I have no problem with polygamy, however our complex society of laws might. I'm standing by as the legal chaos of gay 'marriage' begins its ascent. This is mob rule by a mob smaller than the majority.

The real danger is what these morally-questionable decisions mean in the long run. Today the defenders of gay marriage scoff at polygamy ever becoming legal when they have no moral grounds to deny polygamists anything. Beyond both of those endeavors the moral relativists will attempt to dismantle laws protecting children (put another way, they have no moral basis for opposing the decay of such laws).

Today the liberal shakes his head and laughs at such possibilities, because presently children are legally incapable of consenting to sexual relationships or marriage. But what are laws to judicial activists who circumvent them? Just 50 years ago homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder; now it's celebrated.

You'd think prostitution would be legal before gay 'marriage'. What a shortage of proper values!



>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^quantumushroom:
When will the next Grisanti come along who 'sees nothing wrong' with polygamy? Soon.
What do you see as morally wrong or problematic with polygamy?

I can't usually watch Pat because he likes to use the same tactics as Bill O'Reilly, where smugness is used like air freshener, and making people feel inferior is more the goal than the betterment of mankind. Many sift talks end up going in this sudo-intellectual, elitist route. Many have been consumed by its trollness, myself included. So before I get into what I want to say, I just want to say every conversation than ends up in draconian foot pounding here on the sift, even more so when I am the perpetrator, causes me weeks of anguish and usually sends me away for a week in trembling anguish for the loss of an opportunity to have real, meaningful conversation.

I like Pat's point, though, I think he muddles it a little; in the first half, he seems to rail against the notion that representative democracy works well, and in the second a rant about unelected representatives are destroying Ireland. Even so, I think the point of layers of democracy via representation seems to eliminate your representation through dilution. When you have a state, federal, continental, and world representative, it is hardly possible for your view of the world to be completely represented, or every fractionally. The policy of direct diplomacy had its failing, which was mob rule. I think an interesting problem that Pat is pointing out about representative democracy is very real...that you end up not having any representation because of the conflict between all the different levels. So while you got a vote a person into office, he wasn't the right person in the right office to affect the things that you wanted him to affect. A complicated maze where any change you want is impossible to get via a vote for your representative.

So for pure democracy, you get a direct voice that can get overruled by many shouting over your own. In representative, that same muddling happens when more and more systems of democracy are layered in. I would be interested to hear your opinion on this @dystopianfuturetoday. I think last time I dabbled in these waters I was called a fascist, trying to avoid a similar occurrence

I am not saying that representative democracy is systemically flawed absolutely, but has an undesirable entropy. I like trying to brain up better systems, it is how my brain works. Rep Dem has many benefits, though, some of the largest in the history of man...so trying to capture those same successes would be hard, but perhaps possible. Is there something better than Rep Dem...I surely hope so...lets vote on it!

QM,
To answer a few points of yours.

Here's the difference between you and I. I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I do not judge an idea's worth by its age. I determine its worth by rational thought. If you want to just be opposed to every new idea just because its new, and freeze your brain in the now, go ahead, but it's rationally absurd. The founding fathers you worship were considered RADICALS in their day by conventional thought. Some new ideas are good ideas. It makes no sense to say one idea is better because it's been around longer. If that were true, the world is flat instead of round.

I'm tired of conservatives acting as if the "will of the people" solely determines what is right and wrong, what should be legal and what shouldn't be. The founding fathers themselves did not believe in mob rule, never did. Legal implications of court decisions don't mean "legislating from the bench" automatically every time. Constitutional review was established for a reason. What do you want - courts to be completely neutered?!

The entire idea of inalienable rights implies that we, as a society, do NOT try to impose a unified moral code on everyone forcibly by law. We forcibly impose everyone to respect the rights of others. That's the entire point of a right. The US has never, EVER, had a unifying moral code. Most of us do share some of the same values, but those are generally vague, and when they conflict, people generally disagree about they believe is right or wrong. The point is the gov'ts job is not to impose the specific answers. Our gov't exists to solely protect rights, and to preserve a healthy society for everyone. That would include things like "you can't dump toxic sludge into land that you even own" kinds of questions.

To say that gay people cause more health problems is preposterous. So now we're gonna legislate that people can't have sex before marriage, or have unprotected sex?! It's ridiculous. You know what the unforeseen consequence is of gays being allowed to marry? More people who are gay will be honest about it, and have a chance at a happy existence instead of living a repressed miserable life. For states that allow gay marriage now, I haven't seen any significant unforeseen issue that has arisen they have to deal with. To suggest that infant mortality will rise, or suicide rates will mysteriously surge because gay marriage is now legal is absolutely preposterous.

Most families are composed of one main racial color. Does that mean interracial marriages are immoral? Most families believe in some religion. Does that make atheism immoral? Does that make the world's most predominant religion the only true one? Of course not.

And one last point - the 3% of the population is not telling the other 97% how they must define marriage. A bigoted portion of the 97% is imposing their definition of marriage on the 3% for no reason other than "we don't like your definition - we don't have a single rational reason that doesn't involve religion, which can't be used as a reason because of the 1st Amendment". If you think marrying someone from the same sex is wrong, then don't marry someone of the same sex.

I think Satanism is wrong, but I'm not out there trying to stop Satanists from worshiping. It's ridiculous!

@dystopianfuturetoday

From Wikipedia: Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual". Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so independence and self-reliance while opposing most external interference upon one's own interests, whether by society, family or any other group or institution.

This is not the philosophy of Hitler, Stalin, or Manson. They were people who wanted control over others, while Individualists believe that everyone should have control over themselves. They are polar opposites, in terms of philosophy. And while it might make for a good joke ("Individualists unite!") there is nothing ironic about people sharing a philosophy of self-reliance.

In terms of selfishness, I believe you are misinterpreting her message. Though I may be wrong, I interpret it to mean "Take care of yourself first, then take care of your loved ones, then help your community if you have the means." Like they say in pre-flight safety instructions, put on your own oxygen mask first, then help others to put on theirs. You aren't doing anyone any good if you give everything you have to others (money, energy, or time). You will just find yourself wiped out and then depending on others to give to you. But if you fulfill your own needs and find you have resources to spare, then you can assist others in finding their own self-sufficiency. Indeed, if you value your family and community, helping them to be prosperous is by definition serving your own self-interests.

Again, I may be projecting some of my own morality onto Rand, because I have never seen her articulate this point clearly. But that is what I would argue on the topic of selfishness.

Personally, I am not a Rand devotee. I think anyone trying to implement her ideas literally would cause chaos and mob-rule. But she made some interesting points, and though her utopia may not be possible, there are valuable lessons to be learned in her books if you look for them.

>> ^ryanbennitt:

This is what happens when church and state hold hands: minorities get persecuted. He even uses democracy as one of the arguments to persecute a minority. Surely part of the duty of a free democracy is to protect its minorities.


Democracy is really, really bad at protecting minorities; it's why the US has a bill of rights. Without it, Democracy is just mob-rule except the mob doesn't have to get their hands dirty, they can just vote for people to do it for them.

Shame on me? Excuse me?

Have you ever been beaten to within an inch of your life while people stood around and watched, waiting all civilized-like for 'someone else' to help you?

I sure hope not, because it isn't civilized at all...and that's what happens in a majority of cases. In my case, the police found him, jailed him, let him out a couple of days later and he was even MORE pissed at me and violent. A restraining order is nice and civilized, too...but it's just a piece of paper that will never stop a determined angry fist or trigger finger.

When you figure out and implement a perfect solution to domestic violence that actually works, I'll be the first to pat you on the back. In the mean-time, STFU. Please. (See, I'm civilized too.)

>> ^robbersdog49: This sentiment is so misguided. Violence is a terrible thing, but to say that the response should be more violence, by a mob no less, is even worse. We don't live by mob rule, we live in a civilised society. Men are no more able to defend themselves than women. Every fight has a winner and a loser (I use the term winner loosely as I really think there are only two losers) be it between a woman and a man or between a man and a man. And what happens if the man doing the beating is the biggest guy around? What happens if he has friends who think the same as him? Is it OK then?
Mob rule is best left to the animals, we're better than that. You can't fight violence with violence. Shame on you.

>> ^laura:

I liked this video, but have to disagree with him on one thing.
I don't want to see my government be more responsible for helping to stop domestic violence.
I don't think that's government's place.
I want to see more of the decent men in this world (which I have in recent years learned that there are more of than there are shit-heads) step up together as they find themselves neighbors or friends of men who beat their wives.
I would have loved to see the men peeking from the windows of their cars or houses, the men standing across the street when I was being abused...step up and beat the living daylights out of my ex. It's something men need to do for other men, I say.
Women can't defend themselves the same way men can (basic physiological differences unless of course the woman has a black belt...) and I like the idea of decent men putting indecent men in their place/teaching them some manners.
But that's just me.


This sentiment is so misguided. Violence is a terrible thing, but to say that the response should be more violence, by a mob no less, is even worse. We don't live by mob rule, we live in a civilised society. Men are no more able to defend themselves than women. Every fight has a winner and a loser (I use the term winner loosely as I really think there are only two losers) be it between a woman and a man or between a man and a man. And what happens if the man doing the beating is the biggest guy around? What happens if he has friends who think the same as him? Is it OK then?

Mob rule is best left to the animals, we're better than that. You can't fight violence with violence. Shame on you.

This video highlights something that I have been afraid of for some time now, and idea that is finally finding flesh in my mind. The problem with representative government is that it effectively passes the buck to someone else, making you relatively disinterested in the goings on of governance. Akin to hiring a cab driver and not paying attention to which direction he goes; some might, most won't. So instead of the problem of Athens and mob rule, you get a disinterested populous in the realm of rule. If you aren't considering governance, you also are probing different questions on the philosophical nature of the roles of government or rights, that is someone else's job.

I think I have always had that notion rolling around in my head, but this video has formalized a large objection I have to the way Representative government has played out. Do I have a better solution, not yet. Is this possibly the best we can have, perhaps.

>> ^CreamKreatorAlong with handicapped, mentally ill, anybody really who can't be a good capitalist and take care of them selves without any help from anybody.

First of all, it is the noobiest of noob mistakes to say that capitalists can't be charitable. Charity can ONLY occur from capitalist money because it is a voluntary relinquishment by definition. Second, the only systems in which people become that destitute on average are socialist systems where production is punished and idleness is rewarded until there is very little productivity to actually be divided. Even I might feign illness and take from the pot you're so eager to fill for me. What are you going to do to stop people from doing that? Who is this grand assessor of value of which you speak?

I know, let's copy Finland, people who live much more modestly, spend 1% what we do on national defense, and don't have reserve currency priveleges, a truly insane example of socialism that could "work for us".

Where does that lead us? Education is the next victim. No more decent public schools, everything is privatized, that's capitalism!

Good, the whole problem with public schools is that it is a complex service financed on forcible appropriations. Normal businesses fear losing customers. These people don't. I've read articles of California superintendents embezzling thousands and then keep their pensions when they get out of prison. That's just the worst of the worst. The union collusion and retained voting rights has made it almost impossible to get teachers to eliminate themselves or take pay cuts. People are forced to pay their salaries and moving away from a good job is an uncertain substitute for true choice. Vouchers would be a huge step forward because it puts the spending power with the consumer instead of the provider. Teachers and those who hire them would suddenly fear losing business to other schools and would no longer be able to suck with impunity.

Capitalism doesn't work. Communism didn't work. Even pure socialism won't work. Any political ideology won't work by itself. They need to be mixed up, democratic capitalist socialism would be somewhere closer to perfect society.


Capitalism isn't a system of government, it's simply a term referring to the percentage of earnings controlled by earners. Socialism is the percentage of earnings controlled by non-earners. Nobody who advocates capitalism truly believes in taxless anarchy without courts or national defense. What we don't want is the government being used as a conduit to incentivize one legal behavior over another or benefit one business at the expense of another. You and everyone on this forum continue to vote for obvious corporatists, not me.

Then you throw around the term "democracy," big red flag for anyone who truly understands government. Democracy is mob rule. Clearly, some things should not be decided on a majority vote. That's why we are a REPUBLIC with a paper dictator called a constitution. The more we keep disobeying it, the more miserable we're going to become.

Or you can take the one thing out of that equation that causes pain and suffering more than any idea in the history of man: Money.



That's nonsense. Money is a commonly accepted medium of exchange to defeat the inefficiency of barter. It is, in essence, a product that is a placeholder for other products. That was truer when we were on gold than now, but still... Are you saying you don't want people to make stuff and trade with each other? Stop watching TV and read "Economics in One Lesson." It's only $10 on amazon.

All you people do is post videos of pissed off protesters who take positions without understanding them. Weaksauce.

This is utter nonsense. Democracy is not the simple will of the majority. Mob rule by consensus is not a form of organized government. Not even the Greeks defined democracy this way. Ugh. There is more to philosophy than the american experience.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's like raaaiiin on your wedding.>> ^kymbos:
I think it's time we introduced quoting ettiquette. One should only quote one layer of comment. Quoting more is just annoying and unnecessary.
>> ^dag:
First off, I wish everyone would stop calling it "mob rule" it's hardly that- if we admins are the ones who carry out justice.
Secondly, I take your point that I am more invested and incentivized to do what's good for the Sift. I want Siftquistions to come back because I think they are good for the Sift - you can see where the logic leads you.
I refuse to let mob rule prevent mob rule from ruling.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dag:
Why would you of all people- want to concentrate power in my hands? Do you think I'm immune to sycophants and favoritism?


At the moment, I prefer your even head over the lust of mob rule. It's not that you're incorruptible, it's that you're incentivized more so than the average member to see the site run smoothly and fairly, and by doing so the site becomes successful (doing well by doing good), whether that means financially or otherwise. The point is, you have an incentive the mob will never have.
It's important to maintain perspective. This is an online video aggregation community and there are no real threats. We don't have to lock our internet doors at night, so I don't see much use in the community playing virtual judge, jury and executioner when the whole purpose of the site is to watch videos and engage in the occasional discussion. It's just overkill. You're not Siftler in a dictatorship. You're a site admin and online entrepreneur.

I think it's time we introduced quoting ettiquette. One should only quote one layer of comment. Quoting more is just annoying and unnecessary.

>> ^dag:
First off, I wish everyone would stop calling it "mob rule" it's hardly that- if we admins are the ones who carry out justice.
Secondly, I take your point that I am more invested and incentivized to do what's good for the Sift. I want Siftquistions to come back because I think they are good for the Sift - you can see where the logic leads you.
I refuse to let mob rule prevent mob rule from ruling.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dag:
Why would you of all people- want to concentrate power in my hands? Do you think I'm immune to sycophants and favoritism?


At the moment, I prefer your even head over the lust of mob rule. It's not that you're incorruptible, it's that you're incentivized more so than the average member to see the site run smoothly and fairly, and by doing so the site becomes successful (doing well by doing good), whether that means financially or otherwise. The point is, you have an incentive the mob will never have.
It's important to maintain perspective. This is an online video aggregation community and there are no real threats. We don't have to lock our internet doors at night, so I don't see much use in the community playing virtual judge, jury and executioner when the whole purpose of the site is to watch videos and engage in the occasional discussion. It's just overkill. You're not Siftler in a dictatorship. You're a site admin and online entrepreneur.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

First off, I wish everyone would stop calling it "mob rule" it's hardly that- if we admins are the ones who carry out justice.

Secondly, I take your point that I am more invested and incentivized to do what's good for the Sift. I want Siftquistions to come back because I think they are good for the Sift - you can see where the logic leads you.

I refuse to let mob rule prevent mob rule from ruling.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dag:
Why would you of all people- want to concentrate power in my hands? Do you think I'm immune to sycophants and favoritism?


At the moment, I prefer your even head over the lust of mob rule. It's not that you're incorruptible, it's that you're incentivized more so than the average member to see the site run smoothly and fairly, and by doing so the site becomes successful (doing well by doing good), whether that means financially or otherwise. The point is, you have an incentive the mob will never have.
It's important to maintain perspective. This is an online video aggregation community and there are no real threats. We don't have to lock our internet doors at night, so I don't see much use in the community playing virtual judge, jury and executioner when the whole purpose of the site is to watch videos and engage in the occasional discussion. It's just overkill. You're not Siftler in a dictatorship. You're a site admin and online entrepreneur.

>> ^dag:
Why would you of all people- want to concentrate power in my hands? Do you think I'm immune to sycophants and favoritism?



At the moment, I prefer your even head over the lust of mob rule. It's not that you're incorruptible, it's that you're incentivized more so than the average member to see the site run smoothly and fairly, and by doing so the site becomes successful (doing well by doing good), whether that means financially or otherwise. The point is, you have an incentive the mob will never have.

It's important to maintain perspective. This is an online video aggregation community and there are no real threats. We don't have to lock our internet doors at night, so I don't see much use in the community playing virtual judge, jury and executioner when the whole purpose of the site is to watch videos and engage in the occasional discussion. It's just overkill. You're not Siftler in a dictatorship. You're a site admin and online entrepreneur.

@blankfist, you got a rare comment upvote from me. I think in this case you're actually invoking "mob rule" correctly.

California's real issue is that they allowed their state constitution to be amended by referendum, which seems utterly moronic to me.

As for dag's supposed God complex, I'd hardly say that trying to abdicate some power and turn it over to the people is a particularly maniacal thing to do.

I'm leaning no on this one myself. I think, @dag, if you want to delegate some power for the purpose of enforcing community rules and resolving disputes, you'd be better off coming up with some sort of community moderator role, and ask some people from the community to serve in that sort of role.

Putting stuff like this to a vote is a bit too much like Survivor, makes for some cheap, mindless entertainment, but it's not much of a method for finding justice.