Election meaningless unless we change for the better

[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.

[doodle]

So Trump admits for first time that Biden won, but says he's not conceding. All his lawsuits are getting tossed out. There is no evidence. Is there any reasonable defense of this mans behavior and that of his administration? There is no recent precedent for any of this. If you doubted Trump's psychosis before, this has to be proof that the man needs a lot of psychological help. Getting rid of Trump will be first step of 'a change for the better'...not saying his platform and policies, but the man himself is toxic to health of nation.

[vnatale]

So Trump admits for first time that Biden won, but says he's not conceding. All his lawsuits are getting tossed out. There is no evidence. Is there any reasonable defense of this mans behavior and that of his administration? There is no recent precedent for any of this. If you doubted Trump's psychosis before, this has to be proof that the man needs a lot of psychological help. Getting rid of Trump will be first step of 'a change for the better'...not saying his platform and policies, but the man himself is toxic to health of nation.

No doubt.

But all his supporters - be they his voters or his fellow Republican politicians - need to also assess their roles in enabling all his behaviors.

Vinny

[pmward]

So Trump admits for first time that Biden won, but says he's not conceding. All his lawsuits are getting tossed out. There is no evidence. Is there any reasonable defense of this mans behavior and that of his administration? There is no recent precedent for any of this. If you doubted Trump's psychosis before, this has to be proof that the man needs a lot of psychological help. Getting rid of Trump will be first step of 'a change for the better'...not saying his platform and policies, but the man himself is toxic to health of nation.

No doubt.

But all his supporters - be they his voters or his fellow Republican politicians - need to also assess their roles in enabling all his behaviors.

Vinny

What does it go to show? Republican politicians are willing to bow down to an authoritarian and they are willing to threaten our very democracy itself... if it allows them to stay in power a measly 4 more years. There has been no evidence of this supposed large scale fraud. It is shameful that so many Republican politicians went along with it. It's actually hurt their Georgia senate races, as these two Republican senate candidates have had to toe an uncomfortable line in messaging between "we are not allowed to say Trump lost" BUT "let's rally the Republicans behind us to block the blue wave". Hats off to the few great Republicans like Mitt Romney and George W. Bush who were willing to stand up for democracy in congratulating Biden on his win early on.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[doodle]

Based on footage I saw from DC rally yesterday...we have a lot of work to do to bridge this divide. The conflicts and violence I witnessed were pretty terrifying...from both sides. Maybe we will never get everyone on the same page, but it would be nice if we could be reading from the same book so to speak. I really hope Biden can move the dialogue back to a point where we can have civil conversations about issues again without resorting to calling each other Nazis or Communists.

[doodle]

pmward -

Charity does work, I have volunteered in many charitable capacities and grew up where there was considerably less government spending and people helped others during their hour of need whether they lost their job, their house/farm burnt down, or crop yield was low. Just because you are young and have been conditioned to rely on the government doesn't mean there wasn't a recent past where people and communities took care of each other.

Given the condescending tone of your posts I think it might be better to just agree to disagree.

Regards,
IG

I'm not sure what charities you are referring to or what your conversation about this with Pm refers to. I aknowledge that charities can do some good but I don't think they are effective with dealing with large social issues. Take for example homelessness and all its myriad causes. The local charities in my area would provide food for them (right in front of my apartment of course) which meant that my neighborhood was constantly innundated with people who had drug problems, violence issues, and mental disorders. They would hang out there because that is where the charities chose to feed them. On the other hand, the government combined resources from 4 cities and built a large facility with resources to help local area homeless....mental health counseling, drug rehab, beds and showers etc. A local charity wouldn't have had the ability to build something like this.

[glennds]

So Trump admits for first time that Biden won, but says he's not conceding. All his lawsuits are getting tossed out. There is no evidence. Is there any reasonable defense of this mans behavior and that of his administration? There is no recent precedent for any of this. If you doubted Trump's psychosis before, this has to be proof that the man needs a lot of psychological help. Getting rid of Trump will be first step of 'a change for the better'...not saying his platform and policies, but the man himself is toxic to health of nation.

No doubt.

But all his supporters - be they his voters or his fellow Republican politicians - need to also assess their roles in enabling all his behaviors.

Vinny

I wonder if enabling is the right word. The most devoted segment of the Trump supporters never needed any proof of fraud to be validated by a court. Trump declaring it is all they need. It's like a messianic power.
Unfortunately, that part of his base will never accept the Biden administration, or simply move on - unless they receive Trump's permission to do so.
It's a remarkable amount of de facto power.
If you want to hear about tyranny of the majority, talk to Trump's base and I'm sure you'll hear about it in no uncertain terms.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[doodle]

I'm not sure what charities you are referring to or what your conversation about this with Pm refers to. I aknowledge that charities can do some good but I don't think they are effective with dealing with large social issues. Take for example homelessness and all its myriad causes. The local charities in my area would provide food for them (right in front of my apartment of course) which meant that my neighborhood was constantly innundated with people who had drug problems, violence issues, and mental disorders. They would hang out there because that is where the charities chose to feed them. On the other hand, the government combined resources from 4 cities and built a large facility with resources to help local area homeless....mental health counseling, drug rehab, beds and showers etc. A local charity wouldn't have had the ability to build something like this.

Maybe we have opened pandora's box and can't go back. My point was that in the not so distant past charities and communities took care of each other without government programs.

On your specific example I don't live in your neighborhood so I don't know what was best. My line of thinking here is that communities and regions are going to know how to help those in need better than a bunch of politicians in DC. It's not an easy puzzle to solve, but being reliant as a society on the government to do good or help those in need is a recipe for collapse.

Perhaps....in this case it was local governments that decided to work together to coordinate solution...no involvement from state or national government. I think different issues require different solutions. Private charities have their place, however I think there are larger issues such as healthcare or social safety nets that are probably best handled by government for reasons of administrative efficiency and resources. That's just my perspective though.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[doodle]

Perhaps....in this case it was local governments that decided to work together to coordinate solution...no involvement from state or national government. I think different issues require different solutions. Private charities have their place, however I think there are larger issues such as healthcare or social safety nets that are probably best handled by government for reasons of administrative efficiency and resources. That's just my perspective though.

I think you hit on something here, normally I would never use the word government and administrative efficiency in the same sentence unless I am being sarcastic (I have recently been to both the DMV and the Post Office). I do believe that local governments are more likely to be efficient with their funds and agree some issues may be too difficult for charities given the growing tax burden placed on our citizens.

I don't know about that either. While I agree I have seen instances of government inefficiency...gross inefficiency in some cases, my experience with most airlines and phone companies has been even worse. I have been left waiting on hold for two hours sometimes just to solve a problem with Verizon. In these cases their profit efficiency comes at the expense of my time. I also think that the government operates in many arenas where measuring efficiency is complicated...say public education.