there is no middle

I’ve always looked at it as democracy ideally would be where everybody gets to vote. There are some who think it would be even better if everytime an issue came up instead of wrangling it through congress and wondering if the prez will veto it, everybody just sits at home and pushes a button on their computer. I think this would be really stupid because people are stupid.

I’m not sure what a republic means and I am not going to interrupt my train of thought on wiking it, because even though it may have some formal definition, like socialism, it seems more like one of those words that gets tossed around. I think it is something like you describe it, a democracy but with certain institutions and checks and balances so that anytime the majority change their opinion on anything the country changes all its laws.

You know I got that same charge hurled at me, that I ought to be a lawyer, and probably for the same reason, that I argued all the time. Frankly Beagles, just between you and me, what do people who don’t argue talk about? Of course what we do ideally is really more of a discussion than an argument. An argument is where your whole goal is to win, like in debate club. It always seemed a little odd to me the way they plucked out an issue and then said okay you argue this side and your opponent will argue the other side. What, just like that? Doesn’t every issue have a right side and a wrong side, and if I get the wrong side then aren’t I at a disadvantage?

See a debate, an argument is just a fight, somebody wins, somebody loses, but the issue isn’t necessarily resolved. Maybe at tomorrow night’s debate the losing side will have a smarter arguer and the winning side will have a drunk guy.

What we should be doing is presenting what we believe, putting our arguments forward, and listening to the attacks the other guy makes on our arguments, and analyzing them to see if they still stand and likewise attacking the other guy’s argument and seeing if his arguments are as strong as he thinks he is. Eventually, like my computer, the punched cards will be digested and the numbers crunched and out will pop the correct point of view.

Well but not really. I guess the problem is with that whole fair and balanced concept, nothing is fair and nothing is balanced. And there is no nice middle between us, there is just no man’s land.

You and I go in together on the lottery, and I end up purchasing the ticket and of course it wins. Our agreement was fifty fifty, but I’m thinking I actually bought the ticket, and I have it in my possession. I have an edge here and I am going to use it, and I offer you sixty/forty. No that’s not right, it should be fifty/fifty you declare, and if we choose the middle it will be fifty-five/forty five. But you consult your lawyer and he says no way, Fred saw you agree on the deal and will testify to that, so let’s make it fifty-one/forty-nine. And my lawyer says we can get a witness to testify that Fred was drunk, so offer him fifty-nine/forty one.

Well that’s the difference in our two ideas of compromise. I think there is never really any middle, and if you are going to compromise you get the most you think you can get and still make the deal.