The questions above are probably not the most important questions we could be answering right now, even in politics (I’d guess that the economy is more important).
I don’t know about that. Probably the most important question that can be asked in politics is “how can we produce a perfect society in every which way according to the following list of criteria....”
The trick, of course, is that for most people, the “most important” questions are defined by more than just what the impact of the answer would be when we get one. Likelihood of finding an answer, feasibility of being able to implement an answer, ability to implement it using partial steps, and similar real-world considerations are also part of what makes a question the “most important”. Based on those real-world criteria, the questions that you call privileged actually score pretty high on the importance scale. If enough people vote for gay marriage or gun control, we can have it tomorrow (maybe not literally tomorrow, since the system takes time, but still fairly soon). It may be harder to get, for instance, life extension tomorrow.
With the worst privileged questions I frequently find that the answer is “nothing,”
What? “Vote for a politician who I feel has a chance of stopping/expediting (depending on my conclusion) gay marriage, gun control, and such” isn’t “something”? Even just discussing a subject and affecting public opinion (to the extent that one person out of millions can do so at all) is “something”.
the “most important” questions are defined by more than just what the impact of the answer would be when we get one. Likelihood of finding an answer, feasibility of being able to implement an answer, ability to implement it using partial steps, and similar real-world considerations are also part of what makes a question the “most important”. Based on those real-world criteria, the questions that you call privileged actually score pretty high on the importance scale.
I agree that these are important criteria but strongly disagree that questions like gay marriage were in fact brought to your attention based on such criteria.
What? “Vote for a politician who I feel has a chance of stopping/expediting (depending on my conclusion) gay marriage, gun control, and such” isn’t “something”?
I don’t think it is. Do you have evidence to the contrary? (As I’ve mentioned in another comment, I’m pessimistic about the value of voting but willing to update.)
I would respectfully urge you to vote. People have died for that right. Wars have been fought for that right. I would put it to you that not voting is an act of great disrespect.
OK. You may differ. But to me, watching the votes get counted and seeing the will of the people get tallied up on election night is a wonderful thing.
(I am politically active. I scrutineer.)
Good people need to get into politics. If they don’t, what Aristotle termed a noble profession is left to the dogs and the cynics. Also pols look much different in the flesh than they do on camera. The difference is worth observing closely and personally—not through the lens of what ‘the media’ think is ‘important.’
I agree strongly with the point that voting can be worthwhile, but I think you’re being downvoted because you’re making poor arguments for that point. (Specifically, you can make arguments for really bad conclusions using the same format, “people died for the belief that X is true, therefore X is true”.)
Irrelevant. If people had died for the right to own slaves, that wouldn’t imply I should own slaves.
People died so that we can vote. That doesn’t mean we should.
seeing the will of the people get tallied up
The will of the few people funding the super PACs which are telling the sheeple what to bleat, in the few states whose result matter.
Good people need to get into politics.
Invest their life’s efforts for a miniscule chance to change the system of entrenched interests and institutional deadlocks from inside. No thanks. Even for the charity-minded, getting rich then buying influence (in the direction you perceive as “correct”) would be the far more effective route.
The will of the few people funding the super PACs which are telling the sheeple what to bleat, in the few states whose result matter.
The sheeple? That is a contemptuous remark. You should withdraw it.
There are no super PACs in my country. We have sensible electoral laws Down Under… Sensible gun laws too. Oh and Medicare for all without any squibbing, mandatory 401ks for all workers. And freedom… Lot of good stuff...
What is your constructive alternative to voting and political activism?
What are you offering? Some cafe society “I am vastly superior to the bleating sheeple masses” pose?
Or I will take a long shot and get rich and buy the country option?
FYI, People did die for the right to own slaves. They LOST. There is a subtle but important difference.
You have to fight to win. You got nothing but rationalizing your chicken out cynicism option.
Well, there are countries whose voting system is such that I would vote, and countries in which I wouldn’t. “Democracy” is an umbrella term covering a host of political systems, each one has to be evaluated on its own merits. Circumstances are different even inside one country; individual voters in e.g. Ohio or Florida have actual influence.
FYI, People did die for the right to own slaves. They LOST. There is a subtle but important difference.
So the victors write the history books, eh? We should just do whatever the people who successfully killed the other people say, I suppose.
You got nothing but rationalizing your chicken out cynicism option.
I’m saying that the most effective way to influence your country’s policy is through money, not through your individual vote. If you want to vote so you feel better about yourself, that’s your business.
The sheeple? That is a contemptuous remark. You should withdraw it.
Watch some political ads sometimes, at least of the US variety. “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and such. Ask yourself why billions are spent on such tactics, check the role of billionaires such as the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, the list goes on. The percentage of voters who believe Obama is secretly a Kenyan muslim. Nope, I don’t think I should withdraw the remark. It’s a numbers game, even the “few” percent of the vote the NRA controls is enough to vote in or out (radical voters dominate the primary system) whomever they want in large parts of the US.
Probably the most important question that can be asked in politics is “how can we produce a perfect society in every which way according to the following list of criteria....”
The kind of questions pols actually think about. (I used to work for one...)
How do I get re-elected?
Which event/announcement relating to the party platform (the list of ‘improve society’ criteria that the party has approved) will get airtime and make me look good and my opponent in the next race look bad?
Within the current budget what money can I win for my electorate through the normal processes?
Who can I help within the limits of my power and influence and the laws and budget as they are?
What changes to the current party platform (the list of criteria) do we need to make to achieve 1.
Different pols are more or less diligent about these points.
So long as the people can SACK pols. I.e. vote them out. Democratic politics seems to work tolerably well...
My point was that “the most important question” doesn’t mean “the question which, if answered and implemented, would lead to the biggest benefit”. The feasibility of answering and implementing is, for most of us, part of what makes a question an important question.
The original post seems to have been saying that “privileged” questions are not really important. I think that, when analyzed with a definition that is closer to what we mean by “important”, they are.
I don’t know about that. Probably the most important question that can be asked in politics is “how can we produce a perfect society in every which way according to the following list of criteria....”
The trick, of course, is that for most people, the “most important” questions are defined by more than just what the impact of the answer would be when we get one. Likelihood of finding an answer, feasibility of being able to implement an answer, ability to implement it using partial steps, and similar real-world considerations are also part of what makes a question the “most important”. Based on those real-world criteria, the questions that you call privileged actually score pretty high on the importance scale. If enough people vote for gay marriage or gun control, we can have it tomorrow (maybe not literally tomorrow, since the system takes time, but still fairly soon). It may be harder to get, for instance, life extension tomorrow.
What? “Vote for a politician who I feel has a chance of stopping/expediting (depending on my conclusion) gay marriage, gun control, and such” isn’t “something”? Even just discussing a subject and affecting public opinion (to the extent that one person out of millions can do so at all) is “something”.
I agree that these are important criteria but strongly disagree that questions like gay marriage were in fact brought to your attention based on such criteria.
I don’t think it is. Do you have evidence to the contrary? (As I’ve mentioned in another comment, I’m pessimistic about the value of voting but willing to update.)
Dear Quiochu_Yuan,
I would respectfully urge you to vote. People have died for that right. Wars have been fought for that right. I would put it to you that not voting is an act of great disrespect.
OK. You may differ. But to me, watching the votes get counted and seeing the will of the people get tallied up on election night is a wonderful thing.
(I am politically active. I scrutineer.)
Good people need to get into politics. If they don’t, what Aristotle termed a noble profession is left to the dogs and the cynics. Also pols look much different in the flesh than they do on camera. The difference is worth observing closely and personally—not through the lens of what ‘the media’ think is ‘important.’
I agree strongly with the point that voting can be worthwhile, but I think you’re being downvoted because you’re making poor arguments for that point. (Specifically, you can make arguments for really bad conclusions using the same format, “people died for the belief that X is true, therefore X is true”.)
Irrelevant. If people had died for the right to own slaves, that wouldn’t imply I should own slaves.
People died so that we can vote. That doesn’t mean we should.
The will of the few people funding the super PACs which are telling the sheeple what to bleat, in the few states whose result matter.
Invest their life’s efforts for a miniscule chance to change the system of entrenched interests and institutional deadlocks from inside. No thanks. Even for the charity-minded, getting rich then buying influence (in the direction you perceive as “correct”) would be the far more effective route.
The sheeple? That is a contemptuous remark. You should withdraw it.
There are no super PACs in my country. We have sensible electoral laws Down Under… Sensible gun laws too. Oh and Medicare for all without any squibbing, mandatory 401ks for all workers. And freedom… Lot of good stuff...
What is your constructive alternative to voting and political activism?
What are you offering? Some cafe society “I am vastly superior to the bleating sheeple masses” pose?
Or I will take a long shot and get rich and buy the country option?
FYI, People did die for the right to own slaves. They LOST. There is a subtle but important difference.
You have to fight to win. You got nothing but rationalizing your chicken out cynicism option.
Well, there are countries whose voting system is such that I would vote, and countries in which I wouldn’t. “Democracy” is an umbrella term covering a host of political systems, each one has to be evaluated on its own merits. Circumstances are different even inside one country; individual voters in e.g. Ohio or Florida have actual influence.
So the victors write the history books, eh? We should just do whatever the people who successfully killed the other people say, I suppose.
I’m saying that the most effective way to influence your country’s policy is through money, not through your individual vote. If you want to vote so you feel better about yourself, that’s your business.
Watch some political ads sometimes, at least of the US variety. “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and such. Ask yourself why billions are spent on such tactics, check the role of billionaires such as the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, the list goes on. The percentage of voters who believe Obama is secretly a Kenyan muslim. Nope, I don’t think I should withdraw the remark. It’s a numbers game, even the “few” percent of the vote the NRA controls is enough to vote in or out (radical voters dominate the primary system) whomever they want in large parts of the US.
The kind of questions pols actually think about. (I used to work for one...)
How do I get re-elected?
Which event/announcement relating to the party platform (the list of ‘improve society’ criteria that the party has approved) will get airtime and make me look good and my opponent in the next race look bad?
Within the current budget what money can I win for my electorate through the normal processes?
Who can I help within the limits of my power and influence and the laws and budget as they are?
What changes to the current party platform (the list of criteria) do we need to make to achieve 1.
Different pols are more or less diligent about these points.
So long as the people can SACK pols. I.e. vote them out. Democratic politics seems to work tolerably well...
My point was that “the most important question” doesn’t mean “the question which, if answered and implemented, would lead to the biggest benefit”. The feasibility of answering and implementing is, for most of us, part of what makes a question an important question.
The original post seems to have been saying that “privileged” questions are not really important. I think that, when analyzed with a definition that is closer to what we mean by “important”, they are.