<p>Selfishness relates to ethics....</p>
<p>You're very young. I forgive you.</p>
<p>A patronizing attitude and a flimsy argument aren't worth more than a flimsy argument alone.</p>
<p>You've shown that people are "are not willing to accept the ethical differences between copying a tape by tape recorder and handing it to a friend, and downloading music from a web of strangers. Technology is introducing more and more crimes which do not have a personal element. The victim is not readily apparent, and most people do not truly realize the damage they cause through the internet."</p>
<p>If people do not "realize the damage" they're doing, then you can't say they're being more selfish. They're acting unethically, but not unusually selfishly.</p>
<p>debunk my claims of presidential power???....ummmmm....if i'm not mistaken...i didn't really make a claim about presidential power :p</p>
<p>furthermore...the executive branch formulates a large portion of the bills that go through Congress...Congress does the actual law-making.....now if you want to go in to "executive law making" or rule making we can....i don't really feel like evaluating on it too much but it's like this....once a law passes through Congress it goes to the bureacracy for enforcement....if the President has his eye on a particular bill and wants it to be enforced in a particular fashion, he and/or his attendents will play a major role in the rule making process.....every law must have atleast 10 rules as to how it must be applied before actually being enforced.....these rules are made totally by the bureacracy, with the President's instructions...Congress has no say so in these bureacratic rules, unless they clearly deviate from how the law was originally meant to be applied.....take for instance Title IX.....it's been used to keep women out of college sports, then keep them in college sports, then make women's sports equal to that of men's sports.....Presidents can play around with these laws, just as long as they follow the general guidelines set by Congress.</p>
<p>From Wilson:</p>
<p>
[quote]
We often hear that legislation is initiated by the president and enacted by Congress--the former proposes, the latter disposes. The reality is more complicated. Congress frequently initiates legislation; in fact most of the consumer and environmental protection legislation passed since 1966 began in Congress, not in the executive branch. And even laws formally proposed by the president often represent presidential versions of proposals that have been incubated in Congress. This was the case, for example, with some civil rights laws and with the proposal that eventually became Medicare. Even when the president is the principal author of a bill, he usually submits it (if he is prudent) only after careful consultation with key congressional leaders. In any case, the president cannot himself introduce legislation; he must get a member of Congress to do it for him.</p>
<p>One study showed that of ninety major laws passed between 1880 and 1945, seventy-seven were introduced without presidential sponsorship. In shaping the final contents, congressional influence dominated in thirty-five cases, presidential influence dominated in nineteen, and influence was mixed in the remaining thirty-six. Another study, covering the period 1940 to 1967, found that Congress was the major contributor to about half of all laws passed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Citations: Lawrence H. Chamberlain, "The President, Congress, and Legislation," in The Presidency, ed. Aaron Widavsky (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969), 444-445; Ronald C. Moe and Steven C. Teel, "Congress as a Policy-Maker: A Necessary Reappraisal," Political Science Quarterly 85 (September 1970); 443-470.</p>
<p>Now, about the bureaucracy. It is indeed powerful, as you described, but the president can hardly dominate it. The bureaucracy is unmanageably large, and the civil service system makes it extremely difficult to fire civil servants or reorganize departments. Presidential appointees are also subject to "going native" (becoming their department's representative to higher ups, not a high level representative overseeing the department). But the key thing is that bureaucrats have numerous tools at their disposal to sabotage presidential actions they dislike. The president has to get their support in order to directly interfere with the making of administrative law, and that means compromise. Also, although you say that rules are made with accordance to "the President's instructions," that's not true. In creating an executive agency or department, Congress lays out specific bounds and guidelines. The bureaucracy is given a legally mandated degree of independence and autonomy precisely so that the President cannot dictate administrative law.</p>
<p>As to congressional oversight of the bureaucracy, it's not as weak as you make it out to be. Or, at least, the Washington lobbyists involved with such things don't believe so, trying to form iron triangles and issue networks. In any case, Congress has several very powerful tools for oversight. First, Congress is the one that actually creates specific executive agencies. According to Wilson, "Congress influences--and sometimes determines precisely-- agency behavior by the statutes it enacts." Second, no money can be spent by the bureaucracy unless Congress passes an authorization bill. This authorization is often not permanent, and thus Congress can punish agencies that go against it by lowering their budget ceilings. The most import check, however, is the appropriations bill. These are typically passed on a yearly basis, and allow the bureaucracy to spend the money that has been previously authorized. As Wilson notes, "there are some funds that can be spent without an appropriation but in virtually every part of the bureaucracy each agency is keenly sensitive to congressional concerns at the time that the annual appropriations process is going on." Remember that there are literally tens of thousands of staffers, lobbyists, and experts drafting and examining very specific legislation, which means that Congress can be very precise in levying punishment. Congress also has the power of the legislative veto against particularly egregious bureaucratic acts, and can use its powers of investigation to unearth and publicize presidential tampering and bureaucratic malfeasance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If people do not "realize the damage" they're doing, then you can't say they're being more selfish. They're acting unethically, but not unusually selfishly.
[/quote]
Selfishness is most often a direct result of ignorance of what is selfish.</p>
<p>And as for your last post, General Rak, thanks for vomiting what you learned in your American Government class. You lacked any information which was not presented in that textbook, and tried to make it sound like you thought it up. You've got potential, but you need try harder to change the opinions of your opponents by listening better, and not merely saying their arguments suck.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Selfishness is most often a direct result of ignorance of what is selfish.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Selfishness is a mode of thought.</p>
<p>That's irrelevant, in any case. A change in the level of selfishness in society cannot be measured by your metric. This is basic economics. Since the benefits of the action are relatively high (lots of free music at a comparatively low cost) and the costs very small (virtually no chance of punishment, and for all intents and purposes no monetary payment), it's obvious that many people will partake in it. That's been the case throughout economic history. Maximizing benefits and minimizing costs is a key foundation of society. You've not made the case at all that this situation is in any way unique in regards to human selfishness. And as I noted early, your examples of corporate malfeasance are even more laughable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And as for your last post, General Rak, thanks for vomiting what you learned in your American Government class. You lacked any information which was not presented in that textbook, and tried to make it sound like you thought it up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never claimed that any of the ideas were original. In fact, I specifically mentioned that I was citing from Wilson's text.</p>
<p>Wilson presents the conventional view of political science persuasively and authoritatively. When I agree with him, I cite his arguments. This is how debating works. You take a stand, and then defend it. Whether this means relying mainly on logic or mainly on citations is irrelevant. If you disagree, then rebut the points with your own logic or citations.</p>
<p>Unless, of course, you think that everyone must develop their own original theories of everything, despite the fact that established theories are often much more accurate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unless, of course, you think that everyone must develop their own original theories of everything, despite the fact that established theories are often much more accurate.
[/quote]
So professors shouldn't devise new theories.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's irrelevant, in any case. A change in the level of selfishness in society cannot be measured by your metric. This is basic economics. Since the benefits of the action are relatively high (lots of free music at a comparatively low cost) and the costs very small (virtually no chance of punishment, and for all intents and purposes no monetary payment), it's obvious that many people will partake in it. That's been the case throughout economic history. Maximizing benefits and minimizing costs is a key foundation of society.
[/quote]
Take a look at normative economics, buddy. Ethics of the individual DO factor into purchases, though in the general population they do not hold as much weight. I'm sure you are aware of changing public opinions, though. The effect of a negative report on a company on company sales, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You've not made the case at all that this situation is in any way unique in regards to human selfishness.
[/quote]
I never said it was unique. Back in the stone ages ethics was completely unheard of. However, as recently as the 1950s, there was vehement public opposition to sexuality, etc in public broadcasts. I'm sure you cannot argue that there wasn't a change in values. A change in values can contribute to selfishness.</p>
<p>Once again, as with American Government, you assume I have no background in Economics. You're 16, arguing with merely the basics you've learned so far.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So professors shouldn't devise new theories.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not if the new theory is less accurate and less insightful than the old.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Take a look at normative economics, buddy. Ethics of the individual DO factor into purchases, though in the general population they do not hold as much weight. I'm sure you are aware of changing public opinions, though. The effect of a negative report on a company on company sales, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I assume you're using the phrase "normative economics" in a non-conventional sense; obviously you have such an advanced grounding in economics that you're transcended into a higher level of terminology than those of us with "merely the basics" down. Would you be citing what those us at a "basic" level call behavioral economics?</p>
<p>In any case, I agree that, to an extent, ethics are a influence on what consumers purchase. I think that that influence, however, is marginal on a macro-scale. Over the entire population, aberrations in ethics become smoothed out and the general trend is toward rational behavior.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never said it was unique. Back in the stone ages ethics was completely unheard of. However, as recently as the 1950s, there was vehement public opposition to sexuality, etc in public broadcasts. I'm sure you cannot argue that there wasn't a change in values. A change in values can contribute to selfishness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
This country is at a point of an ethics crisis where selfishness is running rampant
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Surely for there to be such a "crisis" with such "rampant" selfishness it would have to be unique. You argued that there was a special and unparalleled level of selfishness around today.</p>
<p>As you said, a change in values "can" contribute to selfishness. You have not proven the point that it has in fact led to an increase in selfishness; more specifically, I believe that you still have not connected your original examples to the point you're trying to illustrate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once again, as with American Government, you assume I have no background in Economics. You're 16, arguing with merely the basics you've learned so far.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you that insecure about yourself that you feel the need to patronize me in every post you write?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you that insecure about yourself that you feel the need to patronize me in every post you write?
[/quote]
No, you just really annoy me.</p>
<p>well....rearticulating what you learned in a textbook is what'll get you through life...what else is school for?</p>
<p>and you are right GeneralRak, but presidential power has increased drastically since the begining of the 20th Century....first with Teddy Roosevelt, then with Wilson, then with FDR, then Kenneddy and LBJ, then with Reagan. You could claim GWB has increased presidential power, but he is going by the Stewardship doctrine set down by Teddy Roosevelt...."the president should be a big as man as he can." i.e. pushing the limits.....up until the 20th century,the presidency was rather weak in the context of legislation...he merely depended on the veto power...nowadays the President has abotu 150% more power in determining what legislation goes through Congress and what gets passed.</p>
<p>Although...I will admit...if you're copying out of a textbook...you're pretty pitiful</p>
<p>Question. Why is the government involved with marriage AT ALL?? the government is way to involved with our personal lives. Marriage should be between man, wife, and God. (seeing that marriage stems from the Bible) Civil Unions, fine, be with whomever or whatever, just dont call it marriage. Why does the government care?! Whats with the whole tax reductions and such? We really need a Flat Tax. No exceptions.</p>
<p>I cannot wait until Bush's term is ended. I will breath a sigh of relief. Unless another Republican then i shall cryy endlessly. By the way ifm you guys wanna see a relevant thread see:::<br>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=87510&highlight=SUpport+Marriage%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=87510&highlight=SUpport+Marriage</a></p>
<p>wahhhh. I can hear the liberals crying.</p>
<p>What is it with the gay marriage obsession? The number of gays who want to marry is miniscule. Create a flat tax. Reform social security. End Affirmative Action. Defend evolution in classrooms. Don't let the government take our lands for a walmart. Save christmas. Educate the public about the true meaning of the first amendment. Legalize filesharing.</p>
<p>SOMETHING. ANYTHING BUT THIS STUPID GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE.</p>
<p>/marriage is a man and a woman. Sorry. I believe the dictionary.</p>
<p>thats nice. but we are meant to evolve. the dictionary is updated annually. :)</p>
<p>I am a Muslim, and I'm GLAD Bush got reelected. Bush rocks. btw, I am against abortion and definately gay marriages.</p>
<p>Ummm what does u being Muslim matter? And I am horrified that Bush got reelected. T e r r i b l e president. And I am for abortion and gay marriage..hehe./</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ummm what does u being Muslim matter? And I am horrified that Bush got reelected. T e r r i b l e president. And I am for abortion and gay marriage..hehe./
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most Muslims want Bush assassinated. Bush being reelected is the greatest thing to happen to America in years. As for abortion and gay marriages -- good thing Republicans are in power :)</p>
<p>Go Bush!</p>
<p>Bush is a much better prez than Clinton was.</p>
<p>I think he's a hypocrite, who's supposedly pro-life and pro-morals yet sends soldiers to die for the profit of capitalists, and look at some of the immoral things he and his family are involved in! I'm a religious moderate-conservative who doesn't support some of the things on the liberal platform, but I would've voted for Kerry in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think he's a hypocrite, who's supposedly pro-life and pro-morals yet sends soldiers to die for the profit of capitalists, and look at some of the immoral things he and his family are involved in! I'm a religious moderate-conservative who doesn't support some of the things on the liberal platform, but I would've voted for Kerry in a heartbeat.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Quit exaggerating and face reality. Did American experinece any terrorist attack since 9/11? No, all thanks to Bush. I know he's not the smartest of presidents, but he sure is effective as president. And yeah, I also like the fact that Republicans are pro-life and anti-gay :)</p>