Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[knight66]

I think the murder issue is the wrong one to use to argue about society as a whole; as so very few people commit murder. But for sure, if it was not against the law, the people who are in jail would be out and about and doin' more murderin'.

It seems to me more relevent to look at theft; who has not stollen something? It might be a pen from work, using the phone or photocopier at work. Seeing a restaurant has missed the wine off the bill...and staying silent. So theft is something much closer to us as something we might do and escalate. If there were no laws against theft, then a lot more of us would be thieving, openly and often. With no laws against murder, probably not many more of us would be indulging ourselves.

In 18th cent England the death penalty was handed down for anything from stealing a sheep, pickpocketing to repeated vagrency. Lots of each went on; but mainly through desperation not a lifestyle choice.

Mike

[Todd]

About the debate last night: apparently Donald Trump doubled down on his promise to force the US military to commit war crimes. (In particular, murdering civilian family members of suspected terrorists.) When he was asked about military sources who said they are trained to disobey illegal orders, his response was that he'd force 'em anyway.

Trump pretty much always doubles down.  Of course he'll do so here.  I mean, it's the Middle East he's talking about.  They chop off people's heads over there. 

[drogulus]

     An article on Salon sez:

"The modern GOP has been focused almost exclusively on bumper-sticker sloganeering, rather than policy wonkery, for at least two decades, and Trump is merely squatting atop this rickety house of cards, built on specious nonsense rather than policy heft. Trump is leaning on the gas pedal and running the GOP style of politics through its paces. He's cynically pushing the limits of what the machine can handle, but make no mistake, the machine was there long before Trump arrived. There are millions of Republicans who've been whipped into anti-Obama frenzies, and are therefore millions of (white) Americans willing to support anything that will wrest the nation back from the clutches of the black president. Trump is the antidote. He's become the Mussolini of the GOP's Bubble Empire, and the party establishment made it all possible."

"For eight years, these voters have been told that no matter what happens, they must help destroy the Obama legacy by any means possible. It's practically a biblical calling to them. And now Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment are telling them they've made the wrong choice. They've chosen a false god. But now, months into it, they're emotionally and faithfully invested. Trump speaks to them, they say. He's just like them, they say. But the party knows that Trump must not become the nominee. He's not the true orange messiah of these three million voters, delivered from on high to "make America great again." Instead, he's the Great Satan who will destroy the party."

     The suicide of the Repub party is not the death of the nation or anything close. It is nevertheless worrisome, because we're all riding along with these people, and they get worse and worse as time goes by. These people can't cure their obsessions because the Republi-sphere has been purged of fact recognition. What Repubs did to be unable to fend off Trump is what made them irrational enough to be vulnerable to his charms.

     

[Madiel]

All laws essentially say one of three things: you must do this, you must not do this, you may do this (ie you have permission). The rest is detail about who is being addressed and the circumstances the rule applies.

Rules. They're just rules with a fancier name.

And then, as others have observed, comes enforcement. For the majority of people, the existence of the rule is enough to influence their behaviour. Most people want to follow most rules. A decent number of people will disobey a rule if they think the rule is wrong and the consequences of disobeying are trivial/unlikely to be enforced. Only a few people will disobey a rule just because it advantages them to do so.

To bring this back to the main topic, it seems to me that one of the characteristics of Trump is that he has very little patience for any suggestion that there are things he must not do. In his talk, at least, rules that constrain him are an annoyance and dismissed. I'm not saying he would break the law, but I do think that he would stretch it and that anything that wasn't clear and explicit would be ignored. The recurring question would be "where does it say I can't do that?" and it would be necessary to cite chapter and verse to dissuade him.

[Florestan]

Dostoevsky's conscience aside, I think not wanting to spend one's life in jail or being executed is equally compelling.

For some people who contemplate murdering somebody, yes, but not for all of them, othwerwise the murder rate would be zero, which is not the case.

In 18th cent England the death penalty was handed down for anything from stealing a sheep, pickpocketing to repeated vagrency. Lots of each went on; but mainly through desperation not a lifestyle choice.

Well, precisely. Stealing a sheep, pickpocketing and vagrancy decreased dramatically in England in the last two centuries not because of the laws that punished them with death but because the economical and social condition of the people who did it out of desperation improved more and more as time went by. Laws that sought to redress inequality and poverty and to enable people to make an honest and decent living by their own work and diligence did much more to curb stealing and pickpocketing than the law prescribing death penalty for comitting them.

[Florestan]

All laws essentially say one of three things: you must do this, you must not do this, you may do this (ie you have permission). The rest is detail about who is being addressed and the circumstances the rule applies.

Rules. They're just rules with a fancier name.

And then, as others have observed, comes enforcement. For the majority of people, the existence of the rule is enough to influence their behaviour. Most people want to follow most rules. A decent number of people will disobey a rule if they think the rule is wrong and the consequences of disobeying are trivial/unlikely to be enforced. Only a few people will disobey a rule just because it advantages them to do so.

Agreed on all points.

To bring this back to the main topic, it seems to me that one of the characteristics of Trump is that he has very little patience for any suggestion that there are things he must not do. In his talk, at least, rules that constrain him are an annoyance and dismissed. I'm not saying he would break the law, but I do think that he would stretch it and that anything that wasn't clear and explicit would be ignored. The recurring question would be "where does it say I can't do that?" and it would be necessary to cite chapter and verse to dissuade him.

And thus we are back to the importance and desirability to have legislation that is clear, explicit and non-contradictory.

[Brian]

Bernie proposes $15T in tax increases, for everyone

His total proposal is > 10 times the tax increase Hillary proposes, and his proposed increase even on the richest 1% is 10 times Hillary's.

[Madiel]

I'm entirely in favour of clear and non-contradictory laws. But come do my job for a few years and you'll discover it's not as simple a proposition as it sounds.

[Florestan]

I'm entirely in favour of clear and non-contradictory laws. But come do my job for a few years and you'll discover it's not as simple a proposition as it sounds.

I´m absolutely convinced it isn´t but I suspect it might have something to do with politicians and lobbyists...

[Todd]

Bernie proposes $15T in tax increases, for everyone

[Florestan]

ROTFLMAOL   

Where on earth did you find that picture?

[Todd]

Where on earth did you find that picture?

I just googled "pigs fly". 

[Florestan]

Terrific. I´m still laughing. 

[knight66]

For some people who contemplate murdering somebody, yes, but not for all of them, othwerwise the murder rate would be zero, which is not the case.

Well, precisely. Stealing a sheep, pickpocketing and vagrancy decreased dramatically in England in the last two centuries not because of the laws that punished them with death but because the economical and social condition of the people who did it out of desperation improved more and more as time went by. Laws that sought to redress inequality and poverty and to enable people to make an honest and decent living by their own work and diligence did much more to curb stealing and pickpocketing than the law prescribing death penalty for comitting them.

Actually, you are factually incorrect. When the death penalty was restricted to crimes of murder, treason or setting fire to a dockyard; the crime rate exploded, much to the consternation of the middle classes.

Mike

[André]

Google states that info on 'how to emigrate to Canada' has exploded since the Super Tuesday wins by Trump.  Same thing happened when W. Bush was reelected. The following year (2005) there was no change in the actual numbers of american emigrants to Canada.

Which goes on to prove that Americans may have strong sentiments and opinions, but remain firmly grounded on home soil none the less. In the end, a good understanding of the old saying 'time heals' helps surmount difficulties. When it's all said and done, 'working together in the best way we can' will be the catchphrase.

If Canada surmounted 10 years of ultra conservative Harper rhetoric and regularly unconstitutional legislation-making (*), then surely the US can live with either Trump or Clinton for 4 years.

(*) The Harper government policies' debunking by Canada's Supreme Court stands as an all-time record in this country.

[drogulus]

     Sanders is going about it the wrong way. Would higher taxes and higher spending be a net win? That would depend on how the tax increase part fell on savings (good) or spending (bad). He doesn't get that it's net spending that does the largest share of good, dollars spent into existence but not taxed back into the thin air they come from. The dollars that exist now haven't returned as tax, so they are available to do work (spending) or act as a buffer (savings). Both savings and tax removal require new spending. The savings (called the national debt on the liability side) are permanent and growing with the economy. Sanders doesn't get the circuit dynamics, and like most liberals and all conservatives thinks government must tax in order to spend, blind to the operational reality that governments must spend in order to tax.

     Why does he think that the tax return must be accelerated even though the economy needs to see it slow down? Does he think, like uninformed people generally do, that if we don't get those dollars back now now now they'll refuse to come back? This is operationally impossible. It's largely the artifact of warring ideologies that only see the warts on the other side and not their own. The inconsistency is remarkable. Conservatives "know" that taxes come out of the economy and lower GDP, liberals "know" that spending goes into the economy and raises GDP. The most consistent view and the right one, is that on these points both are correct, and wrong that low taxing requires low spending on one side and high spending requires high taxing on the other. Both are one step away from understanding how deficits function, but each side from their own stubbornness won't take that step. In the case of Sanders, it's clear he is not listening to Stephanie Kelton in favor of the liberal version of orthodox economics.

[Florestan]

Actually, you are factually incorrect. When the death penalty was restricted to crimes of murder, treason or setting fire to a dockyard; the crime rate exploded, much to the consternation of the middle classes.

Please explain me which where the factors responsible for the constant diminution until virtual disappearance, as time went by , of desperation-motivated stealing, pickpocketing and vagrancy in England.

[knight66]

No, I have a busy life to lead and you just pick away whenever you are confronted by facts you don't like. Here is my final word on this specific issue.

Most people are happily law abiding. But remove the laws and a substantial proportion of them will act very differently. If there were no such laws; society would become increasingly tough for those who did not take whatever opportunities life provided to them in order to survive.

It is happening right now; people under pressure are victimised and exploited immorally and illegally and many of the victims become difficult to integrate partly due to their unwillingness to play by the rules of the country they have landed in.

It is laws that keep society seemingly civilised by providing a framework with consequences that the majority of the population prefer to avoid. Some people are inherently good just as some seem to be inherently bad. But I believe the majority of us are creatures of circumstance and will act according to the pressure their society is under.

Mike

[Florestan]

No, I have a busy life to lead and you just pick away whenever you are confronted by facts you don't like.

Most interesting explanation --- and very helpful too. Thank you.

[Brian]

If Canada surmounted 10 years of ultra conservative Harper rhetoric and regularly unconstitutional legislation-making (*), then surely the US can live with either Trump or Clinton for 4 years.

I enjoyed your post - and respect your perspective as a Canadian, especially since I'm one of the people who quickly Googled "move to Canada" - but I do not think Stephen Harper is a good analogue for Donald Trump. Trump is more like a Silvio Berlusconi - and although Italy did "live with" Berlusconi, he caused them extraordinary economic damage, his policies helped cause Italy's current stagnant labor market, and he several times passed new laws which were designed solely to help himself escape fraud convictions.

You might have missed this - I forgive anyone and everyone for missing things Trump has said, because paying attention to Trump is such a depressing and disgusting thing to do - but Trump recently called for the US military to target for assassination the wives and children of suspected terrorists (which is a war crime). When told in a debate that the military disobeys illegal orders, he said he would force them to do it anyway.