The tricky time for using your respect-muscles is when you disagree with them.
We live in majority-rule country. Sometimes it is inevitable that people will disagree with you. For example, I agree with you regarding the downsides of Obamacare, but prioritize getting access to healthcare for everyone while we solve the other problems.
It's a matter of focus and priority. If you wish to influence how people decide, you actually CANNOT do it by railing against them for upsetting you. It takes the debate to a useless place. It shuts down conversation. It stops people from being able to listen to your even most worthy points.
I agree it is hard to set aside your emotional response. But how do you feel when someone says "You have to be in favor of Obamacare or you want my Dad to DIE!" People have said that to me. Where does the conversation go from there? Really?
Statists are people. Co-workers and friends and neighbors and maybe family members. Try to respect the parts of them that you have in common, and you may find that you can work with people of other beliefs to get what you ALL need.
You're a soldier, so you see everything as a battle. Statism is SIMILAR to robbery. It does not resemble either rape, uh, you know what rape is, right?) nor does it resemble murder. (Every regime has murder in its toolkit.)
What makes statism different than robbery is the consent of the governed. If the sheep are clammoring to be fleeced you cannot call it robbery anymore. Now it's "difference in political philosophies."
Differing philosophies do not lend themselves to being debated from a position of warring nations. (Neither do warring nations.) Diplomacy and skills necessary for co-existing need to be brought in to play because, here's the thing: war is worse. It really is worse than being taxed. Because in war you get taxed AND raped AND killed. Engaging with war with your political foes means you LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT.
try opposing Obamacare but favoring instead single payer for basic care only and a "major medical" market-based insurance system for the rest...
Oh, and point out that the federal government has no role in this (and that most states failed/had no prior interest in funding health care reform themselves/repeatedly elected state legislators that didn't have any interest in it)
That makes no one happy. The left considers you a right-wing-nut, and the right considers you a socialist who favors rationing (which we already have)
We live in majority-rule country. Sometimes it is inevitable that people will disagree with you. For example, I agree with you regarding the downsides of Obamacare, but prioritize getting access to healthcare for everyone while we solve the other problems.
It's a matter of focus and priority. If you wish to influence how people decide, you actually CANNOT do it by railing against them for upsetting you. It takes the debate to a useless place. It shuts down conversation. It stops people from being able to listen to your even most worthy points.
I agree it is hard to set aside your emotional response. But how do you feel when someone says "You have to be in favor of Obamacare or you want my Dad to DIE!" People have said that to me. Where does the conversation go from there? Really?
Statists are people. Co-workers and friends and neighbors and maybe family members. Try to respect the parts of them that you have in common, and you may find that you can work with people of other beliefs to get what you ALL need.
Reply
Reply
What makes statism different than robbery is the consent of the governed. If the sheep are clammoring to be fleeced you cannot call it robbery anymore. Now it's "difference in political philosophies."
Differing philosophies do not lend themselves to being debated from a position of warring nations. (Neither do warring nations.) Diplomacy and skills necessary for co-existing need to be brought in to play because, here's the thing: war is worse. It really is worse than being taxed. Because in war you get taxed AND raped AND killed. Engaging with war with your political foes means you LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT.
So get some new skills, soldier.
Reply
Reply
Oh, and point out that the federal government has no role in this (and that most states failed/had no prior interest in funding health care reform themselves/repeatedly elected state legislators that didn't have any interest in it)
That makes no one happy. The left considers you a right-wing-nut, and the right considers you a socialist who favors rationing (which we already have)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment