money - and the votes - are. And they, in turn, are far more interested in money and votes, than in obeying the restrictions in some musty, 200-year-old document that few voters have even read, much less respected.
What should be considered an "ordinary problem of life" and who is going to make that decision? And do you really want to be giving the federal government that kind of power over your life? Who is going to make the call that one person's "ordinary problem" is more important than the other?
Obamacare is going to quickly test those limits and it wouldn't surprise me to see it keep dividing this country.
What should be considered an "ordinary problem of life" and who is going to make that decision? And do you really want to be giving the federal government that kind of power over your life? Who is going to make the call that one person's "ordinary problem" is more important than the other?
Obamacare is going to quickly test those limits and it wouldn't surprise me to see it keep dividing this country.
Life is not so much about philosophical principles as is about down to earth realities. Your questions had been answered by ALL western and developed nations in one way or another. Only in America they are complicated, beyond any solution. Only in the US healthcare is paralleled to broccoli.
Life is not so much about philosophical principles as about down to earth realities.
As opposed to government, whose limits ARE determined by philosophical principles... or should be, for the reasons I outlined in the OP.
Quote:
Your questions had been answered by ALL western and developed nations in one way or another.
And all those nations which have exceeded the limits I described, are now sliding (at various speeds) down the hill toward degenerate, third-world policies of sloth, favoritism, corruption, and bankruptcy. With the United States now beginning to follow their lead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
