Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Which Candidates For Geek Issues?
Okian Warrior writes "An oft-repeated sentiment on Slashdot is that we should change the situation by voting in better officials. An opinion that appears in nearly every political thread is: 'we're to blame because we elected these people.' On the eve of the first primary (in New Hampshire), I have to wonder: how can we tell the candidates apart? Ron Paul is an obvious exception, and I am not discounting him, but otherwise it seems that no candidate has made a stand on any issue. Consider the candidates (all of them, of any party) as a set. What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?"
Full disclosure, I managed Warren Mosler's 2010 US Senate campaign. But I encourage Slashdotters to look at the third party candidates running in their jurisdiction. As Eugene Debs pointed out, It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
I used to think this, but I've come to realize that this thinking is not entirely correct.
The Republicans generally support the goals of big business, and have a top-down approach to wealth. They believe that making people at the top rich will lead to prosperity for all. Many believe that social programs do not help well enough to justify many of them. Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them, and whose behaviors do not affect them in the slightest. The Republicans are also very good at compelling members to conform and follow, even when a given member may disagree with a lot of party rhetoric, and even when it's not in their best interests to actually agree.
The Democrats look at individuals for success, and define success through a bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down approach, as many believe that top-down approaches have led to severe inequality. They believe government has the ability to address such injustices and to help dampen inequality. Many believe that an individual's right to make ones' own choices, so long as those choices don't victimize others, is important, but are not willing to ignore data that demonstrates particular freedoms causing lots of harm. Democrats generally like to build consensus before agreeing on a plan, which lately has been to their detriment, as it allows their political opponents to stonewall things that should be able to pass despite objection.
There are times for either, and both political parties have this habit of becoming sort of rotted out from the insides due to corruption. Unfortunately, it seems that the Republicans rot-out a lot faster than the Democrats, yet members of the party have seemingly short memories of it, like Newt Gingrich, who has managed to be a serious contender for the Republican party's nominee for President despite having resigned from the House of Representative in disgrace.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Users don't understand the technology they use, and what legislation would do to it in the long (or even short) run. They look at currently available features, and it never enters their mind that other possibilities could exist. It's only the power users and geeks who do the digging to be informed (regardless if the subject is computing, cars, politics, etc).
I'd rather have a technologically unaware representative who will work against PATRIOT/SOPA/etc than somebody who uses an iPad and has buys into security theater and its IP equivalents.
I disagree. The real difference between the leaderships of the two party is which elite interests they represent.
The Republicans are largely the party of the primary economy and part of the secondary economy (resource extraction, agriculture and base manufacturing.) The cultural values that they support - religious values, etc. - are those which coincide with that sector. The democrats are largely the party of the tertiary (and past) economies - some manufacturing, but mostly services, especially financial services and the culture industry. Their cultural values are also thus in line: cosmopolitanism, a sense of "progress" (very important in sectors of the economy that emphasize changing styles, such as retail.) These elites agree on a lot, but they disagree on enough things - where they want public sector activity and where they don't, for example - that the different parties do compete.
The social / cultural values things - the left's diversity, the right's "family values" - are mostly window-dressing.
I understand that Ron Paul is a radical. However, calling him "not viable" is defeatist given that his numbers are significantly strong. I also understand that voting for mainstream candidates is a lose-lose situation no matter what letter is appended to their name. Knowing my vote will not make a real difference, I will instead vote solely to send the message that I'm fed-up with the establishment's shit. And the establishment's treatment of Paul shows that they're afraid, otherwise they'd allow him more lip service, and I'd vote for him for that reason alone even if I weren't paying attention to everything else.
Those of you who are also fed up do the same. If not for Ron Paul, for a sensible third-party candidate. Everybody else is not working for your best interest.
I'm a Libertarian and I don't like either party. You're wrong if you think there's a difference between the two parties.
1. "The Republicans generally support the goals of big business, and have a top-down approach to wealth."
So do the Democrats. How many poor Democrats are in congress? Seven of the top ten richest congressmen are Democrats.
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
3. "The Republicans are also very good at compelling members to conform and follow, even when a given member may disagree with a lot of party rhetoric, and even when it's not in their best interests to actually agree."
Same for the Democrats. How to you think the Democrats get 98% of the black vote. It's almost impossible to get 98% of any group to agree on anything. My friend is a coal miner and voted for Obama because the union told him too. If that's not voting against your self interest, I don't know what is.
It is uninformed voting. Doing something because someone else tells you to do it isn't necessary against your self-interest. Of course you are in danger of acting against your self-interest if you blindly trust the advice of someone else. But it does not imply that you actually do.
I have no idea whether your friend voted against his self-interest, but you cannot conclude either way just from his choice being determined by the union's suggestion.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
My friend is a coal miner and voted for Obama because the union told him too. If that's not voting against your self interest, I don't know what is.
Wait, explain how voting for McCain would be in his self interest? Explain how putting the party in power that wants to dismantle any kind of environmental regulation, any kind of workplace regulation, and that has since then introduced legislation in several states to try and dismantle the power of unions would be voting in his self interest? If anything, the Democrats have the interest of the working class in mind far, far, far more than the Republicans.
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
Generally arguing politics on Slashdot is the blind screaming at the deaf. Still, this point deserves to be addressed. Preventing discrimination based on gender is not forcing morals on anyone. On the topic of gay marriage it is ensuring individual liberty. Allowing each individual to choose for themselves is not pushing a moral agenda on others. It is giving each individual the freedom to choose. Now if there were a law trying to force people to marry those of the same sex, you might have a point.
In a true free market, you set up and operate. If you are good, you succeed,
No regulations, just economic success or failure That way a person who is very talented, yet not certified or educated can rise on their own merit.
What's your thought on taking your children to a pediatrician under this system?
And that is the problem. Free marketers want to believe that the free market can cure all ills. It doesn't. It has the fatal flaw of assuming that everyone is ethical. What it doesn't take into account is that there are some people who are not going to be satisfied until they control everything. It doesn't take into account the many things that actually operate better when there is some regulation.
Because the application to the true free market of say taking your children to that free market pediatrician is that he might be totally incompetent. He might kill your children. But after he kills enough children, his name will get around and he'll go out of business. The free market worked. There's a whole list. Your house might burn down because of bad electrical work. You might buy a car that falls apart at highway speeds and kills you. But if it happens enough, word will get out and that company will go out of business. But yeah, the free market worked. It's kind of like evolutionary adaptation. What doesn't adapt, dies. But people seem to forget that that adaptation is the small percentage that doesn't die.
I liken some of the ideas of libertarians to be kind of like the anti-vaccination crowd. "No one gets such and such disease any more, so getting vaccines is stupid, and dangerous sometimes!" they don't remember when Polio and pertussis and measles other childhood diseases killed many children each year.
The libertarians don't remember why we made anti-monopoly and anti trust laws and an environmental protection agency and other laws and regulations.
Funny thing is, on a intellectual level, I am a libertarian. On a pragmatic level, I know enough about humans to understand it won't work.
Although it would have been kind of neat to see the Cuyahoga when it caught on fire...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Both parties attract those who are power hungry to their elected ranks:
- Republicans unfortunately have a tendency to allow politicians who are being paid by big business who want to gut all regulatory oversight and put in place laws that protect them. These guys certainly are as you describe.
- Democrats have the equal and opposite problem - politicians who are eager to give away other peoples money for projects and programs that don't work, as long as it gets them elected and in the elite so they can become the new "ruling class". When challenged about the fact that they are bankrupting the country, they respond with fake data/arguments or simply imply that some magic fairy will pay for it all ("the rich"), etc.
I find both very bad, but I don't blame the parties per say for the problem as much as the american voter for letting them get away with it. I also still think most voters intend to put someone who follows the party ideals I stated above into office, they just don't research enough or vote party line rather than review each candidate individually.
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
Generally arguing politics on Slashdot is the blind screaming at the deaf. Still, this point deserves to be addressed. Preventing discrimination based on gender is not forcing morals on anyone. On the topic of gay marriage it is ensuring individual liberty. Allowing each individual to choose for themselves is not pushing a moral agenda on others. It is giving each individual the freedom to choose. Now if there were a law trying to force people to marry those of the same sex, you might have a point.
...I'm not against gay marriage but it is a moral issue for many people.
Yes, it is a moral issue. The issue is some people want to force their morals on others with the force of law and prevent individuals from making their own choices. Presenting the concept of allowing individuals to choose for themselves as an example of Democrats "do this also" when "do this" was previously described as "push their moral agenda on people" just shows how easy it is to buy into the fiery but empty rhetoric spewed forth by politicians.
Gay marriage is not an issue of Democrats pushing their morals on others. It is an issue of personal freedom and the government not promoting any specific religion. Marriage started out as a legal contract and then religions latched onto it. If the government wants to use marriage as a legal contract and write laws about it, they should do so in a way that does not discriminate between different religions or genders as is required by the first amendment. If Ron Paul and his ilk actually gave a damn about freedom they'd have exactly the opposite position on this topic.
Marriages should not be licensed by local, state, or any government. Government shouldn't be involved with defining religious sacraments. If two people, regardless of sex and sexual preference, want to get married, then they can find whatever church/synagogue/temple/witches circle/shaman's tent that allows it and get married.
The rights that are associated with marriage such as health benefits, inheritance, etc. can be assigned in a legal agreement. Government can have what it wants (legal rights defined) and religion can have what it wants (definition of a sacrament) and they don't have to be (and shouldn't be) entangling each other over this.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.