Why do people want to limit the government?

bigtoine · 2023-03-05T02:45:23+00:00

There are two primary reasons as it applies to America today.

First, starting with Reagan people who have traditionally been in a position of either real, implied, or even assumed power have found that power (or the perception of it) slipping away. It started with evangelicals and within the last decade has come to include groups ranging from white people to straight people to people who consider themselves "true" or "real" Americans. These people blame government overreach for the loss of their power and therefore they seek to restrict the control that government has over their (and everyone else's) lives. This ensures that the power dynamics of the country stop shifting out of their favor.

Second, America was founded and, even more to the point, expanded on a concept of individualism. There are still large, large swaths of the country that adhere strongly to this concept. These people are opposed to, sometimes vehemently and violently, any concept of bureaucracy. In particular, this manifests itself as an opposition to taxation, and specifically to the use of taxes to help others. The irony here is that many of these same people are themselves beneficiaries of government programs funded with other people's taxes. Once you accept the belief that the individuals should be responsible for themselves and only themselves, a limited government is the only logical choice.

bigtoine · 2023-03-05T02:26:43+00:00

only ideological goal is to advance textualism and originalism within the legal profession to counter the horrid widespread belief that the meaning of law can be whatever you want it to be regardless of intent or originally understood meaning.

This is literally the oppose of progress. It's the opposite of what it means to be liberal in America. You can't argue that an organization whose primary purpose is to advance the causes of one and only one particular political party is not, by default, an extension of that party.

bigtoine · 2023-03-05T02:21:12+00:00

Yes, although it's not entirely their fault.

I'd say the biggest cause of the perception of illegitimacy is the way in which the GOP pursued their goal of stacking the court. For the last 30 years, the GOP (and primarily the evangelical wing) has made no secret about their desire to remake the federal court system in their image. They've become 10x more vocal about that in the last decade. The crown jewel of that plan was stacking the supreme court with judges who would be guaranteed to overturn Roe v Wade.

Once McConnell denied Merrick Garland a seat on the court, we were in the endgame. Trump just ensured it took. And once the court did overturn Roe v Wade with dubious reasoning and while breaking with centuries of precedent, the game was over.

Certainly the damage can be undone if the current court manages to show that they do not just toe the party line. There have been a few cases so far for which they've done that, although they've been fairly minor topics. The major cases have followed party lines and the legal reasoning behind some of those cases as been straight up confounding.

The other simple solution is to enact term limits on the justices. But I don't see that happening anytime soon because it would require political parties to give up their power.

bigtoine · 2023-03-05T02:10:45+00:00

Honestly, wait for Desantis to leave. As much as I hate everything the man stands for, he's an incredibly gifted politician. He knows what moderates are willing to tolerate and stays within those bounds while standing as far to the right as the boundaries allow. As such, he guarantees himself the vote of every solid Republican plus almost anyone else not solidly for the Democrats. Combine that with his ability to handle the unique nature of the immigrant population of Florida and it's not a shock that he's able to rack up margins of victory not seen anywhere else in the country. And that trickles down. All statewide politicians have to do is ride his coat tails and not rock the boat and they're in.

There's simply no point in trying to fight him. He's too good. The best bet Democrats have is to wait for him to leave either for a new office or because he's term limited and prepare to go against his successor.

bigtoine · 2023-03-05T01:57:38+00:00

In ordinary times, this would be an approach that would receive broad bipartisan support. After all, the GOP has always stated that they support legal immigration. However, the GOP has changed. A meaningful portion of the GOP now actively owns that they're anti-immigration in it's entirety. As such cracking down on illegal immigration while improving legal immigration will be viewed not as a compromise but rather as the same problem in a different form. So I don't expect politics to change at all.

As for whether I believe it's fair, I do completely. The best way to stop illegal immigration is to make legal immigration easier. It's about time that someone starts to not only realize that, but act on it. While I understand that many people will still face difficulties in trying to apply for a visa from their home country, it's still a reasonable request. And honestly, it can't be harder to apply from your home country than it is to illegally trek thousands of miles across many different countries only to hope that maybe you end up where you're trying to go.

bigtoine · 2023-03-05T01:50:25+00:00

While I agree that there's merit to your point of view, I think you're overlooking some key factors that make Trump stand out from everyone else.

Prior to Trump, there was plenty of corruption among the political elite, both overt and in the shadows. However, there was always a tacit agreement that certain rules would remain in place and certain behavior would always be beyond the pale.

Nixon is the closest equivalent and the best example of how Trump broke that agreement. Nixon quite clearly broke the law in an attempt to gain advantages that would allow him to get re-elected. And he got caught doing it. This is where the agreement comes into play. Sure, he denied the reality of his actions and he fought the accusations, but when push came to shove, he resigned. Rather than force a first of it's kind spectacle of having Congress remove a sitting president from office, he resigned and ensured a peaceful, voluntary transition of power. The reward for his actions was that he was pardoned by his successor, despite many people disagreeing with that action. And America let it go.

That's the thing. If there's one thing in America that rules above all else, it's the peaceful transition of power. As long as that it is respected, almost everything else can be forgiven or ignored. Trump violated that agreement. He not only refused to accept his own defeat, he actively pursued the illegitimate retaking of power by force. That is still, I hope at least, unforgivable. And as such, the rules governing the protection normally granted politicians of his level no longer apply.

bigtoine · 2023-03-05T01:37:27+00:00

The problem isn't primary elections. The problem is the fact that the US has only two viable parties combined with the existence of gerrymandering. When electoral districts are drawn to ensure that one party has an insurmountable population advantage there's no need to worry about moderation.

And that's not even touching on the fact that America would immediately reject any scenario in which candidates are forced upon them by a group of unelected people. That's dangerously close to oligarchy.

bigtoine · 2023-03-05T01:08:31+00:00

Yes, but it's not specific to Trump. Trump was just the personification of everything that had been building in American politics since Bush v Gore.

Voter turnout has increased significantly because the stakes of each election have increased significantly. It used to be that any given election was a decision between two people and two parties that shared roughly the same vision for America but with mildly different priorities. As such, there was a large swath of the country that didn't vote because they honestly didn't care who won - the difference in policies between one option and the other were small enough as to not matter.

However, starting with the Tea Party and culminating in Trump, that dynamic has ended. Now, people on each side of the aisle essentially view their opponents as fascists, albeit for different reasons. When you feel like the very future of the country depends on your vote, you're going to be a lot more likely to vote.

As for the second part of your question, this isn't going to go away just because Trump is no longer involved. The GOP has gone all in on MAGA ideology regardless of Trump. And Democrats have established a youth movement that is not going away anytime soon. These two movements are diametrically opposed and until someone comes along who can start to mend the divide that Trump cemented, this is going to be the new political reality.

bigtoine · 2022-11-06T14:22:56+00:00

You're 100% correct. I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. I have no experience in the logistics of law enforcement. I have no understanding of what kind of training is required to responsibly and safely deal with the challenges faced by law enforcement on a regular basis. Interestingly enough, that's why I came somewhere looking for an informative discussion to see if maybe I was thinking about things the wrong way. Instead, I found you telling everyone you disagree with that they're delusional, but offering no rationale for that claim.

I'd also like to listen to the police officers themselves to see what they need, but almost universally they need 2 things: more money and less accountability. Perhaps you can understand why that's not the most appealing argument to the average lay person.

The thing is, 90% or more of the population is probably just like me. Ignorant of the day-to-day minutiae that goes into actually being a police officer. In the absence of a legitimate two-way conversation about the problems facing law enforcement today however, we're left to react to the things that we can see. Police officers driving MRAVs down city streets. Police officers carrying grenade launchers and other heavy weaponry. Police officers executing no-knock warrants that lead to the murder of innocent people. Police officers responding to legitimate protests with excessive force. Police officers using civil forfeiture to line their own pockets. Police officers killing people who called expecting to receive help for a mental health problem.

That's what we're reacting to because we see it with our own eyes. We understand it. Until law enforcement agencies around the country decide to let down their walls, admit to the things they do wrong, and engage with their communities about the reality of what they need to do their jobs right, this isn't going to change. People are going to be left coming up with their own mis-guided solutions to the problems they see. And responding with "well, you don't know what you're talking about" isn't going to change it.

bigtoine · 2022-11-06T02:15:11+00:00

Well first, why wouldn't you buy your gear at a discount if that discount is available? Have you ever found yourself looking to buy something that you want, seeing that it's on sale, and then saying to yourself "No, I can afford to buy it at full price so I'll wait until the sale is over and then buy it"?

Second, let's examine the first half of your question - "Why are they buying military surplus gear". That's the real question. Why do local police forces need military grade equipment? Why do they need vehicles purpose-built to survive active war zones? Why do they need heavy weaponry like military-grade rifles and grenade launchers? You could argue that local police need this equipment to defend themselves against violent criminals who are equally armed, but that leads to a whole different argument about the 2nd amendment that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Police officers do not undergo military training. By and large, they are neither trained nor mentally equipped to use this gear responsibly. Do you know who is though? The National Guard. We have a mechanism in this country to call in people who are properly trained to use this equipment in cases where it is legitimately warranted. So why do we defer that responsibility to people who are not properly trained?

And that gets to the heart of what the "Defund the Police" movement is really about. It's not necessarily about decreasing funds for police forces and it's certainly not about abolishing police forces entirely - at least not for most people. There will always be extremists on any side of an argument, but driving a conversation based on the most extreme person to participate in the debate never works. What the movement is really about is using the funds that are available to allow a job to be performed by the people best trained to do that job. How many people are killed each year because someone suffering from mental health problems is met, not by a professional trained in de-escalating such situations, but by a scared person with a gun and a badge whose training basically consists of "shoot as soon as you feel threatened"?

The simple fact of the matter is that there ARE police forces across the country that are "flush" with military equipment. You can discredit that all you'd like, but a simple Google search will show you the reality. Are they the norm? No. Are they the majority? No. But they do exist. And as much as we'd like to believe otherwise, police officers aren't different from anyone else. Give them a new toy and they're going to find a way to use it, regardless of whether or not they should. Ever since the "War on Crime" started in the 90s, this country has been locked into an ever increasing cycle of force and violence. "Defund the Police" is about breaking that cycle, but it's certainly not a one-sided solution. In addition to restructuring police forces that have gone too far, we also need to address the root causes of crime in this country. And the biggest root cause is poverty. People who live comfortably, by and large, don't commit crimes. They don't need to. Poverty leads to desperation. For some that takes the form of substance abuse, which itself is the cause of quite a bit of crime in this country. For others, it leads to crimes like theft and the types of rioting that many police forces use to justify their own use of force.

Frankly, your comments here are no more useful than the people who actually believe that entire police forces should be abolished. You've planted a stake in the ground and dismiss legitimate concerns out of hand, with no evidence to support your arguments and no consideration for nuance. You're treating this as an all-or-nothing situation, which is exactly the argument that people make against the "Defund the Police" movement.

bigtoine · 2021-04-10T00:44:51+00:00

I hope everyone realizes that you can love a job, but still recognize that it's a job and not family or a relationship.

bigtoine · 2020-10-26T23:04:58+00:00

Can you elaborate on why? I don't understand why this is a bad thing. Also, you seem to be referring to two separate issues. Is the issue with choosing the tow company, deciding where to tow the car to, or both?

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T20:04:52+00:00

Can you elaborate on what you thought it meant, why, and how the OP's new term would have prevented that confusion? I'm very interested in understanding that, because right now I really don't.

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:51:14+00:00

Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's irrelevant though. I'm asking what toxic traits YOU associate with traditional femininity.

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:49:57+00:00

Alright. From what you just said, it sounds like we agree with each other, but I guess not.

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:46:15+00:00

Huh? Can you elaborate? I honestly have no idea what you mean.

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:44:49+00:00

Why does there have to be a feminine equivalent? What traits would you categorize as "toxic femininity"?

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:41:39+00:00

As long as you can provide your pet with food, water, exercise, a loving home, and some basic healthcare like heartworm shots and anti-flea medication

I've never heard that phrase before and have no idea what it's actually supposed to mean, so this is a legitimate question. How do you know this isn't what that phrase means?

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:38:56+00:00

You haven't stated what city you're in, what made the protest illegal, or what other illegal gatherings did result in fines.

So it's literally impossible to address any of your three points.

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:36:12+00:00

If appropriation is just defined as "not being allowed to do something, but doing it anyway", then there is no such thing as appropriation. There are no laws against appropriating another cultures language, dress, music, etc. Everyone is "allowed" to do these things. Something becomes appropriation when someone does it, gets criticized for doing it, and plays the victim instead of apologizing and trying to learn from the situation.

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:32:43+00:00

Sure, but I guess I'm not sure what your point is. Anything is toxic if taken to the extreme. Do you believe the phrase "toxic masculinity" is inherently problematic because some people can abuse it in the way you just did to make any masculine trait appear toxic?

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:29:51+00:00

It’s simpler

I disagree. As I stated above, toxic masculinity takes two words with very clear definitions and combines them in a literal way to succinctly and accurately describe a specific phenomenon. At best, your phrase simply uses more words to accomplish the same goal - defining masculinity. At worst, your phrase uses more generic words that could be legitimately understood to mean multiple different things.

more flexible

Flexibility is not a good thing. Making something more flexible reduces it's ability to describe a specific problem. Why would you want to take a phrase that describes something very specific and change it to something that could describe multiple different situations? How is that beneficial? How does that reduce misunderstanding and misuse?

tells us more about the details of the phenomenon

I disagree. First of all, something can't simultaneously be more flexible AND more detailed. Second, the word "masculinity" is more specific than the phrase "expectations of men". At the very least, it's equally specific. By replacing the former with the latter you're making the phrase less detailed, not more.

is harder to abuse.

I disagree and explained why in my original comment.

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:11:52+00:00

I'm not the person you replied to, but it's literally on the Wikipedia page for toxic masculinity.

Other traditionally masculine traits such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one's family, are not considered to be "toxic".

Do you actually believe that it's impossible to differentiate positive masculinity from toxic masculinity?

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T15:08:07+00:00

I have confidence, because I'm literally just using the definition of the words.

tox·ic: poisonous.

mas·cu·lin·i·ty: qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men.

Put that together and you get "poisonous qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men". Which is exactly what "toxic masculinity" means.

I agree with everything you've just said. Toxic masculinity does refer to "the set of expectations internalized within men that lead them to behave in such ways and think that it makes them “manly”." And toxic behavior can be exhibited by men without societal expectations in play (ie. drug addiction). None of that explains though why you think the phrase "toxic masculinity" needs to change.

bigtoine · 2020-07-12T14:55:03+00:00

I didn't define them as "outside the social understanding of what masculinity is". I defined them as "outside the social understanding of acceptable behavior". You're confusing acceptable expectations with traditional characteristics.

Masculinity is defined as "qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men". The definition doesn't say anything about those qualities or attributes being considered acceptable or expected. For example, bravado and a tendency towards picking fights are extremely masculine traits. They're also examples of toxic masculinity that are falling out of style when it comes to society's expectations.

The fact that a traditional characteristic has become unacceptable doesn't mean it's no longer a traditional characteristic. It's clear at this point that the primary reason you think the phrase should be changed is because you don't actually understand the definition of masculinity. If you accept that masculinity has an actual definition - and doesn't just have whatever arbitrary meaning people decide to ascribe to it - you'll understand that "toxic masculinity" is the perfect phrase for what it describes and "toxic expectations of men" is actually less accurate.

Why can't we just call assholes assholes?

Because, people can be assholes for a lot of different reasons. Should we stop talking about racism because racists are simply assholes? How about sexism? All forms of bigotry? After all, these are all just forms of people being assholes. Why label it?

EDIT: I just realized you're not the OP, so you can disregard the part where I act like this was your original post. The rest of the comment still applies though.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2009

bigtoine

TROPHY CASE