Maybe you're right. Maybe democracy is not easily definable on a voter level. But if you're right, then I'm wrong, and so is Marian Anderson who said, "There is no particular thing that you can do alone. The 'I' in it is very small, after all. We are all here to have a kind of living of our own and to be recognized for what we are."
Maybe you're right. Maybe democracy is not easily definable on a voter level. But if you're right, then I'm wrong, and so is Marian Anderson who said, "There is no particular thing that you can do alone. The 'I' in it is very small, after all. We are all here to have a kind of living of our own and to be recognized for what we are."
But the definition isn't complete without defining the alternative; authoritarianism. Donald Trump has said, in effect, "There is no particular thing that you can do without me. The 'I' in it is all. You are all here to give me power so I can get retribution on your perceived enemies. Just don't make me perceive you as my enemy, and how to do that is anybody's guess."
Barbara, but isn't the battle to defend and advance democracy a zero sum game? Or to put it more bluntly, if democracy fails, authoritarians win (and the rest of us lose.)
Anytime we engage in a conversation in the tone of a zero-sum game everyone loses. This is the kind of thinking Republicans are practicing in the Halls of Congress. Zero sum thinking can result in extremism and people gradually become what they are fighting against. Yes, this election is about Authoritarianism vs Democracy. But. I am not interested in wiping all Republicans out of Government. I am not interested in retribution for real nor perceived wrongs from the Republicans.
I am talking about a mindset here. I want Democracy to win the White House. I also want to still have an awful lot of political parties and ideas in our national discourse mix. I want to continue to have opposing views considered. I want the hatred of the other to stop. Can we co-exist peacefully in a zero-sum environment?
The Democrats will win the White House. Our challenge is to not lose our moral direction in the process.
I can see how my words don't necessarily reveal my intent. My intent is to say that your words are in conflict with my understanding. I have no doubt we're both doing our best to serve the greater good. All I'm doing is identifying the possibility of a better path. Further, I'd say that the conflict reveals that there is a better path. Maybe its yours, maybe its mine, or maybe it is in a path that neither of us can see yet, and we won't see until we resolve the conflict. In my mind, that's the definition of a positive sum game.
I agree. I think we are trying to say basically the same thing. This may sound hokey but I really hope we can rise above all the hate being spewed around.
One has property rights over human rights, the other has human rights at least as important as property rights.
I liked to look at it like the Vasa, a ship with masts way to high (or at least the center of balance) so much so that it capsized after sailing about the length of the Golden Gate Bridge.
Corrado Gini came up with the Gini Index on income , wealth, or consumption inequality, which I recall was once used to persuade people like Benito Mussolini that there limits to how much inequality could be tolerated by the people.
When the people at the bottom have enough for a decent quality of life and opportunity, they tolerate some pretty high levels of "inequality" as many of them dream of minimal limits on what they can achieve. When so many can't even achieve minimums of food and shelter, much less equal opportunities, the society becomes unstable.
Maybe you're right. Maybe democracy is not easily definable on a voter level. But if you're right, then I'm wrong, and so is Marian Anderson who said, "There is no particular thing that you can do alone. The 'I' in it is very small, after all. We are all here to have a kind of living of our own and to be recognized for what we are."
But the definition isn't complete without defining the alternative; authoritarianism. Donald Trump has said, in effect, "There is no particular thing that you can do without me. The 'I' in it is all. You are all here to give me power so I can get retribution on your perceived enemies. Just don't make me perceive you as my enemy, and how to do that is anybody's guess."
"But if you're right, then I'm wrong," I don't play zero sum games. There are no rights or wrongs here; only folks tossing ideas around.
Take care.
Barbara, but isn't the battle to defend and advance democracy a zero sum game? Or to put it more bluntly, if democracy fails, authoritarians win (and the rest of us lose.)
Anytime we engage in a conversation in the tone of a zero-sum game everyone loses. This is the kind of thinking Republicans are practicing in the Halls of Congress. Zero sum thinking can result in extremism and people gradually become what they are fighting against. Yes, this election is about Authoritarianism vs Democracy. But. I am not interested in wiping all Republicans out of Government. I am not interested in retribution for real nor perceived wrongs from the Republicans.
I am talking about a mindset here. I want Democracy to win the White House. I also want to still have an awful lot of political parties and ideas in our national discourse mix. I want to continue to have opposing views considered. I want the hatred of the other to stop. Can we co-exist peacefully in a zero-sum environment?
The Democrats will win the White House. Our challenge is to not lose our moral direction in the process.
I can see how my words don't necessarily reveal my intent. My intent is to say that your words are in conflict with my understanding. I have no doubt we're both doing our best to serve the greater good. All I'm doing is identifying the possibility of a better path. Further, I'd say that the conflict reveals that there is a better path. Maybe its yours, maybe its mine, or maybe it is in a path that neither of us can see yet, and we won't see until we resolve the conflict. In my mind, that's the definition of a positive sum game.
Hope that makes sense.
I agree. I think we are trying to say basically the same thing. This may sound hokey but I really hope we can rise above all the hate being spewed around.
One has property rights over human rights, the other has human rights at least as important as property rights.
I liked to look at it like the Vasa, a ship with masts way to high (or at least the center of balance) so much so that it capsized after sailing about the length of the Golden Gate Bridge.
Corrado Gini came up with the Gini Index on income , wealth, or consumption inequality, which I recall was once used to persuade people like Benito Mussolini that there limits to how much inequality could be tolerated by the people.
When the people at the bottom have enough for a decent quality of life and opportunity, they tolerate some pretty high levels of "inequality" as many of them dream of minimal limits on what they can achieve. When so many can't even achieve minimums of food and shelter, much less equal opportunities, the society becomes unstable.
For some examples see https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gini-index.asp (we don't come out so good anymore).