Better behavior leads to success

Our liberals friends have seized on the community issue, but they only pick up one end of the stick. They lecture the successful on what they owe to others. Worse, they divide the world into victims and perpetrators w/o regard to behavior. Member particular groups are victims, no matter their circumstances. There even seems to be a hierarchy among them that we are all supposed to honor but not openly acknowledge. A black women comes ahead of a white woman. A gay black woman trumps both. The only consistent loser is the white man, and at the very bottom is an openly Christian rural white man, although even he can mitigate his loss if he declares himself gay, a substance abuser or becomes abysmally poor.

This is very wrong. VERY wrong morally, intellectually and spiritually.

We should NEVER judge people by their status (rich/poor, black/white, male/female etc) but only by what they DO and even more precisely only those things that they do where they have reasonable control.

A community is NOT like a family. None of us would like it to be, even if we use the metaphor. A family is a collection of unequal parts with different rights. Some are always dependent; others make most of the decisions. Families might well do what the two-year-old demands, but nobody really trusts her judgement.

A community is more like a team, with all members doing their parts for the good of the team and all members enjoying benefits based on their contributions. ALL benefit in general if the team does well and all suffer if it does poorly. Some play more important roles than others, but those roles are not permanent. And they all depend on each other. The quarterback may be most important much of the time, but if the lineman doesn't do his job, the quarterback will be crushed. All will suffer. Each team member has the right to demand that others do their part and the duty to do his with skill and purpose.

A team breaks down when some become permanently privileged. My liberal friends are now paying attention. They will tell me that they indeed are against privilege, but they are not. Remember that we can judge people only by what they do, not by their status. If you want to use the more poetic term, you can say by the content of their characters, which is revealed by their behaviors.

Privilege would be when similar behaviors are treated differently depending on status or conversely when different behaviors were treated similarly depending on status. In both cases the outcome is unearned (for good or ill) by the behavior exhibited.

So the world begins to look a little different. Our liberal friends want to extend rights to some and responsibility to others. I was arguing in the voter ID case. The behavior we want to encourage is to protect the sanctity of the vote. An important means to do this is to make sure that nobody steals votes. A simple protection is to ask people to properly identify themselves. This is what we do when cashing check, renting homes, boarding planes etc. In fact we do it always and everywhere when we want to protect something of value from strangers who might unjustly claim it.

If someone refuses to get an ID, who is the victim? The victims are the honest voters who have had their votes put at risk by the guy who won't get an ID.

It is like the guy who refuses to get vaccinated and so allows the spread of a deadly disease. There is no doubt that he is the person MOST affected, but his irresponsible actions also affect others.

The same goes for obnoxious behaviors. Some people behave in offensive ways. In our free society, we have lots of rights to be A-holes. But such people cannot be surprised if others dislike or avoid them. We have no right to judge you on the basis of what you are, but we have every right to judge you based on what you do.

I would also point out the simple rule. If a few people don't like you, it is probably their fault. If lots of people don't like you, it is probably your fault. If you are the victim once or twice, blame fate or bad people. If you are the victim frequently, maybe it is time to change your routine.

So I wish that more people would pull their own weight and make things better for all of us rather than demanding others give them more. Since I know that the world is imperfect, I don't expect this problem ever to be solved. But I do hope to maintain my right to largely ignore people who get in trouble due to their bad behaviors. I may be eager to help them, but it has to be on the right terms. A person who insists on hitting himself on the head with a wooden plank will have a headache and there is not much I can do for him until he stops that behavior. He may indeed be a victim, but he is a victim of his own stupidity. I feel the human urge to help him if I can, but I bear no responsibility for what happened to him. On the other hand, to the extend that his head banging prevents him from pulling his own weight and helping society, he is perpetrating a grievance against me. He should stop it.

Posted by Christine & John at February 23, 2014 2:23 PM
Comments
Comment #376730

What’s your point? Are advocating that we use the government’s cudgel to enforce behavior that you consider virtuous? If so, this is not congruent with the liberal ideals on which our nation was founded.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 23, 2014 4:22 PM
Comment #376731

Warren

I am advocating taking the government cudgel away from folks who might use it against others.

I don’t care if people behave in ways I consider odd, but I don’t want to pay for them to do it. I recall what my father would tell me when I wanted to do it. “Go ahead, but don’t come crying to me when you get hurt.”

I also want my fellow citizens to pull more of their own weight. Again, I will not force them, but if someone wants to pursue a lifestyle that we can reasonably foresee will not succeed, let him suffer the costs.

Freedom to do what you want depends on your ability to do it w/o asking too much from others. And we can grant freedom to the extent that they won’t be bothering us. But if you ask me to pay, you give me the right to control some of your behavior.

Posted by: CJ at February 23, 2014 4:33 PM
Comment #376732

How is someone without an ID costing you money?

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 23, 2014 4:46 PM
Comment #376734

Warren

The person w/o an ID is jeopardizing my voting rights as well as his own, by potentially opening the door for fraud. I merely ask him to help protect the integrity of the system by doing something he probably should do anyway. In this case, we are doing him a favor, since with an ID he can live more like a human being and citizen instead of lurking in the shadows, as he is now, unable to drive, fly, cash checks or enter many public buildings.

Posted by: CJ at February 23, 2014 7:00 PM
Comment #376735

Warren

One more thing he could do with an ID that he cannot do w/o one. He could take part in the NAACP rally against requiring an ID, since they won’t let him in w/o an ID.

Of course, we might want to protest against the protest, since there is not indication that in-person protester fraud has ever been a significant issue.

Posted by: CJ at February 23, 2014 7:06 PM
Comment #376738
The person w/o an ID is jeopardizing my voting rights as well as his own, by potentially opening the door for fraud. I merely ask him to help protect the integrity of the system by doing something he probably should do anyway. In this case, we are doing him a favor, since with an ID he can live more like a human being and citizen instead of lurking in the shadows, as he is now, unable to drive, fly, cash checks or enter many public buildings.

So you are advocating the use of the government’s cudgel to enforce your preferred behaviors. Like I said before, this conflicts with the liberal ideals on which this nation was founded.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 23, 2014 8:16 PM
Comment #376740

Warren

Not at all. The guy can do what he wants, except for things that require IDs. This includes cashing checks, boarding airplanes, applying for welfare and ObamaCare and voting.

It reminds me of Sir Charles Napier in India. The locals had what he considered the bad habit of burning widows along with their dead husbands and he wanted to ban it. But when local Hindu priests complained that he was interfering with their customs, he relented. But he said that they needed to respect his customs too. Therefore, the locals could follow their customs and burn the widows. And Sir Charles would follow his customs to hang anybody who did it.

Anyway, there are few people who are so divorced from our society that they have no IDs and thus take such little part in affairs that they would want to vote. If you can find such people, it will be no problem to get them IDs. And if they won’t cooperate in this small way, we know they are poor citizens and evidently unable to think clearly.

Posted by: CJ at February 23, 2014 8:44 PM
Comment #376741

Warren

Let me also point out that you are evidently confusing me with someone who believes in the absolute right to vote. I do not. I believe that it should be simple to vote, but I consider it both a right and responsibility. Those unable or unwilling to undertake the relatively mild responsibility to vote, which consists mostly of just showing up with an ID that you either already have or can get, I would exclude. So far, the Courts have taken a similar point of view. I would not lift a finger to change that, since I think it is just and fair.

Posted by: CJ at February 23, 2014 8:49 PM
Comment #376743

CJ,

What happens under your doctrine when someone votes, but fails to present an ID? Presumably this would be illegal. If the accused does not cooperate with the justice system, then lethal repercussions would be in force. This is a deprivation of liberty.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 23, 2014 10:40 PM
Comment #376752
We should NEVER judge people by their status (rich/poor, black/white, male/female etc) but only by what they DO and even more precisely only those things that they do where they have reasonable control.

C&J it seems to me conservatives judge by groups just as you blame liberal of doing. In the previous thread both you and kctim seem to be judging both the white guy and the black kids by some caricature not as individuals. You attempt to blame the victim by telling us his behavior and the culture group you have assigned to him is below your standards. Here you tell us anyone without an ID lacks character, “we know they are poor citizens and evidently unable to think clearly.” not to mention the less than human blurb. Not to mention the practically non existent voter impersonation fraud. SO group think seems to run across political lines.

You then make the case in this thread that anyone without and ID is in some sort of a subculture group that should be denied the ability to do their duty to their country. Voting is a duty C&J(seems we agree on this). You tell us the group that has no ID is taking away your right to vote by telling us “The person w/o an ID is jeopardizing my voting rights as well as his own, by potentially opening the door for fraud.” The problem is you then link this ID to many other things such as “cashing check, renting homes, boarding planes” ” He could take part in the NAACP rally” and so on. None of these are right or duties we ask of Americans. They are smokescreens for those that seek to suppress the vote.

BTW you also tell us “I don’t care if people behave in ways I consider odd, but I don’t want to pay for them to do it.” But then the ALEC voter suppression laws uses taxpayer dollars to pay for the ID in most if not all cases. I guess this just goes to show to which lengths conservatives ill go to suppress the vote. But please don’t talk about small government when you agree with paying for individual registered voters to get an ID just to do his/hers duty and vote.

The one thing we have seen from conservatives on a consistent basis is the “we are the victims” mentality. You try to make that case here,despite being able to vote, you are the victim not those you have kept from voting. Absolute nonsense IMHO. But as the American Progress link below points out it is conservatives who are perpetrators of voter suppression laws the Voter ID law being but one of many.


http://www.dirtandseeds.com/an-abridged-history-of-conservative-voter-suppression/

“Similar legislation had been proposed during the early 2000s in states such as Missouri, but the legislation frequently failed to be passed. Seeking new avenues, the George W. Bush administration prioritized the conviction of voter fraud to the point where two U.S. attorneys were allegedly fired in 2004 for failing to pursue electoral fraud cases at the level required by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. In fact, three years after first prioritizing election fraud in 2002, Ashcroft’s efforts had produced only 95 defendants charged with election-fraud, compared to 80,424 criminal cases concluded in a given year.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/report/2012/04/04/11380/voter-suppression-101/

Posted by: j2t2 at February 24, 2014 3:33 PM
Comment #376756

Warren

The request for ID is to identify the person. It would be like you writing a check. You would not be able to do it w/o identification. If for some reason you managed to do it w/o identification and were committing no fraud, nobody would know or care. There would be no reason to request an ID AFTER the vote. Like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.


J2t2

I am sure that conservatives are among the sinners judging by group. I am against the behavior of doing that, no matter who does it.

You are wrong about me judging by the group, however. When you point out that I say “we know they are poor citizens and evidently unable to think clearly.” - I am clearly judging by behavior. We would be completely unable to identify a anyone absent the behavior.

Re the ID - I am merely asking individuals to act responsibly. I have no reason to believe that there is any reasonable person unable to do this. If they indeed act responsibly, they are not identifiable as members of any group except that of responsible citizen, a group I proudly belong to.

In general, I am in favor of defending the integrity of the right to vote. I personally cannot think of a reason why a reasonable citizen could not get an ID, but I am persuaded that I might be wrong. That is why I support extraordinary efforts to help these sorts of people, should we find them.

Posted by: CJ at February 24, 2014 6:24 PM
Comment #376759
If for some reason you managed to do it w/o identification and were committing no fraud, nobody would know or care. There would be no reason to request an ID AFTER the vote. Like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

???

Let’s say I come to a polling location and vote without providing identification, but one of O’Keefe’s friends videos my illegal act. They send the video to the police. Would I not be prosecuted? A crime is a crime is a crime. There’s not barn door, nor is there any cattle.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 24, 2014 9:03 PM
Comment #376830

Warren

It is what you call a process foul. No crime has been committed if you have not committed fraud by not being the true voter. Presumably the person who let you vote would be reprimanded for not checking and the fact that you were able to vote would call into question the general integrity of the polling place. But there is no crime on your part. It just doesn’t come up. It would be a similar case if you cashed a check and the person who was supposed to ask identification just did not do it.

Posted by: CJ at February 25, 2014 6:06 PM
Comment #376833
It is what you call a process foul. No crime has been committed if you have not committed fraud by not being the true voter. /blockquote>

Our laws aren’t like this. Either an action/behavior is legal or illegal.

But there is no crime on your part.
I’m still confused. Isn’t the whole point of these laws supposed to be punitive against voting without identification? You went to great lengths to explain the virtues of photo identification.
It would be a similar case if you cashed a check and the person who was supposed to ask identification just did not do it.
There are no laws that I am aware of that require identification to cash checks.
Posted by: Warren Porter at February 25, 2014 7:03 PM
Comment #376836

Warren

It is not illegal to vote w/o an ID. You would not be allowed to vote w/o the ID to prove your identity. The laws would require that you present an ID to be allowed to vote. You COULD not vote unless you proved your identity with an ID. It doesn’t apply to voting itself.

If the law is applied, there would not be cases of people voting w/o having shown an ID. If a legal voter somehow managed to vote w/o the proper identification, the act itself is not illegal. But even if it were illegal, there would be no way of catching you anyway. You have to present the ID BEFORE you vote. After you just go home. You need not present ID on the way out.

Posted by: CJ at February 25, 2014 8:30 PM
Comment #376839
If a legal voter somehow managed to vote w/o the proper identification, the act itself is not illegal.

Yes it would. That is entirely the purpose of these laws. If I was videotaped voting without showing and ID (perhaps with the help of a complicit poll-worker), then why wouldn’t I be liable to be prosecuted?

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 25, 2014 9:13 PM
Post a comment