Why is it so Hard for People to be Moderates?

[Taeron]

People find it so hard to be moderate due to our desire to be part of a tribe. Tribalism is what has lead us to this red vs blue political system, which is incredibly flawed.
People have the choice of Clown A, or Clown B, and adopting either means we also adopt their rigid set of beliefs and values.

It’s a simple concept, we are social creatures and want to “belong”.

In days where societies were more accurately described as tribes, there was a very practical purpose for it. Men would hunt in teams to increase the chance of hunting food. Tribes would stick together in self-defense against other aggressive opposing tribes. The more intelligent tribe members would become leaders and the tribe would often benefit under that person’s wisdom.

Interestingly, as tribal leaders got older and physically weaker, they would have to use intelligence and manipulation to remain in power over the bold, younger and stronger tribe members that would otherwise overthrow them with brute force. The old would become sages, mystics and visionaries by creating godly deities that would serve to both explain the unexplained and protect the older tribal leaders through fear and threats (sound familiar?).

“The god Hakkala protects this tribe! He keeps our soil fertile and our enemies at bay, and I am his champion and sole spokesperson on earth. Overthrow me, oh mighty sons, and you will upset Hakkala and doom yourselves to starvation and adversity.” Tribalism was great, right?

The current political system simply does not allow people to vote on individual issues, which it absolutely should.

In terms of politics, it might feel good to align yourself with a political party for many reasons. You might want to align yourself with other like-minded people because it’s safe, and offers you validation of your ideas. You might even align yourself with a political party based on your religion or race.

What you are actually doing is bad. It’s called “identity politics”, and it results in the ignorance of sound reasoning. Reasoning should be independent of your skin colour or background, and based on logic. Identity politics will always end up with one side pitting themselves against another without actually solving anything – at least, anytime soon.

The thing we need to realise is, by choosing a side we all lose in some way. You become an advocate for all points for that side (good and bad). Choosing sides limits independent thought, and quite simply, we are selling ourselves short by doing so.

[schwarzkopf]

Denied life? Fucking lol.

Extreme views may find it funny, but moderates do not. Thus the difference.

[nanook12]

I really need to check out those studies you have been looking at. Because, even the most negative economist about immigration; Borjas, does not hold that position.

George Borjas is right. Not only do immigrants take jobs and lower wages for American workers, the act of wage suppression drive income inequality even higher because those who take advantage of immigrants labor get richer while those that compete against immigrants get poorer. Immigration actively redistribute 500 billion per year from the poorest people in America to the richest. Yet, another reason for Americans to dislike immigrants.

http://cis.org/Testimony/Camarota-Th...erican-Workers

[Fugus]

A moderate position for me is granting citizenship to all illegal immigrants in the country right now, yet massively beefing up border security in return. If it was up to me, then I would kick out all Mexicans and still beef up border security massively. I have tirelessly looked at studies showing what immigrants do to the jobs prospects and wages on native Americans, and I completely despise both legal and illegal immigrants for it. I believe Americans should come first in America, not illegals or immigrants. So me compromising with my inner self and agreeing to grant amnesty to 10 million+ illegal immigrants in exchange for massive border security, is a large compromise I am making on some of my core principles. That is a moderate position. You feel like you neither won nor lost.

1. That isn't being a moderate by many definitions.

2. You are going about it all wrong if you want the results you are going for. The increase security would mean nothing as we already have more leaving than entering and the majority come in legally and then just don't leave which that security would not stop.

If you want to deal with the issues illegals cause, you have to target the demand that brings them here to fix it. Here:

Law 1) Any company caught knowingly hiring or remaining willfully ignorant of hiring an illegal shall have its management (all they way up to CEO if they knew about it or tried to make sure they couldn't) fined no less than $10,000 per illegal and shall be imprisoned in no less than a medium security prison for a period of no less than 1 year per illegal employed. If they were not paying the illegals prevailing wages, the fine jumps to $20,000 per illegal and the prison sentence jumps to 5 years per illegal. These fines are paid, not by the company itself, but out of the managers personal money and shareholder profits, including retirements and dividends and the confiscation of property and this debt can not be removed with bankruptcy.

Law 2) Any illegal who turns themselves in along with the company that is hiring him, with proof he works for them and they know about his status or make sure to avoid the topic, shall be granted 1 year room and board in the US and a fast track for citizen ship with all fees paid but he still must do all the tests and meet all requirements to become a citizen as a reward for his good deed. During this time he is given a temporary visa and may also find a new job while doing this as it allows him to find work and save up for when he finishes his paperwork and can immediately establish themselves.

This right here would kill the demand for hiring them for jobs which kills their reason to come.

[Tasttey]

Denied life? Fucking lol. So because I don't think the government should pay for a boob job, I'm denying life for someone?

Boob job in response to a double mastectomy to combat breast cancer, government can/should pay for it for as far as I'm concerned. Boob job cause you're unhappy being an A-cup, tough luck that should be out of pocket.

Most insurance currently doesn't cover elective procedures (or only covers part, say the anesthesiologist for a boob job.)

Frankly a system where the "health" part of healthcare is covered by taxes and guaranteed by the government but where private "assurance" companies can facilitate policies for above the board care or elective procedures (cosmetic procedures, IVF, abortions,)

The concept that one should have to go into ridiculous debt in order to save their lives just seems absurd to me; almost as absurd as taxpayers footing the bill for Kim K's next face lift.

[Macaquerie]

There's really no point to being a moderate unless you're someone who's in a position of power or authority and would actually need to make compromises to enact policy. If I were to soften my stance on immigration to be more amiable to the other side, that would accomplish exactly nothing because I don't really have much of a say anyway, so why shouldn't I just stick to my guns instead?

[NED funded]

George Borjas is right. Not only do immigrants take jobs and lower wages for American workers, the act of wage suppression drive income inequality even higher because those who take advantage of immigrants labor get richer while those that compete against immigrants get poorer. Immigration actively redistribute 500 billion per year from the poorest people in America to the richest. Yet, another reason for Americans to dislike immigrants.

http://cis.org/Testimony/Camarota-Th...erican-Workers

No, Borjas position is that when making policy regarding immigration we aught to weight between the net positives vs how much the American worker is negatively affected. And if possible pass policy to mitigate the negatives. Also he literally condemns the CIS for engaging in telling half-truths, specially their not so subtle intellectual dishonesty when calculating how much welfare immigrants receive.

[Deletedaccount1]

George Borjas is right. Not only do immigrants take jobs and lower wages for American workers, the act of wage suppression drive income inequality even higher because those who take advantage of immigrants labor get richer while those that compete against immigrants get poorer. Immigration actively redistribute 500 billion per year from the poorest people in America to the richest. Yet, another reason for Americans to dislike immigrants.

http://cis.org/Testimony/Camarota-Th...erican-Workers

Why do you think the wellbeing of American workers who are definitively better off than poorer immigrants is so important? There is a general economic consensus that worldwide open borders would double world GDP.

You start from a broad nationalistic base that for some reason American lives and wellbeing are worth more than that of people from far worse places with far worse qualities of life.

[nanook12]

There's a reason why only a minority of philosophers are moral relativists.

In terms of politics, rather than account for people's ill informed views, I would rather convince them of mine and be free of bearing the costs of whatever his views would result in.

I would say that is a pretty childish view for an adult to have, but good luck with that. People are not convinced easily.

[Deletedaccount1]

The irony that George Borjas is a Cuban immigrant who, had Cuba not walled off its economy and immigration from the rest of the world, might be a professor of economics at the University of Havana and not Harvard.

- - - Updated - - -

I would say that is a pretty childish view for an adult to have, but good luck with that. People are not convinced easily.

I consider nationalism and moral relativism to be pretty childish, do you see why compromising doesn't work for me?

[nanook12]

Why do you think the wellbeing of American workers who are definitively better off than poorer immigrants is so important? There is a general economic consensus that worldwide open borders would double world GDP.

You start from a broad nationalistic base that for some reason American lives and wellbeing are worth more than that of people from far worse places with far worse qualities of life.

Yeah, because I believe the "American government" has a moral obligation to care more about "American people." Pretty logical that a nation should care about its own people before caring about others.

[Tasttey]

A moderate position for me is granting citizenship to all illegal immigrants in the country right now, yet massively beefing up border security in return. If it was up to me, then I would kick out all Mexicans and still beef up border security massively. I have tirelessly looked at studies showing what immigrants do to the jobs prospects and wages on native Americans, and I completely despise both legal and illegal immigrants for it. I believe Americans should come first in America, not illegals or immigrants. So me compromising with my inner self and agreeing to grant amnesty to 10 million+ illegal immigrants in exchange for massive border security, is a large compromise I am making on some of my core principles. That is a moderate position. You feel like you neither won nor lost.

I wouldn't go so far as to grant amnesty outright. My idea would be to tighten up the border security, limit and monitor temporary visas (many illegal immigrants in the country came over on legal visas and merely didn't leave when they expired.) Persons who arrive on temporary visas should have to maintain contact with a government employee (think parole officereque) for the duration of their visa, failure to do so means potential instant deportation.

Once this is done set a date approximately 5 years in the future and grant temporary amnesty until then, before that 5 year point currently undocumented immigrants must become citizens legally, if they don't they can be surreptitiously deported if they are caught at any point after the cut-off. Doesn't matter if they're refugees, have anchor babies, are terminally ill; tough luck. You had 5 years to get your shit together and become a US citizen, you chose not to, see ya.

[Magicpot]

Moderate in the original sense of the word starts a huge bit to the left of the democrats.

Democrats are what the republicans used to be: reprehensible, but tolerable.

Republicans have moved so far to the right that in europe most of their views would be actually illegal to even publicise.

[nanook12]

The irony that George Borjas is a Cuban immigrant who, had Cuba not walled off its economy and immigration from the rest of the world, might be a professor of economics at the University of Havana and not Harvard.

- - - Updated - - -



I consider nationalism and moral relativism to be pretty childish, do you see why compromising doesn't work for me?

It is exactly because Borjas was an immigrant and still publishes studies on the negative effects of immigration is why I believe him. That speaks volume about the man actually valuing truth over political gain.

If you are an adult that has not learned how to compromise of issues important to yourself, then I just feel bad for you is all.

[Deletedaccount1]

Yeah, because I believe the "American government" has a moral obligation to care more about "American people." Pretty logical that a nation should care about its own people before caring about others.

Sounds like something Trump might say. All that differentiates you from him is how to get there. There is nothing logical in holding the lives of one of group of people in higher value than another group based off of the piece of dirt they were born on and forced to stay. Especially not when one group is several times better off than the other already.

- - - Updated - - -

It is exactly because Borjas was an immigrant and still publishes studies on the negative effects of immigration is why I believe him. That speaks volume about the man actually valuing truth over political gain.

If you are an adult that has not learned how to compromise of issues important to yourself, then I just feel bad for you is all.

It's not like I have any political power anyway. Whether I'm a communist, a libertarian or a full on shaved head Nazi, it doesn't change anything about policy at all because I'm powerless.

No intellectual has anything to gain from lying on their research. Borjas doesn't lie but he starts from a simply bizarre ethical stand point.

You can read some of Bryan Caplan's critiques of Borjas here:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ders_an_3.html
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/..._wages_an.html

[belfpala]

Is being Middle of the Road necessarily a universally virtuous position?

No, as the extremes on one side or the other define what "middle" means. In that sense, I feel justified that "moderate" pretty much just "I don't really care very strongly either way about most issues."

[nanook12]

Sounds like something Trump might say. All that differentiates you from him is how to get there. There is nothing logical in holding the lives of one of group of people in higher value than another group based off of the piece of dirt they were born on and forced to stay. Especially not when one group is several times better off than the other already.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not like I have any political power anyway. Whether I'm a communist, a libertarian or a full on shaved head Nazi, it doesn't change anything about policy at all because I'm powerless.

No intellectual has anything to gain from lying on their research. Borjas doesn't lie but he starts from a simply bizarre ethical stand point.

You can read some of Bryan Caplan's critiques of Borjas here:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ders_an_3.html
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/..._wages_an.html

It is exactly logical. It is not that I am racist against Mexicans, it is that I realize there is a finite amount of resources and jobs to go around. Open borders would quickly outstrip those resources and everyone would be worse off for it. Borders must be maintained.

[Gestopft]

I would say that is a pretty childish view for an adult to have, but good luck with that. People are not convinced easily.

That's how compromise is made though: each side tries to convince the other, and in better understanding each other's arguments they can understand where common ground lies, and how they can craft a solution that appeals to both sets of values. (Or neither :/)

Trying to convince someone is also a hell of a lot more "adult" than screaming at someone that they are wrong. Or a racist. Or a commie. Or what have you.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I think there is some confusion in this thread about the difference between a moderate and a centrist.

[nanook12]

Sounds like something Trump might say. All that differentiates you from him is how to get there. There is nothing logical in holding the lives of one of group of people in higher value than another group based off of the piece of dirt they were born on and forced to stay. Especially not when one group is several times better off than the other already.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not like I have any political power anyway. Whether I'm a communist, a libertarian or a full on shaved head Nazi, it doesn't change anything about policy at all because I'm powerless.

No intellectual has anything to gain from lying on their research. Borjas doesn't lie but he starts from a simply bizarre ethical stand point.

You can read some of Bryan Caplan's critiques of Borjas here:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ders_an_3.html
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/..._wages_an.html

Here is George Borjas critique of other pro-immigration economists.
https://normsaysno.wordpress.com/201...borjas-debate/

- - - Updated - - -

That's how compromise is made though: each side tries to convince the other, and in better understanding each other's arguments they can understand where common ground lies, and how they can craft a solution that appeals to both sets of values. (Or neither :/)

Trying to convince someone is also a hell of a lot more "adult" than screaming at someone that they are wrong. Or a racist. Or a commie. Or what have you.

Convincing can only work as long as the person is open to counter convincing.