6/6/12 questions and discussion

1-how might we ensure power is used skillfully and responsibly?4
2-why do some people have more ideas than others?6
3-should sex education be fun?3
4-do we believe in soul mates, and if so how would we tell we had met our soul mate?7
5-is it always darkest before the dawn in friendship?4
6-when is cannibalism justified?5
7-why can't we just debate the issues (as opposed to all the obnoxious advertising)?5

====================­=====

7-why should one compromise when one is right?10

Tor: a Tea Party acquaintance of mine said this to me recently. One example of this certitude for him are the 10 Commandments. I accused him of violating the working on sabbath commandment (I knew he did lawn mowing on Sundays). He claimed he was 
exercising his free will. Politically divided governments in America have been  catastrophic events, resulting in lower economic growth rates. Obama is doing very well by historical comparison in our current divided government. 

Roberta: you said growth rates are low with divided government?

Tor: when all three branches of federal governing has been Democrat controlled, our economy has grown +7% historically, when it's been Republican controlled we've enjoyed +5.5% growth. Minnesota is an exception in that when it has had politically divided governance we still have functioned well, except for the time during Tim Pawlenty's time as governor.

Jess: do you believe what's right is changeable? 

Tor: for me it's simple. If employment, debt, and growth are in balance economics is a non issue -- we just don't think about it. This time we're in now is the first recession we've had where the cure is both known and is being ignored.

Jess: I thought the "right" you ask about was more personal.

Sean:  trying to explain to the Tea Partier why he shouldn't be dogmatic via economics arguments will fail because his views come via divine revelation. You could instead emphasize process. Compromise comes in there.

Jon: why does this trouble seem to be happening now?

Sean: both sides are dogmatic. refusing to compromise.

Tor: good point about using process. We can do things outside the debate and get the objective. 

Mike T: but Obama offered a compromise yet was rejected because it included taxes.

Sean: I was only thinking of congress. They have avoided a shutdown. I still think that in this kind of situation we must ask if doing nothing is better than compromising. The libertarian is probably very happy now with dysfunctional government

Tor: everyone is in favor of lowering taxes and regulations.

Dan: in order to compromise two "rights" are required. There has to be an objective right. Compromise implies some wrong must be done. In the gang I was in it was might makes right. Congress never sits down and considers what is the ultimate right or wrong.

Mike T.: aren't they articulating visions for America?

Dan: no they're articulating visions for only parts of America.

Mike T.: when you listen to a demagogue, they're always talking in value terms (what's right) that we can usually agree on, yet their means for reaching those goals is unacceptable. This is part of the problem because it leaves out process.

Dan: in order to say that a demagogue must ignore most of us. They only speak for a minority of us.

Roberta: my first reaction was you were asking a question for individuals. To me compromise usually happens when there's something else that they want to accomplish. What I see in congress is people not taking the time to listen to one another. There are two results: standoff or run away.

Jon: that requires respect.

Roberta: it does and respect is not happening nowadays. Maybe we need to hit bottom before we change for the better. Or find a bigger goal.

Tor: this is exactly what was happening before Rome fell.

Jon: during last night's conversation at the Burnsville Socrates Cafe a young woman described one priority her Indonesian friend had. In her country children are obliged to care for their elders when needed. We were also discussing the value of productivity and how caring for one's elders can limit one's economic productivity. America is very productive economically and we may be doing it in part by warehousing our elderly in retirement homes. Indonesia looks like a great place to grow old in and a difficult place to be as productive as the US is.

Jess: I have Indonesian relatives and have seen it work well. They are productive!

Tor: Indonesia reveres age. They are probably more productive that the US. All the respect is gone here. It's like chickens in cages. If caring for our elderly happens, it's by accident.

Jess: it's a community of people doing this, not just people's kids.

Art: we compromise in order to get our way. To get things done. The non-compromisers we see now are getting what they want -- they want nothing done. Their goal is to keep their money. Poor people elect them because the powerful control the conversation.

Jon: do the poor have no free will?

Mike T.: aside from finding no evidence for the existence of free will, the majority of us can't choose "freely" when all the information we have to work with has been pre-packaged so as to limit our awareness of possible choices.

Eric:  if I'm right why should I compromise? Because I want to accomplish something. Somewhere along the line we must compromise or we'll take what we want to the grave.

Tor: higher purpose is needed.

Eric: now we have a shame associated with compromise.

Jeremy: I'm good at theory and bad at application. We all want the same ends not the same means. Pettiness causes this. Seeing your opponent as good makes it workable. Thinking in Utopian terms is catastrophic (the sledgehammer vs. the scalpel).