"What should we do about...?" is almost always a presumptuous question.

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
When asking the question, "what should we do about x?", we are presuming the affirmation of the question, "Should we do something about x?"

This presumptuous attitude almost always leads to unnecessary regulation and law and the further polarization of society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2
#2
It has become the norm to over react or ignorantly react in the name of "we're doing something."
 
#3
#3
therealUT said:
When asking the question, "what should we do about x?", we are presuming the affirmation of the question, "Should we do something about x?"

This presumptuous attitude almost always leads to unnecessary regulation and law and the further polarization of society.
Click to expand...

I tend to think when someone asks "what should we do about X" they, in reality, mean "we should do something about X!" but generally have no clue what they want other than "something."

And more times than not will accept whatever "something" someone else brings up even if it's a horrible idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
Grand Vol said:
I tend to think when someone asks "what should we do about X" they, in reality, mean "we should do something about X!" but generally have no clue what they want other than "something."

And more times than not will accept whatever "something" someone else brings up even if it's a horrible idea.
Click to expand...

In most instances, person X already has a preconceived idea about what they really want X to be but, need acceptance from the tribe to justify their idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6
#6
therealUT said:
When asking the question, "what should we do about x?", we are presuming the affirmation of the question, "Should we do something about x?"

This presumptuous attitude almost always leads to unnecessary regulation and law and the further polarization of society.
Click to expand...

It depends on how many times x occurs over interval y.

Luther can explain it better than I can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It is, unless you’re a collectivist...
Click to expand...

Negative, it is unless you are an anarchist. I'm not a collectivist, yet, I recognize a vital need for a certain function that must be carried out by the government. This is the function of mediating between disputants. This, to me, is the essence of government and the reason why government is essential. Further, this function alone and its necessity entails that the government must also have a few more powers and roles (e.g., the power to protect and defend the presence and sanctity of that function).
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
When asking the question, "what should we do about x?", we are presuming the affirmation of the question, "Should we do something about x?"

This presumptuous attitude almost always leads to unnecessary regulation and law and the further polarization of society.
Click to expand...

"Hard cases make bad law" is an adage that's been around for a long time and for good reason.
 
#14
#14
therealUT said:
Negative, it is unless you are an anarchist. I'm not a collectivist, yet, I recognize a vital need for a certain function that must be carried out by the government. This is the function of mediating between disputants. This, to me, is the essence of government and the reason why government is essential. Further, this function alone and its necessity entails that the government must also have a few more powers and roles (e.g., the power to protect and defend the presence and sanctity of that function).
Click to expand...

Me being an anarchist, I’ll respectfully disagree.
 
#17
#17
therealUT said:
Negative, it is unless you are an anarchist. I'm not a collectivist, yet, I recognize a vital need for a certain function that must be carried out by the government. This is the function of mediating between disputants. This, to me, is the essence of government and the reason why government is essential. Further, this function alone and its necessity entails that the government must also have a few more powers and roles (e.g., the power to protect and defend the presence and sanctity of that function).
Click to expand...

That version of a government is almost as utopian as a version of an ungoverned society where people resolve disputes reasonably on their own. There isn't such a thing as a government that limits its own scope and power to mediating civil disputes and protecting said process of mediation.
 
#19
#19
SLICKYINC said:
In most instances, person X already has a preconceived idea about what they really want X to be but, need acceptance from the tribe to justify their idea.
Click to expand...

Partiality agree. I think people believe "something" should be done and will get behind whatever is proposed even if they don't know what they are getting into.

The Patriot Act is a prime example of this.
 
#21
#21
So, should we allow one interest to subdue another?

Martian supremacy over humans?
Predatory Capitalists over Capitalists over Democratic Socialists over Social Democrats?
Should we have that @$%&% tax!
Can group x decide choice n for group y?
That defines politics.
Hmmmm..What to do? What to do?

Please elaborate on why you made the statement as declamatory and how should relate to the general "us" as you see it.
 
#22
#22
midnight orange said:
I think arbitration does a lot of this. Courts are slow and inefficient and I'm not sure they are all that impartial either.
Click to expand...

Courts are slow and inefficient, but this is because we have radically expanded the state and the court now deals heavily in issues in which there are not actually two disputants.

I'm a champion of minarchy, but anarchy, preserved, leads to vendettas, vengeance, and regression.
 
#23
#23
Orangedogsrule said:
So, should we allow one interest to subdue another?

Martian supremacy over humans?
Predatory Capitalists over Capitalists over Democratic Socialists over Social Democrats?
Should we have that @$%&% tax!
Can group x decide choice n for group y?
That defines politics.
Hmmmm..What to do? What to do?

Please elaborate on why you made the statement as declamatory and how should relate to the general "us" as you see it.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking to?
 
#24
#24
therealUT said:
Who are you talking to?
Click to expand...


Well you...
Admittedly, no one had yet replied when I began .... and was interrupted before I posted. I see you did somewhat expand.But please, why did you post your original statement and expand your own thoughts some more.
 
#25
#25
therealUT said:
Courts are slow and inefficient, but this is because we have radically expanded the state and the court now deals heavily in issues in which there are not actually two disputants.

I'm a champion of minarchy, but anarchy, preserved, leads to vendettas, vengeance, and regression.
Click to expand...

Anarchy could absolutely lead to those you mentioned, depending on the morality of the people involved. But the other side is that people end up forming associations and live peaceful and prosperous lives such as the unwild west and colonial America (except Georgia), especially Quaker Pennsylvania.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top