What would you give up? by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

What would you give up?

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Thursday, November 23, 2006 18:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 620
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, November 19, 2006 5:48 PM

Every once in a while the divide gets too big for me, and I try to get people to reach across the aisle a little bit, without a weapon in hand.

Consider this common real world political scenario:
An issue has come up you can very deeply about, and in order to get support, you will have to compromise on one of the positions you generally vote for.

I'll start. Under certain circumstances, I might support a public works project. I'm really against the idea, I think it leads to pork, corruption, overspending, and incompetent govt. interference, but if the issue were important enough, I could back off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 6:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

This requires some thought.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I think that as a whole that would depend on the value (to me) of what I am getting, to what I am giving.

Case in point: Conyers.

Now, being an anarchist and believing wholeheartedly that information and art (with the exception of performance art, delivered by the artist personally, such as a concert) should be free, and freely exchanged without condition, one can prettymuch assume how I feel about copyright nazis who wanna make it a damned crime to even install software to other than the default directory, much less modify or copy something like a CD you have physical ownership of.

Conyers takes money via his campaign from these lowlife sleaze, and make no mistake about it, he enforces their will when such legislation as they have interest in is voted on - this is an awful sore point with me, and he damned well knows it.

And yet I support the bastard anyway, and why ?

For the sole and simple reason that he is working to roadblock what I see as an almost inevitable dictatorship forming at the core of our so-called government, something much more dangerous than a corporation wishing to legislate how I can use a product after I've purchased it.

So in essence I am more or less trading off pushing fair use, in exchange for not having a dictatorship.

Seems a fair trade to me.

So it's all in what you GET, for what you give.
My be-all,end-all sticking point... well, that I will not share.

-Frem

(PS. I expect said dictatorship to come to fruition regardless, but am hoping that with enough stumbling blocks it'll collapse before it has the chance to utterly destroy us.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 4:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Like Frem feel like I've ALREADY given up a lot. I have some items on my agenda that I would NEVER trade. Unfortunately, these items are not even under consideration so it's unlikely I would ever have the opportunity to stick to them:

Eliminate corporate "personhood" and all of the laws that make corporations "super people", with all of the benefits ("free speech") and laws twisted their way, and none of the liabilities.

Make the "public airwaves" truly public, and keep the net neutral. (Oh, and repeal the DMCA and get rid of copyright madness. IDEAS should be free.)

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 7:32 AM

ANTIMASON

both parties are stealing my liberties away.. who am i supposed to confront to negotiate them back? who do i take that up with.. since homeland security now subcategorizes people like me as domestic terrorists? as a matter of fact.. according to the patrioc act constant references to the constitution is now considered suspicious activity. i refuse to compromise anything with either of these criminal enterprises... these parties are obligated to negotiate for the AMerican people, not with eachother on behalf of their corporate interests. its obvious to me that short of abolishing several AMerican institutions..we'll need new representation to save us from our own self-destruction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 20, 2006 5:45 PM

DREAMTROVE

Frem,

good stuff, and yes, i meant personal. If it were partisan, then the first part would be easy, I would give up the stuff I disagree with like death penalty.

Sig,

The anti-14th amendment argument, which is basically what you're saying, flows on both side, usually out towards the fringe. It's one of the points from the ross perot crowd, one of the few I bicker with them on.

My counterpoint would be this:

It seems like the argument is saying "it all went wrong with the 14th amendment case (this was a case based on the 14th amendment, not the amendment itself) and we should just undo it and everything would be fine."

Which has some real serious problems as an argument, not the least of which was that everything was not 'fine' before the 14c. I think things got a lot better afterwards and largely because of the 14c. Protection for corporations from govt. interference is what truly fueled the growth of a truly private sector imho. When you go into the corporate offices in an american company, everything that goes on is what those guys say it is, and no other force is operating, they basically *are* the law, and that was pretty rare in the western world outside of govt. and the church prior to 1866. The pre-14th amendment mentality is not one I'm anxious to get back to. I'm pro-14, and it's not a position I will trade away.

Maybe we should enumerate the divisive issues that separate us. might make matters easier.

I might trade away my anti-gay marriage stance. I wouldn't give it away for free, because I'm not in favor, I think basically it's a stepping stone to gay adoption, which I don't think is fair to kids. But if the cards on the table were better, I might trade.

Issues:

Abortion
2nd amendment
privatization
healthcare
education
military
taxation
I'm sure people can think of some better examples, but those are some subjects to gnaw on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:23 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Interesting question. For me, there's oodles I would trade. I'm already doing without what I want for the most part, so what am I losing if I stop voting no? Or do you mean what would I give up that I already have?

The more interesting question is what issue would motivate you to compromise?

Issues big on my list:

1. No more income tax
2. Free up the market on all health care
3. End foreign aid, esp to Israel
4. Bring our troops home, use them for only self-defense on our soil, and take GOOD care of our veterans.

I'd give my eye teeth or any other other issue to achieve any of these. However, I suspect my eye teeth are pretty safe as none of these things will ever happen.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.
--William H. Borah

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE