The Gaming Den

The television was on in the break room as I was getting lunch, and I found myself in a fit of near frothing rage as Mitt Romney delivered a speech to a bunch of veterans. It was a thing of elegant beauty, and the speechwriter probably had to outsource the job to hell to get the exact measure of jingoism, playing to the evangelicals, and saying one thing while meaning another. Then, in a moment of profound insight after Mitt talked about the inherent human decency of the American, I realized the bedrock of my political beliefs, the cornerstone on which all of my ideas about politics are built:

On the scale of a group I don't trust people to do the right thing. I can't.

Not because the majority of people aren't "good" for whatever values you might assign to that, but because there are too many assholes. Go to New York City during rush hour and look for human decency.

I just assume everyone is motivated by self-interest, and a disturbing number of people value ego-stroking and sound bites more than meeting either fiscal or ethical responsibilities.

It doesn't even matter if most people are trustworthy. The real problem is if the wrong people aren't trustworthy. This is why I like regulation.

Ancient History wrote:Go to New York City during rush hour and look for human decency.

Bah humbug. New Yorkers are the nicest people on the planet.

It's true! It was in the Spiderman movie!

I'm still mad that they edited out the Twin Towers from the first Spiderman movie. Stupid media.

Ancient History... I think you and Robby Pants have summed things up for me as well.

I used to be much more libertarian in my leanings until I realized that sort of world is an idyllic fantasy that - if imposed on reality - would result in nothing but poverty and destruction as far as the eye can see.

please continue to assume that the government is trustworthy

And that's why my political philosophy is naked self-interest. Political tags are just there to belong to a club, and they mean whatever the fuck you want these days.

Also lol at Leftists who think that Pimp Daddy State will save them.

PR wrote:please continue to assume that the government is trustworthy

I will, thank you.

I believe in the American system, if not the precise implementation of that system. I believe - on the whole - that the government is trustworthy, but that [some] people in the government are not. I believe that the core of the system is good, and I believe that the system does need updating with time, but as I also said elsewhere, streamlining things is important.

Of course the government is trustworthy...I was taught that in school.

The idea of a government divided by design with competing interests, is a good one; if everything works out like it should both sides will argue and argue and argue but neither side will be able to force anything through unless there is compromise - it's the old trick with dividing a herd of cattle between two bastards.

Psychic Robot wrote:please continue to assume that the government is trustworthy

Image rebuttal spoilered due to horizontal length:

Psychic Robot wrote:please continue to assume that the government is trustworthy

Nobody assumes the government is trustworthy, including the government. Thats why theres three levels + the judiciary + the press (with legal protections) + auditors. And even with all that only about half the population says they trust the government.

I don't trust anyone to do the right thing, including myself, because while I'd like to think I'd take the high road, everyone else would like to think the exact same thing and I'm not going to count on it until I've had the chance to prove it.

The government is people. Your family is people. The man who runs that utopian dictatorship people sometimes dream about when they realize the flaws in democracy? He is people. The problem is that people suck, and there aren't currently any non-people options for ruling nations.

So you trust people to stop themselves from being oppressed whenever they have the power, but you also have to stop them from oppressing others if they have too much power, and often you need a way to incentivize a third party to intervene when fate disturbs the balance of power between any given two entities and this is already getting a bit tricky and we haven't even moved past a hypothetical situation with three people total in our entire country. We'll be kludging half of everything by the time we hit three hundred, let well alone three hundred million.

I wish people were motivated by self interest. Then people would make decisions that make sense. One of the founding principles of Smithian economics is the idea that people were rational and motivated by greed. Unfortunately, neither is true. Corporations cannot be trusted even to make money, groups can't be trusted to vote themselves a pay raise.

Unfortunately, people are motivated by emotional responses to simple narratives, and it ends up generating catastrophe after catastrophe. We can use the scientific method to evaluate which proposal is best by any of a number of criteria, but the reality is that even after this has been done people will continue to choose shitty options. Again and again.

Just look at Psychic Robot: he continues to advocate policies that have failed in the past and will continue to fail because there is no reason for them to ever succeed. He does this because actual empirical data or objective success or failure are not something he is interested in. Let's hit the Austrian school of economics that PR and Doom fap to, and most specifically on their use of data:

Wikipedia on the Austrian School of Economics wrote:Austrian economists reject empirical statistical methods, natural experiments and constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, saying that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of human beings are too complex for this "numerical" treatment as passive non-adaptive subjects. They claim one should instead isolate the logical processes of human action. Mises called this discipline "praxeology."

Got that? Not only are they not motivated by self interest, they refuse to accept evidence and facts that call their prejudices into question. They just have demands that are mandated by irrational prejudices and they are impervious to argument, evidence, or even their own self interest.

-Username17

I am immediately suspicious of any system that requires each person to be an island unto themselves. I do not have the interest or intellect to be able to effectively compete in every arena of life against people with greater quantities of either in their respective disciplines.

For example, I am content with being reasonably sure that my food and water are safe, as well as having legal or medical recourse if they prove not to be, because someone is keeping watch on my behalf. I do not want growing my own food or purifying my own water to be something I have to do. You are welcome to do so if that's a hobby that interests you, but I also don't want to constantly fight your efforts to leverage your capability into an advantage at my expense.

This life is the only one we have and, as such, we should focus our efforts on making it as awesome and enjoyable as possible, for as many people as possible. Anyone that preaches "life is hard" as if that is the proper state of affairs rather than assessment of the evidence has already lost me. I'm not a fan of torture-porn.

FrankTrollman wrote:-snip-

Some people have no ambition. They just want to fade into the crowd. But isn't it still self-interest that they'll work to get there?

MY political leanings are based on the idea that the smaller and more local the government is, the more corrupt and evil it becomes.

Small Town Sheriffs, County Administrators, Small town mayors, State regulators. (The entire Government of New Orleans) Those people tend to be criminally corrupt when left to their own devices.

Federal Government levels of corruption are much more impersonal. And tend to be easier to deal with in the long run. The only thing keeping local corruption down is federal oversight. This is why I'm a big federal government person. I don't trust State government AT ALL to help anyone but the people in power. At least the federal goverment pretends.

sabs wrote:MY political leanings are based on the idea that the smaller and more local the government is, the more corrupt and evil it becomes.

Small Town Sheriffs, County Administrators, Small town mayors, State regulators. (The entire Government of New Orleans) Those people tend to be criminally corrupt when left to their own devices.

Federal Government levels of corruption are much more impersonal. And tend to be easier to deal with in the long run. The only thing keeping local corruption down is federal oversight. This is why I'm a big federal government person. I don't trust State government AT ALL to help anyone but the people in power. At least the federal goverment pretends.

This is the same mentality that makes bank robbers out to be worse criminals than corrupt investment bankers.

perhaps..
Though I think that corrupt investment bankers should tried based on the amount of money they embezzled/stole, and not whether a gun was involved.

I used to be very far left, now I'm openly selfish. Basically, I am tired of feeling like I'm sacrificing for others and want something for myself now. I'll vote for any candidate that gets me a decent job (get me the job FIRST and then I'll vote. And no, giving me a job that doesn't pay enough for me to live in the area the job is in doesn't count).

And if anyone's starting a cult, getting me a job and a woman that isn't psychotic would get my allegiance. I would consider that to be proof that god exists and wants me to be happy, since I'm damn sure not able to get one on my own.

Well, if you're not too picky you could always convert to Judaism and hit up the shadchan.

Converting to Judaism seems really hard from what I have read. Also, I've heard that converts are never really embraced into the faith despite what the Rabbi says.

I think it's pretty funny to quote a wiki page that often gets double-digit edits a day (two dozen on the 8/27/11) as an absolute unarguable unalterable truth.