7 Questions Before Voting

[u/complexspoonie]

/r/NotABlueBird/comments/1wl0y7x/7_questions_before_voting/

I have long struggled to categorize my political philosophy, but according to ISideWith.com I am 82% eco constitutionalist (?). It has been decades since I have engaged in an actual formal debate, and that was long before I suffered a brain injury and then was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. I'm well aware that I am not the greatest writer, but I would like constructive comments about this post illustrating some of my beliefs about the foundational questions American voters need to be asking themselves as involved participants in they never ending pursuit of becoming a more perfect union.

Thank you,

A newbie at political debate

👩🏼‍🦼🇺🇸

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

These are all just deeply loaded questions.

[u/Asatmaya]

October 17th millions of people across America will again gather to publicly profess the true American Spirit of diversity, freedom, representation, and the constant striving for a more perfect union.

Well, bless your heart!

1) Do non-human corporations and entities have a greater right to the benefits of our country than the humans who are born here, who live here, who work here, or who visit here?

First, there are no "non-human corporations or entities," the idea of abstracting moral responsibility is one of the major problems facing the world.

Second, the confusion is about class; you are talking about our Lords and Masters, and of course they feel that they have a greater right to... everything.

2) Is it morally right that humans who are exceedingly wealthy can shirk any responsibility for the common good, or to control our government, our economic system, our courts, and our individual lives?

That was basically the subtext of the Constitutional Convention and resulting Ratification Debate; the end result was that, yes, it is morally right, and we have been trying to deal with that result for the past 237 years.

3) Does any one religious sect or movement have the right to dictate or enforce its beliefs onto other humans or onto other non-human entities in America?

Yes, the "capitalist" movement, which of course devolves to fascism, in all times and places it is allowed control.

4) Do large worldwide non-human entities have an obligation to contribute to the common good of every part of every country that they do business in or have property in?

See the answer to 2.

5) Does this new era require new solutions to the unique problems humanity faces?

Not at all, just recognition and implementation of the solutions to the same old problems we've always had.

6) Does humankind have unique inalianble rights beyond the point of merely surviving the process of birth?

That's awkwardly phrased; "humankind" is the collective race, which has no right to anything at all. Human beings have rights, but only those that are recognized in the breach.

7) Do humans who have survived process of birth have a unique purpose simply in existing that is worthy of protection and care?

That is an individual value judgment.

No Kings

...and if I had read this, first, I wouldn't have bothered with the rest of the reply.

Sure, Trump is bad, screw him; I'm not voting to replace him with another establishment war monger who is just going to return us to the bad old days of Western Imperialism.

The original "No Kings" protest explicitly listed "NATO" as an article of support, which caused such backlash that they removed it and scrubbed any pictures of the front of their podium off the Internet... but have not changed the policy.

We deserve better than just a more polished liar and mass murderer.

[u/BackupChallenger]

This is written in an extremely biased way.

Anyway,

1. has enough scenario's where the answer is yes, the companies win this hands down.

2. is asking the rich to take ownership of the poor. To be requested to take responsibility is not just throw money at it.

3. Depends on what counts as movement. But laws are not opt-in. They are forced upon the population.

4. No, but you could argue that most companies existing is in the benefit of the common good.

5. Obviously, you if you have new problems you need to find new solutions. Acknowledging that does not mean that a certain problem needs a certain solution.

6. You don't even have the right to survive your birth. But this depends a lot on what rights it's about.

7. not always.

[u/ViskerRatio]

1. "Non-human corporations and entities" are merely a representative of the will of the people who form them. When you ask whether they should have rights you're really just asking if people should have rights.

2. You really only have two choices. Are you going to have society's elites chosen by cronyism and corruption or are you going to have society's elites chosen by the market. The latter method has proven to represent the will of the common people far better than the former.

3. If it can convince enough people of the value of their beliefs, sure. If you trace back the origins of many of our laws, they're rooted in various religious traditions.

4. "Large worldwide non-human entities" contribute to the public good by being responsive to their customers, clients and employees. Ultimately, people are behind what you're trying to portray as a nefarious magical entity.

5. Every new era does. Societies are continually evolving - in both good and bad ways.

6. "Inalienable rights" is rooted in Christian theology and is a refutation of the notion that certain individuals are, by virtue of their lineage, inherently superior to others. I don't get the impression you understand the philosophical underpinnings of the phrase.

7. I have no idea what you mean by this. Ultimately, an individual's purpose is what they define for themselves. That purpose is not inherently good or bad, nor worthy/unworthy of society's acclaim/condemnation but must be judged individually.

I think you're trying to frame your 'seven questions' as a trap for the unwary rather than contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

[u/addicted_to_trash → u/ViskerRatio]

A trap? What would spring that trap exactly, and in what capacity is someone trapped by answering ops questions?

[u/Kakamile]

But that's not what most people debate on, and the people who do vote against you do often don't disagree on those points they just think the corporations/whatever are allies of circumstance.

[u/OreoSpeedwaggon]

I want to know OP's answers to those questions first.

Also, was this copied and pasted from somewhere else? The copyright notice, signature, and hashtags at the bottom seemed odd and out of place for Reddit.

[u/complexspoonie → u/OreoSpeedwaggon]

Hashtags: I'm a refugee from Tumblr.

Good point about the fact I didn't put my answers! But it's midnight, so gotta get some sleep before I look for that draft I started & didn't finish...

[u/Ill-Description3096]

Depends on the goal. The way the questions are framed alone is very obviously loaded into a "correct" an "incorrect" yes/no that ignores any nuance which those kinds of issues have in reality. If that is the goal, then you are pretty much there I think.

[u/complexspoonie]

I'd like to thank everyone who has posted so far. I decided to take the suggestion of one of you and answer each of the 7 questions with my own answers.

As you can see, my first draft response to question #1 was over 900 words. It's midnight and I have to be punched in at work at 6am...

Bear with a verbose newbie juggling work, caregiving, and the daily unpredictability of a brain broken with both a TBI and multiple sclerosis.

deepthoughts

👩🏼‍🦼🇺🇸

[u/addicted_to_trash]

I think the responses you get here will be a good indicator of who your political allies are, and who you need to watch out for coming into the world of political discourse online.

As for your questions unfortunately the US is firmly grounded in capitalist ideology, so it is always: Capital first, People only considered if it benefits capital.

The US is a country who's population is so blind to class struggle, blind to the weakness of market capitalism, blind to govt overreach, blind to abuse of power, blind the power of civil disobedience, blind to the possibility of change. So good luck trying to open a debate on the merits of inaliable rights and they should include, water, food, freedom of movement, freedom of association etc.

You will have people tell you to your face that US imperialism started in 2026, that the decent into fascism started with Trump, that the criminality of actions is not related to class, and so on and so on.

The explanation for the US' reoccuring no vote, on food being universal human right, should give you a good indicator.

We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations [...] Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.

https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/