No More Bin Laden

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just like there are people who couldn't understand a car if they tried, or computer programming. So does it make sense for them to apply a lot of energy towards those things ...

My point isn't that these *people* are stupid. It's that they shouldn't be repairing cars or programming computers. And if they insist on trying, then that is stupid.

... if they don't realize ... they are ... patsies, then they are stupid.

... if they don't realize ... they are letting others determine the government ... then they are stupid.

Is being a patsy or follower always stupid?

That's not what I said. I stripped what I did say down to make it easier to parse. It is the failure to realize that makes them stupid. If one choses to be a patsy or a follower, then that is their choice (although they may use some other name for what they've chosen). And it might even be the best choice for that person in those circumstances.

I've said it before, I'll keep it short this time. The vote should be earned. And when used, it should be used correctly -- as a measure of the voter's informed opinion and not as a mindless regurgitation of some group's agenda.

I don't disagree. I really don't. But I also don't assume that just because they mindlessly regurgitate that they aren't serving their own best interests either.

There lies a lot of the problem. Those that do not understand the issues see only to their best interests, and often not even that far. While those that understand the issue might not be willing to do what is best for the country, they at least will have an idea of what that might be. Since what is best for the country as a whole is often best for each of us as individuals in the long run, enlightened self interest will often accomplishes the needed good. But for a person to support enlightened self interest, that person first needs to be enlightened -- to know more than "give me more and tax me less".

The winner take all system can often mean that even if they do pay attention, even if they try to vote for what they want, they might not get it, even if the person they want wins. I've NEVER seen a candidate who matches more than about 60% of what I actually believe in.

Yep, but a different topic, worthy of a thread of its own at a time of its own. Almost everything about the structure of the federal government of the USA needs fixing, either because it was ill conceived when originally designed (because of compromise or ignorance -- after all, the founding fathers had nothing really successful to base it on), or because the circumstances that made it reasonable at one time have since long changed (like the electoral college or the Senate). Double representation based on location (a representative from your district and a senator from your state) and no representation based on outlook is not the ideal government.

I watch people try to constantly improve something, because they feel they have to do something. But you don't, you know. Sometimes great leadership is in fact maintaining the status quo. Because sometimes the status quo is pretty spot on.

I agree. However, I also feel that an eye has to be kept on that status quo. Great leadership also recognizing that something has changed in the circumstances and so something might have to change in our actions. And always keeping an eye on that "might".

I also understand that if I don't have an answer, and I know I'm smart, that it's very likely they don't either.

There's some truth to that, but also some falsehood. I go to a doctor precisely because I don't have an answer but I expect him to have one, not because he's smarter than me (odds are good he's not) but because he's an expert. Same can be said for a lawyer or an accountant. The point is that one of the advantages of a representative democracy over a direct democracy is that the job of running the government is left to the people who should be experts on that job. It is similar to the captain/sailing master situation of years ago: the captain tells the sailing master *where* he needs to be and when. The sailing master then makes it happen.

There needs to be a distinction between those who are willing and able to accept the responsibility of running a country (citizens) and those who only wish to reap the benefits of living there (legal residents). Just how this is to be done is a difficult matter.

I don't necessarily disagree with this either. I think most everyone would be happier in this situation, but the chances for abuse are of course still there.

Of course. The requirements must be equal for all, equally onerous for all, and equally applied to all. They must be based only on criteria that are directly pertinent. And they must be evaluated objectively. Multiple paths, each appropriate to specific circumstances, must be available for anyone wanting to transition from resident to citizen. And the status should not be permanent or immutable. There should be requirements for maintaining citizenship which, if not met, cause the individual to revert to resident. That reversion should also be permitted as a voluntary decision.

But all that is secondary. Our present system was not always as just as it is now, and probably could use a few changes to make it even more just. Before we talk about tuning the engine, it might be good to get a car.

I'm not sure that the best leaders are the ones that want to be leaders. Sometimes they just want power. But I don't know of a good way to identify people that would be good leaders if they don't have the desire to put themselves forward in the first place.

I've said, in the past, that those who want to be elected officials (also police officers) should be disqualified precisely because they want the job. Of course, that is cynical hyperbole -- but not too far off the truth, unfortunately. It is a Catch 22 situation. Those who want a job that gives them power will often do a poor job because they want it for the wrong reasons and those that don't want such a job will often do a poor job because they didn't want it in the first place.

What needs to be found are those who want the job for the good they can do or those who, not wanting the job, will do it because of their sense of responsibility. Identifying these types may be difficult, at first, but their actions will define them. Then we need a system that eliminates the bad and keeps the good instead of just enshrining incumbents.

Again, another interesting topic which would take us far afield.

I also wouldn't call the legal non voting residents of a country that people that earned the vote and people that didn't, stupid either.

I don't believe I did. An indifference to politics is not stupidity, per se. One might simply not much care.

We have some altruistic tendencies, but you can often link that back to security.

As Heinlein has often pointed out, altruism should be approached with suspicion. Informed self interest, on the other hand, often looks like altruism on the surface, but is a much better basis for any decision.

I want people to think. I try to get them to all the time. I want people to think about politics as well, because that has a major impact on my life.

Me, too. Which is why I like this site and the few others where this sometimes happens. All too often another of Heinlein's dictums comes to mind: "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Part of the reason I'm making this reply too is that the word stupid is combative to me.

My apologies, I did not intend to offend. Especially not to offend you, one who's opinions I respect. Feel free to replace it with anything you wish that has the meaning of "making poor decisions or engaging in self destructive action which should have been prevented by common sense and native intelligence." For example, a 'normal' teen jumping off a building into a swimming pool because they saw it on some TV show is stupid. The same thing done by a five year old is not stupid, although it is unfortunate.

Part of my gripe is everything has become combative lately. That happens when people are scared. The economy is still unstable, the terror threat isn't fully gone. People feel less secure, that's scary. When people are insecure they become even more self focused, they are more likely to fight to protect themselves to try and claim something to battle for security. It's a survival skill that has served us well as species. But it doesn't always lead to the best decisions. So for my part I've noticed I try to defuse that and get people to apply logic where I can. I don't have the skill or the will to do it on a large scale. But I get worried about the struggles our country is involved in right now because the powerful are much less affected, and heck can even profit and increase their power, in times of instability.

So yes an earned voting privilege system would probably be pretty helpful right now, as I would help the people who could vote would people that could prove to keep a level head when things aren't stable. The defacto system we have now where a minority or a small majority are voting isn't working. It doesn't represent the real desires or best interests of anyone but those who get elected. Two "parties" paint strokes too broadly. People that do pay attention and understand the issues can feel disenfranchised and stop participating. Others simply vote emotionally. An emotional voter isn't a stupid person, they just aren't a wise voter.

I'm pretty much going to let this go, mostly because I feel that way, a lot, myself. I'm like a 3.5 pound pull gun with 3.4 pounds on the trigger. One comment: I don't think there is any such thing as a stupid person. I think people (even highly intelligent people) occasionally do and say stupid things.

--Pete