|
|
Moving this discussion over here, as it doesn't belong in the MEGA thread.
 Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Well, since you wanted to open this can of worms so badly...
There's always going to be a powerful numerical minority with a disproportionate amount of power and influence, and they're always going to financially exploit the less powerful majority. Master-slave morality ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...slave_morality) does a good job of giving a moral basis to these two groups and why they support the things they do. The Pareto Principle and Price's Law do a good job of explaining why this happens.
If this exploitation goes completely unchecked, it's ultimately bad for the powerful minority because it destabilizes society and leads to war. However, if limitations on this exploitation are too severe, then it's ultimately bad for the less powerful minority because the powerful majority will simply leave and go somewhere else, taking opportunities with them.
Politics is fundamentally about deciding what to do about achieving a balance between these two extremes to avoid these two disastrous outcomes. It comes down to one question: To what degree should this exploitation be limited by government?
Government is here to make sure that neither of those outcomes happen. It's also influenced by both groups of people.
The powerful are in the numerical minority, so they can influence government policy by things like lobbying and strategy. The weak are in the numerical majority, so they can influence government policy by things like voting.
It's like walking on a balance beam. One side is pulling you in one direction, the other side is pulling you in the other direction, and the net result is hopefully that you remain stable on the beam as a result. If one side pulls you too far one way or the other, that's the end of walking on the balance beam.
Maintaining this balance so that we don't fall off of either side is what I support and believe in.
This is a perspective that I want to embrace and really let it be my center as a starting point to examine all political issues. Not to simply pick a side before we get started, but to see how the many variables affect the entire state of the system. I do find it difficult to maintain that perspective, as it's much easier to be a bonehead, but I don't like feeling like a bonehead, so ...
As a foundation, this feels right.
Onto some specifics:
Understanding that all office holders abuse their power - i.e. citing that someone has abused power is not in-and-of-itself a moral judgement. That's the game they're playing, and rules are meant to be broken in a democracy. Intent matters.
Did any of Trump's abuses of power strike you as dangerous precedents for the stability of the US on the world stage?
E.g. the nepotism, leaving many state department roles unfilled, etc. pick whatever drives your opinion or a simple "no" is fine, too.
You've spoken about Trump and the Republican party in 3rd person because I kinda misspoke initially.
Do you support anything about Trump? If so, what?
Do you oppose anything about Trump? If so, what?
|
Reply With Quote
