The Argument - People get the society they deserve

[Disgustipated]

There is some truth to the statement, but not much. If the people directly elected our officials, I would believe that. But the problem is the people don't directly elect the best people. Why do I say this you ask? Because of campaign contributions. The fact is corporations and special interest groups get politicians elected and dictate their agenda, not the general population. You can say special interest groups and political donors dictate what society we have, not the people.

My solution? Eliminate all campaign contributions. Every single one of them, and restrict the rich from using their own money (BloomBerg) as well. The money used for campaigns should come from taxes (you'd have to implement a new tax for this, but this would be offset partially by no contributions by individuals and corporations).

 

[bhsup]

BS, utter BS. I don't care how much money is thrown into a campaign. You still walk into a booth and choose one candidate over another OR WRITE IN SOMEONE ELSE IF YOU WANT. We absolutely get the government we deserve because we the people have the ultimate power of the vote.

 

[Disgustipated]

That may be true, but after they are elected they do what the special interest groups want them to do, not what the voters want them to do. This is especially true in California with the liberal special interest groups.

 

[Traitorfish]

BS, utter BS. I don't care how much money is thrown into a campaign. You still walk into a booth and choose one candidate over another OR WRITE IN SOMEONE ELSE IF YOU WANT. We absolutely get the government we deserve because we the people have the ultimate power of the vote.

Why do politicians spend so much money on their campaigns if it doesn't have any effect on the results? Or are you simply suggesting that responsibility for whatever effects it does have lie with the voter, not with the politician?

Besides, you're conflating "50%+1 of that part of the electorate which bother to vote" with "people", which I'm sceptical of. In the United States the one is typically, what, 20% of the other? Which would seem to complicate things a bit.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Why do politicians spend so much money on their campaigns if it doesn't have any effect on the results? Or are you simply suggesting that responsibility for whatever effects it does have lie with the voter, not with the politician?

Besides, you're conflating "50%+1 of that part of the electorate which bother to vote" with "people", which I'm sceptical of. In the United States the one is typically, what, 20% of the other? Which would seem to complicate things a bit.

That doesn't really counter the argument. Not voting doesn't negate a person's responsibility in democracy. They had the option to affect change (or not) and chose not to exercise it. That's as much an action as voting is.
I do agree with your first point though: political campaigns obviously effect election results.

Overall, I'd say that a society more or less receives the government it deserves, but an individual person doesn't. Obviously, there's extenuating circumstances; no country is unaffected by the international community.

But I think that the power of special interest groups and lobbyists (as this thread has taken a turn towards) exists only out of general public apathy. In this sense, American society has gotten what it deserves.

 

[Traitorfish]

That doesn't really counter the argument. Not voting doesn't negate a person's responsibility in democracy. They had the option to affect change (or not) and chose not to exercise it. That's as much an action as voting is.

Maybe they didn't like the candidates. Maybe they regard the election as a foregone conclusion. Maybe they were not legally able to vote, for reasons of age, citizenship, or other legal disabilities. Maybe they regard the whole thing as an unsalvageable farce. Maybe they just plain forgot about it. Does that mean that the old Rainsborough doctrine, "that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government", does not apply to them? It does not appear self-evident to me.

 

[Yeekim]

I think this statement is simple truism. After all, "people"="society", no?

It doesn't say "Every individual deserves the society s/he lives in", which is obviously nonsense.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think this statement is simple truism. After all, "people"="society", no?

No, it is still bull. Because
a) There are environmental factors that significantly shape societies, like climate, fauna, natural resources, etc. which are logically not the result of any individual's choice
b) No one chooses his or her genes
c) Many developments are the unforeseen product of numerous individual choices / environmental factors and hence weren't chosen either by anyone.

To speak of "deserve" in such an absolute manner in the context of societies is in the end utter dullness, akin to a silly religious faith in karma.

 

[lovett]

I think this statement is simple truism. After all, "people"="society", no?

'...Deserve...' is not the same relation as '='. To say that a people 'deserve' a given society is not the same as to say that a people are identical to a given society (let's say 'the one they get'). I am reading '=' as the identity relation.

To wit, 'Barack Obama=A fifty year old black man from Hawaii' does not entail 'Barack Obama deserves a fifty year old black man from Hawaii'. To put it in reverse, 'I deserve a medal' does not entail that 'I am identical to a medal'. These are counter-examples; the two relations cannot be the same.

Formally, '=' is symmetrical, transitive and reflexive. '...deserves...' is but reflexive. They are not the same relations, which is why the suggested entailments above seem rather silly.

 

[Traitorfish]

'...Deserve...' is not the same relation as '='. To say that a people 'deserve' a given society is not the same as to say that a people are identical to a given society (let's say 'the one they get'). I am reading '=' as the identity relation.

To wit, 'Barack Obama=A fifty year old black man from Hawaii' does not entail 'Barack Obama deserves a fifty year old black man from Hawaii'. To put it in reverse, 'I deserve a medal' does not entail that 'I am identical to a medal'. These are counter-examples; the two relations cannot be the same.

Formally, '=' is symmetrical, transitive and reflexive. '...deserves...' is but reflexive. They are not the same relations, which is why the suggested entailments above seem rather silly.

Is that what he was suggesting? I understood him as meaning that that society can be understood as the aggregate of all its individual members, i.e. "people (collectively) = society", which seems different than how you're interpreting it. Or perhaps I'm missing something?

 

[lovett]

No, that's how I interpreted it. And I agree (at least, before reflection); society=people. However, he also contended that this made the statement a truism, or tautology. The statement in question is 'People get the society they deserve'. The relation in question here is 'deserving' (for simplicity, I hold what society people get as equal; they get the society they have). I am interpreting this statement as 'for some x, where x is a people, when x gets a society s, x deserves s'.

So he's contending that the fact 'X=S' is true makes this further relation true (tautologically). However, that is true if and only if the relation 'deserves' is equivalent to the relation '='. They are not equivalent (as I show) therefore that former relation holds does not entail that the latter relation holds.

Of course, the former relation might still be true. But it is not a truism. Or at least, not shown to be one by the assertion that a society and a people are identical.

 

[Yeekim]

I understood him as meaning that that society can be understood as the aggregate of all its individual members, i.e. "people (collectively) = society"

Indeed, that is what I meant.

'...Deserve...' is not the same relation as '='. To say that a people 'deserve' a given society is not the same as to say that a people are identical to a given society (let's say 'the one they get'). I am reading '=' as the identity relation.

Formally, '=' is symmetrical, transitive and reflexive. '...deserves...' is but reflexive. They are not the same relations, which is why the suggested entailments above seem rather silly.

You are, of, course, correct. Maybe I was misusing the word "truism".