Interesting thread. I don't think I can comment on thr specifics since this is the first time I've read about them. I do want to say that an awareness of authority is a healthy sign of a working democracy. I think you should always be cautious of people in important positions.
Government wants to control your life?
Posts
Total:
231
-->
@Greyparrot
Radicals against the establishment.
More like free radical destabilizing rational logical common sense values of people with moral and intellectual integrity Sad Qanon types.
..."Free radicals are unstable atoms that can damage cells,
causing illness and aging. Free radicals are linked to aging and a host
of diseases, but little is known about their role in human health, or
how to prevent them from making people sick."...LINK...
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I think you need to read this paragraph again and focus on the words "could be," which is only implying a possibility of said outcome:
It doesn’t really change much. Anything is possible, so it’s a meaningless statement. The reason most people use such caveats it is to avoid having to own the message they are spreading. But I don’t know your motivations so who knows.
Would you say that the government allowing slavery was a form of controlling them?
Was it a form of government control? I would say no, but an argument can be made for a yes. They were enabling the slaves to be controlled which I don’t see as the same thing.
I don’t see the relevance here.
-->
@Double_R
Was it a form of government control? I would say no, but an argument can be made for a yes. They were enabling the slaves to be controlled which I don’t see as the same thing.
By that logic, the government could make it legal to own registered Republicans as slaves, and it would not be considered "government control."
Let's say I were to claim that the government is trying to "control our lives" by allowing and enforcing the enslavement of certain humans, and my statement were true. It sounds like you would look at that and say, "I don't get the rationale behind people complaining that the government is trying to control our lives." Your critique of people complaining about government control seems somewhat meaningless then.
-->
@Wylted
The same batching was taking place when they said Republicans were trying to control who people fuck by creating Sodomy laws and anti gay marriage laws.
Now that is actually a good example of government controlling the lives of its citizens. There is absolutely no justification for a government to tell its citizens how to have sex. What any two or more people choose to do with their bodies, it has no impact on anyone else. So if a law like that were passed today I might echo the talking point.
I would also note however that there is nothing like that being considered today, at least certainly not on the left.
A lot of democrats were using covid as an excuse to temporarily have more power. For example they restricted business hours. This was a mere power thirst thing. Everyone knows if you limit the hours grocery stores are happening, it means everyone is shopping in the same periods of time as opposed to spreading it out, so the only viable explanation for such a measure is somebody having a hard on for power.
Perfect example of why I started this thread.
States imposed curfews because when everything is closed down at night people are far more likely to stay home and not spread the virus, and also because it sends a signal to the community regarding the seriousness of the situation. Now you can disagree with that rationale or just think it’s not worth the imposition (as I do) but to say there is no other reason other than power for the sake of power is nonsense. These recommendations weren’t even invented by politicians, these are what various health experts have said, so are the health experts “just seeking power”? And again, what are they getting out of shutting their own neighborhoods down? How is that power?
The ultimate issue here is the Occam’s razor test. I just don’t understand how anyone looks at a situation and thinks “the explanation with the fewest assumptions is that they just want to control our lives for power”. How do you get there? Is it projection? Does this sound like something you would do? If not where did you get this from? I just can’t make any sense out of this.
-->
@ludofl3x
"wear this mask forever and now I have personally gained [exactly what?]?" / "so I can control your entire life"? I just don't get the connection, can you illustrate it in some way?
IT'S A DE FACTO LOYALTY OATH.
The First Amendment states that Congress can make no law hindering the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
ALSO,
-->
@Greyparrot
Any time the government can make the case that you are too stupid to take care of yourself, democracy is irrelevant.
100% THIS.
-->
@fauxlaw
Dr Fauci: "I am Science."Seems about as governmentally superior, i.e., controlling, as anything I've ever heard from a government representative. I'm only surprised he has not yet thought of wearing a mask like a diaper.
FAUCI on 60 Minutes March 2020 - "People should not be walking around with masks"
-->
@Double_R
I would also note however that there is nothing like that being considered today, at least certainly not on the left.
It is, but the moral justification is different.
The ultimate issue here is the Occam’s razor test. I just don’t understand how anyone looks at a situation and thinks “the explanation with the fewest assumptions is that they just want to control our lives for power”. How do you get there? Is it projection? Does this sound like something you would do? If not where did you get this from? I just can’t make any sense out of this.
I think what you are saying is that most politicians on the left had good intentions, so therefore no politician on the left hot off on power grabs that they could rationalize later by saying they were following guidelines of certain experts. Don't get lost in just that single example that has convenient rationalization. Nobody in power will make a power grab using bad rationalization. Not one that gets away with it anyway.
your belief that homosexuals having seen with each other has no effect on society at large is not shared by most social conservatives. There are some pretty good philosophical arguments to defend that position as well, just like there is good rationalization for power grabs by elements of the left as well
Those highest on the totem pole in official status are often slaves to many string-pullers behind the scenes.
One of the only exceptions to this rule amongst very powerful nations is Putin and Russia, in Putin's Russia he is also the alpha figure within the kleptocracy but of course there's reason to doubt that (it is, after all, a very convenient truth to perpetuate the appearance of if in fact it isn't the case).
-->
@Double_R
States imposed curfews
Some mainstream commentators pin the genesis of curfews to Watts in 1965 or Detroit in 1967 — both rebellions squarely based in black-led calls for an end to police terrorism and discrimination in housing and employment. The story of the imposition of curfews as a response to black people’s demands for freedom has a much longer history, one that is central to the birth of the nation itself. [**]
Jews are placed under night curfew and are prohibited from being out in the streets from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. during the summer and between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the winter. [**]
At a young age, I was introduced to a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The basic premise is a frog is dropped into a pot of boiling water, and it jumps out because of the sudden change in temperature. However, when the frog is placed in room temperature water, and the water is slowly brought to boil, Mr. Frog does not perceive the danger and is cooked to death. I was fascinated by this story.
This story has stuck with me. It’s the perfect metaphor to describe our inability or resistance to respond to threats that arise gradually. [**]
-->
@ludofl3x
At a young age, I was introduced to a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The basic premise is a frog is dropped into a pot of boiling water, and it jumps out because of the sudden change in temperature. However, when the frog is placed in room temperature water, and the water is slowly brought to boil, Mr. Frog does not perceive the danger and is cooked to death. I was fascinated by this story.
This story has stuck with me. It’s the perfect metaphor to describe our inability or resistance to respond to threats that arise gradually. [**]
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
by allowing and enforcing the enslavement of certain humans
The law does not currently restrict the sale of products manufactured with forced labor.
Allowing the sale of products manufactured with forced labor is de facto support of forced labor practices.
There are still slaves in the world and we still profit from slavery, they're just not right in front of us.
-->
@3RU7AL
USA ranks dead last in media trust with 29% of Americans trusting elite run media.
That means 29% of the country is stupid enough that they need government to step in.
-->
@3RU7AL
Here is the main point of this thread from the OP:
This is a talking point I hear constantly from the right; the idea that “the left”, or “the government” just wants to control our lives...Is there anyone on this site who can explain the rationale here?
He seems to be criticizing and rejecting the idea that the government has been trying to assert more control over our lives in recent days. Yet, he also said this:
Was [slavery] a form of government control? I would say no...
So according to his logic, if the government was allowing and enforcing slavery, he would not see that as a legitimate reason to argue that the government is trying to assert more control over our lives.
Now I generally agree with your point that we should not be doing business with companies who utilize slave labor (we're looking at you China...). That being said, I'm not sure what your argument is in your post #74. Do believe that the government allowing and enforcing slavery within its own country can be considered government control?
-->
@3RU7AL
FAUCI on 60 Minutes March 2020 - "People should not be walking around with masks"
You do know what science is and how it works right?
-->
@Wylted
It is, but the moral justification is different.
It isn’t the same in the slightest. I was talking about laws governing how we have sex - something that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone outside of the bedroom. Mask wearing, vaccination passports, or take your pick, whatever you think about them, absolutely impact other people.
I think what you are saying is that most politicians on the left had good intentions, so therefore no politician on the left hot off on power grabs that they could rationalize later by saying they were following guidelines of certain experts.
Not entirely clear here on your point. I never said “no politician on the left” about anything. There are always outliers no matter what the subject.
Regarding convenient rationalizations, that will always be a thing in politics as well. Like the way legislatures around the country are using the myth of rampant voter fraud as justification to roll back voting rights knowing that when less people vote they have a better chance of winning elections. The question at the end of the day will always be; how do we sort through good faith arguments and made up pretexts?
This is where I go back to the simple test of Occam’s razor and I ask again… please explain what makes it more plausible that politicians are passing these laws (mask mandates, curfews, etc.) out of a desire for power? What do they get out of that? How does this idea make sense? And how does this make more sense than “because they believe we should listen to the health experts”?
I would really love for just one person in this thread to explain this.
-->
@Wylted
just like there is good rationalization for power grabs by elements of the left as well
Then please provide one
-->
@Double_R
why? Anything I point you, you'll point to the rationalization of that measure as proof it was definitely a legitimate power grab. You are a bit naive when it comes to politicians who share similar views as you.
-->
@Double_R
FAUCI on 60 Minutes March 2020 - "People should not be walking around with masks"You do know what science is and how it works right?
Do you ?
-->
@Double_R
It isn’t the same in the slightest. I was talking about laws governing how we have sex - something that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone outside of the bedroom.
Your right, the aids epidemic was not started in bath houses that spread disease, and a degenerate society does not effect the children in those societies.
-->
@Double_R
It is, but the moral justification is different.It isn’t the same in the slightest. I was talking about laws governing how we have sex - something that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone outside of the bedroom. Mask wearing, vaccination passports, or take your pick, whatever you think about them, absolutely impact other people.
EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO IMPACTS OTHER PEOPLE.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Here is the main point of this thread from the OP:This is a talking point I hear constantly from the right; the idea that “the left”, or “the government” just wants to control our lives...Is there anyone on this site who can explain the rationale here?
It's certainly not only "the left" that "wants to control our lives".
More specifically, the wealthy want the poor to shut-up and do what they're told.
They say, "if you just play-the-game, you'll get a lot more out of life" but with each passing day, it becomes more and more obvious that this is a lie.
He seems to be criticizing and rejecting the idea that the government has been trying to assert more control over our lives in recent days. Yet, he also said this:Was [slavery] a form of government control? I would say no...
Protecting the practice of slavery and acting on the behalf of slavers is very clearly "a form of government control" (specifically over the slaves themselves).
So according to his logic, if the government was allowing and enforcing slavery, he would not see that as a legitimate reason to argue that the government is trying to assert more control over our lives.
Protecting the practice of slavery and acting on the behalf of slavers is very clearly "a form of government control" (specifically over the slaves themselves).
Now I generally agree with your point that we should not be doing business with companies who utilize slave labor (we're looking at you China...). That being said, I'm not sure what your argument is in your post #74. Do believe that the government allowing and enforcing slavery within its own country can be considered government control?
Protecting the practice of slavery (even overseas) and acting on the behalf of slavers (importing their products and services) is very clearly "a form of government control" (specifically over the slaves themselves).
-->
@Double_R
Regarding convenient rationalizations, that will always be a thing in politics as well. Like the way legislatures around the country are using the myth of rampant voter fraud as justification to roll back voting rights knowing that when less people vote they have a better chance of winning elections.
100% THIS.
-->
@3RU7AL
So, you and I believe slavery is a form of government control. Double_R does not.
Based on post #74, I'm still unsure if you are trying to disagree with me. It seems like your disagreement should be with Double_R and his definition of government control not including slavery.
Based on post #74, I'm still unsure if you are trying to disagree with me. It seems like your disagreement should be with Double_R and his definition of government control not including slavery.
-->
@Double_R
This is where I go back to the simple test of Occam’s razor and I ask again… please explain what makes it more plausible that politicians are passing these laws (mask mandates, curfews, etc.) out of a desire for power? What do they get out of that? How does this idea make sense? And how does this make more sense than “because they believe we should listen to the health experts”?I would really love for just one person in this thread to explain this.
Occam's razor says,
GOVERNMENTS abhor any perceived threat to their absolute whimsical authority.
This is easily demonstrated by even a cursory review of history.
Occam's razor says,
GOVERNMENTS will use any CRISIS, whether "real" or "imagined" to erode INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PERSONAL FREEDOMS.
Perhaps you're aware that when the "income tax" was expanded from a 1% tax on the top 1% of citizens in the united states, it was promised to be TEMPORARY ?
It was a TEMPORARY tax increase in order to address a CRISIS.
The history of income tax in America is an unusual one. The first federal income tax was created in 1861 during the Civil War as a mechanism to finance the war effort. In addition, Congress passed the Internal Revenue Act in 1862 which created the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a predecessor to the modern day IRS. The Bureau of Internal Revenue placed excise taxes on everything from tobacco to jewelry. Following the end of the Civil War, the income tax did not have substantial support and was repealed in 1872. [**]
On October 3, 1917, six months after the United States declared war on Germany and began its participation in the First World War, the U.S. Congress passes the War Revenue Act, increasing income taxes to unprecedented levels in order to raise more money for the war effort.
The 16th Amendment, which gave Congress the power to levy an income tax, became part of the Constitution in 1913; in October of that year, a new income tax law introduced a graduated tax system, with rates starting at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income above $500,000 ($13,722,020.20 in today's dollars, accounting for inflation). Though less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time, the amendment marked an important shift, as before most citizens had carried on their economic affairs without government knowledge. In an attempt to assuage fears of excessive government intervention into private financial affairs, Congress added a clause in 1916 requiring that all information from tax returns be kept confidential. [**]
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So, you and I believe slavery is a form of government control. Double_R does not.Based on post #74, I'm still unsure if you are trying to disagree with me. It seems like your disagreement should be with Double_R and his definition of government control not including slavery.
I've never "tried to disagree" with anyone ever in my entire life.
-->
@3RU7AL
Let me emphasize, the problem is not that bureaucrats are bad people. The problem, as
the Marxists would say, is with the system, not with the people. The self-interest of the people in
government leads them to behave in a way that is against the self-interest of the rest of us.
You remember Adam Smith’s famous law of the invisible hand: People who intend only to
seek their own benefit are “led by an invisible hand to serve a public interest which was no
part of” their intention. I say that there is a reverse invisible hand: People who intend to serve
only the public interest are led by an invisible hand to serve private interests which was no
part of their intention.
I believe our present predicament exists because we have gradually developed governmental
institutions in which the people effectively have no voice. A recent study by James Payne
brought this home to me very clearly. Examining fourteen different government hearings
dealing with spending issues, Payne found that “1,014 witnesses appeared in favor of the
spending. Only 7 could be classified as opponents. In other words pro-spending witnesses
outnumbered anti-spending witnesses 145 to 1.” Striking as that is, an even more important
finding was that “of the 1,060 witnesses who appeared, 47 percent were federal
administrators, and another 10 percent were state and local officials. An additional 6 percent
were congressmen themselves.” Thus 63 percent of the witnesses in favor of the spending
were from government. They were telling us that they should spend our money, I won’t say
for their benefit but for what they believed, or said they believed, was our benefit. Payne
added, “Overwhelmingly, Congress’s views on spending programs are shaped by government
officials themselves.” What is true of spending proposals is equally true of other
governmental measures: sugar quotas, the tax exemption of medical care provided by
employers, the agricultural subsidies, and so on down the line.
Milton Friedman.
-->
@Greyparrot
People who intend only to seek their own benefit are “led by an invisible hand to serve a public interest which was no part of” their intention.
AWESOME !!!!
MAKE ALL BRIBES LEGAL !!!!
MAKE EXTORTION AND EMBEZZLEMENT LEGAL !!!!