Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 13, 2004, 02:42 am

Any reason for the perceived disillusion?

Packratt · Feb 13, 2004, 03:09 am

It's an interesting question but the way it's framed makes it difficult for someone like me to give you an answer that fits within the set parameters.

Simply put, I do believe that power corrupts and that power tends to entice the most corruptable despite what party label you attach to the person who aspires to a degree of power over others. It's certainly true that some people enter politics in a frame of civic-mindedness, seeking to serve the common good, or their interpretation of the common good. But even those intents become corrupted by seperations of reality and the effects of power.

So, being that my assumption is that power will corrupt or draw the corruptable, then I cannot say that I support any party so long as the system in which they operate allows for too much corruptive influence and does not have sufficient counterbalanced power in other forms. (i.e. financial power vs mass power vs government).

Thus far, in my opinion, there is not a party in existance that seeks to improve the underlying flaws in the system instead of dealing with the patches that cover the holes. So when I vote I select whichever candidate or issue that seems closest to my opinion without being too extremist... Or I skip over that part of the ballot when there is no "lesser evil".

Suburbanite · Feb 13, 2004, 04:02 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Any reason for the perceived disillusion?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

A moment of weakness. I think they prayed on my distaste for Bush and I was blinded to my distaste for Democrats as well. I don't know. It puts a foul taste in my mouth to fall victim to it though.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 13, 2004, 04:13 am

That's not an answer. What issues did you, err, take issue with?

Suburbanite · Feb 13, 2004, 05:02 am

oh, haha.

It isn't the issues. They all say the right thing. They are politicians. It is the system they support that I have a problem with. I am a man of principle not issues. I would vote for a Republican if I thought he could fix politics. I hardly care about their stance on anything, because once politics are fixed those trivial hot button issues won’t mean much any more. Right now the whole system is in shambles. Democrats and Republicans trading votes and making compromises to get things past to keep them in office yet never putting their neck out on the line to stop something like Corporate Lobbies Controlling the three branches. I want a leader whose job is to the people, not to his party, to his half of the country, or to big business lobbies. There are key issues everyone wants, and no one is presenting them.

m5lange1 · Feb 13, 2004, 08:22 am

To the original question....

Most text books will tell you the primary difference is that republicans want to shift power to the states and demorcrats want a centralized federal government.

Interesting that the Civil war was a Democratic south going to war for state's rights while a Republican administration went to war to hold a central government power.

In any case this no longer appears to be a major difference. Both sides want what they support to be federally mandated and things that they dont like to be some other state's problem.

As an outsider I only see one consistant difference and that is ecomomics.
Republicans believe that reducing taxes puts more cash in the hands of consumers who spend that money and stimulate the economy.
Democrats believe that tax breaks mosly help the wealthy who put it in their pocket and do not help the economy.

But other than that they both scream "HOORAY FOR US" which is trivial and silly but harmless. More frequently it is "THEY (the opposite party) ARE EVIL AGENTS OUT TO DESTROY YOU AND YOUR FAMILY".
Which both silly and destructive.

Many of the same decisions have been made by both democratic and republican administrations, always to be criticized by the other side in preparation for gaining another seat in the next election not at improving the USA.

Geoff332 · Feb 13, 2004, 08:52 am

Like m5lange1, I find any critique of republicans by democrats or vis versa slightly amusing and entirely devoid of sense. The differences are far less than the similarities. In either case, the US, like most Western democracys, is run by the institutions that surround and support the government -- public, private, governmental and corporate. Most of these institutions are not (and cannot be) democratic. While the parties might make budgetary and policy decisions, the implementation is done by these institutions -- including the military, the state department, the Fed and so on. Every so often, a government comes into power that attempts to restructure these institutions, but without a large scale war or some other disaster this is virtually impossible. Most of the current US institutions have evolved since WWII. ( as an aside: the Bush administration attempted to use Sept 11th for this purpose, and it remains to be seen if they have been successful; I suspect not).

My basic premises are:

1. People are self-interested, but in complex ways, largely depending on their circumstances.

2. People are boundedly rational. While we are basically rational, there are severe limits to our ability to actually be rational. These relate to our information processing capacity, information availability and unpredictability.

3. Freedom and choice are severely limited, both by the context of our decisions and bounds on our rationality.

4. People are essentially social -- most people, most of the time, like being with other people. This has both functional (we can do more as a group) and aesthetic (we like it) benefits.

5. Without reference to God, there is no objective basis for morality or ethics (actually, there is no rational basis for objectivity; all arguments for objective knowledge are logically flawed).

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 13, 2004, 09:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)

5. Without reference to God, there is no objective basis for morality or ethics (actually, there is no rational basis for objectivity; all arguments for objective knowledge are logically flawed).<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why exclude references to god from the realm of subjectivity? After all, there is no objective basis for assuming god exists, either.

--Jackney Sneeb

RebelWithanAK · Feb 13, 2004, 12:25 pm

Suburbanite - Sounds like your problem is with government corruption at the hands of powerful special interest groups (which is an issue, believe it or not). So you wanna change it? Become a politician. See how hard it is to campaign when you can't nearly match funding with your competitor. At least we attempted to get rid of soft money.

Stigmata66 · Feb 13, 2004, 04:52 pm

Opps sorry about the name calling but it is the truth...

RebelWithanAK · Feb 13, 2004, 05:10 pm

Stigmata, you ain't funny, and such posts are extraneous, meaningless and against Volconvo's rules of forum etiquette.

Stigmata66 · Feb 13, 2004, 05:34 pm

So I'm not allowed to express opinions now? I think democrats ARE sleezy pigs, I mean I could be wrong, and Republicans aren't much better at least they don't have the do anything to get votes even if it might destroy the country mentality.

Feb 13, 2004, 02:42 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Any reason for the perceived disillusion? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 13, 2004, 03:09 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	It's an interesting question but the way it's framed makes it difficult for someone like me to give you an answer that fits within the set parameters. Simply put, I do believe that power corrupts and that power tends to entice the most corruptable despite what party label you attach to the person who aspires to a degree of power over others. It's certainly true that some people enter politics in a frame of civic-mindedness, seeking to serve the common good, or their interpretation of the common good. But even those intents become corrupted by seperations of reality and the effects of power. So, being that my assumption is that power will corrupt or draw the corruptable, then I cannot say that I support any party so long as the system in which they operate allows for too much corruptive influence and does not have sufficient counterbalanced power in other forms. (i.e. financial power vs mass power vs government). Thus far, in my opinion, there is not a party in existance that seeks to improve the underlying flaws in the system instead of dealing with the patches that cover the holes. So when I vote I select whichever candidate or issue that seems closest to my opinion without being too extremist... Or I skip over that part of the ballot when there is no "lesser evil". "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 13, 2004, 04:02 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) Any reason for the perceived disillusion?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> A moment of weakness. I think they prayed on my distaste for Bush and I was blinded to my distaste for Democrats as well. I don't know. It puts a foul taste in my mouth to fall victim to it though.

Feb 13, 2004, 04:13 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	That's not an answer. What issues did you, err, take issue with? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 13, 2004, 08:22 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
m5lange1 Igneous Magma Posts: 667	To the original question.... Most text books will tell you the primary difference is that republicans want to shift power to the states and demorcrats want a centralized federal government. Interesting that the Civil war was a Democratic south going to war for state's rights while a Republican administration went to war to hold a central government power. In any case this no longer appears to be a major difference. Both sides want what they support to be federally mandated and things that they dont like to be some other state's problem. As an outsider I only see one consistant difference and that is ecomomics. Republicans believe that reducing taxes puts more cash in the hands of consumers who spend that money and stimulate the economy. Democrats believe that tax breaks mosly help the wealthy who put it in their pocket and do not help the economy. But other than that they both scream "HOORAY FOR US" which is trivial and silly but harmless. More frequently it is "THEY (the opposite party) ARE EVIL AGENTS OUT TO DESTROY YOU AND YOUR FAMILY". Which both silly and destructive. Many of the same decisions have been made by both democratic and republican administrations, always to be criticized by the other side in preparation for gaining another seat in the next election not at improving the USA. Protester against the culture war!!!!

Feb 13, 2004, 05:02 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	oh, haha. It isn't the issues. They all say the right thing. They are politicians. It is the system they support that I have a problem with. I am a man of principle not issues. I would vote for a Republican if I thought he could fix politics. I hardly care about their stance on anything, because once politics are fixed those trivial hot button issues won’t mean much any more. Right now the whole system is in shambles. Democrats and Republicans trading votes and making compromises to get things past to keep them in office yet never putting their neck out on the line to stop something like Corporate Lobbies Controlling the three branches. I want a leader whose job is to the people, not to his party, to his half of the country, or to big business lobbies. There are key issues everyone wants, and no one is presenting them.

Feb 13, 2004, 08:52 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Like m5lange1, I find any critique of republicans by democrats or vis versa slightly amusing and entirely devoid of sense. The differences are far less than the similarities. In either case, the US, like most Western democracys, is run by the institutions that surround and support the government -- public, private, governmental and corporate. Most of these institutions are not (and cannot be) democratic. While the parties might make budgetary and policy decisions, the implementation is done by these institutions -- including the military, the state department, the Fed and so on. Every so often, a government comes into power that attempts to restructure these institutions, but without a large scale war or some other disaster this is virtually impossible. Most of the current US institutions have evolved since WWII. ( as an aside: the Bush administration attempted to use Sept 11th for this purpose, and it remains to be seen if they have been successful; I suspect not). My basic premises are: 1. People are self-interested, but in complex ways, largely depending on their circumstances. 2. People are boundedly rational. While we are basically rational, there are severe limits to our ability to actually be rational. These relate to our information processing capacity, information availability and unpredictability. 3. Freedom and choice are severely limited, both by the context of our decisions and bounds on our rationality. 4. People are essentially social -- most people, most of the time, like being with other people. This has both functional (we can do more as a group) and aesthetic (we like it) benefits. 5. Without reference to God, there is no objective basis for morality or ethics (actually, there is no rational basis for objectivity; all arguments for objective knowledge are logically flawed).

Feb 13, 2004, 09:04 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,) 5. Without reference to God, there is no objective basis for morality or ethics (actually, there is no rational basis for objectivity; all arguments for objective knowledge are logically flawed).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why exclude references to god from the realm of subjectivity? After all, there is no objective basis for assuming god exists, either. --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 13, 2004, 12:25 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Suburbanite - Sounds like your problem is with government corruption at the hands of powerful special interest groups (which is an issue, believe it or not). So you wanna change it? Become a politician. See how hard it is to campaign when you can't nearly match funding with your competitor. At least we attempted to get rid of soft money. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 13, 2004, 04:52 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	Opps sorry about the name calling but it is the truth... Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 13, 2004, 05:10 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Stigmata, you ain't funny, and such posts are extraneous, meaningless and against Volconvo's rules of forum etiquette. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 13, 2004, 05:34 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	So I'm not allowed to express opinions now? I think democrats ARE sleezy pigs, I mean I could be wrong, and Republicans aren't much better at least they don't have the do anything to get votes even if it might destroy the country mentality. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!