|
Monday, 15 August 2016
quote [ Do you want to stop Donald Trump from rounding up Mexicans into camps? Try this: Encourage your idealistic, third-party-voting progressive and libertarian friends to drop their fantasies of an ideal, radically revised political and economic order and fight instead to protect what we’ve got. It’s the prudent thing to do, and it’s the principled move.
In a profound and persuasive new book, The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society, the political philosopher Gerald Gaus shows that visions of political perfection are bound to lead us astray. ] Seems a surprisingly compelling argument to me, but I'd love to hear your opinions
|
kylemcbitch said @ 1:23pm GMT on 15th August
No one is asking for perfection. Perfection is a stupid and unattainable ideal. Most people are just looking for basic represenation of views that they actually hold. Spam is not hamsteak, so it doesn't matter if it's closer to what someone wants than hamburger. In the end, I will take undercooked and rotten hamsteak over spam, because if you never put your foot down, you never get anything different.
Presuming that you can handwave away people's concerns by calling them idealist is naive to say the least. It's not idealism to want basic representation. That is the foundation of voting. It is people making less evil arguments that have failed to understand the purpose of voting. It's not to win nessicarily, it's to effect policy. If a candidate wins by a landslide, we tend to call that an political imperitive, yes? So then, how exactly do we establish a political will towards any goal not stated in one of two people's campaign promises when voting for president?
Claiming we are looking for some perfectly just society is condecending to us both as adults and as voters. I am never going to get everything I want, in fact, if I am voting 3rd party (and I am not, I am not voting at all) I don't even expect to win much less get what I reall want. When and if I vote 3rd party I am saying "neither of these mainstream policies are sufficient towards the needs I feel we as a people have." The onus is then on whoever wins to review not only how they won, but the popularity of opposition so they can understand how to rule. If we never indicate to these people that we are willing to vote counter to their views, they never have cause to change them or even consider changing them.
Basically, the whole premise of this argument is based on a strawman.
kylemcbitch said @ 1:43pm GMT on 15th August
No one is asking for perfection. Perfection is a stupid and unattainable ideal. Most people are just looking for basic represenation of views that they actually hold. Spam is not hamsteak, so it doesn't matter if it's closer to what someone wants than hamburger. In the end, I will take undercooked and rotten hamsteak over spam, because if you never put your foot down, you never get anything different. You see, despite spam being LIKE hamsteak, it's not hamsteak. Really good spam is still different from the thing I want. I am willing to get a shitty version of what I want, rather than a really good version of something akin to what I want. A good analogy are bike tires vs car tires. They are both tires, but one of these will fit on your bike and make it go.
Presuming that you can handwave away people's concerns by calling them idealist is naive to say the least. It's not idealism to want basic representation. That is the foundation of voting. It is people making less evil arguments that have failed to understand the purpose of voting. It's not to win nessicarily, it's to effect policy. If a candidate wins by a landslide, we tend to call that an political imperitive, yes? So then, how exactly do we establish a political will towards any goal not stated in one of two people's campaign promises when voting for president?
Claiming we are looking for some perfectly just society is condecending to us both as adults and as voters. I am never going to get everything I want, in fact, if I am voting 3rd party (and I am not, I am not voting at all) I don't even expect to win much less get what I reall want. When and if I vote 3rd party I am saying "neither of these mainstream policies are sufficient towards the needs I feel we as a people have." The onus is then on whoever wins to review not only how they won, but the popularity of opposition so they can understand how to rule. If we never indicate to these people that we are willing to vote counter to their views, they never have cause to change them or even consider changing them.
Basically, the whole premise of this argument is based on a strawman.
kylemcbitch said @ 1:45pm GMT on 15th August
No one is asking for perfection. Perfection is a stupid and unattainable ideal. Most people are just looking for basic represenation of views that they actually hold. Spam is not hamsteak, so it doesn't matter if it's closer to what someone wants than hamburger. In the end, I will take undercooked and rotten hamsteak over spam, because if you never put your foot down, you never get anything different. You see, despite spam being LIKE hamsteak, it's not hamsteak. Really good spam is still different from the thing I want. I am willing to get a shitty version of what I want, rather than a really good version of something akin to what I want. A good analogy are bike tires vs car tires. They are both tires, but one of these will fit on your bike and make it go. It doesn't matter if the car tire has really nice all weather groove and puncture resistance, while the bike tire is shitty and about to deflate. Only one of those options is actually what you need.
Presuming that you can handwave away people's concerns by calling them idealist is naive to say the least. It's not idealism to want basic representation. That is the foundation of voting. It is people making less evil arguments that have failed to understand the purpose of voting. It's not to win nessicarily, it's to effect policy. If a candidate wins by a landslide, we tend to call that an political imperitive, yes? So then, how exactly do we establish a political will towards any goal not stated in one of two people's campaign promises when voting for president?
Claiming we are looking for some perfectly just society is condecending to us both as adults and as voters. I am never going to get everything I want, in fact, if I am voting 3rd party (and I am not, I am not voting at all) I don't even expect to win much less get what I reall want. When and if I vote 3rd party I am saying "neither of these mainstream policies are sufficient towards the needs I feel we as a people have." The onus is then on whoever wins to review not only how they won, but the popularity of opposition so they can understand how to rule. If we never indicate to these people that we are willing to vote counter to their views, they never have cause to change them or even consider changing them.
Basically, the whole premise of this argument is based on a strawman.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
kylemcbitch said @ 1:23pm GMT on 15th August [Score:5 Underrated]
No one is asking for perfection. Perfection is a stupid and unattainable ideal. Most people are just looking for basic represenation of views that they actually hold. Spam is not hamsteak, so it doesn't matter if it's closer to what someone wants than hamburger. In the end, I will take undercooked and rotten hamsteak over spam, because if you never put your foot down, you never get anything different. You see, despite spam being LIKE hamsteak, it's not hamsteak. Really good spam is still different from the thing I want. I am willing to get a shitty version of what I want, rather than a really good version of something akin to what I want. A good analogy are bike tires vs car tires. They are both tires, but one of these will fit on your bike and make it go. It doesn't matter if the car tire has really nice all weather groove and puncture resistance, while the bike tire is shitty and about to deflate. Only one of those options is actually what you need.
Presuming that you can handwave away people's concerns by calling them idealist is naive to say the least. It's not idealism to want basic representation. That is the foundation of voting. It is people making less evil arguments that have failed to understand the purpose of voting. It's not to win nessicarily, it's to effect policy. If a candidate wins by a landslide, we tend to call that an political imperitive, yes? So then, how exactly do we establish a political will towards any goal not stated in one of two people's campaign promises when voting for president?
Claiming we are looking for some perfectly just society is condecending to us both as adults and as voters. I am never going to get everything I want, in fact, if I am voting 3rd party (and I am not, I am not voting at all) I don't even expect to win much less get what I reall want. When and if I vote 3rd party I am saying "neither of these mainstream policies are sufficient towards the needs I feel we as a people have." The onus is then on whoever wins to review not only how they won, but the popularity of opposition so they can understand how to rule. If we never indicate to these people that we are willing to vote counter to their views, they never have cause to change them or even consider changing them.
Basically, the whole premise of this argument is based on a strawman.
