Dichotomy
 

It seems to me that the people who cry out the most to keep government from intruding in our lives are often the same people who want to turn over large portions of their self reliance to government by wanting the government to be more and more responsible for their well being.

On the flip side it seems to me that those who are most likely to rail out against the government getting involved in providing supportive services to individuals also tend to be the ones most in favor of the use of police power to inforce their ideas of morality.

People who favor the death penalty frequently are the same ones who hate abortions because of the sanctity of human life.

What is it in the human condition that leads to these apparent dichotomies? Or am I missing something which makes them part of the same philosophy?

Re: Dichotomy
 

I would suggest it's an American thing. Random attribution of 'stances' by the two main parties over there results in these dichotomies.

Re: Dichotomy
 

Jesus.

Re: Dichotomy
 

I think it's an inherent part of the human condition (at least at the moment). The rationalisation of our beliefs regardless of the contradictory nature of them all.

Re: Dichotomy
 

Well, you could see that the people who want "government to be more and more responsible for their well being" actually want society to do that, and see government as the distributor of society's wealth.

I find it a little vexing to assume that to look after someone's well-being you must invade their privacy. Of course, if a society decides to provide fiscal transfers after childbirth, for example, whoever organises that society must know details of births. But, for instance, why should a government keep and transfer an individual's travel details for social security?

You could make the argument that to better catch benefit cheats, their travel details will help, but that link is somewhat tenuous, and that information is far more useful in other areas quite separate from social welfare monitoring.

Re: Dichotomy
 

The government should pay all our bills, provide food, spending money, and entertainment. In return we should do nothing and the goverment should stay out of our business.

In reality the governement has made it a demeaning experience to get any kind of benfit. I have been trying for 2 weeks to get health coverage for the kids and one of the requirements is prove their indentity using a drivers license or a passport. They are too young to get a drivers license and we have never had a need for a passport plus it's not cheap to get a passport.

Re: Dichotomy
 

Birth certificates not sufficient??


Perhaps this is a moral question; assuming that more religious types are more likely to be against abortion, which they see to be the killing of an innocent child, they have problems with that. However, a criminal (who, given the penalty of death who probably committed a serious crime such as multiple murders [of presumed innocents]), the death penalty for this affront to the killing of innocents is justifyable not only as punishment (and let St Peter sort them out), but also as deterrance for would-be criminals and thus minimise the damage done to other innocents.

I think it can make some degree of sense. I dont agree with it at all (i find myself generally in favour of abortion and against the death penalty), but that doesnt mean that there is some logic behind it.

Then again, why does it have to be logical? We're talking about humans here, with bounded rationality being the norm at best.

Re: Dichotomy
 

What about Original Sin which taints us all!

Re: Dichotomy
 

Actually i believe that studies show that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrance.

Re: Dichotomy
 

If you've been baptised then Original Sin doesn't taint you.

Re: Dichotomy
 

Someone spilt boiling tea on me once.

Does that count?

Re: Dichotomy
 

Studies have yet to show the existance of God too, yet people still believe in him/it. In "reality" (such as it is), such issues are articles of faith. People believe that much harsher sentences (including the Ultimate sentence) will result in lower instances of that crime, thus its true whether its actually supported by the 'facts' or not.

Only if the Klutz was a priest whilst speaking in latin.
So, maybe. ;)

Re: Dichotomy
 

Yeah, this. In a media-driven soundbite culture, most complicated positions are liked to get distilled down into two extremes, and since you have 2 parties its likely that one party will take up each side. Although theres no obvious reason why someone who supports free-markets would also oppose abortion and favour drug legalisation, over time these things become linked because they all get condensed into some generic 'conservative' position which fights against the other team.

You can see this thing happening on issues like gun control where originally the anti-gun movement was started by the 'right' and opposed by the 'left' since they believed it was intended to reduce the danger of militant trade unions. Fast-forward a few decades and now self-professed liberals will oppose the use of weapons for self-defence, while the 'right' are viewed as loonies for using the same "guns are a protection against government force" that the 'left' used previously.

The only place youre likely to find ideological consistency is on the fringes, where being elected isnt a realistic priority/possibility.

Re: Dichotomy
 

Unfortunately the birth certificates only prove citizenship.

Re: Dichotomy
 

It seems to make more sense for someone to be either for both abortions and the death sentence or to be against both abortions and the death sentence.

I'm not particularly fond of abortions or the death sentence, but since neither issue is of great importance to me, they do not affect how I vote.

Re: Dichotomy
 

What?

Edit:
Wait, what?

Re: Dichotomy
 

Either life is sacred, or it is not. Kill babies and criminals, or don't kill babies and criminals.

On the other hand, you can look at it as a liberty issue... Women have the right to abort unborn children, and people who have had their loved one's slain by a criminal have the right to impose an execution on the killer through the government.

You could also say that babies have the right to not be aborted, and criminals have the right to not be executed by the government.

Or you could switch those around into the obvious dichotomies DDA mentioned above.

Is that clear?

Re: Dichotomy
 

heh

you're funny

Re: Dichotomy
 

Actually, that does make alot more sense because its either a "killing is OK" stance or not.

I justify it by saying that the decision to abort an unborn child is never* taken lightly and thus having legalised abortion means that only children who would unduley suffer or otherwise enounter problems (whether psychological, economic or social etc) wouldnt end up being born. Further, a massive fall crime statistics from New York strongly correlate to the Roe v Wade decision being implemented**, so there is a gain there too. The only real case i have against abortion is some sort of "I dont want to be pregnant over summer because then I wont fit into my bikini on the beach" type of mentality. But other than that, it should be fine (though best to be guided, ofc).

However, with respect to criminal justice, generally most crimes that people commit dont warrant their execution (such as traffic offences or 'white collar crime'). However, those that do commit large mass murders and so on who would be most eligible for such a penalty are often psychologically damaged, and due to this illness they shouldnt be shot - they should be incarcerated for our (and their) protection so untill their health improves when then they can face their proper jail time etc. And those who arent in either category; then the denial of freedom and long-term imprisonment means that they have to suffer the consequences for an extended period of time. Ultimately, with the death sentence, any failure or miscarriage of justice that occurs systematically will lead to an irrocovable position whereby the person is no longer in a position to be compensated financiall for their wrongful conviction - which is the case if a person is jailed for a time.




*Unless she is a complete moron, by which her not reproducing as much is probably a good thing.
**Data/arguments reproduced in Freakonomics iirc.

Re: Dichotomy
 

I was quite interested in this bit. These people are mentally ill and we should imprison them until they are better and then punish them?

Are you saying that when these peple are completely better we should punish them, or only when they're a little bit better?

What reason does the punishment serve? If they are completely better then wouldn't it be better for everybody for them to be relased to rebuild their lives? If they are not completely better, wouldn't they be better off being trated, rather than being punished for still being ill?

Re: Dichotomy
 

The simple answer to this is; It depends.
There are so many variables that its hard to say. The most probable outcome is that they are unlikely to make any sort of recovery and thus need to remain zonked out on drugs for essentially the rest of their natural lives (remember Haywire from prison break??).

However, i'm not sure that the opposite case; where someone is clearly insane and kills 15 or whatever people in really creative ways, then spends a year in prison and suddenly gets 'better' and is then released due to their unusual 'recovery' back into society. I'm not sure that's fair either, and my comment was more directed towards those with temporary insanity or quick-recovery type patients who may still have to serve time incarcerated even though they have recovered.

Having said all that, i know next to stuff all about the justice system or imprisonment in general. dda and/or yahwe or other lawyers might have more input (on second thought, sratch yahwe :( ) on the issue, but that's essentially my line of thinking.

Though i'm sure that what I said could lead to a revolution in imprisonment comedy if no-one has tried it before.