"Why can’t politicians simply state their case, and respect the right of others to do the same? Why can’t they acknowledge that they know only just so much about only some of the questions?"
Because that hasn't been getting enough votes. There HAVE BEEN enough voters wanting politicians who will pass and enforce laws that shape society the way they want it shaped. Only voters who want a society where everyone can state their case and respect the rights of others will vote for candidates like that.
How much of that desire to shape society to your will is innate to the voter, and how much of that desire comes from outside manipulation in order to gain control is my question.
I have to disagree with the statement "...pass and enforce laws that shape society...." Shaping society is our job as a People. And, no, we never all agree. That's part of the deal in a free society.
Legislatures are there to make laws concerning more practical matters, such as traffic law, taxes, borders, etc. They are NOT there to pass judgement on what any of us thinks. And they are NOT there to prohibit or encourage us as we express our thoughts and opinions.
A law that makes taxes higher or lower, or affects some income brackets more than others, does not shape society? (The purpose of taxes is to shape society. ie Let's have roads so we can get around better. Let's have public education hopefully in a way that improves society. Let's have a military so we don't get invaded/can protect our interests abroad.)
A law that allows more or fewer people to immigrate does not shape society (Texas, NYC, Denver)?
Laws/executive orders that says schools will/will not have in-person learning, restaurants can only serve take-out, gays can serve in the military under don't ask/don't tell or gays can serve openly in the military, do not shape society?
A major purpose of Thou Shalt Not Kill was to shape society.
I did not say people don't shape society. People need to remember that they do.
I agree legislatures (so far in this country) don't pass laws primarily to change how we think. Only what we do. And given enough time, that can change how people think, for good or ill.
Certainly, I get your point. And I thought you might come back along those lines.
But to what extent should governments do social engineering with taxes, or any other way? Yes, we need taxes for roads, schools, military, etc. My opinion is that those taxes should directly answer to a need, and not try to shape opinion or attitudes. WE are supposed to tell THEM how it's supposed to be. I have no desire to be led, and I apologize to no one for it. If you can have "Your" guy make laws to force me to abide by your values, then I can have "My" guy make laws to force you to abide my values. I have no desire to do that, and I would appreciate the same consideration.
But to what extent SHOULD governments do social engineering with taxes, or any other way?
0%. 100% it should be 0%.
But having a supreme court justice who needs an expert like a biologist to know what a woman is, sends a message that we need experts to tell us what to do AND think. [We won't need laws to tell us what to think, when we have tax-payer funded experts to nudge here and pre-bunk there (sarcasm).]
And this gets back to why politicians can't say "I don't know." We (some of us) want them to say "I'm not an expert in all things so I can't decide for you." But we (some of us) don't want them to say, "you're not an expert in anything, and you need to pay attention to the government-funded experts who collectively have expertise in all things."
There ARE people out there who want to shape society and think politics and government and indirectly tax-payer-funded experts, media and influencers are the way to do it. They are dangerous just for that and can also provoke sane people into being dangerous in the other direction.
So, maybe we agree government thought control is bad. And that the government dabbles in the thought-control business (in the name of safety/protecting democracy/etc), and that some people actually like that. But not us, unless we are temporarily insane due to the never-ending insanity.
I pretty much totally agree with what you've said here. The point I keep making is that we are being played; that we are being divided and conquered. I generally express no specific opinions about abortion, religion, taxes, sexuality or gender, or anything else. My main point is that we are being manipulated, and THAT is the big problem.
Why admit they are wrong when the can just create a new word to prove there knowledge on the subject ,and make it look like they care about the question win win. It’s a perversion of language, and our votes keep it alive. The one and only truth we all share as human beings is the flawless understanding of right , and wrong. It’s coded into our DNA. There is no grey area, either it’s right or it’s wrong. Now let’s take a step back and look at our political leaders, our judges, our law makers, our educational system. Where does it lead? How are we all doing today? Has anything gotten better? Or are things progressively getting worse, with every vote, every promise, every twist , and turn. Our political views really don’t mean anything the truth is we are all the same, ultimately we all want the same thing, we all have the same values. The problem is that some of us are good and some of us are evil. It’s the evil ones who take action because they don’t care who they hurt. The good ones just hope for things to get better (faith) At least it’s that simple for me.
I don't think it's totally all about good versus evil but I get your point. Many people depend way too much on government instead of on their own principles and initiative.
"Why can’t politicians simply state their case, and respect the right of others to do the same? Why can’t they acknowledge that they know only just so much about only some of the questions?"
Because that hasn't been getting enough votes. There HAVE BEEN enough voters wanting politicians who will pass and enforce laws that shape society the way they want it shaped. Only voters who want a society where everyone can state their case and respect the rights of others will vote for candidates like that.
How much of that desire to shape society to your will is innate to the voter, and how much of that desire comes from outside manipulation in order to gain control is my question.
I have to disagree with the statement "...pass and enforce laws that shape society...." Shaping society is our job as a People. And, no, we never all agree. That's part of the deal in a free society.
Legislatures are there to make laws concerning more practical matters, such as traffic law, taxes, borders, etc. They are NOT there to pass judgement on what any of us thinks. And they are NOT there to prohibit or encourage us as we express our thoughts and opinions.
A law that makes taxes higher or lower, or affects some income brackets more than others, does not shape society? (The purpose of taxes is to shape society. ie Let's have roads so we can get around better. Let's have public education hopefully in a way that improves society. Let's have a military so we don't get invaded/can protect our interests abroad.)
A law that allows more or fewer people to immigrate does not shape society (Texas, NYC, Denver)?
Laws/executive orders that says schools will/will not have in-person learning, restaurants can only serve take-out, gays can serve in the military under don't ask/don't tell or gays can serve openly in the military, do not shape society?
A major purpose of Thou Shalt Not Kill was to shape society.
I did not say people don't shape society. People need to remember that they do.
I agree legislatures (so far in this country) don't pass laws primarily to change how we think. Only what we do. And given enough time, that can change how people think, for good or ill.
Certainly, I get your point. And I thought you might come back along those lines.
But to what extent should governments do social engineering with taxes, or any other way? Yes, we need taxes for roads, schools, military, etc. My opinion is that those taxes should directly answer to a need, and not try to shape opinion or attitudes. WE are supposed to tell THEM how it's supposed to be. I have no desire to be led, and I apologize to no one for it. If you can have "Your" guy make laws to force me to abide by your values, then I can have "My" guy make laws to force you to abide my values. I have no desire to do that, and I would appreciate the same consideration.
But to what extent SHOULD governments do social engineering with taxes, or any other way?
0%. 100% it should be 0%.
But having a supreme court justice who needs an expert like a biologist to know what a woman is, sends a message that we need experts to tell us what to do AND think. [We won't need laws to tell us what to think, when we have tax-payer funded experts to nudge here and pre-bunk there (sarcasm).]
And this gets back to why politicians can't say "I don't know." We (some of us) want them to say "I'm not an expert in all things so I can't decide for you." But we (some of us) don't want them to say, "you're not an expert in anything, and you need to pay attention to the government-funded experts who collectively have expertise in all things."
There ARE people out there who want to shape society and think politics and government and indirectly tax-payer-funded experts, media and influencers are the way to do it. They are dangerous just for that and can also provoke sane people into being dangerous in the other direction.
So, maybe we agree government thought control is bad. And that the government dabbles in the thought-control business (in the name of safety/protecting democracy/etc), and that some people actually like that. But not us, unless we are temporarily insane due to the never-ending insanity.
I pretty much totally agree with what you've said here. The point I keep making is that we are being played; that we are being divided and conquered. I generally express no specific opinions about abortion, religion, taxes, sexuality or gender, or anything else. My main point is that we are being manipulated, and THAT is the big problem.
Why admit they are wrong when the can just create a new word to prove there knowledge on the subject ,and make it look like they care about the question win win. It’s a perversion of language, and our votes keep it alive. The one and only truth we all share as human beings is the flawless understanding of right , and wrong. It’s coded into our DNA. There is no grey area, either it’s right or it’s wrong. Now let’s take a step back and look at our political leaders, our judges, our law makers, our educational system. Where does it lead? How are we all doing today? Has anything gotten better? Or are things progressively getting worse, with every vote, every promise, every twist , and turn. Our political views really don’t mean anything the truth is we are all the same, ultimately we all want the same thing, we all have the same values. The problem is that some of us are good and some of us are evil. It’s the evil ones who take action because they don’t care who they hurt. The good ones just hope for things to get better (faith) At least it’s that simple for me.
I don't think it's totally all about good versus evil but I get your point. Many people depend way too much on government instead of on their own principles and initiative.