Election meaningless unless we change for the better

[pmward]

Why not push decisions to county level? One of the things that impressed me about california is how republican it was outside any population center. Take a look at this county map. Half the population lives inside the yellow counties, half lives outside it. Obviously the yellow leans predominantly blue, the rest red.

g4pkiwtewvy51.png

You can still get tyranny of the majority in those counties. Not every person in those red counties is red themselves. Also, one has to take into account that those are mostly rural areas. So you likely have a white majority, but lots of minority farm workers that likely would be strongly oppressed by the majority. So you can divide things up all you want, but you still wind up with the same problems... and maybe even more extreme...

[pmward]

Tyranny of the majority also begs the difficult to answer question of where exactly is the line of demarkation where your rights end and mine begin? If my rights overlap your rights, what happens in that grey overlap area is extremely important. It is in this grey area where oppression still happens here to this day, and debating this grey area has been a hot topic lately in many of the biggest political issues this year (race, masks, etc). If the majority can just stake claim on this grey overlap area for themselves, then "equality", "rights", and "freedom" do not exist and are nothing more than a facade.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[pmward]

You can still get tyranny of the majority in those counties. Not every person in those red counties is red themselves. Also, one has to take into account that those are mostly rural areas. So you likely have a white majority, but lots of minority farm workers that likely would be strongly oppressed by the majority. So you can divide things up all you want, but you still wind up with the same problems... and maybe even more extreme...

Even though there can be tyranny of the majority at the state or county level, at least you can move to a different area that better alligns with your interests. In most cases, this would be a short distance. This just seems to make more sense than things being legislated for the US as a whole.

Not necessarily. How is a Mexican immigrant farm worker going to find a job in the big city? Sure, maybe his children might have a bit more opportunity than him, as they are young enough to adapt, but for someone like a lifelong immigrant farmhand, do they really have a choice? I guess what I'm getting at here is that there is no perfect utopian system. There are always tradeoffs. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

[doodle]

You can still get tyranny of the majority in those counties. Not every person in those red counties is red themselves. Also, one has to take into account that those are mostly rural areas. So you likely have a white majority, but lots of minority farm workers that likely would be strongly oppressed by the majority. So you can divide things up all you want, but you still wind up with the same problems... and maybe even more extreme...

Even though there can be tyranny of the majority at the state or county level, at least you can move to a different area that better alligns with your interests. In most cases, this would be a short distance. This just seems to make more sense than things being legislated for the US as a whole.

Although, as I mentioned before...having to change my car and health insurance, car title and registration three times so far this year by moving around in the same country makes we wish for a more national system is some ways. What a pain in the ass.

[pmward]

Going further down the rabbit hole of "you can move to a different area that better aligns with your interests". So if the root of the problem I mentioned above, being that the majority lays claim to the grey area overlapping one persons rights and another persons rights, if every county became a county where the grey area went to a different majority... is this really ideal? Is this a continuing evolution of the human race, or a massive step backwards? Do we wind up with black counties, white counties, hispanic counties, LGBTQ counties, etc? And what happens when one county starts gaining more prosperity or power, do the other counties get upset and fight? Do we wind up with a modern day Hatfields vs McCoys between say the hispanic county and the white county? What happens to the companies based in those counties? It's all the same old, same old, just instead of a battle for the grey area that happens across the country as a whole it winds up being a cross country battle between different divisions of counties. Instead of living in a country that encourages us to learn to live together in harmony, we wind up back in a situation where we are segregated and divided. And at the macro level, this will still tilt to the favor of the majority.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[pmward]

Instead of living in a country that encourages us to learn to live together in harmony, we wind up back in a situation where we are segregated and divided. And at the macro level, this will still tilt to the favor of the majority.

I guess I'm failing to see what solution you are advocating for. We are already lacking harmony due to federal mandates that apply uniformly for every state/county. I guess I have some faith in humanity that people are more willing to look for solutions that are good for everyone when laws are made by local leaders for local jurisdictions, not just the minority.

My comment about moving was really an extreme measure, not the ideal solution for differences in opinion.

Here's the thing, I'm being descriptive in identifying a problem, not prescriptive and offering a solution. These things are insanely complex. Not to mention no matter what you change "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". Too often in political posts like this people lay out a solution that only looks at the "equal reaction", but they fail to try to think of the "opposite reactions" that can happen. So basically, what I did was look at the "opposite reaction" of your proposed solution and was quickly able to debunk it. The problem is any solution I can think of I can also quickly debunk by looking for the "opposite reaction". These things are so incredibly complicated.

Tyranny of the majority is innately tied to democracy. You cannot eliminate it completely. You can only try to manage it as evenly as possible. Since historically we are a country where the grey area always went to the majority, and in recent years we have realized that this isn't truly fair, to try to give more grey area to the minority requires an equal submission of grey area from the majority. The minority has a legitimate claim to want their fair share of the grey area. The majority is of course going to be upset to have to give up a little bit of the grey area, even if it is for the greater good. So I think these problems, and the fighting, in a way are inevitable during these intermediary periods. The fighting in the 60s led to progress, the fighting in the civil war led to progress, and this fighting will lead to progress as well. I think that eventually we are going to wind up in a situation where the division of rights is more fair than it historically has been, but these changes tend to evolve over generations, as the old ideas of one generation pass away and the new ideas of the new generation are born. I don't know what the answer ultimately is, but I think we are inevitably headed in that direction whether we all like it or not. And I do think that when the dust settles we will be in a better place than we are now... just like we are in a better place now than we were in the 60's, and we were in a better spot in the 60s than we were in the Civil War. It's an evolution, and there will always be a tug of war between people that want that change and others that resist it. There is also an inherent volatility where things flex back and forth over time, it's never a straight line. But on the whole, would anyone really want to go back to the pre-Civil War times? Does anybody really think we were better off then than we are now? I think 150 years from now people will look back at this time and likewise say they are better off then than we are now.

[doodle]

I think the history and trajectory of europe...from small feudal states to the European Union says a lot about the advantages of unifying (although imperfect)

[pmward]

I think the history and trajectory of europe...from small feudal states to the European Union says a lot about the advantages of unifying (although imperfect)

Exactly. No perfect solution. There is always tradeoffs. The EU experiment is a great example, thanks for brining it up. On the whole if forces peace, and it forces these countries that historically have never been able to get along to find a way to get along. It helps prevent WWIII from happening. But, it has it's tradeoffs as well. The divisions of power within the EU are not perfect. The monetary and fiscal divisions are not perfect. We see some trend to the "grass is always greener on the other side" like Brexit. But I'm of the opinion that greater equality and greater globalization are the inevitable future... and that once we get there things will be much better than they are today. But there are growing pains in this transitionary period. I would not be surprised at all someday long after we are all dead and gone to have a total world union of some sort, that will likely look to the EU experiment as a lesson on what worked and what didn't.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[pmward]

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I could be wrong, but I don't see the EU being as divided as the USA is so I would be suprised to see a total world union. Frankly the way things are going I'd guess we are more likely to see another civil war or splitting up of the USA unless people can learn to civilly disagree and work together towards a better America for everyone.

I don't think it will get to splitting up of the U.S., and even if it did I don't think that would break the trend of globalization, it would just be a mean reverting countertrend event along the greater trend of globalization. Populist divisions are not uncommon in U.S. history. We've survived many of them in the past, and I believe we will survive this one as well. Admittedly, the total world union idea I mentioned is unlikely for probably another 150-200 years if not more... but the trends towards globalization are there. It won't go in a straight line of course, you'll have your Trumps and your Brexits along the way that temporarily push for more isolationism. But I don't think you can break the greater trend permanently. The internet and technology has united us as a world more than we ever have been. I don't think we can go back now. I think it's inevitable that the trend towards globalization continues, until eventually the world unites in some way, shape, or form. It won't be a perfect utopia when we get there either, there will be tradeoffs, disagreements, and challenges. Likely there will be war and misery in some fashion in between now and then. But I think the trend will continue until we eventually one day reach this point, and I do think the whole world will be better off for it.

[doodle]

Predatory aliens would easily fix all this divisiveness amongst the human tribes.

[glennds]

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I could be wrong, but I don't see the EU being as divided as the USA is so I would be suprised to see a total world union. Frankly the way things are going I'd guess we are more likely to see another civil war or splitting up of the USA unless people can learn to civilly disagree and work together towards a better America for everyone.

Some thoughts along the lines of the above -
I have wondered whether some of the perceived "tyranny of the majority" is a cultural choice. There are democracies in the world where majority vote or representation ends up setting policy, but the minority accept this outcome as a matter of civics and do not feel themselves oppressed victims of tyranny. Canada comes to mind.
Being in the minority is a disappointment, but if you feel strongly, there's the next election cycle, and voters and their representatives can mobilize and campaign for change.

In some cases I wonder if the minority has truly been oppressed, or is what gets called tyranny in reality an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way?

from Dictionary.com:

Tyranny
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a cruel or harsh act or proceeding; an arbitrary, oppressive, or tyrannical action.

What I am trying to say is yes, there can be big differences geographically and yes, decisions made by a majority from another geography may not be sensitive to the minority. And I get that population trends can stack the deck. But in a society, there is going to have to be at least some willingness to compromise. Some call it the dividing line not between your rights and mine, but between self and society.
So when you find yourself in the minority, do you accept the outcome as part of a democratic society, or do you cry tyranny, declare the opposing side your enemy, and fight back until you get what you want? If the latter becomes the common answer, then the ultimate result will be a breakdown into warring factions in lieu of a society.

[pmward]

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I could be wrong, but I don't see the EU being as divided as the USA is so I would be suprised to see a total world union. Frankly the way things are going I'd guess we are more likely to see another civil war or splitting up of the USA unless people can learn to civilly disagree and work together towards a better America for everyone.

Some thoughts along the lines of the above -
I have wondered whether some of the perceived "tyranny of the majority" is a cultural choice. There are democracies in the world where majority vote or representation ends up setting policy, but the minority accept this outcome as a matter of civics and do not feel themselves oppressed victims of tyranny. Canada comes to mind.
Being in the minority is a disappointment, but if you feel strongly, there's the next election cycle, and voters and their representatives can mobilize and campaign for change.

In some cases I wonder if the minority has truly been oppressed, or is what gets called tyranny in reality an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way?

from Dictionary.com:

Tyranny
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a cruel or harsh act or proceeding; an arbitrary, oppressive, or tyrannical action.

What I am trying to say is yes, there can be big differences geographically and yes, decisions made by a majority from another geography may not be sensitive to the minority. And I get that population trends can stack the deck. But in a society, there is going to have to be at least some willingness to compromise. Some call it the dividing line not between your rights and mine, but between self and society.
So when you find yourself in the minority, do you accept the outcome as part of a democratic society, or do you cry tyranny, declare the opposing side your enemy, and fight back until you get what you want? If the latter becomes the common answer, then the ultimate result will be a breakdown into warring factions in lieu of a society.

Tyranny of the majority here in the U.S. has taken the form of slavery, segregation, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, etc, etc. Like we are not talking about small scale things that are a little inconvenient. These are some of the greatest offenses ever committed against human kind, inside of a democracy that was supposedly the "land of the free". These things are still ongoing. It's not a simple matter of "oh well, I guess I'll try again in 4 years". These things are engrained in our culture and our society. They are passed down from generation to generation, sometimes unintentionally. This is not just "an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way". If you are in the majority, life is good man. It's so good you may not think these things still exist, but they do. It requires us to have to step out of our self-centered world view, and actually put ourselves in someone else's shoes. If you were not oppressed, you're going to say things like that's just "an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way". If you were oppressed, you would look at things much differently. I am in the majority myself here. I've spent a lot of time soul searching and looking at these things from different angles over the last few months. I highly recommend anyone here that is also in the majority does the same. For our society to be truly free I have to be willing to stand up for the freedoms of others, and not just put my own personal sense of freedom on a pedestal. The truth is, not everyone here is equally free. And most people's definition of "freedom" is self-centered and selfish. And it is the tyranny of the majority that created the issue, perpetuated the issue, and still keeps the issue alive today.

[vnatale]

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I could be wrong, but I don't see the EU being as divided as the USA is so I would be suprised to see a total world union. Frankly the way things are going I'd guess we are more likely to see another civil war or splitting up of the USA unless people can learn to civilly disagree and work together towards a better America for everyone.

Some thoughts along the lines of the above -
I have wondered whether some of the perceived "tyranny of the majority" is a cultural choice. There are democracies in the world where majority vote or representation ends up setting policy, but the minority accept this outcome as a matter of civics and do not feel themselves oppressed victims of tyranny. Canada comes to mind.
Being in the minority is a disappointment, but if you feel strongly, there's the next election cycle, and voters and their representatives can mobilize and campaign for change.

In some cases I wonder if the minority has truly been oppressed, or is what gets called tyranny in reality an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way?

from Dictionary.com:

Tyranny
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a cruel or harsh act or proceeding; an arbitrary, oppressive, or tyrannical action.

What I am trying to say is yes, there can be big differences geographically and yes, decisions made by a majority from another geography may not be sensitive to the minority. And I get that population trends can stack the deck. But in a society, there is going to have to be at least some willingness to compromise. Some call it the dividing line not between your rights and mine, but between self and society.
So when you find yourself in the minority, do you accept the outcome as part of a democratic society, or do you cry tyranny, declare the opposing side your enemy, and fight back until you get what you want? If the latter becomes the common answer, then the ultimate result will be a breakdown into warring factions in lieu of a society.

Tyranny of the majority here in the U.S. has taken the form of slavery, segregation, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, etc, etc. Like we are not talking about small scale things that are a little inconvenient. These are some of the greatest offenses ever committed against human kind, inside of a democracy that was supposedly the "land of the free". These things are still ongoing. It's not a simple matter of "oh well, I guess I'll try again in 4 years". These things are engrained in our culture and our society. They are passed down from generation to generation, sometimes unintentionally. This is not just "an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way". If you are in the majority, life is good man. It's so good you may not think these things still exist, but they do. It requires us to have to step out of our self-centered world view, and actually put ourselves in someone else's shoes. If you were not oppressed, you're going to say things like that's just "an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way". If you were oppressed, you would look at things much differently. I am in the majority myself here. I've spent a lot of time soul searching and looking at these things from different angles over the last few months. I highly recommend anyone here that is also in the majority does the same. For our society to be truly free I have to be willing to stand up for the freedoms of others, and not just put my own personal sense of freedom on a pedestal. The truth is, not everyone here is equally free. And most people's definition of "freedom" is self-centered and selfish.

One must separate tyranny of the majority from that which derives from true popular opinion and that which derives from those with the political power.

A popular vote of those in the South would not have resulted in a vote to secede and have a Civil War. That was though the votes of the individual state legislatures, i.e., those with the political power, which led to the states seceding and the subsequent Civil War.

Vinny

[pmward]

One must separate tyranny of the majority from that which derives from true popular opinion and that which derives from those with the political power.

A popular vote of those in the South would not have resulted in a vote to secede and have a Civil War. That was though the votes of the individual state legislatures, i.e., those with the political power, which led to the states seceding and the subsequent Civil War.

Vinny

These things existed before the Civil War. They existed from the moment we arrived on this land, so they pre-dated even the Revolution. It was not just the South at fault, we all were at fault. While we were fleeing and freeing ourselves from the tyranny of England, we were perpetuating greater tyrannies on any other human we could. It's not just legislature, though it shows up there as well. It's in our very culture and DNA as a country.

[glennds]

Tyranny of the majority here in the U.S. has taken the form of slavery, segregation, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, etc, etc. Like we are not talking about small scale things that are a little inconvenient. These are some of the greatest offenses ever committed against human kind, inside of a democracy that was supposedly the "land of the free". These things are still ongoing. It's not a simple matter of "oh well, I guess I'll try again in 4 years". These things are engrained in our culture and our society. They are passed down from generation to generation, sometimes unintentionally. This is not just "an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way". If you are in the majority, life is good man. It's so good you may not think these things still exist, but they do. It requires us to have to step out of our self-centered world view, and actually put ourselves in someone else's shoes. If you were not oppressed, you're going to say things like that's just "an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way". If you were oppressed, you would look at things much differently. I am in the majority myself here. I've spent a lot of time soul searching and looking at these things from different angles over the last few months. I highly recommend anyone here that is also in the majority does the same. For our society to be truly free I have to be willing to stand up for the freedoms of others, and not just put my own personal sense of freedom on a pedestal. The truth is, not everyone here is equally free. And most people's definition of "freedom" is self-centered and selfish. And it is the tyranny of the majority that created the issue, perpetuated the issue, and still keeps the issue alive today.

In light of this, I evidently misunderstood the context of "tyranny of the majority" in this thread. I thought we were talking about partisan politics, specifically of the present day and the divisions around the current presidential election.

[pmward]

Tyranny of the majority here in the U.S. has taken the form of slavery, segregation, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, etc, etc. Like we are not talking about small scale things that are a little inconvenient. These are some of the greatest offenses ever committed against human kind, inside of a democracy that was supposedly the "land of the free". These things are still ongoing. It's not a simple matter of "oh well, I guess I'll try again in 4 years". These things are engrained in our culture and our society. They are passed down from generation to generation, sometimes unintentionally. This is not just "an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way". If you are in the majority, life is good man. It's so good you may not think these things still exist, but they do. It requires us to have to step out of our self-centered world view, and actually put ourselves in someone else's shoes. If you were not oppressed, you're going to say things like that's just "an unwillingness to accept just not having it your way". If you were oppressed, you would look at things much differently. I am in the majority myself here. I've spent a lot of time soul searching and looking at these things from different angles over the last few months. I highly recommend anyone here that is also in the majority does the same. For our society to be truly free I have to be willing to stand up for the freedoms of others, and not just put my own personal sense of freedom on a pedestal. The truth is, not everyone here is equally free. And most people's definition of "freedom" is self-centered and selfish. And it is the tyranny of the majority that created the issue, perpetuated the issue, and still keeps the issue alive today.

In light of this, I evidently misunderstood the context of "tyranny of the majority" in this thread. I thought we were talking about partisan politics, specifically of the present day and the divisions around the current presidential election.

Tyranny of the majority does effect partisan politics as well... but it's much wider reaching. Tyranny of the majority is a well known concept in philosophy, I think I first encountered the term in either a 200 or 300 level college philosophy class. It's an innate part of democracy. Sure, there can be varying levels of it. But one cannot say "tyranny of the majority is bad in this case, but it's ok here". Tyranny is tyranny. Wikipedia entry is pretty good starting point on the topic, highly recommend everyone here at least give this a quick read as it is actually very pertinent to a lot of the discussions that happen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

[glennds]

Tyranny of the majority does effect partisan politics as well... but it's much wider reaching. Tyranny of the majority is a well known concept in philosophy, I think I first encountered the term in either a 200 or 300 level college philosophy class. It's an innate part of democracy. Sure, there can be varying levels of it. But one cannot say "tyranny of the majority is bad in this case, but it's ok here". Tyranny is tyranny. Wikipedia entry is pretty good starting point on the topic, highly recommend everyone here at least give this a quick read as it is actually very pertinent to a lot of the discussions that happen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Are Tyranny and Majority rule inextricable?

In other words, is it possible for majority rule in a democracy to exist without tyranny, or is majority rule inherently tyrannical?

[pmward]

Tyranny of the majority does effect partisan politics as well... but it's much wider reaching. Tyranny of the majority is a well known concept in philosophy, I think I first encountered the term in either a 200 or 300 level college philosophy class. It's an innate part of democracy. Sure, there can be varying levels of it. But one cannot say "tyranny of the majority is bad in this case, but it's ok here". Tyranny is tyranny. Wikipedia entry is pretty good starting point on the topic, highly recommend everyone here at least give this a quick read as it is actually very pertinent to a lot of the discussions that happen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Are Tyranny and Majority rule inextricable?

In other words, is it possible for majority rule in a democracy to exist without tyranny, or is majority rule inherently tyrannical?

There is no way to completely eliminate tyranny, no. Tyranny can take many shapes. Tyranny can show up in any system in some way, shape, or form. There are always tradeoffs to any system. I think that is part of what I'm trying to get across here, that these things are incredibly complex and that there is no simple utopian solution. I don't have the answers, and neither do any of you. Anyone who thinks they have the answers is fooling themselves. The greatest minds that have existed in every generation have debated these things for centuries and we still haven't cured them. Every ideology falls on its face eventually. That said, there are safeguards that can be put in place to help eliminate some of the problem. We do have some here, like the checks and balances system of both the house, senate, courts, and the president. Also the divisions between state, local, and Federal governments help. But it still doesn't completely eliminate the issue, as can be seen in our countries own history, and even in our current society.

Are we better off now than we were in 1700? Absolutely. Are we better off now than we were in 1800? Absolutely. Are we better off now than we were in 1900? Absolutely. But are we in a society that is truly free, equal, and void of tyranny and oppression? Far from it. We still have a long way to go. It's easy to turn a blind eye to tyranny when you are the beneficiary of it. It's easy to be unintentionally ignorant to its existence, because life is good for you and you did not have to experience or directly view its existence. But for the people on the other side of the spectrum... they are still suffering still today. My main purpose in bringing this topic up is mainly to get people to think. I think our society as a whole would be a better place if a lot of people in the majority would take a step back to view the world from this alternate angle. I think the problem mainly persists because people in the majority don't recognize the fact that it still exists.

[doodle]

Pmward been dropping the truth bombs of late!

[pmward]

Are we better off now than we were in 1700? Absolutely. Are we better off now than we were in 1800? Absolutely. Are we better off now than we were in 1900? Absolutely.

Seems unfair to make these statements in a conversation about government because modern technologies like electricity, running water, the internet and antibiotics are what make 2020 better than 1900 for me.

There was no income tax in 1900. There was no law against machine guns (I believe that came in 1934). Gold was money. Government was smaller.

Can we take modern technology back to 1900’s government and live there? Sorry women can’t vote and blacks can’t use my water fountain but everything else seems far better than the FDA making new drugs difficult and EPA making new business difficult, and Fanny/Freddie inflating housing prices, and the DOE ruining education and inflating college prices, and infinite foreign wars funded by non-gold standard money printing.

And if government was small enough, do you even need to vote? Since it shouldn’t really matter who’s in power if they’re constitutionally limited to coining money, delivering mail and protecting the border.

I don't see ANYTHING from 1900 that would make me want to go back there. And small government, as I mentioned, is strongly susceptible to tyranny of the majority. You NEED the checks and balances from the upper level. If the upper level doesn't do their job and is asleep at the wheel, you wind up with situations like we had pre-civil war where "small" government turned a blind eye to local governments allowing slavery. Your small government utopian ideal has been tried and failed. Sure, a Darwinian small government may selfishly benefit you over larger government, but it would not benefit the whole. We need to step out of our small self-centered world view and be willing to look at things from different angles. Small government is a false utopian ideal that sounds great on paper, but actually plays out pretty shitty in real life. Taken to it's extreme it turns into a Darwinian nightmare where all but the strongest and fittest in the majority stuffer. Balance is the key. Government that is not too big, not too small. Not too "capitalist", but. not too "socialist". You need to support innovation and allow companies to grow, but at the same time you have a responsibility to take care of and stick up for the weak, minorities, sick, poor, old, the environment, etc. Any extreme taken to its conclusion ends in misery. Balance is the key. You need the federal level of government to ensure the state and local levels don't stray too far from the beaten path.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[pmward]

I don't see ANYTHING from 1900 that would make me want to go back there. And small government, as I mentioned, is strongly susceptible to tyranny of the majority. You NEED the checks and balances from the upper level. If the upper level doesn't do their job and is asleep at the wheel, you wind up with situations like we had pre-civil war where "small" government turned a blind eye to local governments allowing slavery. Your small government utopian ideal has been tried and failed. Sure, a Darwinian small government may selfishly benefit you over larger government, but it would not benefit the whole. We need to step out of our small self-centered world view and be willing to look at things from different angles. Small government is a false utopian ideal that sounds great on paper, but actually plays out pretty shitty in real life. Taken to it's extreme it turns into a Darwinian nightmare where all but the strongest and fittest in the majority stuffer. Balance is the key. Government that is not too big, not too small. Not too "capitalist", but. not too "socialist". You need to support innovation and allow companies to grow, but at the same time you have a responsibility to take care of and stick up for the weak, minorities, sick, poor, old, the environment, etc. Any extreme taken to its conclusion ends in misery. Balance is the key. You need the federal level of government to ensure the state and local levels don't stray too far from the beaten path.

All forms of government are susceptible to tyranny of the majority, but small government is less susceptible than large government. There are numerous recent examples to prove this is not true including gay marriage and legalizing drugs being pioneered by states and historically by the framers in the constitution requiring supermajorities for major decisions and the addition of the bill of rights to protect individual rights for minority groups.

Pre-civil war small government did not turn a blind eye to slavery but saw it as problematic as did the rest of the world. America was no different than other nations and as all developed nations outlawed slavery so did America. If anything the federal government not working with local governments extended post-civil war discrimination and segregation for 100 years. Contrary to your opinion I purport small government has been thwarted not by failure but by political power grabs.

Large government on the other hand seems to be the utopian ideal which has been tried and failed. Our government is bigger than ever and what do we have to show for it? The US government spends more per student than any other nation and yet we have depressingly average results. The post office, which is supposed to be self-sustaining, loses billions every year while FedEx/UPS are smoking $100 bills. I could go on and on yet the clear message is that big governments spend a lot more and deliver considerably less.

If minorities are being denied their God given rights or liberties, let's get the federal government involved if states aren't already pioneering the path. This is the role of the federal government as dictated by the constitution for heaven's sake. As far as taking care of the weak, sick, poor, old, etc we can do that much better locally in our communities/charities without the federal government for a fraction of the price.

Completely false. Not all forms of government are subject to tyranny of the majority. All forms of government are susceptible to tyranny, but tyranny comes in different flavors. Tyranny of the majority is only one kind of tyranny. Democracy's weak spot however is tyranny of the majority. Small government does not protect against tyranny of the majority... because the majority in a locale can still oppress the minority. You need checks and balances. And even those checks and balances don't eliminate it, as can still be seen today.

Your justifications of Americas acceptance of slavery doesn't even warrant a response, it is a ridiculous stretch.

I think you missed my point entirely on large vs small government. I'm not pro large government. Both large and small have tradeoffs. They both have complimentary strengths and weaknesses. When you have a mixture of both you tend to get the best outcomes. If you understand the PP you understand the benefits of diversification, well diversification in government helps in the same way diversification in a portfolio helps. One strategies strengths make up for another weaknesses. You cannot leave society to total Darwinism and expect life to be reasonably fair and happy for all. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, government would have stayed that way and wouldn't have moved forward. Why did it change and move forward? Because people were unhappy and called for change. Going back to that would be a regression, a step backwards.

Your arguments about charity fall flat. Charity already exists and not enough people support them. People in aggregate are selfish and self-centered. If the government didn't step up to help them, no one would. The evidence is already there to this end. When the Federal government was small and the states had more power, were things equal then? HELL NO!!! Did people take care of the poor, minorities, old, sick, etc? HELL NO!!! All these utopian fantasies you have already have been tested in the real world and failed. Have you ever even questioned these beliefs you have to see if they really are true, or have you just blindly accepted them? They have actually been tested in the real world, holes were clearly poked in them, and people were unhappy and demanded change. What more evidence do you need?

I'm not saying we are perfect today. Far from it. I don't know what the perfect government is; I don't have the answers; but neither do you. The greatest minds of every generation going back centuries have debated these things. The ultimate answer is not going to be here on the gyroscopic investing forums. But what I can say with certainty is that we are much better off than we were back then. I can also say that we will continue to evolve as the decades and centuries continue. New ideas will come up and be tested, and as always happens the wheat will separate from the chaff, we will take what worked and throw out what didn't, and life/society/government will continue to evolve. And 100 years from now will be better than today. And 200 years from now will be better than 100 years from now. etc. Eventually people will look back on our time as archaic in the same way we look back on feudalism now.