Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (130181)	8/6/2005 3:29:35 PM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 793755

If we're going to cut the federal government back to strictly authorized ones ON PRINCIPLE, I'm fine with that. But I think issue by issue reduction based on the strength of the interest group would be a real mess. There are lots of people with really strong beliefs about all sorts of issues. Every PC issue imaginable, for starters. If they see it as a successful strategy, there will be lots of comers, a lot more polarization, and their issues would have to be sorted out one at a time. We really don't need that. Hear! Hear! or is it Here! Here? And does it apply to a situation where the comment is written and not spoken? Suffice to say that I wholeheartedly agree with that.

To: Lane3 who wrote (130181)	8/6/2005 3:59:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

We are talking about PETA not "the Siberian tiger defense association". You're just muddying the waters. No more than you were by bringing Siberian tigers in to it. Who's advocating public subsidies for killing Siberian tigers? But the latter also support the incremental step of halting government funding because they can't get a ban. The halting of government funding isn't just an interim step. It is a aim itself, and an aim shared by some people who would not support making abortion illegal. Of course if say 20% with really strong beliefs can stop government action in peripheral areas than you are indeed limiting what the government can do. But I would consider that a plus not a minus. Great. Then I suppose you're cool with bringing the troops home from Iraq right now. Clearly there are more than twenty percent with really strong beliefs about that. I've already dealt with that. 1 - Military/police/security areas are part of the governments core responsibilities where I would apply different standards. 2 - I specifically said you can't jump in to and out of wars based on polls. It might be a better argument for not having to have gone to Iraq in the first place, but we have to deal with the situation there now, whether or not going in was a mistake. 3 - I doubt that "more than 20% of Americans" not only are against the war, but consider it to be a horrible atrocity and an act of monstrous criminality. If we're going to cut the federal government back to strictly authorized ones ON PRINCIPLE, I'm fine with that. But I think issue by issue reduction based on the strength of the interest group would be a real mess. There are lots of people with really strong beliefs about all sorts of issues. Every PC issue imaginable, for starters. If they see it as a successful strategy, there will be lots of comers, a lot more polarization, and their issues would have to be sorted out one at a time. We really don't need that. Some of the strictly authorized areas are peripheral in the ways that I used the term. I do think it should be cut back on principle, but part of the reason for that principle is the idea that in general people shouldn't be forced to support what they consider to be a monstrous crime and a massive atrocity. Remember that this applies purely to government funding, and primarily only to federal government funding. While I think it might stimulate conflict during the transition, in the long run I think it would be an effective compromise in many areas and would reduce conflict. Also note that this is a general principle but not an absolute one that would necessarily get rigidly applied. It would be measured against other principles and practical concerns. I am only calling for the idea to get serious consideration when government funding of controversial things is considered. It should apply to a small extent for all government funding, but I would give it more importance when dealing with federal funding, when dealing with non-core issues, and when dealing with funding in new areas. So the most clear cut case where this might apply is if you have an almost balanced country but a small majority is for funding while a large minority is absolutely against, considering the potentially funded thing to be an atrocity. And where the funding would be something new, the cost would be high, the funding is from the feds, and it is not central to government's core responsibilities, and esp. not clearly part of the fed's responsibility under the constitution. Combine all of those things and the principle strengthens to likely pre-eminence over all other concerns. The further you get away from that theoretical "ideal" situation the weaker the principle might be in the balance. Tim