-->
@Dr.Franklin
Government wants to control your life?
Posts
Total:
231
I would rather want the government to control my life than some conspiracy group who yells "Government wants to control your life!" every single day.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It is no secret that many on the Left are pushing for Socialism.
Almost no one on the left is pushing for socialism. We’re pushing for expanding social programs to combat the fact that our country is growing ever more monopolized by the top one percent every year, a perfectly appropriate and rational response. Or, do you see the fact that 3 individual Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of the country to not be an issue? Perhaps they just work 50 million times harder than everyone else.
This would lead to extreme government control over the lives of individuals. That being said, the idea that certain governmental authorities from a particular party are trying to assert more control over our lives is undeniable based on their own ideology.
But what does that even mean? "Trying to" is as phrase that points to motivation. Please help me understand how you make sense out of claiming that their motivation is to control you're life. What does any politician, who mind you will likely end up a private citizen themselves in the near future subject to the same"government control" you are asserting, get out of it?
And that aside, what is it with this attitude of "I'm not going to let the government tell me what to do"? Because that's what I hear everytime I hear someone talk about government control. We live in a society and societies have rules. Everyone wants to be able to take the car to 100 when they're in a hurry, but no one wants to drive on a road where other people are doing 100. That's the cost of living around other people.
Says Fauci? Why is appeal to authority so rampant among Marxists?
You didn't listen to a word I said, which isn't surprising coming from you.
Appeal to authority is when one makes an argument and then points to an authority as their support for their argument. An appeal to authority fallacy is when one points to someone who is not an authority.
Neither of those is what I did. You made a claim (Fauci said he was science), so I explained why your claim is nonsense (what Fauci actually said was that what he was relaying were the actual findings of science). And I did all that to get to the point... How absurd is it when the right makes health experts to be the bad guy, such that you invent attacks on them having nothing to do with anything they actually did or said?
Why do you have to be so insufferably partisan?
I'm really not partisan. I dismiss the things you and others say as "right wing nonsense" when it's so absurd that I refuse to believe you actually came up with that idea on your own, free of the kind of emotional manipulation one often succumbs to when they base their personal identity on their political affiliation.
-->
@Greyparrot
Democracy is irrelevant because you just stated most people are too stupid to make democratic choices, about themselves OR you.
I'm not the one stupid enough to end up intubated because I didn't want the government telling me what to do.
And I didn't say anything about democratic choices, you made that up.
The idea behind democracy is that we have our own lives to live. I've got my own profession to study and worry about, so I don't have time to sit around learning about the latest study on the effects of mask wearing on COVID, or the best way to connect states to increase economic productivity, or what the data shows on the latest vehicle safety report. This is why our communities come together to select someone we trust to do the work for us and represent us in that decision making process. That's democracy.
-->
@Double_R
I'm really not partisan.
Really. I would rate you as the most partisan person on this site. Your level of party worship and demonization of all opposition to your party is without peer. The only authority you seem to trust always has a D. And you trust with groupthink without question. That is hyper-partisan.
If you are not partisan, you give zero indication of it here. Trusting or questioning Fauci should not be a partisan issue, yet you see it as such.
-->
@Double_R
Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed Socialist, has seen quite a bit of popularity in the last two presidential elections. Even though he did not win, that shows there are many Americans who support his Socialist policies. Even if you are not a Socialist, it does not seem accurate to say that "almost no one on the left is pushing for socialism."
There is nothing inherently wrong with having lots of money. Can you point to a valid ethical standard that says having money is, in and of itself, evil? If you create a product the many people are willing to pay for, why do you not deserve a greater profit than someone with a less desirable product? The great irony is that people complain about the wealthiest in America, while at the same time taking advantage of Amazon's 2-day shipping, or using Microsoft products on their computers. You can't complain about someone having too much money as you are constantly handing that person your money.
But what does that even mean? "Trying to" is as phrase that points to motivation. Please help me understand how you make sense out of claiming that their motivation is to control you're life. What does any politician, who mind you will likely end up a private citizen themselves in the near future subject to the same"government control" you are asserting, get out of it?
Why would a governmental authority desire to have more power and money? Or why would they want less oversight to do as they please with no repercussions? There could be a number of reasons, some which should be quite obvious if the authority has malicious intentions. Do you believe that Trump tried to overstep his authority and use "government control" to accomplish his own desires? Do you believe other Republicans do this too? What would they get out of it?
-->
@Greyparrot
george carlin got a lot right, sucks he was a liberal atheist at heart though
-->
@Dr.Franklin
He was a contrarian and a classical liberal...not the dumbfuckery that passes for a Democrat today.
-->
@Greyparrot
you sure? he looks like a bill maher type
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Bill Maher is considered far-right by some Democrats.
-->
@Greyparrot
if hes far right, what are we greyparrot?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Radicals against the establishment.
-->
@Greyparrot
ok.
-->
@Greyparrot
The only authority you seem to trust always has a D
Because you put a D next to the name of anyone who disagrees with you. Dr. Fauci has been the nation's leading infectious disease expert for decades and has served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. There is nothing partisan about him, you just don't like what he has to say so you take a page out of the Trump playbook and demonize him. It's politics pure and simple. That's partisanship. Following the recommendations of science is not.
Trusting or questioning Fauci should not be a partisan issue, yet you see it as such.
I have no problem with questioning when it's done honestly. You're not honest. That's obvious by the way you "question" him by misrepresenting what he said, and then paint anyone who corrects you as a partisan who is just blindly following authority. When you attack others for pointing out your logical fallacies it becomes quite clear that you are not operating based on logic. The alternative is emotion, which comes from having an emotional vestment in your original position. That's what a partisan is.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Messsage #27 ...I think Ive seen this same scenario in various science-fiction
movies, like the Stepford Wives, and The Body Snatchers etc. It is
clear now, the government is the lizard people attemting to control us
rabbits and stop us from our contnual overpopulating the Earth, with the
systems of operation that are in place.
The
rabbits will rise and again, triple the amount of humans on Earth in
five years because its is Gods will and God controls the government.
Yeah, thats the ticket, yeah, it is becoming clear to those who remain
anti-social.
Do you believe that Trump tried to overstep his authority and use "government control" to accomplish his own desires? Do you believe other Republicans do this too? What would they get out of it?
Did a narrcistic, psycbotic, mysoginist, racist bigot, repeat the same lies over and over and over as propaganda to mislead from truth and mis-informationist at every level attempt chaotic tyranny of USA people while in USA presidential office, that also and encourage uneccessary violence? YES.
Did 74 million irrational, illogical lack of common sense trumpeteers support encourage this kind of immmoral conduct and commit violence in his name Trumpet? YES they did.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed Socialist,
A self proclaimed democratic socialist. These are not the same thing. Socialism is where the means of production are owned by the state. Nothing in Sander’s platform has anything to do with that, nor anyone else subscribing to this label. And even if they did, there’s like 2 democrats in all of congress using this label. Now if we’re going with the right wing definition of socialism, which is basically any government that has social programs, then literally every developed nation on earth is a socialist country, so this talking point is meaningless.
There is nothing inherently wrong with having lots of money. Can you point to a valid ethical standard that says having money is, in and of itself, evil?
I’m not making that claim, and neither are the vast majority of people pushing for things like higher taxes on the wealthy. Attacking the system and attacking the people benefiting that system are not the same thing.
You can't complain about someone having too much money as you are constantly handing that person your money.
You miss the entire point.
The individual will always do what’s best for the individual. If the best deal I can get is on Amazon, that’s where I will shop. I’m not doing it to give Bezos my money, I’m doing it because that’s what’s best for me as an individual. That’s human nature, which is also the flaw within capitalism.
Recessions demonstrate this best. When the economy takes a downturn, the best thing is for everyone to go out and spend. So what does everyone do? Stop spending, thereby causing the economy to crash. Each individual doing what’s best for them individually results in everyone getting screwed.
The problem is the system. Especially as technology progresses and continues to interconnect us, capitalism doesn’t cultivate an environment where people are compensated for their contributions, it cultivates monopolization. Bezos didn’t invent the Internet, didn’t invent or make the products he sells, he didn’t pave the roads his products are delivered on. What he did was win the competition of delivery services, and for that he gets all the marbles. And while he takes him his prize, those who collectively contributed every bit as much as he has get scraps. That is what people like myself take issue with.
In the U.S. today, there are many of us who view recent events as a power grab by governmental authorities that will eventually lead to oppression of the people. Even if we're wrong (though it daily seems more apparent we are not), there is a historical precedent to governmental overreach that at least makes our suspicion rational.
It’s not rational because it’s a slippery slope fallacy. Broadly speaking, the right tends to make this argument while ignoring all of the context surrounding any of the “power grabs” you are talking about. We can for example disagree on whether mask mandates are beneficial, but to argue that this is just a power grab or that it will lead to oppression is absurd and it’s ignoring the entire issue at hand.
There is nothing rational about projecting nefarious motivations onto your political rivals and then using those attacks as a basis to reject their proposed solutions.
-->
@Double_R
I will respond to your other points, but I want to clarify something. You didn't answer these questions, which are important to your original point:
Do you believe that Trump tried to overstep his authority and use "government control" to accomplish his own desires? Do you believe other Republicans do this too? What would they get out of it?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you believe that Trump tried to overstep his authority and use "government control" to accomplish his own desires? Do you believe other Republicans do this too? What would they get out of it?
Please define "own desires" in this context. Do you believe any politician's "own desire" to control the spread of a deadly virus among their constituents, at any level, is akin to their "own desire" to increase their personal / family wealth by, say, bringing the entire presidential retinue exclusively to properties their family owns, repeatedly, for example? Or proposing a global leadership meeting be held at their own personal property? I just want to make sure we're talking apples to apples. I'm sure politicians of every stripe are guilty of pursuing personal agendas, even personal gain, but the everybody does it defense doesn't make whatever 'it' is the right thing to do, we can agree, right?
-->
@ludofl3x
You are correct that I meant "own desires" in the sense of personal gain. Perhaps even saying selfish personal gain would be better. And I agree with you that the "everybody does it" defense does not make something right.
My point is that too often, people see their side as those who can do no wrong, and the other side as nefarious ne'er-do-wells. Not sure why that was the first word that popped into my head for it, but it's fitting. And this applies to both sides. But if Republicans can be guilty of exercising their political power for selfish personal gain, what makes Democrats exempt from such practices?
This leads us to the main point. If politicians in general are guilty of pursuing selfish personal gains, what makes it so hard to believe that they would use the current turmoil to seize more power and control over people? Especially when governmental authorities have done such things in the past.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
How, though, do you draw the line from "wear a mask until to protect yourself and others" to some plot to oppress people at large? I believe that's the question here. How does that go from where it is today, to "wear this mask forever and now I have personally gained [exactly what?]?" / "so I can control your entire life"? I just don't get the connection, can you illustrate it in some way?
As already mentioned, you're conflating soviet style Socialism with social safety net programs, because many of the loudest voices are doing exactly that. Wanting to make sure that people have access to medical procedures regardless of income status in the wealthiest nation on earth is not going to lead to you having to hang a picture of Joe Biden in your house, like they do in North Korea, right? It's just one example, I want to make sure we're all on the same page as far as terminology goes, and then I'd just like to see how you get from A to B, because maybe I'm missing something.
-->
@ludofl3x
I think we're starting to veer off the main point. This thread is about the rationale for believing the government is trying to exert more control over our lives. The popularity of *Democratic* Socialism was an example. I was not comparing it with other forms of Socialism. I was saying that under that system, the government would have more control over our lives than it has previously had.
It was also noted in the OP that mask mandates are just one example, but the government seeking more control is the main point. Mask mandates are not the first place I would go to argue that. Vaccine passports, or a similar system, is much more relevant to the main point of this thread. There are others as well, but let's stick with that one.
We could sum it up with two questions then. Are vaccine passports being seriously considered by the U.S. government? Do vaccine passports give the government more control over the lives of individuals?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you believe that Trump tried to overstep his authority and use "government control" to accomplish his own desires? Do you believe other Republicans do this too? What would they get out of it?
Regarding Trump… absolutely. Trump did everything he could get away with to try and overturn the results of the election to keep himself in power, the only reason he didn’t do more is because the people surrounding him were smart enough to know better (unfortunately he was not).
As far as other republicans… certainly not on the same level, Trump is unusual in his disregard for all of the norms this county has been built upon. But of course, every politician will do whatever they think is in their own personal interests. That’s human nature, so you’re always going to find that in any form of government.
What they get out of it is entirely dependent on the situation. In most cases it’s about holding into their offices, in some cases it’s about enriching themselves, in others it’s about securing cushy jobs or benefits for their friends or family. Every situation is different.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Are vaccine passports being seriously considered by the U.S. government? Do vaccine passports give the government more control over the lives of individuals?
THe answer to the first one does not appear to be yes. The answer to the second one is no, because the government doesn't control what private businesses do. If I'm a bar owner and I demand proof of vaccination for you to patronize my establishment because I want it to stay open, rather than be subjected to another shutdown, how is that 'the government controlling the lives of individuals' any more than actual passports for travel? I just don't see the nefariousness than it seems some do.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do vaccine passports give the government more control over the lives of individuals?
It’s an odd question and one of the main points of this thread… what does this even mean? If the government passes a law mandating something, now its citizens have to follow that law. That’s not controlling someone’s life. Each individual can decide for themselves whether to take part in whatever is being restricted or not.
Control over someone’s life means you get to make their choices for them. Government isn’t making your choices, they’re putting in place restrictions on what people can do. Those are very different things.
And again, this question seems to ignore the entire point about why the restrictions are even being considered in the first place. Imagine randomly offering someone $1M a year to be a butcher, then accusing them of “just wanting to slaughter cows”. This is equally absurd.
-->
@ludofl3x
Seeing as how CDC Director Walensky recently said in an interview that vaccine passports may very well be the path forward, I would disagree as to whether they are being considered or not. This point is certainly debatable, but let's assume they are considering it for the sake of argument. We can discuss that more if you want, but let's just examine that example.
I'm not talking about private businesses deciding to require vaccination for patronage. I'm talking about the government forbidding citizens from participating in society, both in the public and private sphere. As in, businesses can't serve unvaccinated people even if they want to.
If the government is the one restricting the participation of individuals within society, would that be an example of the government exercising a greater level of control over the lives of individuals?
-->
@Double_R
We can agree on the fact that it is reasonable to believe that a governmental authority may abuse their power for the sake of selfish personal gain. And it seems you would agree that current politicians often do so to varying degrees. So it does not seem irrational to say that governmental authorities could be seeking more power over citizens' lives. The question then is whether or not they are doing so.
Control over someone’s life means you get to make their choices for them. Government isn’t making your choices, they’re putting in place restrictions on what people can do. Those are very different things.
What you are talking about is mind control or brain washing. This is not what most people are talking about when referring to government control. You can always choose whether or not to obey the law. But let's say the government decided to implement vaccine passports. My argument is that restricting a person from participating in society for any other reason than imprisonment for a crime is the government trying to control your life.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So it does not seem irrational to say that governmental authorities could be seeking more power over citizens' lives.
You are, once again, completely ignoring the entire context of the situation. There’s nothing rational about that.
If I have a migraine and I take medicine for it that tends to have a side effect of diarrhea, that doesn’t mean I was seeking to give myself diarrhea. Context matters. Please stop ignoring it.
And beyond that, You are also making a false equivocation between government officials abusing their power for their personal benefit, and government officials abusing their power for the purpose of “controlling you”, which does not benefit them one bit. Like I asked in the opening… what does a lawmaker get out of “telling you what to do”? Do you seriously think that is what they are seeking here? Please explain this.
My argument is that restricting a person from participating in society for any other reason than imprisonment for a crime is the government trying to control your life.
Please explain why government trying to “control your life” is more plausible of an explanation than government trying to protect society at large, especially given that this is literally the number one reason we have a government in the first place.
And BTW, what do you even think government is? If mask mandates or vaccine passports become law, why do you seem to focus on the individuals in the capital and not the millions of Americans pushing for these kinds of measures to keep us all safe? It’s as if you think government is a separate entity having nothing to do with the population it serves.
-->
@Double_R
I think you need to read this paragraph again and focus on the words "could be," which is only implying a possibility of said outcome:
We can agree on the fact that it is reasonable to believe that a governmental authority may abuse their power for the sake of selfish personal gain. And it seems you would agree that current politicians often do so to varying degrees. So it does not seem irrational to say that governmental authorities could be seeking more power over citizens' lives. The question then is whether or not they are doing so.
Would you say that the government allowing slavery was a form of controlling them? If so, did controlling the lives of black people benefit those allowing slavery?
-->
@Double_R
This is a talking point I hear constantly from the right; the idea that “the left”, or “the government” just wants to control our lives.
Some politicians do get a hard on for power just for the sake of power, but ultimately it is not a left or right thing. It is just a human thing. Repu licans
felt like they were on the outs even when Trump is in office for the past 12 years. So this is rebellion against the perceived rulers. Leftists.
When Bush was in office the left felt like the bills he passed that were aggressive on terrorism particularly when the patriot act was in full force, were about control. The same batching was taking place when they said Republicans were trying to control who people fuck by creating Sodomy laws and anti gay marriage laws.
I think there is a lot of merit to this as well. A lot of democrats were using covid as an excuse to temporarily have more power. For example they restricted business hours. This was a mere power thirst thing. Everyone knows if you limit the hours grocery stores are happening, it means everyone is shopping in the same periods of time as opposed to spreading it out, so the only viable explanation for such a measure is somebody having a hard on for power.
The same thing when conservatives were trying to outlaw porn. They were trying to control who people jersey off to. It was about control.