Help me out, here

[KillerGoose]

(12-10-2021, 04:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The big one, and ne they are really working hard to achieve, is the automation of trucking.  Once that happens, and it's a matter of when not if, then you'll see major employment issues for blue collar types.  it's why i keep saying that illegal immigration is not good, regardless of it temporarily keeping prices low.  We're going to have a real crises of low to semi-skilled workers in this country very soon.  Importing more of them now will only make that crises worse when it inevitably occurs.


We certainly have areas like that.  Hell, these is a part of Los Angeles literally called Skid Row, it's on the map.  It perfectly resembles this and it's a large area.  Not caused by the opiate crises, but other, similar causes to be sure.  It's an extremely unsafe area, your standard citizen should avoid it like the plague.

Skid Row is a sad, sad area. One of my favorite YT channels, Soft White Underbelly, interviews folks from Skid Row quite often. The interviews can be tough watches sometimes. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-08-2021, 04:13 PM)Goalpost Wrote: We almost need a new idea with rehab centers to get people pointed in the right direction.

Until a person WANTS to get help and seeks to get better I don't think any amount of rehab centers, new idea or not, will help them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2021, 07:49 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Until a person WANTS to get help and seeks to get better I don't think any amount of rehab centers, new idea or not, will help them.

This is largely accurate.  While any treatment is far better than none until the person in question actually wants the treatment it will be generally ineffective.  It may set the foundation for future treatment, but, again generally, it won't produce solid results.

[masonbengals fan]

(12-10-2021, 04:44 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Skid Row is a sad, sad area. One of my favorite YT channels, Soft White Underbelly, interviews folks from Skid Row quite often. The interviews can be tough watches sometimes. 

 There's some sad cases on SWU's channel. It's one of my favorites also. Especially the appalachian interviews. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2021, 04:44 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Skid Row is a sad, sad area. One of my favorite YT channels, Soft White Underbelly, interviews folks from Skid Row quite often. The interviews can be tough watches sometimes. 

I've worked that area, it's borderline third world conditions.  I spent my formative years in Southern California.  I've been to Mexico numerous times.  Skid Row is as bad as any Mexican slum I have personally seen, with the exception of raw sewage flowing through the gutters.  It makes you wonder too, how much does the far left really care about this issue that these kind of conditions are so rampant in areas totally dominated by their policies.  Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley/Oakland, Portland and Seattle, just to confine myself to the west coast.  Now there is something to be said for homeless people flocking to areas with "better", or more lenient, programs, thus exacerbating the issues in those areas.  But that doesn't fully explain it, not even close.  Also, what about the right of non homeless citizens to live in an area devoid of fecal matter on the street and sidewalks, used needles on the ground, aggressive panhandling (Los Angeles is approaching San Francisco levels of homeless aggression) and other crime inherent to this issue?

It's a shitty situation that no one, apparently, wants to aggressively tackle.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-08-2021, 03:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that too many people don't think it needs to happen.

Well if the people don’t think we need it then we don’t need it. Unless you all want to make social revolution compulsory.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2021, 10:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well if the people don’t think we need it then we don’t need it. Unless you all want to make social revolution compulsory.

People vote against their own self interests all the time. While we often think of representative democracy being designed to protect the minority, it is also intended to allow policies to go forward that the general public would be too ignorant to push through. We just need policymakers to do their job..

Also, we have things forced on the majority by the minority all the time through this system.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-11-2021, 10:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: People vote against their own self interests all the time. While we often think of representative democracy being designed to protect the minority, it is also intended to allow policies to go forward that the general public would be too ignorant to push through. We just need policymakers to do their job..

Also, we have things forced on the majority by the minority all the time through this system.

They vote against what you perceive to be their self-interest and what is important to them People are amazingly arrogant in their belief that they know what is in everyone else’s interest.

[Belsnickel]

(12-11-2021, 01:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They vote against what you perceive to be their self-interest and what is important to them People are amazingly arrogant in their belief that they know what is in everyone else’s interest.

I use evidence to support my "beliefs." Actual evidence collected and analyzed through the scientific method. So it's not just my perception of what is in their best interests. If you call that arrogance, so be it.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-11-2021, 06:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I use evidence to support my "beliefs." Actual evidence collected and analyzed through the scientific method. So it's not just my perception of what is in their best interests. If you call that arrogance, so be it.

Wow. You use the scientific method to determine what is in someone else’s best interest for them? Arrogance might be a little mild.

[Belsnickel]

(12-11-2021, 06:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Wow. You use the scientific method to determine what is in someone else’s best interest for them? Arrogance might be a little mild.

This might surprise you, but there are a lot of people out there doing this. They study how to improve the lives of the people. They research policies that could help our country. It's quite literally what the degree I just finished is all about.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-11-2021, 06:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This might surprise you, but there are a lot of people out there doing this. They study how to improve the lives of the people. They research policies that could help our country. It's quite literally what the degree I just finished is all about.

Studying something that you think could improve lives is different than determining what is in someone’s best interest as if you know their priorities in life. When you say people vote against their best interest you have now brought it to an individual level where you are now the arbiter of what that is.

[jmccracky]

I'm a big advocate of universal Healthcare. That's my one big liberal stance (I guess). So if I vote for people that promise to at least try and make that happen, aren't I voting for what is in my best interests? Others best interests?

[*michaelsean*]

(12-11-2021, 07:04 PM)jmccracky Wrote: I'm a big advocate of universal Healthcare. That's my one big liberal stance (I guess). So if I vote for people that promise to at least try and make that happen, aren't I voting for what is in my best interests? Others best interests?

Are you asking me? Sure. I would never say someone is voting against their best interests for it implies that I know and understand their lives and their priorities. You don’t have to convince me of it. I assume you are.

[*michaelsean*]

I’m sure most here are aware of this quote, but I like it so I’ll throw it out there again

“My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” CS Lewis

[jmccracky]

(12-11-2021, 09:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Are you asking me?  Sure. I would never say someone is voting against their best interests for it implies that I know and understand their lives and their priorities.  You don’t have to convince me of it. I assume you are.

I was just asking in general, out loud. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-11-2021, 10:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m sure most here are aware of this quote, but I like it so I’ll throw it out there again

“My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” CS Lewis

I don't put much stock in C.S. Lewis. He's not someone I turn to when looking at democratic philosophy. This quote, which seems to me very libertarian in nature, could be an argument against any government policy. Any policy enacted through democratic processes could be deemed "tyranny" if one doesn't agree with it.

I also don't fully agree with your delineation between pushing policies to improve the lives of the people and the idea of what is in the best interests of those people. But I think that is a philosophical difference in understanding between us.

[Dill]

(12-11-2021, 10:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m sure most here are aware of this quote, but I like it so I’ll throw it out there again

“My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” CS Lewis

Lewis is a good writer, and this is good example of traditional British conservative thought. Updated Burke.

But I'd like to see Lewis' examples of a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims" which might "be the most oppressive" or act "as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants."  Like we're invited to analogize these do-gooders to Hitler. I'm guessing there aren't really any national examples; what he has in mind are social policy regimes in post-war Britain, constructed by sociologists and the socialist politicians who listened to them. 

Because Lewis is by no means against coercive laws which force individuals to behave in the interests of society, whether some individuals may think their interests are different or no. And he definitely thinks some people, many in fact, know what the interests of society are and what those laws should be, and that they should enforce them.

Rather, he has a problem with secular social scientists redefining crime as "disease" and punishment as "cure" and working up all manner of policies dedicated to our "safety." That's the wrong people doing it. 

I find it difficult to imagine even a modern, technologically advanced liberal democracy which could function without recognizing and even anticipating that there will be a clash between what individuals think their interests are and what the state thinks they are, or should be. 

No state can function, protect and serve, without some notion of the common good and attendant assumptions about what policies would be in people's "best interest." No conservative, liberal or socialist political theory could operate without positing such.