Sunday, March 22, 2009

Socialism, Exploitation of the Worker?

Grandpa, grandma and I were walking down the main street of town one Saturday morning. It was a warm day and the fair was in town. As every fair does in a small town it brought people out of every nook and cranny and gave the town the feeling of being filled to the brim.

The local charities took advantage of this and set up booths of their own in hopes that they may induce all of these people to donate to their worthy cause. All of a sudden, I heard grandpa give out a chuckle. I looked over at the booth he was looking at and couldn’t see anything funny about it. It was a booth like the rest with one exception. It was a booth sponsored by one of the smaller departments of the local government that needed money.

Grandpa walked on over to the booth, looked at some of the pamphlets then took some money out and put it in one of the donation boxes. He then said, with a hint of sarcasm to one of the person’s attending the booth, “ your heart is in the right place but this booth should be proof to you that your head is not.”

As we walked away grandpa took advantage of this to go into one of his lessons of life with me.

“Socialism, boy, is an economic system that can only come into existence by the enactment of the law of man. Free enterprise is an economic system that only needs the law of nature to enter existence. It needs no laws except those laws to regulate the greed of man. Both systems are driven by the same motive, greed; the only difference being is the identity of the greedy.

There are those who take the middle ground by advocating for a mixed economy. This form of economic system also needs to be created through laws. It is the understanding of this form of economy that proves Socialism to be a fallacious philosophy. There are no socialistic programs, which serve as the determinant of a mixed economy, which can be said to be self-supporting. Their only means of support comes from its competitor, free enterprise. Without the support of free enterprise, they cannot exist.

It is profits that make free enterprise self-sufficient. It is from these same profits that support the socialistic programs. Socialism is an economic philosophy that attempts to eliminate profits from the equation of business. As any economic expert will tell you this will only lead to disaster. The reason being is that a business can only operate at a loss when profit is not the goal.

The problem is that when an enterprise no longer has profit as its goal it must replace that incentive with another goal to give it purpose. This is true whether that enterprise be a family, a charity, a business or a government. It must also be willing to sacrifice all in order to reach that goal regardless of what it must sacrifice in the achievement of that goal. That includes potential profitability.

Since it is impossible for socialism to sustain itself on its own it must depend on outside sources to sustain it. The only way socialism can use an outside source to sustain itself is by transacting deals that result in a profit for itself. Since socialism sees profit making as exploitation of the worker then socialism itself must exploit the worker in order to sustain itself so that it can maintain a system that does not exploit the worker.

Am I making myself clear?”

I could only scratch my head and mutter under my breath in confusion, “ huh” as I slowly nodded.

Grandpa just laughed, ruffled my hair then told me to just enjoy the fair today.

and that we all did as if there was no tomorrow.

68 comments:

tweetey30 said...

You know Griper its true though when they set booths up like that it makes me wonder why the government doesnt have enough money where they dont have to raise more...Life is funny in that way.

Anonymous said...

Ahh. . . I love the conversations with Grandpa. I've always been a big fan of some aspects of socialism. Not that I think it would necessarily work in the US, but I know other places it works quite well.
- Leah

The Griper said...

tweety,
the reason is not that government does not have the money. the problem lies in the fact that there was not enough money budgeted for these programs.
it is also the fact that these departments are trying to do more than they should based upon the amount budgeted for them.

Leah,
Grandpa thanks you for the compliment. lol
I enjoy writing posts in this style. i kinda like to think that by writing them in this style makes my blog unique and more fun to read.

as for socialism, your admiration for it is misplaced. for it to exist, it must rely on the support of free enterprise. and to do that declares the philosophy hypocritical.

Average American said...

You changed the blog again. I will miss the ocean waves.

A very small dose of socialism is sustainable, but what our new wave of leaders want to do goes way way way overboard. Nobama and his pipe dreams will never last.

BB-Idaho said...

It seems clear that there are those of us who could thrive/fail under either or any economic system. I find it bothersome that
some of the semi-socialistic countries rank significantly higher than the US in numerous quality of life/satisfaction areas.
I find it bothersome that our system cannot compete (US mfg sector 10%GDP..China 34%) at what we invented and are supposed to be best at. It worries me that real wages have remained stagnent or dropped while productivity and profits have skyrocketed over the last 30 years. We are fast approaching the point that our military materiel will have to be imported because our mfg infrastructure has deteriorated so badly. 'Trickle down' has slowed to a dessicated drip... As Leah notes, socialistic
programs work well in some countries..and they will not work here. But free market capitalism
needs some work...and not of the Ayn Rand kind. I left healthcare out of this discussion because of my blood pressure :)

Zeeva Daveed said...

BB-Idaho wrote:

It seems clear that there are those of us who could thrive/fail under either or any economic system. I find it bothersome that some of the semi-socialistic countries rank significantly higher than the US in numerous quality of life/satisfaction areas.

I find the later very bothersome and it is somewhat heartwarming in a sad sort of way that I am not the only person that notes this. On that note it also galls me that many Europeans believe Americans are stupid - in some case they are, but so are others from other nations. So what's that? But Europeans do feel superior and I ask why do they even come here now since they really seem to loathe us - economy or not?

The Griper said...

he just smiles as he sits back and listens. "remember, folks, the two systems are in competition with each other to win the hearts and minds of the people and it isn't a friendly competition either.

and for those who think a mixed system can work, think of this. a mixed system is only a transition period from one system to the other.

for those who think they can thrive under either system, remember this, when you allow others to make the decisions for you, you will only thrive as long as you are of value to those persons. you'd better hope that those persons are compassionate because their position in life depends on how much production they can get out of others.

proof of this? think professional sports.

BB-Idaho said...

"for those who think they can thrive under either system, remember this, when you allow others to make the decisions for you, you will only thrive as long as you are of value to those persons. you'd better hope that those persons are compassionate because their position in life depends on how much production they can get out of others.
proof of this? think professional sports." Or a socialist system, or our current capitalist system, or facist system, communist system.
The great majority of folk work for someone, be they compassionate or cut throat....I know I have! :)
Any economic production system...any...measures output by quotas..thus whoever sets the quota, be it commissar or business exec, or general, sets the requirements. Having met quotas as well as set quotas, tis the way I see it. The tilt of the playing field varies considerably: see
Figure B if one is interested in 'worker exploitation'. :)

The Griper said...

he grins,
very good argument BB. and based upon the evidence presented i cannot disagree with you. in fact i'd say that if it were anything else i'd be skeptical of the evidence presented.

the reason i say that is because of the orientation of the two systems. a socialistic system is oriented towards the worker while free enterprise or capitalism is oriented towards the business or as a socialist would say "the capitalist(business owner).

given this, each system should be analyzed in accordance to the focus of the system if we are to analyze the value of each to a society.

and there is the problem. when capitalism is analyzed for comparison philosophically in regards to the business itself it is usually done so in a very negative manner. and it is also usually analyzed in terms of the benefits to the worker rather than in terms of the benefits to the owner as it should be.

you take that very same graph you used then analyze them in regards to the owner and determine which is more beneficial to the business and the production of a business.

another thing, that graph analyzes from the point of view of vacations. let's look at it from the opposite view now, which is the unemployment rate found in each system. socialism promises a zero percent unemployment, capitalism does not. in fact, in a capitalistic system there is almost a guarantee of some unemployment at all times.

would that be a factor in that vacation time? in other words are those "mandated" vacation times a way they use to achieve this goal. if so, can we really view it from the view of being a benefit for the worker as we can in the capitalistic system?

we then come to another question. if socialism is so beneficial to the worker then what is it that drives people not to accept it wholeheartedly here? what are the benefits of capitalism that people seek that socialism cannot provide?

we know that socialism promises to provide all the tangibles in life to everyone. we also know that the capitalistic system makes no such promise. in fact, it does it best each and every day to prove it doesn't and that include proving it to both, the business owner and the worker.

so, what is the benefits of capitalism to the ordinary man?

the only answer i can come up with is that capitalism promises benefits that cannot be measured.

Karen Howes said...

Great post, Griper. That is all. :-)

BB-Idaho said...

Ya know, Griper, ya get me over thinking stuff (I just scrapped a long observation) and it is odd:
any system which involves people and trade ($$) seems to have advantages and disadvantages..and once in awhile, they lead to downright bizarre parallels. Recall the Stalin managed economy, the '5 Year Plans' and collectivised farming? Total failure, couldn't compete with the rugged indivualist American farmer.
Now, we have corporate farming..we
collectivised OUR rugged individualistic farmers! Yikes! :)
..and from the smell of the feed lots, somebody collectivised those pigs as well...

The Griper said...

thank you, karen.

he just chuckles at what BB said. hope all that thinking did not give you a headache like gayle complains about. lol

yes, i agree there. corporations are a great parallel to socialism. the shareholders ( the people) are the owners. one difference being that corporations allows for the inequality of owners.

socialism would not allow a person to have a greater share of ownership than another person as it can be had in corporations.

there may be one very big thing that separates a corporation from socialism tho. one has the intent of making a profit the other does not.

and corporate advocates defend this practice by saying they need to keep the shareholder happy.

the socialist would declare a need to keep the worker happy.

this complicates matters a bit because a lot of the shareholders in a corporation is also the worker.

but the important question is, what is the price that one must pay in order to obtain a single share of stock in socialism?

then smiles as he adds, see, i'm always full of questions even some that appear to be unanswerable. :)

Gayle said...

I didn't get a headache reading this one, Griper, but I had to read it twice. That's because you are such a wordsmith that I concentrate on the beautiful way you are writing instead of the content. I read it a second time for content and my head is still fine. :)

You nailed it. It's why socialism has never worked and never will work. Will someone please tell our administration that? Nevermind. They'll just ignore it.

Blessings!

BB-Idaho said...

Profit is the driver in a capitalistic economy like ours; the advantage being that the entrepeneur responds quickly to any new demand or shortage. In a rigid socialist government managed economy, apparently profits are non-existent. So what happens to that 10-20% markup? Does it lower the price of goods? Is it fed back into manufacturing equipment?
Is it sucked up by a system which
employs even the marginal? A factor which intrigues me is the
serial additivity of profit. Take
a can of hair spray. The steel mill makes a profit on the sheet metal, then transport, then can
mfg, then ingredients and transport, then compounding the hair spray, filling the can, labeling, more transport etc..each
process which has a baseline cost, labor, overhead AND profit. Thus
(at the time I did the study) a
$3 can of hair spray consisted of
$0.07 for the spray valve, $0.10
for the can and $0.24 for the solvent/pressure gas/polymer content. 41 cents, which already
includes some labor, transport and profit. A markup of 731%. Of course that is not all profit. In fact, at least in this type product, the profit margin seems to grow as value is added: sheet steel profits are considerably lower than the final retail step.
The last remarkable thing we note is that of 'brand': the product is identical between two cans of hairspray, but the customer will pay considerably more for what is perceived as a superior brand. So, I think your point that a free market system creates wealth and jobs is correct..heck, in Stalin's USSR, they probably didn't even have hair spray! :)

Lista said...

Hi Griper,
I have to really think when I read your Posts, cause I don't think that I always understand you right away.

The first thought that came to my mind was that the main difference between Government and Charity is that Charities spend money that is given to them Voluntarily and the Government just takes the Money that they spend. Keeping this in mind, the booth that was set up by a "Small Department of Local Government" in a way made itself into more of a Charity than a Government Organization.

Generally, though, the Governments approach to collecting money is by placing Bond Issues on the Ballot, not by setting up Donation Booths. That way, those who don't own property can vote to place the burden of paying the interest on these Bonds on those who pay property taxes. Yeh! Right! That sounds fair.

I'm never opposed to money being collected Voluntarily for any cause. That's called Freedom.

The next thought that came to mind was that the word "Socialism" is a word that describes sort of an Extreme form of Government, which is the opposite of Free Enterprise. I'm not sure that I like the word being used to describe any and all Government Programs, yet your point that they are not self-supporting is accurate.

"The problem is that when an enterprise no longer has profit as its goal it must replace that incentive with another goal to give it purpose."

I guess I could add that it works best when this other goal is something that the owner of the business believes in. When the cause is "the support of the Government", this just doesn't cut it too well, does it?

Average American,
I agree with you that Obama is going overboard and I really do hope that you're right about his pipe dreams not lasting.

BB,
I think that America is failing because we have turned our backs on God. I blame the continuous attacks on Christianity and any remote mention of God in this country for our down fall.

I agree that Free Market Capitalism needs some work.

BB,
Good point. Whether those over us are Socialists or simply Business Men, either way, we better hope that they are compassionate, rather than cut throat.

Griper,
I think that the benefits to both workers and also business owners is important. For any system to place more emphasis on one, rather than the other, is what makes it unbalanced.

Most people in America do not understand Socialism fully and I would probably include myself in these numbers. I fear it because of what I've been told. Socialized Medicine for example, can apparently result in a rather low quality of care because of the lack of incentives given to the Doctors, etc.

The Griper said...

BB,
yes, i've seen studies like that as used by others to promote their ideology. tho i know you did not do it for that reason. you just have a naturally curious mind that needs to be fed. lol

i would ask tho, in your study, did you take into consideration the hiddden costs that are a part of the cost of any product or service and add that to your equation? from your description i see revealed costs but nothing that could be considered hidden costs.

lista,
i agree that both must be taken into consideration. but philosophically, socialism places the emphasis and purpose of an economic system on the worker therefore demeans the purpose of business by declaring that profits are nothing but exploitation of the worker. from this viewpoint, profits are evil therefore must be eliminated.

philosophically, free enterprise focuses on the business itself and declares that the worker is there for the profitability of the business. from this viewpoint, profits is a virtue, therefore should be praised.

the point of my post is declared in the title and explained in the last paragraph of grandpa's words.
those nations where socialism appears to be working are not abiding fully by the principles of socialism. and if a nation is not abiding by the principles they expound then they are practicing an illusionary economic system.

The Griper said...

gayle,
people have been dreaming of creating a perfect State for ages. and dreams are very hard to see as nightmares.

philosophers have tried to create them but as all know they have always fallen short when put into practice.

BB-Idaho said...

"people have been dreaming of creating a perfect State for ages." True, and neither Plato nor the others came close. IMO, the 'perfect state' is perhaps the
state we grew up in; in my case the northwoods of Wisconsin. And it was perfect because I was a little kid, delighted in fishing
and sledding et. al. Of course I had no clue about taxes, politics,
societal ills, lib/con views, pollution etc. Sigh, it WAS perfect, though. :) Back to the present, it appears most, if not all 'states' blend economic systems, leaning this way or that:
simple pragmatism. My hair spray study was done when I was in a cosmetics lab...the hidden cost was likely ME..:)

The Griper said...

yup, BB, you have said something that no one of any political persuasion can disagree on. the perfect state is the one we grew up in.

The Griper said...

this has been an enlightening post for me. it has brought answers to questions i've had but had no answer to in the past.

i think it has been one post that i have achieved my goal for this blog also and for this i thank everyone of you.

Lista said...

Griper,
Huh! Interesting comment. Now maybe you can help me to answer some of my questions. Here is another comment that I wrote Yesterday, but didn't submit because I thought I'd already written enough...

"Maybe I shouldn't keep talking after such a long comment initially, yet as I left the computer, I realized that I had some questions. I remember you telling me once that instead of assuming that I know what you mean, if I don't, than I should just ask you, so here it is.

"One rather funny question is 'Why did Grandpa donate to the booth for the Local Government if he didn't believe in the cause?'

"As I'm reading your Post again, I feel like commenting that I'm glad that you believe in regulating the Greed of Man.

"Ok. Here's the Questions... "Why are you always so opposed to 'Those who take the middle ground'?" and "How does a 'Mixed Economy' prove Socialism to be a 'Fallacious Philosophy'?" and also "What exactly is a 'Mixed Economy'?" and "What what is a 'Socialistic Program'?"

"The thought came to my mind as I was thinking on this that I do not know for sure that you think that every Government Assistance Program is a Socialistic one. Perhaps you do, perhaps not. If not, though, than what is the difference between a valid Government Assistance Program within Capitalism and a Socialistic one?

"I can't seem to read the Post, even when I am doing it a second time, without making further comments, such as, if the goal of a business is no longer profit, than it should be to do one's job well, and/or to make a meaningful contribution to Society. That is the Goal of most Non-Profit Charities.

"Workers have always worked for wages and not for profit. When you think about it, why should a business owner require so much more than that? If everyone gets a wage and no one starves, what's the big deal. I should know the answer to this, but sometimes it feels as if I don't.

"I'm sounding like the Devil's Advocate, aren't I? Oh well."

Lista said...

Hello again,
I guess my mind just won't shut off. lol.

In order for a Non-Profit Goal to work, the business owner has to Believe in what he has been assigned to do. He has to believe in the contribution that he is making to society and he has to be allowed some Freedom to make the decisions that he needs to in order to make his business/mission meaningful and Worth Striving For.

When I think about this, it seems true to me that the absence of Profit does not necessarily need to be the problem. I think that the presence of too much Control is what would rob a business owner of motive, incentive and drive, for if there is no profit, than the Socialistic System needs to allow the business owner to have enough Freedom in order for him to create his own, Non-Profit Motives.

Lista said...

Griper,
Looks like I somehow missed a few comments.

BB,
In a Non-Profit Organization, all Profits have to either go back into the business or be donated to a Designated Charity, in a Socialistic System, that Designated Charity is no doubt the Government.

Griper,
I hope you do not hate me if I bring up Black and White thinking again, but "Do we really need to choose between the two options of Socialism and Capitalism?" and "Do we really need to choose between the two options of the Workers Needs verses the Business Man's Needs?" WHY IS IT ALWAYS ONE OR THE OTHER?

When the Profits are given to the Government, rather than to the Business Owner, they are then spent on the good of the people, rather than the good of one person; the Business Owner. It could be argued that this is less of an "Exploitation".

Is the question whether Profits are Virtuous or Evil, or just who should get these Profits?

As to you concluding statement; "Those nations where socialism appears to be working are not abiding fully by the principles of socialism and if a nation is not abiding by the principles they expound then they are practicing An Illusionary Economic System", all you have to do is take away the requirement of having to think in terms of Black and White and a system that is not fully Socialist and not fully Capitalistic can be allowed. I do not think that it is appropriate to call such a system "Illusionary".

Also, Compromise has a tendency to create situations in which neither of the two competing parties are fully "abiding by the principles they expound". Life is imperfect. That's just the way it is. How sad if we decide to call all Compromise "Illusionary"

Gayle and BB,
The reason why we can not create "a Perfect State" is because what everyone wants is a State that is perfect for them personally, but "The Good of Everyone" is a concept that requires Compromise. Since this is something that we are so very reluctant to do, there will always be a battle going on.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I do not think that Extreme Socialism, nor Extreme Capitalism works. Both have flaws. A mixture between the two is more of a compromise and is what is needed in order to truly benefit "The Good of Everyone"

The Griper said...

ahhh boy, lista, i'd need a couple of posts to answer all of your questions. and they are good questions too.

profits are not only the driver of free enterprise as BB so wisely stated but it is also the life blood of any economic system that will not fail. profits are the food of an economy. it is from profits that the expenses of a business are met. if a business cannot create a profit it runs at a loss (not able to meet all its bills) thus fails.

i'm not against the middle, lista from a philosophical viewpoint. from that viewpoint it is nothing but a position on the line of continuum halfway between the two extremes.

in order to compromise both parties must be in a position on that line that leaves a gap between them. and the only position that quarantees that a true compromise is reached is at the extremes. reason, there is nowhere else to go except towards the middle on any given issue. also remember, it is the issue that is in the middle not the persons. they must remain at the extremes in order to compromise on any other issue. those in the middle cannot compromise because their position leaves no room for compromise. when a person in the3 middle compromises with one at the extreme, the person at the extreme must always end up getting the best of the deal. reason, where is the middle of the person in the middle and the person at the extreme? it no longer is in the middle but halfway towards the extreme. and each time you compromise with that extremist the closer you get to his position and the farther away you get from the other extreme.

this is the premise of the term "creeping socialism."

The Griper said...

lista,
in answer to your first question, grandpa did think it was a good cause. that is why he said that their heart was in the right place.

what he was referring to is that the booth exemplified that logically the cause would be better served as a private charity rather than a government program. reason: it makes no sense for the government to create a program if it isn't going to fund it fully to serve its purpose for which it was created for.

BB-Idaho said...

Way back when " one post that i have achieved my goal for this blog.." I thought we were done. :)
I suspect, reinforced by this discussion, that most economic systems have strengths and faults from the barter of primitives all the way to Plato's 'Republic'. Within the fixed population of each system there will be those who thrive, those who don't and those who downright suffer. So,
as I believe Lista suggests, we skew each system with a bit of this and that, seeking to ameliorate the system's harshest attributes. For example, in a purely laissez-faire, dog-eat-dog,
darwinian economic system, we could expect widespread starvation, likely preceded by
rebellion...we have seen that through the ages. So modifications are made. Sometimes over-modified, such as the 'dole' of Roman times..resulting in a mass of unemployed poor, manipulated by the richest politician. (I know, there are those that argue we are at the point...we ain't). The reverse is true as well, consider the mounting socialism in Britain until Thatcher. When I say 'we' modify/adjust our system, I refer
to those societies where there is
an informed voting population. In Totalitarian governments, economic adjustments are made by the rulers, and they are often aware that they must keep their population either partially satisfied, or under military rule.
Another example of mixing and matching in an econ systme is a recent example from Sweden, sort of a half and half capital/social
arrangement...they refused to bailout their big mfg Saab. So, these economic systems are very complex (books could, and I suspect have been, written) and we tend to view them from the perspective of 'what does it do for me?' or 'did do' or 'can do'.
Further those with empathetic tendencies view it as how does society as a whole benefit and prosper? So it is we recognize that no system is perfect; but we have and continue to tweak what we have, perfecting as best we can.
I thought were done awhile back...but...March Madness? :)

Lista said...

Hi Griper,
My mind won't stop turning on this subject. Maybe it's a good thing that I have to go soon, so that you can have a little bit of a break from me, at least until this evening. I might have the time, though, to respond just to your last two comments.

Thanks for the complements about all of my good questions.

Even "Non-Profit Organizations" do have Profits, but they are not called that because they do not go into the pockets of those who run the Organizations. Like I said earlier, they either go back into the Business/Organization or they are given to a Designated Charitable Cause. If they do not, than the Organization will lose it's "Non-Profit Status".

There are other positions too, Griper, besides the two Extremes and the Middle.

At first, I thought that I wasn't going to understand your 4th Paragraph, but as I read it, I realized that I do understand it. It's like when you negotiate for the price of a house or car. You can not start with the highest that you are willing to pay or the lowest that you are willing to sell for. You have to start with what you hope for, not for what you are willing to settle for.

I guess I sometimes end up in the Middle, not because my beliefs are necessarily in the Middle, but because I sometimes act as a sort of peace maker between Extremists who refuse to Compromise. When it comes to Finances, though, I don't care quite as much who wins the debate. I feel comfortable with the Middle. I'm not really trying to compromise with either Extreme, but am whether trying to persuade them to Compromise with each other.

Creeping Socialism is another subject that I will put off for now.

Your second Comment makes good sense and I agree.

BB,
Catch you later, I got to run.

The Griper said...

lista,
funding a cause is very different from buying a house. the reason for negotiations in regards to buying a house is the fact that the value of the house is subjective. the value cannot be placed in terms of extremes.
funding a cause is objective. the extremes would be 0 or fully funded. any compromise on this can only lead to a less than fully funded program.

as to your idea of just seeing profit just as profit only without evil or virtue would require that greed not to be considered. and it is the socialist that sees it as evil. without it being seen as evil, socialism has no argument to support itself as virtuous.

Lista said...

Hi Griper,
I wasn't comparing Funding a Cause to Buying a House. I was comparing Buying a House or Car with the Negotiation Process that takes place in Government between what Democrats want and what Republicans want.

Everything can be taken to Extremes, Griper. The Value of a House can be taken to Extremes when the Price of it is so high that no one wants to buy it, or the offer is so low that no one would ever accept it. Ok, maybe this is just Perceived Value, but it's not Realistic, so that makes it Extreme.

There is no need for Compromise when Funding a Cause. You either do it or you don't. Unless of course there are two parties, such as Husband and Wife who are in disagreement over how much to Donate. When ever there is disagreement, a Compromise of some sort may be needed.

I guess an Organization could Compromise it's cause in order to get more money, such as when Pastors and Ministers "Water Down" their messages in order to attract more attendance. This is like selling out, though, and really shouldn't be done.

Whether or not Profit and Greed are Connected is a whole separate subject. I addressed it recently in response to someone's Blog. I think it was on Beth's Blog.

What this subject comes down to is that God is the one who gives us the Talents and Gifts that we use in order to make it in our business. Because of this, it is not really right for any one to take the full credit for this.

From a Christian point of view, all of our resources are given to us by God and we are just the Stewards of it. When seen in this light, spending all that we make on ourselves could be seen as Greedy because it shows a lack of appreciation for the one who both gave us all of our Talents and Gifts and also has the rightful ownership of all that we have.

I know that if I read all that I've already said in the above Comments, there is more that I could say to expand on it, but I've forgotten now what some of it was and I'm wondering exactly when I'm going to take the time to do it.

The Griper said...

"...the Negotiation Process that takes place in Government between what Democrats want and what Republicans want."

so was i, lista. and the amount of funding of any program is a big part of that negotiation, especially when the budget is the issue.

you,yourself said something about this once when you accused republicans of not willing to provide enough funding for programs.

Lista said...

Griper,
Everything can be taken to Extremes, Griper. Funding a cause within Government can be taken to Extremes when there is so much money available that there is room for Pork, as well as Excessive Administrative Costs and then of course, the other Extreme would be to not do the program at all or worse yet, do away with all Government Programs and hope that Private Charities will be able to take care of all of the needs.

Quite often programs are more than "Fully Funded", sometimes what they get is over the top and a lot of the money gets wasted.

Sometimes a so called "Less than Fully Funded" situation can result in the cutting of Pork and this is not a bad thing. It is a good thing.

Of course, I guess what funding is Realistic and what is Extreme could be described as Subjective.

When I said that a Compromise is needed when ever there is "Disagreement over how much to Donate or Spend" on a cause. In Government, this never ceases to be the case. Usually the final outcome involves not only the amount spend on any given project, but also the decision to Fund one Program and Scrap another.

In response to your last paragraph in your most recent Comment, I've given this some thought and I think what is really happening is that Democrats Give and Republicans often Take what was initially given Away. Whether a certain program should have been given in the first place does not change the fact that it can be quite painful when it is First Given and than Later Taken Away.

Which brings me to the next subject, which is Creeping Socialism. Here's what I think is happening...

Since Programs are much Easier to Create than to Tare Down and Take Away once created, this fact alone can explain which side will take the lead if both of the Parties are given Equal Time in the White House, for basically, it takes longer to Undue the Damage of Large Government, than it does to Create it.

Lista said...

An unfortunate problem within Government, Griper, is that too often Democrats Create the Wrong Programs and Republicans Cut the Wrong Programs. No matter who's in charge, it's rare that they get things right.

Lista said...

Well Griper,
I'm ready for another Post from you when you find time relating to some of the Questions that I asked in my above Comments.

The Griper said...

no posts this time, lista. just a recognition that you take a position on an issue that is different than mine. and that is all it is, a position. your position is no compromise as you'd like to think it is. reason, because you decided the position by yourself. you did not compromise with anyone to get the both of you in agreement. the only difference is that you say your personal viewpoint is different from your political viewpoint, mine isn't.

T Daniel said...

Mr Griper, I find this parable to socialism so inspiring, would you mind if I posted it on my blog verbatim? I love your blog too, you truly have a way with words.....

The Griper said...

no problem, daniel.

Lista said...

Griper,
I Compromise with Individual People all the time in issues outside of Politics. Politically speaking, however, Politics is NOT about the Compromise between Individuals, but the Compromise between Groups. Politics is NOT about a Compromise between two people, like you and me. It is about a Compromise between two Political Parties and usually between the Extremes within each.

Individual People who continually hold Extreme Political Positions, however, are the ones who create Fear of the Slippery Slope in the opponent and thus prevent Compromise from happening.

There's really no reason for anyone to Compromise one's personal beliefs as they apply it to their own personal lives. Politics, however, has to do with how those beliefs are going to be applied and Imposed on the rest of Society. There's a distinction between beliefs on a personal level and how these ideas are applied Politically.

The Griper said...

1. how can compromise come between groups without occuring between persons first?

2. i won't argue on the distinctions at the moment. i will only say that regardless of the distinctions they both need to have the same foundation and cornerstone in order to rule over a society.

Lista said...

Perhaps a Vote IS a Compromise, since it is not just one person's opinion that decides the outcome. Those who hold positions in the direction of the Extremes, though, are not the ones who decide the Elections. It is the Undecided who are Key. That is the People in the Middle.

You've got me thinking, Griper, about who exactly it is that is Compromising. For example, are those in the Middle trying to make decisions that reflect a Compromise between the two Extremes or are they simply voting their own conscience, in which case, both Extremes are competing to win them over to their side?

I've got some other thoughts, but I'm not going to take the time right now to express them all. There is a lot to discuss relating to this Post and the above Comments. We may not even get to it all in that much of a timely manner.

Your second point does not make much sense because one of the two Distinctions is "Beliefs on a Personal Level" and this is NOT what should "Rule over a Society".

The Griper said...

and what do you think rules over a society, lista, besides personal opinion of what is right or wrong or more precisely, is the law being voted on good law or bad law in the personal opinion of that man who is voting?

Lista said...

What rules over Society, Griper, is the Compromise that is produced by the Vote. This Compromise does not reflect any Foundation or Cornerstone based on any one Individuals Belief System, this is why it is so often Inconsistent and unfortunately, that is the Imperfect nature of the whole Democratic Process.

The Griper said...

when it is time to vote, lista, it is an up or down type of vote. there is no compromise in voting. compromise come in the earlier stages before a bill is fully written and presented to those who vote on it.

Lista said...

Yes, I would agree with your Comment, Griper, that the Vote itself contains no Compromise from the Individuals who are Voting and that there is Compromise involved in the Earlier Stages before a Bill is fully Written.

Compromise is forced, though, on those who write the Bill, because if there is no Compromise resulting in something offered that is reasonable, rather than Extreme, the Bill will not pass.

The Griper said...

don't get caught up in the idea that only extremists sponser bills. those who are considered as middle of the road do too.

you get caught up in the idea of extremism too much. if it isn't your way then it must be extremism.

extremism is usually considered as any small group on the outer edges of society. and they are usually made up of very small groups of persons.

compromise, that would depend on which party is in power, lista. if a person sponsering a bill is of the same party in power(majority) then there is no need of compromise on his bill.

and usually when there is a need for compromise there still isn't. votes are bought in some manner. ear marks are one way of buying votes. trading of votes is another way. promises of campaign funds might be another way of buying a vote.

Lista said...

I am beginning to realize, Griper, that when we talk, we often seem to get way off subject, not only in relation to the original post, but even in relation to the original point that I try to make in my comments.

For example, I never said that "Only Extremists sponsor Bills.". When ever you put words in my mouth, you change the subject.

Actually, it doesn't matter who Sponsors the Bills, the Extremists are still trying to have Influence.

I also never said that "If it isn't My way then it must be Extremism.". That is an accusation.

I may do a post soon defining the word Extreme, so that we can get more on the same page, at least in relation to the definition.

There is always a need for some Compromise, no matter who is in charge because when there is no Compromise at all, there is no hope of reelection. When Votes are Bought, that is not Compromise. That is selling out. The Trading of Votes could be considered Compromise because it is a trade off and that's what Compromise usually is.

The Griper said...

no, you never said that extremists sponsor all the bills in those words but who else would sponsor bills that were extreme except a person who had an extremist viewpoint on an issue? and why else would they need compromise if they weren't extreme?

and yes i made an accusation. take a good look at all your comments. every one of them use the word extremist or some derivative of the word when they do not fit your idea of how it should be. show me one comment that would apply to someone who took the middle on any issue?

The Griper said...

no, you never said that extremists sponsor all the bills in those words but who else would sponsor bills that were extreme except a person who had an extremist viewpoint on an issue? and why else would they need compromise if they weren't extreme?

and yes i made an accusation. take a good look at all your comments. every one of them use the word extremist or some derivative of the word when they do not fit your idea of how it should be. show me one comment that would apply to someone who took the middle on any issue?

The Griper said...

no, you never said that extremists sponsor all the bills in those words but who else would sponsor bills that were extreme except a person who had an extremist viewpoint on an issue? and why else would they need compromise if they weren't extreme?

and yes i made an accusation. take a good look at all your comments. every one of them use the word extremist or some derivative of the word when they do not fit your idea of how it should be. show me one comment that would apply to someone who took the middle on any issue?

The Griper said...

no, you never said that extremists sponsor all the bills in those words but who else would sponsor bills that were extreme except a person who had an extremist viewpoint on an issue? and why else would they need compromise if they weren't extreme?

and yes i made an accusation. take a good look at all your comments. every one of them use the word extremist or some derivative of the word when they do not fit your idea of how it should be. show me one comment that would apply to someone who took the middle on any issue?

The Griper said...

no, you never said that extremists sponsor all the bills in those words but who else would sponsor bills that were extreme except a person who had an extremist viewpoint on an issue? and why else would they need compromise if they weren't extreme?

and yes i made an accusation. take a good look at all your comments. every one of them use the word extremist or some derivative of the word when they do not fit your idea of how it should be. show me one comment that would apply to someone who took the middle on any issue?

The Griper said...

no, you never said that extremists sponsor all the bills in those words but who else would sponsor bills that were extreme except a person who had an extremist viewpoint on an issue? and why else would they need compromise if they weren't extreme?

and yes i made an accusation. take a good look at all your comments. every one of them use the word extremist or some derivative of the word when they do not fit your idea of how it should be. show me one comment that would apply to someone who took the middle on any issue?

Lista said...

Griper,
Wow! When I saw 6 Comments in my Email box, I was thinking that you were quite talkative last night, yet I can see now that they are all duplicates. Perhaps you should delete some of them.

Anyway, who says that I was even talking about Extreme Bills, Griper. My points fit better in relation to Lobbiests, or perhaps to those who write the Bills, yet by the time they are completed, there has already been Compromise because if there hasn't been, then they would have no chance of passing.

It is the Ideas that need Compromise and the completed Bill is the result or at least it should be.

Yes, Extremism is a favorite subject of mine, yet when I use the word Extreme, I am not referring to someone who is only a little off from my own idea of how things should be. The very word itself implies that the person is way off, not just a little. We need to define the word again or we are never going to understand each other.

Unfortunately, I need to reread some of the above comments before I can get back on track as to what I've been trying to say in relation to Extreme Ideas.

Lista said...

Griper,
Perhaps I won't have to go to the top of the page when I reread some of the above comments. I did a "Find on this Page" search for the word "Offer" and that took me to the comment I wrote on 2/27/09 at 8:21 AM. This is where I'm going to start and this is just a reminder to myself because actually right now, I've got to go.

Lista said...

I guess I'll divide my next set of thoughts into two parts.

I actually had to go back even higher on this Comment Thread to find the first of the two Statements I was looking for. When I searched for the word "Negotiate", I was taken to the Comment that I wrote on 3/26/09, at 1:01 PM. Here is the quote...

"It's like when you Negotiate for the Price of a House or Car. You can not start with the Highest that you are willing to Pay or the Lowest that you are willing to Sell for. You have to start with what you Hope for, not with what you are willing to Settle for."

This statement makes it sound as if starting from the outer Extremes would be appropriate, yet when we look at this in the light of my next quote, we get another picture, for in my 2/27/09 - 8:21 AM Comment, I said...

"The Value of a House can be taken to Extremes when the Price of it is so High that no one wants to buy it or the Offer is so Low that no one would ever Accept it."

To apply this to Politics, an Idea is Unrealistic and Extreme Politically when there is no chance that the Opposing Side is going to Accept it. Where as, on the one hand, we don't want to start with the exact Middle, or with what we are willing to Settle for, on the other hand, we also do not want to start with something so Unrealistic that the Opposing Side is never going to Agree to it.

Trying to push the Idea that there should be no Exceptions what-so-ever to the forbidding of Abortion would be one example of this.

Lista said...

Even though I explained some of the Valid Reasons for holding a position that some would consider Extreme on one of your Abortion Pages; "Abortion - Agreements or Contradictions?", Comment written on 3/5/09, at 12:16 PM; if we can not Realistically Expect that the Opposing Side will Agree to the Idea, than Politically Speaking, it is Extreme.

This is why I can say that on the issue of Abortion, I might be considered and Extremist based on my Personal Convictions, yet what makes me more Moderate Politically is that I am not going to bother trying to push this idea Politically, because there's really not any chance that the Opposing Side will Agree to it.

Even though an Idea may not seem Extreme to us Personally, if it is Extreme Politically, meaning that it is not likely to be Agreed to by our Opposition, than it is Pointless to keep pushing it, for quite aside from the fact that we are not likely to get our way in the matter, it also causes the "Fear of the Slippery Slope" to kick in, which is a phenomena that Prevents Compromise from occurring from either side.

The Griper said...

that is a very simplistic viewpoint of what a compromise is, lista. if a moderate attempts to pass a bill and needs to compromise with someone with your idea of extreme is, that extreme viewpoint will win out, not the moderate viewpoint. and each time that issue comes up that extreme viewpoint will become the one of moderation. remember, a person with extreme ideas does not accept moderate ideas any more than you accept extreme ideas. and a person with extreme ideas is far less likely to compromise on anything.

no negotiations start from a point of acceptability. if it did there'd be no need of negotiations.

with no disrespect, lista, if you were to try to negotiate a compromise with a person with extremist ideas, you'd eventually end up in his camp. an extremist does not need to get everything he wants out of the negotiations only the most out of a compromise because he knows that eventually he will have everything he wanted in the first place.

Lista said...

Hi Griper,
I wonder if you know to what extent you have me thinking, for the Answer that I'm going to give you is Surprising me a little.

As long as there are always an Equal Number of people in Congress that represent both of the Extremes, nothing will ever pass that is too Extreme in it's content. Equal Numbers from each party Forces Compromise and this is the way it should be.

When there is an Imbalance of Power in the Congress, naturally I would prefer that it was on the Republican side, yet having an Equal Number of Democrats is not necessarily a negative.

I guess what is Surprising me about my own Answer is the fact that it reflects a Positive role of a few Congress men and women who hold Extreme Positions, yet there is also something else to consider.

What I said above in that…

"Quite aside from the fact that we are not likely to get our way in the matter, Extreme Ideas also cause the 'Fear of the Slippery Slop' to kick in, which is a phenomena that Prevents Compromise from occurring from either side."

So here we are back to…

"Where as, on the one hand, we don't want to start with the exact Middle, or with what we are willing to Settle for, on the other hand, we also do not want to start with something so Unrealistic that the Opposing Side is never going to Agree to it."

Lista said...

In light of this, perhaps it’s best if Congress men and women have Ideas that are not in the Middle, yet also not so far off to the side that the Ideas will never be accepted by the other side.

If you review the two quotes that I put in my comment from 4/4/09 – 6:14 PM, you will see where my logic is coming from.

The first of these quotes explains why the second paragraph in your above remark is true, yet the second of these quotes explains how not starting from the Middle does not necessarily mean starting from the Extremes.

You say that my view is Simplistic, yet why does it have to be any more Complicated than that?

Remember, a vote does not reflect a Compromise between two Individuals. It reflects a Compromise between two Groups. This sentence is worth repeating because it is key.

Once again there are three options, where you assume there are only two. You seem to think that there is only the Middle and the Extremes and do not seem to realize that there are other places that a person can start the Negotiation from that are neither the Middle nor the Extreme.

Lista said...

Something else that I should clear up relates to what I said in that...

"When I use the word Extreme, I am not referring to someone who is only a little off from my own idea of how things should be. The very word itself implies that the person is way off, not just a little."

As I was rereading these words within my above comment, I was also thinking of what it was that you said that I was responding to…

"Take a good look at all your comments. Every one of them use the word extremist or some derivative of the word when they do not fit your idea of how it should be. Show me one comment that would apply to someone who took the middle on any issue?"

The first Quote is mine and yet later, in the last of the comments that I submitted on 4/4/09, I said that…

"Even though I explained some of the Valid Reasons for holding a position that some would consider Extreme on one of your Abortion Pages,… if we can not Realistically Expect that the Opposing Side will Agree to the Idea, than Politically Speaking, it is Extreme."

Interestingly, this comment refers to someone who I often consider a Political Moderate, that is Myself. Not only that, but also, this would be an example of me using the word Extreme to fit with my idea of how it should be. How I think things should be and what I can Realistically Expect, though, are two different things.

The Griper said...

lista,
this thread is growing too long, so, i will make this the last comment from me. we can contine this discussion in another thread or in email whichever you prefer.

"You seem to think that there is only the Middle and the Extremes"

that is a false assumption because if you ever notice i always use a line of continuum to represent positions. plus i know there are more then two positions.

there is an extreme position on one end of that line and an opposing position on the other end then to simplify things there is a position in the middle. that makes three positions at its simplest.

now lets see what your compromise will result in from these positions. we must remember that in a good compromise everyone must give up something in regards to his position.

if the two extremes compromise then they'd end up in the middle with the third position. thus that third position in the middle does not give3 up anything and in a vote we would have an unanimous vote.

that person in the middle cannot compromise with both extremes at the same time but he can compromise with one extreme thus make a majority vote. but in compromising with one extreme he no longer can be declared a middle of the road anymore on that issue. he would be considered more extreme now because he moved towards the extreme he compromised with. then on another issue that person that was in the middle will compromise with the other extreme thus place him to that side of the extreme.

he cannot become someone in the middle anymore because there is no way to get back to that position
once he compromises with the extreme.

there have been many politicians who have tried this and the end result usually is he becomes an extremist in regards to foreign affairs and the opposite extremist in domestic affairs.

one more thing, lista. have you ever considered that any position one may take on an issue would be an extreme position by your understanding of it? and it would be because the other person would not accept it thus necessitating a compromise?

that is whole basis of the need of compromise. thus the first proposition will always appear to be more than what it really is, even in the price of a house. remember, that seller wants to get the most he can while the buyer want to pay the least he can.

Lista said...

Hi Griper,
My initial reaction to your suggestion about continuing this discussion through Private Email was that I do not like to have conversations like this that way because, at least in relation to this subject, I feel as if I'm Preaching to the Choir.

Occasionally, there is even a mild stress involved in such discussions and when this occurs, the only thing that makes it worth it is the idea that very possibly there is someone out there reading this that is getting more from it than you appear to be. Sometimes it seems in Private Email that the only person present is the unreceptive Choir.

I don’t know if I have ever seen you use a "Line of Continuum" to Represent your Positions, Griper, and I thought that you said that I was the one who was simplifying, yet you are the one doing it by talking mainly about the Middle and the Extremes.

The person in the Middle is not the one who needs to Compromise, Griper. The Compromise is between those who are at the Extremes, for… (I knew I would be repeating this.)

"Remember, a vote does not reflect a Compromise between two Individuals. It reflects a Compromise between two Groups."

To make your comment fit the Voting situation; you may be talking about the person in the Middle who casts the Deciding Vote, for it does make some level of sense to see this person in the Middle as someone who is making a decision about which side to Compromise with.

For me, though, I will never vote for any Preposition that is too Extreme, especially if it favors the Liberal side of the issue. In fact, I will also never vote for that which is too much of a Compromise between myself and the Extreme that I am the most opposed to.

Lista said...

I may vote for a Preposition on the Republican side that is a not quite in the Middle, or in some cases, even a little Extreme, yet I would do so not expecting the Preposition to win, for that which does not reflect the appropriate Compromise, usually fails in an Election. There are also some Republican ideas that I consider Extreme that I would never Vote for. One of these is the Flat Tax.

One of the things that this discussion has made me think about, Griper, is exactly who it is that I am talking to when I urge to avoid Extremes. I don't think that I am necessarily talking to the person in the Middle, or the Undecided Voter, but instead to the people writing the Prepositions and Bills, for neither of these stands any chance of winning if they do not reflect the appropriate Compromise between the Extremes.

Making a Compromise between the Middle and one of the Extremes, does not make any sense in this setting either, for once again…

"REMEMBER, A VOTE DOES NOT REFLECT A COMPROMISE BETWEEN TWO INDIVIDUALS. IT REFLECTS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN TWO GROUPS."

The Preposition, or in the case of Congress, the Bill, must reflect the desired Compromise between the Extremes in order to win in an Election. Whether Prepositions and/or bills win in an Election has nothing to do with the Compromise between myself and one of the Extremes.

Aside from those who write Prepositions and Bills, I am also addressing those who are trying to Persuade the People in the Middle. Just as Prepositions and Bills that do not reflect the appropriate Compromise between the Extremes do not stand any chance of Winning the Vote, so also if those who Persuade are too Extreme, they are not likely to Persuade the needed Undecided Voters.

Lista said...

You say, Griper, that…

"He cannot become someone in the middle anymore because there is no way to get back to that position once he compromises with the extreme."

This implies that it is impossible for a person to change his mind about a previous decision, but people change their minds all the time. It’s a little hard for Politicians to do it because they come across as wishy washy, yet the Voters can do this with ease and do so all the time.

You appear to be calling Minor Compromises Extremes and that is not what an Extreme is.

A position is only Politically Extreme, Griper, if there is no chance in hell that the opposing side will accept the position, not if the opposing side is Initially Resistant to making the Compromise.

The need for Compromise is not what makes something Extreme, Griper. The fact that the Idea is so far out there that the opponent will not even consider it is what makes it Extreme. The fact that you keep describing things that are less than Extreme as Extreme is the very thing that makes me think that you can not see anything other than the Middle and the Extremes, which fits again with the idea of Black and White or Two Dimensional Thinking and this focus is hindering my ability to communicate with you.

I guess I could repeat some of what I’ve said in my above comments and make it into a Post so we can continue this discussion. I’ll be quite busy this week, though, so if I do decide to Post on this subject, it will not be until sometime during the week after Easter. We’ll see how I feel at that time.

The Griper said...

the simplicity of it comes from the fact that what i said of individuals can also apply to groups, lista.

also, as i said before also, before there can be a compromise between groups there needs to be a compromise agreed to between individuals and those individuals are usually the leaders of those groups or individuals who were designated as representatives of those groups.

no group decisions of compromise come without individuals decisions of compromise first.

Lista said...

Hi Griper,
I didn't know whether or not you were going to respond again. I'll try and keep it a little shorter this time.

"The simplicity of it comes from the fact that what I said of individuals can also apply to groups, Lista."

Yes, but the vote is not about a Compromise between the Middle and the Extremes. The result of a Vote reflects a Compromise between the Extremes and if the appropriate Compromise isn't present, the Preposition or Bill will not win in the Election.

The only Voting related thing that seems to fit with your idea is the Undecided Voter. His or her decision could be described as a Compromise with one of the Extremes, yet if the Preposition or Bill is leaning too far towards one of the two Extremes, than the Voter who is in the Middle between the Extremes is way more likely to Vote for the other side and this explains why a Compromise is necessary in order to win the Election.

Ok, I never thought of the Compromise being made between the "Individual" Leaders of the said Groups, yet if this Leader does not reflect the appropriate Compromise between all the Individuals within his or her Group, than he or she will not be Elected, that is of course unless...

Oh my Gosh! A light bulb went on. If Individual Republicans Compromise when they vote due to a fear that someone with their values will not win enough Votes from the Democrats, than the Compromise that the Vote represents will be farther over than it should be.

Here's where you and I have trouble communicating, Griper, we are both too General and we don't understand each other until we become more Specific.

Sorry about the length of this Comment Thread, Griper. I guess I can sign off now.

The Griper said...

"The result of a Vote reflects a Compromise between the Extremes..."

this is a false preconception, lista. there are plenty of times that the middle must be compromised with one of the extremes in order to get a majority vote.

it is that fact that makes a democracy such a dangerous means of decision making.

it isn't generalizations that separate us in thought, lista. it is the idea of what an extreme means that separate us in thought.

your idea of an extreme thought is any thought that someone else disagrees with thus needs compromise for agreement. this is what resulted from that light being turned on in your head.

my idea of extreme are thoughts at the end of the line of continuum which oppose each other thus when a true compromise is reached that thought becomes a thought in the middle of that line.

you must remember lista, that any political party has at the least three contingencies. the two extreme plus the middle. this can be seen now as the two major parties are seen.

the republicans are made up of the conservatives, the rinos and those in the middle.

the democrats are made up of liberals, dinos, and those in the middle.

now, every idea of each party will result in an idea that is closest to one of these contingencies of each party thus can be associated with contingency. if there is a majority of any one contingency in a party then the party is defined by that contingency.

we have that now. the democratic party is defined as a liberal party and the republicans as a conservative party. and the differences between the two parties are clearly seen.

at one time there was very little differences between the two major parties. they were both considered as middle of the road parties. one was slightly left of the middle and the other slightly right of the middle. thus there was little need for compromise

Lista said...

Hello again Griper,
I thought that you were done making Comments on this Post. At least that's what you said. I even made another Post which the Conversation could be carried over to if you desire. The link is below. It's entitled "Preaching to the Choir".

I don't follow how the Middle must be Compromised with one of the Extremes in order to get a Majority Vote. This doesn't sound correct to me.

You have misunderstood my Definition of the word Extreme. I most certainly do not believe that. You are putting words in my mouth. That Definition is incorrect and I never once said that that is what it means.

The light that turned on in my head had nothing to do with this definition either.

I agree with your definition, Griper, and I have no idea why you keep talking to me as if you think that I think it is anything else.

Usually when I talk about Extremes, I am talking about the Extreme Right and the Extreme Left and the Compromise within this country is somewhere in between the two. You are now talking about Extremes within the Parties. That's another subject all together.

The Rinos and the Dinos are those who Compromise with each other and generally cast the Deciding Votes.

If the result of the Republican Primaries is a true Compromise, than the result should not be a Rino, nor an Extremist, but someone who is somewhere in between the two. The problem is that people Vote out of fear and Compromise what they believe in for fear that the Democrats will never Vote for the Values that they truly believe in. Thus the Vote is not really a true Vote and the Compromise is too far to the Left, resulting in the Nomination of a Rino.

Interestingly, though, the Rinos do not necessarily win the Election and this fact makes the Conclusions of those who Voted out of Fear Incorrect.

Lista said...

Ok, I didn't get the Phrase about the Middle being Compromised with one of the Extremes at first, yet once I thought about it, I realized that once again you were talking about the Deciding Vote(s) and yes, this is a Minor Compromise in that it causes the Preposition or Bill to either Lose or Win, yet it is not really a Compromise with an Extreme unless the Preposition or Bill is Extreme, yet a well written Preposition or Bill should reflect a Compromise, not an Extreme, for if a Preposition or Bill is too Extreme, it is not likely to Win in the Election.

Usually by the time a Preposition or Bill is taken to Vote, the Compromise has already been done by those who wrote the Preposition or Bill.

We are Both Right, Griper. You are right that the Deciding Vote could be viewed as a Minor Compromise, but I am right that Generally a Compromise has already been made before the Vote takes place.

Followers

Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code

 

Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster