Radical Centrists Unite!

Great Debates
1

I think of myself as a Radical Centrist on many issues, and I believe the vast silent majority (as opposed to the vocal minority) of Americans will aggree with me

  1. Abortion: Until about midway through the pregnancy (when the fetus starts to be able to survive outside of the womb), abortions should be available - NO 3rd TRIMESTER ABORTIONS.

  2. Guns: You want a gun? Fine. I don’t care. I want them kept and used safely and out of the hands of kids. All guns have to be registerred, similar to cars. Guns can not be sold except either by or to licensed dealers - NO SWAP MEETS OR CONVENTION BUSINESS!

  3. Medicare: If we don’t do something, it will be insufficiently funded. Increase the tax slightly, and include copayments, etc. If the elderly are too poor to pay the copayments, they move into Medicaid (welfare)

Any other good centrest views?

“The large print givith, and the small print taketh away.”
Tom Waites, “Step Right Up”

2

Centrism is the lubricant of tyranny.

3

Er.

Lib, care to expound a little bit? I’d hate to think that because I can see the valid points on both sides of an issue, I’m Hindenburg appointing Hitler to the Chancellorship…

JMCJ

Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.

4

Well I’m not as libertarian as, say, Libertarian, but IMO, the less governement intervention, the better.
As to dealing with what we’ve already got, I have no problem with your suggestions.

(some debate, eh?)

“I should not take bribes and Minister Bal Bahadur KC should not do so either. But if clerks take a bribe of Rs 50-60 after a hard day’s work, it is not an issue.” ----Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Current Prime Minister of Nepal

5

Which is more dangerous, a box that is clearly marked “Poison” or a box that is marked “Fruit Punch Mix”, but that contains poison all the same?

6

Obviously Centrism is one more step on the slippery slope to goose-stepping our way to total government control, right, Lib? :rolleyes:

7

Being Radically Centrist is akin to believing in exactly half of our Constitution and human rights.

Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

8

The problem I see with Centrism, Gaudere, is that it presents something evil as something palatable, even desirable. It isn’t a step on the slippery slope; it is the slippery slope. It’s the method by which politicians first talk you into accepting the idea of manditory seat-belts. “It’s for your own good.” One generation and twenty-four volumes of regulations later, the price of a new car Impala has balooned by an order of magnitude in one generation.

Now, watch as the Centrists take over the computer, internet, and other technology industries. Centrism is not good for a free society.

9

I didn’t even know there was something officially called “Centrist”, although I think I can make a pretty good guess what it is by context. You know, the “slippery slope” argument is generally regarded as logically flawed. Just because we ban kiddie porn doesn’t mean we’re going to completely restrict free speech a few years down the road. It is curious that you trust the great majority of people to be honest and peaceful, but you do not trust them to be able to tell the difference between licensing a gun and wholesale banning of them. You’re just coming across as a bit Chicken-Little-ish; if you have a problem with specific parts of Centrism, well and good, let’s hear 'em, but yelling “slippery slope” every time is going to get you ignored when you want people to listen the most.

[/unrequested and probably unwelcome advice]

10

Only when it is misstated.

A slippery slope fallacy is not the same as a[url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-055es.html]slippery slope argument. An argument is not fallacious just because it is of a certain type.

A hasty generalization and a false analogy are two types of induction fallacies, but the fact that you can induce with errors does not make induction intrinsically fallatious.

I’m not saying that Centrism assures tyranny. I am merely saying that Centrism makes it easier for tyrants to cloak their intentions by sneaking up on you. Centrism can relax vigilance.

11

Sorry, Gaudere.

Here’s that link to a sound slippery slope argument.

12

The point being you should show how centrism may specifically be likely to lead to tyranny. Couldn’t the bad examples of SSA, like “if we ban assault rifles, next thing you know we’ll ban all guns, then we’ll ban everything, then we’ll all be commies” be defended in much the same way you defended your SSA? Well, banning assault rifles will relax people’s vigilance. I’m not saying it assures banning all guns and that’ll lead to banning everything, etc., but it’ll make it easier… It’s just not very convincing to me if someone says “this might happen if you do action A, therefore we should never ever do action A.” It’s considerably more powerful if you show me that action A is bad in itself, or at the very least, show some good evidence that something bad is likely to happen if we do action A. Saying, “hey, this might happen if we do action A” is a good thing to bring up so we can be aware of it and determine the likelyhood of this happening, though.

13

I’m not saying anything will happen.

Let me try a different approach. Examine this statement:

Okay. Centrism differs from utilitarianism in that the latter looks at the things from a problem solving perspective, whereas the former looks at things from an appeasement perspective. Utilitarianism seeks practical solutions; centrism seeks compromise.

The notion that “all guns” have to be registered might sound palatable because you might go, “Hey, that way, we can account for everybody who has a gun. So if a gun crime is committed, we can track the gun to its owner.”

But it doesn’t solve the problem of gun violence; in fact, it exacerbates it. Now there is suddenly more advantage to the black market than there is to the open market. That kind of licensing is like the tax stamps that some states have required that drug dealers buy. A criminal isn’t going to register a gun and use it. He is going to steal a gun and use it. So now, the whole criminal aspect of the gun crime is doubled. A burglary, and possibly an ancillary murder, will almost always preface a primary murder or other gun crime.

I think it just makes things worse, but centrism packages it nicely. It is poison in a drink mix box.

14

Lib, in my own readings of history I have seen far more examples of extremists carrying a government to tyranny. To me, inherent in the centrist postition is the ability to se a question from multiple angles, to be able to balance ideology with practical necessity. I am not surprised that you find it disquieting, since it seems the antithesis of your own approach, but if you expect others to agree that it is the penultimate step toward tyranny I think you will have to provide a more fully constructed argumnt than, “it relaxes vigilance”.

I might, for instance, argue that the extreme libertarian position is more likely to lead to tyranny because it will so weaken the ability of communities to unite and defend themselves against aggression (either military or economic) that any strongly libertarian society will quickly fall victim to outside forces. Of course, I would not expect you to give any credence to the idea if the entirety of my reasoning were:

Freedom is grease to the wheels of subjugation.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

15

Libertarian:

Let’s throw out that nasty word “Centrist” and instead have a more friendly word:

Compromise.

Now, I will not deny that some issues are not prone to compromise without… well, compromising things too much in one direction or another.

For example, the abortion example in the OP, I cannot go for because:

(1) Pro-life factions have gone on record that what is suggested there is “the first step” towards an all-out abortion ban. It’s not a slippery slope in this case - it’s a steep cliff that the proponents are totally ready and want to have all abortion rights pushed over.

(2) It’s political nonsense. The only third tri-mester abortions performed are only in cases that effect the health of the mother or some abnormality is found in the feuts, or both. People don’t carry a baby for eight months and say, “Gee, I changed my mind.”

(3) Being that third tri-mester abortions are about health, not choice, it’s worse than the alternative.

Now, that said, I totally agree with the compromises presented in the OP on the issue of gun control, and in fact, so does the 2nd Amendment.

But the NRA (and other gun control opponents) are so quick to dismiss ANY attempts as ANY legislation, they always run into stlmbling blocks.

One could say that the NRA is simply applying the logic that I am on the abortion issue even, and I would have little reason to debate them.

Still, all this said, why is compromise so bad if it is something all parties could live with, devoid of future agendas, or is it the “enevitability” of that last-mentioned clause that frightens you so?

Yer pal,
Satan

16

Leapt to any conclusions recently?

You have, no doubt, statistics to support your position that criminals never commit crimes with guns that are licensed. Do you also have evidence that no guns are stolen and no black market for guns exists absent the requirement for registration? I assume that you use this same line of reasoning to account for the tens of thousands of unlicensed cars on our highways. (Surely they must be supplied by the auto black market. A criminal would never drive a registered car to the scene of a crime, right?)

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

17

Spiritus

Leapin’ lizzards, no! But you have. Like the conclusion that I said what you said I said:

I didn’t say any of that. What I said was:

Of course most guns (other than those illegally manufactured or imported) will be licensed if “All guns have to be registerred (sic), similar to cars.” Which, after all, was the quote I was assailing.

I wasn’t saying that a gun used in a crime by a criminal wouldn’t be a registered gun. What I said was that he would steal a gun, no doubt duly registered, to commit his crime. Why? Do you expect him to walk into the gun store, register in his real name, and then proceed to go commit a murder or armed robbery? Okay, yeah, I guess a pathetic loser shit-for-brains might do that, but I’m talking about seasoned criminals, people who commit crimes for profit, not impassioned one-hit-wonder fools.

Kindly don’t assign to me your own lines of reasoning.

Satan

I don’t know when I’ve ever seen a more skillful subtlety.

18

Satan, you’re going to fail if try to convince Lib of the virtues of political compromise.

Libertarian, there are a number of posts in this forum that were started to discuss Libertarianism. Granted, most of them have degenerated into pointless arguments but I feel a certain share of this is your responsibility. This post, like others, was started to discuss an entirely different political issue and it would be polite of you not to hijack so many threads to pursue your own goals. You have often posted interesting and intelligent comments and engaged in reasonable discussions on non-political topics, so I am hoping you might voluntarily withdraw from some of these political debates where your single-mindedness can become tiresome.

19

Little Nemo- as a majoritarian tyrant, oops, I mean adherent of democratic rule, I find these endless discussions of libertarianism as tiresome as you do, but lets be fair here. Lib initially only posted one very brief quip here. Everything else he has posted has been in response to questions directed at him.

20

Goodness, Lib. What part of your own quoted words do you not understand?

That is a conclusion. It is a conclusion for which you have offered no support.

This is also a conclusion. It is also a conclusion for which you have offered no support, though you have made your job somewhat easier by limiting the discussion now to only those “seasoned criminals” whose behavior might be most likely to fit into the box of your preconceptions. How nice it must be to ignore inconvenient issues like crimes of passion when philospophizing the perfect society.

nebuli:

Lib is very fond of his brief quips. I believe that makes him a member of a very select company. For many of us, this board is more interesting when the ideas expressed or more complex than the average bumper sticker.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*