5 ms·

Lot of black and white, 1+1=2 type statements here. Politics is about dealing with uncertainity and ambiguity. The real world is full of it. If your parents can

by hux_ 9y ago

Lot of black and white, 1+1=2 type statements here. Politics is about dealing with uncertainity and ambiguity. The real world is full of it. If your parents can't stand each other but tomorrow you get cancer and this dsyfunctional unit has to deal politics applies. Good politics makes things better. Writing down on a piece of paper - these truths are self evident that all men are created equal does not make it so in the real world. That's an example of ambiguity. There is no question of smashing things up and hitting a reset button when dealing with ambiguity. Here too good politics applies cause everyone in the room knows the statement is false but good politics can bring everyone into the room and keep them there and make them decide they are going to change the "truth". Young people like you, aren't exposed to ambiguity or expected to solve ambiguities, cause you have enough on your plate accumulating knowledge about all the unambiguous stuff. It is easy for a young person to get it into his head, that all problems are pointless to work on if the text book is only filled with ambiguous problems. Which is why students textbooks aren't filled with them. The flip side is some students get it into their heads that all problems are unambiguous. They are the ones that misunderstand politics. Leave alone what good politics can do.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
This isn't about the ambiguity. That's something else. This is about, for example, ethanol subsidies. Basically everyone who doesn't receive them thinks they're dumb. It takes more than a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol, it diverts productive farmland from food which makes food cost more for the poor (and everyone), it's an inefficient use of tax dollars, etc. Yet we continue to have ethanol subsidies, because it gets politicians from districts full of corn farmers to vote for the bill even when the bill contains a bunch of differently-toxic nonsense for other interests in different districts. And you don't need 100% of the votes to pass, you only need 51%. So all you have to do is construct a bill that allows 51% of the districts to steal resources from the other 49% in various ways like that, and it passes. Which is why everyone hates politics. But those bills are precarious, because it doesn't pay to have 75% of the vote. An excess 25% would require you to give things to people using resources you could have kept for your existing coalition. Only that means you can't afford to lose too many of your votes when someone starts to make a stink about a specific inefficient program that was shoring those votes up. If the ethanol subsidies were removed from the bill, you would be short on votes. Which turns honest outsiders just trying to make a positive impact into political enemies, because they're threatening to dismantle your majority coalition. And the same dynamic plays out in any system based on majority voting.
- hux_ 9y ago
  Of course it is ambiguous. You and the corn farmers both can make a case. I wasn't making a point about how lovable politics is, but why it's needed to the misguided character above who has reached a conclusion that "smashing" the system helps. The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    That's not what ambiguity means. Ambiguity is, for example, the CFAA. Nobody really knows what "unauthorized access" means, it's ambiguous. Ethanol subsidies aren't ambiguous. Nobody seriously disagrees on what they are. People disagree on whether we should have them. And there are issues where that kind of disagreement is purely subjective, like abortion. Purely a disagreement about principles rather than facts. But there are also your Bridge to Nowhere type deals, like ethanol subsidies, that are contrary to objective fact. The bill is sold under a particular justification (e.g. reduce dependence on petroleum) and it factually does not do that. There is no principle to disagree about, it's objectively just pork, and the "facts" used by the proponents are lies. The thing where lobbyists pretend there are zero objective things just because there are non-zero non-objective things is merely a dishonest tactic they use to paper over the unjustifiability of their preferred pork. > The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity. There is a difference between specific rules and the concept of having rules. Basically nobody is in favor of total anarchy or removing foundational rules like the illegality of murder. But when your tax code is more than a thousand pages, it's past time to throw it out and start over.

by hux_ 9y ago

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

This isn't about the ambiguity. That's something else. This is about, for example, ethanol subsidies. Basically everyone who doesn't receive them thinks they're dumb. It takes more than a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol, it diverts productive farmland from food which makes food cost more for the poor (and everyone), it's an inefficient use of tax dollars, etc. Yet we continue to have ethanol subsidies, because it gets politicians from districts full of corn farmers to vote for the bill even when the bill contains a bunch of differently-toxic nonsense for other interests in different districts. And you don't need 100% of the votes to pass, you only need 51%. So all you have to do is construct a bill that allows 51% of the districts to steal resources from the other 49% in various ways like that, and it passes. Which is why everyone hates politics. But those bills are precarious, because it doesn't pay to have 75% of the vote. An excess 25% would require you to give things to people using resources you could have kept for your existing coalition. Only that means you can't afford to lose too many of your votes when someone starts to make a stink about a specific inefficient program that was shoring those votes up. If the ethanol subsidies were removed from the bill, you would be short on votes. Which turns honest outsiders just trying to make a positive impact into political enemies, because they're threatening to dismantle your majority coalition. And the same dynamic plays out in any system based on majority voting.

hux_ 9y ago
Of course it is ambiguous. You and the corn farmers both can make a case. I wasn't making a point about how lovable politics is, but why it's needed to the misguided character above who has reached a conclusion that "smashing" the system helps. The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  That's not what ambiguity means. Ambiguity is, for example, the CFAA. Nobody really knows what "unauthorized access" means, it's ambiguous. Ethanol subsidies aren't ambiguous. Nobody seriously disagrees on what they are. People disagree on whether we should have them. And there are issues where that kind of disagreement is purely subjective, like abortion. Purely a disagreement about principles rather than facts. But there are also your Bridge to Nowhere type deals, like ethanol subsidies, that are contrary to objective fact. The bill is sold under a particular justification (e.g. reduce dependence on petroleum) and it factually does not do that. There is no principle to disagree about, it's objectively just pork, and the "facts" used by the proponents are lies. The thing where lobbyists pretend there are zero objective things just because there are non-zero non-objective things is merely a dishonest tactic they use to paper over the unjustifiability of their preferred pork. > The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity. There is a difference between specific rules and the concept of having rules. Basically nobody is in favor of total anarchy or removing foundational rules like the illegality of murder. But when your tax code is more than a thousand pages, it's past time to throw it out and start over.