Virtuous People

All off topic conversation held here. Have fun and play nice. =)

Moderators: Bookworm, starkruzr, MrFireDragon, PrettyPrincess, Wapsi

Warrl
Posts: 1723
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Warrl »

ShneekeyTheLost wrote: I think we have a fundamental difference of the value of what the government provides, if that is your opinion.
Not necessarily. What I'm objecting to is that government seizes the privilege of deciding for me how much I am supposed to value what it provides.

And yes, I recognize the pragmatic necessity of government doing that. It's a necessary evil. And only tolerable to the extent that it IS necessary (to such precision as that can be determined).

You seem to assume that if I think it's possible for government, in the absence of corruption, to be evil, I must not want any government at all. I have never said any such thing; I have repeatedly said that government is necessary among humans. Which doesn't mean that anything government wants to do should be tolerated unless we can lay it at the feet of corrupt politicians or government bureaucrats - because totally honest ones can faithfully adhere to evil ideologies, or allow government to become more evil in a series of steps each of which is "too small to matter".

Per James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

Madison's compatriot Thomas Jefferson was less optimistic about the latter part, and figured there would have to be bloodshed every so often to force government back into line. Unfortunately, so far it seems that he also was overly optimistic: the bloodshed since then has almost never been about restraining government, but often over whether it would become more expansive and abusive in this direction or that direction.
ShneekeyTheLost
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by ShneekeyTheLost »

Warrl wrote:
ShneekeyTheLost wrote: I think we have a fundamental difference of the value of what the government provides, if that is your opinion.
Not necessarily. What I'm objecting to is that government seizes the privilege of deciding for me how much I am supposed to value what it provides.

And yes, I recognize the pragmatic necessity of government doing that. It's a necessary evil. And only tolerable to the extent that it IS necessary (to such precision as that can be determined).

You seem to assume that if I think it's possible for government, in the absence of corruption, to be evil, I must not want any government at all. I have never said any such thing; I have repeatedly said that government is necessary among humans. Which doesn't mean that anything government wants to do should be tolerated unless we can lay it at the feet of corrupt politicians or government bureaucrats - because totally honest ones can faithfully adhere to evil ideologies, or allow government to become more evil in a series of steps each of which is "too small to matter".

Per James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

Madison's compatriot Thomas Jefferson was less optimistic about the latter part, and figured there would have to be bloodshed every so often to force government back into line. Unfortunately, so far it seems that he also was overly optimistic: the bloodshed since then has almost never been about restraining government, but often over whether it would become more expansive and abusive in this direction or that direction.
Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what constitutes evil and what a government is.

Evil is something that is self-serving, that is purely egocentric and malicious for the sake of getting ahead. A government doesn't do that, mostly because it doesn't HAVE a self to serve. Now, the people running the government may be manipulating the system to serve themselves, which would be evil, but the government isn't capable of independent thought or action. It's just a tool, like any other.

I would also fundamentally disagree with James Madison. Government IS necessary, you've said it yourself. Government is, at its core, a social contract, everyone getting together and deciding on a set of rules to play by and get together with so they can all benefit from the rewards of the system. Every single negative example you have cited is a case of someone manipulating that system for their own benefit, but the system itself holds merit. You complain about being 'forced' to pay for services not rendered, but then you agree that it does provide services. You're force to pay for any good or service, either by a system of laws or by the vendor pulling his weapon of choice and forcing you to fork over payment, because HE isn't going to be able to survive if you rob him.

The problem is that, all too often, the people running the government care less about the people to whom they are responsible, that's the rest of us by the way, and start gaming the system. Ideally, we'd want a system in which gaming the system would work to everyone else's benefit as well. I'm not sure how that would work, but it would be something interesting to try and come up with.

The concepts of government haven't really changed a whole lot over the centuries. As mankind has discovered their world, and the properties it has and operates by, their method of government has remained static. The US Government is based largely on the Roman Republican system, with ideas from the Five Nations thrown in. You're talking systems of governance centuries old, over two thousand in the case of Rome. We do need to work on developing a better government system, there's no doubt about it.

It's not that the concept of government is inherently flawed, it is that it is simply out of date. We've gone from horse drawn carts to putting a man on the moon in under a century, we need to start making similar advances in our social and political sciences.
Warrl
Posts: 1723
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Warrl »

You assert you disagree with Madison, but don't cite a thing he said that you disagree with let alone explain why you disagree with him. I'd be interested in hearing more on that.

The rest of it, we've already gone over enough, I think.
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Atomic »

(Skritches skunk behind the ears) Good skunk! Here's a nice tomato and some lettuce leaves to nibble on.

Harrumph then, let's see.

I think the consensus is a virtue can't be absolute because it is an act of man, regardless of the mechanism the man uses, and therefore subject to the weaknesses of man. The bottle isn't evil, neither the liquid inside -- The doctor uses it to cure, the murderer to kill. The actor bears the responsibility.

Ah, responsibility! How people do lust for it! Or do they? Hmmm - time for another posit: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs described human behavior as satisfying 5 primal necessities - Physical (water, food, etc), Safety (evade predators), Belonging (social), Esteem (respect of others toward you), and Self-Actualization (achieving your dreams). While one can debate the details at length, this inspires me to suggest a Political Hierarchy of Needs:

From lowest to highest:
  • - Recognition
    - Sympathy
    - Authority
    - Responsibility
Politicians seek power, and how they acquire and wield that power defines them. Do they, or the group they claim to represent seek or eschew the needs list items? It seems many want Recognition and Sympathy to gain Authority, but very few want Responsibility for their actions. There's the crowd of violent crybabies who want to break heads but not go to jail for it. Then there are those who simply want to mind their own business and have others stay out of their way. Both groups want Authority, but only one accepts (self) Responsibility. Then to Virtue again - in the many possible combinations of the list, which are positive and which are negative? As applied to groups or individuals?

(Nice skunk -- enjoy your lettuce!)
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
User avatar
Dave
Posts: 7584
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Dave »

Atomic wrote:Both groups want Authority, but only one accepts (self) Responsibility. Then to Virtue again - in the many possible combinations of the list, which are positive and which are negative? As applied to groups or individuals?

(Nice skunk -- enjoy your lettuce!)
I've always remembered a saying which was attributed to Lao Tzu: You can tell when there had been a true leader in a country - the people say "Look at what we have accomplished."

To your question: I'm not sure that any of those four is necessarily either positive or negative. Some may seek recognition through honor and positive achievement. Others are satisfied to be notorious, recognized for being the most ruthless badasses in town (some mass murderers being the uber-extreme examples of this).

Of the four, I supposed that Responsibility is the one which is least offered found on the negative side... it's usually its absence which has negative consequences and connotations.
Warrl
Posts: 1723
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Warrl »

Of the four, I supposed that Responsibility is the one which is least offered found on the negative side... it's usually its absence which has negative consequences and connotations.
I'd make a partial exception to that. Responsibility without Authority, with Recognition only in the event of failure, and without Sympathy in any event... it's probably evil to set up such a situation, but that evil is typically on the part of those who retain the Authority and Recognition for success. The poor schmuck who gets stuck with the Responsibility may also be evil, or may turn to evil means out of desperation....
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Atomic »

In looking back on my original post and remembering it's origins, let me update the list a bit:

A Political Hierarchy of Needs from lowest to highest:

- Recognition
- Sympathy
- Authority
- Accountability (previously listed as Responsibility)

My origin on this was recognizing a pattern in certain political arenas. From the politician's view - Recognize a group (disaffected minority/ethnic subset du jour), offer Sympathy (I feel your pain!), seek Authority (vote for Me!), then evade Responsibility (that is, Accountability) for the ensuing disaster.

From the disaffected political group's view - Identify yourself distinctly from other groups (We are the ambidexterous albino Algonquins), seek Sympathy (who suffer at the hands of (select enemy)), seek Authority (and if we only had one of our own in gubbamint), but refuse Accountability (but we don't, so no wonder we riot, you insensitive clods!)

No positioning here - just explaining the origin of my proposition. There are tons of variations, of course, hence the question.
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
ShneekeyTheLost
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by ShneekeyTheLost »

Even lousy governments have their uses. After all, reform comes most often when it is most needed. It took King John (who will never be known as King John the First) to get the Magna Carta which ushered in a form of representative government.

Although the funny thing is that even though we're in what is probably undisputedly the worst presidency to have ever held office for our nation, his bumbling incompetence and ineptitude is still nothing compared to, say, King Lear, or pretty much any of the Caesars or even the latter half of the King Louis's. And no matter how much he gasses on, he can't actually do a lot of the things he blathers on about because there's this thing called Congress and Checks and Balances. Sure, he can do some damage by insulting our foreign partners and allies, and he can make all the idiotic appointments he wants to make, but there's a limit to the amount of damage he can do in a mere four years. That's kind of the point of our government system, it takes for granted that we will occasionally have flops, and mitigates the amount of damage any one numbskull can cause during their term.
Typeminer
Posts: 807
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Pennsylbama, between Philly and Pittsburgh

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Typeminer »

Hope to hell you're right about that, Shneekey. Hayes and McKinley must be crackling with glee down there right now.
Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the linchpin of civilization.
Warrl
Posts: 1723
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Warrl »

Although the funny thing is that even though we're in what is probably undisputedly the worst presidency to have ever held office for our nation
There's a LOT of dispute about that, actually. In fact, while I like very little of what the current president has done, the worst of it looks absolutely stellar to me compared to pretty much everything his immediate predecessor did.
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Atomic »

Warrl wrote:
Although the funny thing is that even though we're in what is probably undisputedly the worst presidency to have ever held office for our nation
There's a LOT of dispute about that, actually. In fact, while I like very little of what the current president has done, the worst of it looks absolutely stellar to me compared to pretty much everything his immediate predecessor did.
If there's one thing I've learned about politics and political people, it's to apply the vest rule. The vest rule, you ask?

Once upon a time, a policeman sued a body armor company for product defect. During a gunfight, he was shot at close range with a shotgun, and survived, but with several broken ribs. He sued, claiming the armor should have prevented the injury. The armor company responded the armor functioned as designed, absorbing the pellets and dissipating the energy over a large area. Thus instead of a fist sized hole in his chest, the policeman had an open hand sized trauma to the ribs, breaking several in the process, and no puncture wounds.

The judge ruled that the vest worked. The standard is not perfection (unharmed), the standard is the alternative (death).

So, my vote would be for the "better than the other guy" if "best possible guy ever!" is not available. And if (s)he's doing what was campaigned upon, then the rest is noise.
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
Warrl
Posts: 1723
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Warrl »

Atomic wrote: So, my vote would be for the "better than the other guy" if "best possible guy ever!" is not available. And if (s)he's doing what was campaigned upon, then the rest is noise.
Also known as voting for the lesser evil.

Image

It has been many years since I've seen a Presidential election where I could identify any candidate as "better". The most I've managed is "less bad".
Post Reply