General / Off-Topic Blatant and Obvious !!!

[Javert]

We've discussed this idea of voting licenses before on the Brexit thread.

The problem with this is that although it might seem attractive at first, it's basically a step away from democracy - saying that you can only vote if you can prove that you are interested in politics. The other big problem is, who gets to decide what the test is for getting a voting license? Whoever it is, they will be open to accusations of bias etc. Lobby groups would accuse the people setting this license test as being biased and that the test is designed to only select the "right type of people".

You might even get people similar to you saying "I refuse to apply for a voting license because I don't believe in the type of government that this test implies we should have".

Edit - some people would even argue the opposite and say that you have to prove that you are not involved in politics or history to vote, otherwise you will have vested interests and ideas.

Maybe rather than this, we should start from the point that if we have arrived at a moment in history where more than 50% of people are so angry that they will, when given the opportunity, vote for any major change rather than stick with the status quo, even when being told by all experts that the change will be rationally worse, there is clearly a major major problem in society.

Perhaps this problem cannot be solved by rationality, science and enlightenment on its own because the factors driving it are emotional, not rational, and therefore the arguments cannot be defeated and minds changed purely by rational argument.

I'm not sure if you have read this article - it's long but I found it was definitely worth a read. This guy has also written a book that's just been published expanding on these ideas.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump

Of course I'm not saying I agree 100% with all of this. For one thing, he doesn't provide any easy answers, and for another, like many commentators he appears to be lumping all the people who voted Trump / Brexit and suchlike into one bucket.

However TLDR, his main thrust is that the events we are seeing cannot be understood or countered using the paradigms that we have all grown up with of economic growth, rational enlightenment, and facts. Fundamentally this anger is driven by emotional discontent with the current system, and about a visceral need to feel equal in importance in society (rather than just a theoretical equality by having the same vote as everyone else).

That's not to say that rationality is not important - more that a total focus on it to the disregard of all else fails to recognize that human beings don't think (or vote) using rationality or facts alone, and this probably cannot be changed.

 

[verminstar]

I'm not actually completely against democracy, I'm against uninformed "mobocracies", which is what passes for democracies today. There are several ways to improve upon what we have.

What about voting licenses? People have to prove a certain level of knowledge of history and an interest in learning about politics before they're granted the right to vote? "But Fuzzy! That could be abused!" Really? Have you seen the guy in the Whitehouse right now? It might not be a nirvana of politics but it's better.

Or what about Eurovision? In Eurovision the voting public count for half of the votes, and the music experts count for the other half. As a result stuff like this doesn't make it too far.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTLAzDVu80E

(My apologies to the people of Belgium but that was utter complete and total crap).

Also, what about having a real go at a technocracy? The EU is allegedly a technocracy, but it really isn't at all. If it was I'd be even more enthusiastic about it though. What about a blend of democracy/technocracy?

Or maybe there is some, as yet, unthought of system waiting to come along. We, just like all the humans who came before us, have the belief that we're pretty much as good as we can be and are vastly superior to everyone who went before. But the reality is that (hopefully) future generations will be far smarter and find ways to solve these problems. But the reality is also that we can't wait. We're now so powerful a force on the planet we can't just leave things and hope the next generation finds a solution. Yet that is what democracy seems to be giving us.

So people have to prove they are qualified to vote. Ok so who gets to make that judgement call and why are they qualified? Who gives them that authority? And who gave them their their authority? Experts?

What you desribe sounds very much like a dictatorship with the already rich and powerful entrusting the puppet vote only to those they deem worthy, or qualified as you put it. What this system immediately says to me is...elitist and very easily manipulated and abused by those who wish to keep a gravy train going at any cost, and to hell with the stupid ignorant masses...what do they know eh? Ye only get the right to vote if ye vote fer what we want ye to vote for.

This is why its hard to take anything else ye say seriously...even if the point yer making is absolutely correct, its lost because ye clearly dont believe in democracy in its current form. Giving the vote only to those ye deem qualified is one the worst ideas anyone could suggest as yer placing yerself on some sorta moral high ground which is the very thing ye claim not to be doing.

That aside, if ye dont vote, then ye got no reason to complain about the result which is literally all ye seem to do on this forum. A personal and individual vote is something that generations have sacrificed everything to protect...this is how we compare our society with the likes of north korea where elections are more a pr excercise with the winners already preselected. I see your ideas as not being too far from that and Ive already read what ye wrote about those who fought and died in wars past...disgusting is a word that springs to mind but lets not dwell on that ^

 

[FuzzySpider]

So people have to prove they are qualified to vote. Ok so who gets to make that judgement call and why are they qualified? Who gives them that authority? And who gave them their their authority? Experts?

Who decides who is qualified to perform medical operations? Who decides who is qualified to drive cars? Whe decides who is qualified to practice law? Who decides who is qualified to use SCUBA? Who decides who can safely work on gas or electricity supplies?

Not sure why you think politics is any less complex or important than any of those things, which all require licenses or qualifications made by an independent assessor.

What you desribe sounds very much like a dictatorship with the already rich and powerful entrusting the puppet vote only to those they deem worthy, or qualified as you put it. What this system immediately says to me is...elitist and very easily manipulated and abused by those who wish to keep a gravy train going at any cost, and to hell with the stupid ignorant masses...what do they know eh? Ye only get the right to vote if ye vote fer what we want ye to vote for.

Tinfoil hat concepts of never being able to have independent institutions aside (*cough*electoral commission*cough*), the rich and powerful already decide the outcomes of elections by manipulating what people think, by buying lobbyists and by funding political organisations (Cato institute anyone?)

This is why its hard to take anything else ye say seriously...even if the point yer making is absolutely correct, its lost because ye clearly dont believe in democracy in its current form.

Whilst there are people here I hope do take me seriously and like reading my stuff as much as I enjoy reading their stuff, even if I disagree, there are others where it's a bit of a "meh" situation. Particularly when they try to pick me up on things I never even said, like this little gem....

Giving the vote only to those ye deem qualified is one the worst ideas anyone could suggest as yer placing yerself on some sorta moral high ground which is the very thing ye claim not to be doing.

Yes. It's a good job I didn't do that, isn't it?

In such a system it wouldn't be me who makes such decisions nor indeed even gets to vote!

That aside, if ye dont vote, then ye got no reason to complain about the result which is literally all ye seem to do on this forum.

I don't complain about "results". You've actually somewhat helped me make my point here - politics is mostly about the vote. The intricacies, the facts, the consequences and the opinions of experts? Or even the feelings, ideas, and opinions of those forced to live with the decisions of others? Nowhere near as important as that vote.

That is also not "literally all I do on this forum", so please, don't talk crap.

A personal and individual vote is something that generations have sacrificed everything to protect...this is how we compare our society with the likes of north korea where elections are more a pr excercise with the winners already preselected. I see your ideas as not being too far from that and Ive already read what ye wrote about those who fought and died in wars past...disgusting is a word that springs to mind but lets not dwell on that ^

Remember what I said earlier about confusing the right to vote with freedom?

 

[Arry]

Understood, but you would think poorer folks and working class people would be all for the rights to protest, just as those protesters would almost certainly support right to strike, both of which are pretty darn democratic. So i'd like to think the entire left would want to respect democracy. And how anyone who refuses to vote can ever complain about anything confuses me, no offense intended to you.

I think that if history and experience shows us that basically 'all of those being put up for a vote, are all basically the same'. All have the same interests (to gain power) and all end up ignoring the people that voted for them. All eventually 'sell out' and become a part of the political systems, that most of the masses hate, because it is a self-sustaining, self-promoting and self-preserving, corrupt institution. If we feel that there is no one worth voting for; we have a right to complain, because the current political system, does not work, for the common people.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the problem, most of the people who voted for him don't like him, the wanted one thing from him: jobs.

He spoke to their situation, just like ol' Bernie did. Bernie Sanders was speaking to the same group, and a whole lot of them would have voted for Bernie, but took Trump because it was the best they could get (from their perspective). The Democrat's messed up by running Hilary Clinton, the Republicans messed up by losing touch with their core values.

One last thing, if someone looks like they're doing something stupid from a distance, before you laugh and point, get a little closer and find out the context of their actions, maybe it's not as stupid as it looks.

Most people voted for him because he told them what he knew they wanted to hear. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

 

[verminstar]

Who decides who is qualified to perform medical operations? Who decides who is qualified to drive cars? Whe decides who is qualified to practice law? Who decides who is qualified to use SCUBA? Who decides who can safely work on gas or electricity supplies?

Not sure why you think politics is any less complex or important than any of those things, which all require licenses or qualifications made by an independent assessor.



Tinfoil hat concepts of never being able to have independent institutions aside (*cough*electoral commission*cough*), the rich and powerful already decide the outcomes of elections by manipulating what people think, by buying lobbyists and by funding political organisations (Cato institute anyone?)



Whilst there are people here I hope do take me seriously and like reading my stuff as much as I enjoy reading their stuff, even if I disagree, there are others where it's a bit of a "meh" situation. Particularly when they try to pick me up on things I never even said, like this little gem....



Yes. It's a good job I didn't do that, isn't it?

In such a system it wouldn't be me who makes such decisions nor indeed even gets to vote!



I don't complain about "results". You've actually somewhat helped me make my point here - politics is mostly about the vote. The intricacies, the facts, the consequences and the opinions of experts? Or even the feelings, ideas, and opinions of those forced to live with the decisions of others? Nowhere near as important as that vote.

That is also not "literally all I do on this forum", so please, don't talk crap.



Remember what I said earlier about confusing the right to vote with freedom?

Doctors are qualified to carry out life saving procedures while the patient is not...yer right about that and I certainly wont disagree, but...the patient has the right to refuse all treatment and sign a DNR and the doctor cannot do what he says is in the patients best interest. The patient has the last word.

Your suggestion is the exact same as taking that choice away entirely and allowing the doctor to do whatever he or she sees fit, while ignoring the wishes of the patient.

Same as lawyers...they can advise and represent their clients in court, but...if a client says no to the like of a bargain, then the lawyer is bound to carry out those wishes regardless how damaging it might be.

Your suggestion would be to ignore the client and the lawyer does whatever they want because its in their clients best interests, whether they like it or not.

We have the freedom to choose...a freedom you dont believe we are entitled to unless we are worthy of the responsibility. Yer literally supporting taking that freedom away and handing complete and total authority to a select few who deem themselves qualified to make the choices for peeple whether they agree or not.

Or am I reading it wrong? How is this democratic?

Theres an old fashioned notion that politicians are there to serve the people...what you appear to be suggestig is the complete opposite. They make the decisions based on what they believe to be in our best interests whether we agree or not...we are literally now serving them. And this is your answer to the woes of the world?

Jesus wept...

 

[Monk]

You can't have a voter ID test and then tax people that fail it.

If you don't tax all the people who fail the test then you run the risk of not collecting enough revenue.

You can't have any group that has rights that another group does not. Especially with the right to vote where you'd create a system where voters could legislate against non-voters.

We had a revolution over this kind of crap.

 

[verminstar]

We had more than one revolution over this sorta thing, we had a couple of fairly major wars in the name of preserving our freedom. Now they want to push all that to one side and give the elites total and complete power over the great unwashed, and dumb, masses because its inconvenient that we have a vote and dont do as we told and threatened to do.

And they call us facsists? Absolutely priceless ^

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

We had more than one revolution over this sorta thing, we had a couple of fairly major wars in the name of preserving our freedom. Now they want to push all that to one side and give the elites total and complete power over the great unwashed, and dumb, masses because its inconvenient that we have a vote and dont do as we told and threatened to do.

And they call us facsists? Absolutely priceless ^

I have to admit that the thought of stopping people from uninformed voting had crossed my mind, but i still came back to agreeing that everyone should get the vote, or we could become a democracy only for the elitists.

 

[Monk]

I was just talking to some of my co workers. Most of the are on H1B visas. I haven't exactly been paying attention to what Trump has been saying about H1B, so much else going on, but they were certain to fill me in this morning. Apparently, they are hearing that Trump wants to increase the minimum wage for H1B visa holders to 130k USD per year, regardless of local economies (130k is a pretty nice living in STL but is pretty tough to get by on in SF or NYC).

This is going to be a disaster for productivity in the US and will have serious impact to many businesses. We are currently experiencing a massive shortage of workers for IT and financial related services. Too many Americans either can't afford or are too poorly motivated to get their college education. Here I am, with a hiring manger, scraping for applications. We pay well, offer good benefits but there just isn't anyone applying. The contract firms are trying to knock our door down with droves of H1B workers that have the appropriate training and experience. Before we turn to them, we always try to hire direct applications (usually citizens) if they are qualified. Every time, we get boomers who think they know everything but haven't updated their skills since 1985 and recent graduates trying to punch well above their weight class. So, we turn to H1B...they currently will do the job of QA for the current minimum of 65k. Fortunately, that lines up with what we'd pay anyone to do the job and we couldn't find Americans even qualified to do it.


However, there is no way in hell we are going to pay a QA 130k USD. You can bet those contracts will be terminated. I'll be alone in my office writing requirements and specifications for...1 developer and a crap-ton of executives. I guess there is a silver lining in that I'll be in even higher demand than I was already.

 

[Arry]

I think that 'blaming' the voter, for making 'ill informed' decisions, is hardly fair. Unfortunately a major chunk of voters, genuinely believe what the campaigning politicians tell them. Yes they can check the 'facts', but many don't see or feel the need to do so, or have no real idea, who to check with.

The thing that needs to change, to make democracy work as intended; is an independent recognized system of checking and exposing the lies. At the same time; the law needs to change so that there are penalties for those whom wish the mislead the voting public.

 

[Monk]

Speaking of people who shouldn't be voting...

"White House Backs Away From Investigation Into Voter Fraud Claims Trump Made Up"

That took a bit longer than I expected, but man, they can't even get their faces clean before getting more egg on their faces.

 

[FuzzySpider]

You can't have a voter ID test and then tax people that fail it.

Sure you can.

Doesn't your own country bar certain groups from voting who you also tax? Felons, immigrants etc.

Taxation is about collecting revenue for services, not about representation, regardless of what the long dead residents of Boston think.

Also, we want our tea back dammit!

You can't have any group that has rights that another group does not. Especially with the right to vote where you'd create a system where voters could legislate against non-voters.

Hence the requirement to properly vet potential voters so they wouldn't do this?

In any case, this situation also exists at the moment. Look at the discrepancy between the opportunities afforded between black people and white people in both the USA and UK, or look at the difference in life opportunities between rich and poor. Wealthy white people have at the moment the biggest hand in shaping government decisions, and governments have been cutting welfare and wealth redistribution since the 1980s.

This is done largely because those at the top erroneously believe they can continue with this situation indefinitely without the poorer classes attempting to strike back (Trump, Brexit). Many countries are offering a universal citizens income as a solution to automation and a lack of employment, but this requires taxation that the wealthy are unwilling to pay, thus it is being lobbied against by very powerful people.

Had a proper panel of experts, who had relevant psycho-socialogical data, been running things the level of redistribution may well have been adequate to prevent this from happening.

I have to admit that the thought of stopping people from uninformed voting had crossed my mind, but i still came back to agreeing that everyone should get the vote, or we could become a democracy only for the elitists.

See above. The elitists already have way more power than the plebs. A technocracy would be taking power out of the hands of ordinary people and taking the power out of vested interest groups who advertise in the Daily Mail or fund the Conservative party.

I think that 'blaming' the voter, for making 'ill informed' decisions, is hardly fair. Unfortunately a major chunk of voters, genuinely believe what the campaigning politicians tell them. Yes they can check the 'facts', but many don't see or feel the need to do so, or have no real idea, who to check with.

The thing that needs to change, to make democracy work as intended; is an independent recognized system of checking and exposing the lies. At the same time; the law needs to change so that there are penalties for those whom wish the mislead the voting public.

I am having difficulty with this one, I have to admit. Sometimes I feel sorry for those who have made ill informed choices, as they are going to be the ones who suffer the most. They really have been hoodwinked on a massive scale.

On the other hand the words of George Orwell ring out:
"A people that elect corrupt politicians are not victims... but accomplices."

Their lack of willingness to at least consider the alternatives, and consider the possibility they might be wrong, is likely to create enormous damage.

 

[Monk]

Sure you can.

Doesn't your own country bar certain groups from voting who you also tax? Felons, immigrants etc.

Taxation is about collecting revenue for services, not about representation, regardless of what the long dead residents of Boston think.

Also, we want our tea back dammit!

No, felons and immigrants (once naturalized) can vote. Felons, once released, may vote. Some states require felons to go through some kind of program first, but yeah, they can vote.

Yes, taxation is about collecting revenue for services...revenue which is appropriated by Congress and signed off on by the President. It is represented and always has been (after women's suffrage, that is).

And tea is crap, you can scrape it off the bottom of the bay if you want.

Hence the requirement to properly vet potential voters so they wouldn't do this?

In any case, this situation also exists at the moment. Look at the discrepancy between the opportunities afforded between black people and white people in both the USA and UK, or look at the difference in life opportunities between rich and poor. Wealthy white people have at the moment the biggest hand in shaping government decisions, and governments have been cutting welfare and wealth redistribution since the 1980s.

This is done largely because those at the top erroneously believe they can continue with this situation indefinitely without the poorer classes attempting to strike back (Trump, Brexit). Many countries are offering a universal citizens income as a solution to automation and a lack of employment, but this requires taxation that the wealthy are unwilling to pay, thus it is being lobbied against by very powerful people.

Had a proper panel of experts, who had relevant psycho-socialogical data, been running things the level of redistribution may well have been adequate to prevent this from happening.

I would argue that the solution is not restricted voting but mandated education, only public funding of candidates, and proportional representation.

 

[Don Alvarez]

SIn any case, this situation also exists at the moment. Look at the discrepancy between the opportunities afforded between black people and white people in both the USA and UK, or look at the difference in life opportunities between rich and poor. Wealthy white people have at the moment the biggest hand in shaping government decisions, and governments have been cutting welfare and wealth redistribution since the 1980s.

welfare spending has doubled since 2000 and increased over 400% in the US since 1980, according to Forbes. not to mention the ACA was widely hailed as a thinly disguised redistribution of wealth program, probably one of the largest the US has ever seen.

 

[Adept]

A vote is always going to be a binary, or at best overly simple, method doing things. But when we're dealing with massively complex societies it simply fails.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one of those that have been tried. Refusing to vote in the referendum is a bit dodgy already, but your example was flawed since my major beef is with you stating that you refuse to vote at all. Ever. To me that is a cop-out.

Actually it reminds me of Corbyn. You say you hate him, but this is very familiar. Because voting is not perfect, rather than use the flawed tool to best effect you'll rather refuse to use it at all.

Corbyn has issues with the EU, so he couldn't bring himself to campaign for it. I suspect he actually thought that staying was better than leaving, but refused on principle to campaign for the non-perfect EU.

Sorry. I still don't see how your position is sound. It seems like a dereliction of duty.

Now granted, the UK political system is ridiculous with it's two-parties and a bit system. If you dig up a political map of Finland, or any other proportional representation, multi-party country, I think you'll notice that it's pretty far from a simple either-or choice. Coalition governments are about debate and compromise.

- - - Updated - - -

Now they want to push all that to one side and give the elites total and complete power over the great unwashed

Who is they mate? This experts-only government is Fuzzy's own special project.

 

[Adept]

I think that 'blaming' the voter, for making 'ill informed' decisions, is hardly fair. Unfortunately a major chunk of voters, genuinely believe what the campaigning politicians tell them. Yes they can check the 'facts', but many don't see or feel the need to do so, or have no real idea, who to check with.

The thing that needs to change, to make democracy work as intended; is an independent recognized system of checking and exposing the lies. At the same time; the law needs to change so that there are penalties for those whom wish the mislead the voting public.

Democracies absolutely require an educated public (good access to schools, and a solid foundational education for everybody), and an aggressive, credible and free press.

The biggest threat currently is the mass of disinformation being spread over the net and social media, as well as the fraudulent propaganda "news" organisations like Fox and the Daily Mail.

We need aggressive legislation to combat the deliberate spread of falsehoods. If people can't tell what is true and what is false, democracy will wither and die.

 

[Javert]

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Now we have Fuzzy arguing for abolition of universal suffrage, Adept arguing for the abolition of free speech, and me finding myself in agreement with verminstar.

As I said earlier, it seems like we as a society have found ourselves in a bit of a mess right now.

 

[Monk]

As I said earlier, it seems like we as a society have found ourselves in a bit of a mess right now.

truth bomb

 

[FuzzySpider]

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one of those that have been tried.

Truly this is so. However, at one point in time sawing off an infected limb, to within a few inches of the green bits, then pouring hot tar all over the stump, was the best method of medicine practiced.

It's the best that has been tried, but we as a species have to do better.

Refusing to vote in the referendum is a bit dodgy already, but your example was flawed since my major beef is with you stating that you refuse to vote at all. Ever. To me that is a cop-out.

Actually it reminds me of Corbyn. You say you hate him, but this is very familiar. Because voting is not perfect, rather than use the flawed tool to best effect you'll rather refuse to use it at all.

Corbyn has issues with the EU, so he couldn't bring himself to campaign for it. I suspect he actually thought that staying was better than leaving, but refused on principle to campaign for the non-perfect EU.

Not really. My issue with Corbyn is the way he is selling himself as the messiah of honesty, when really he's as manipulative and dishonest as all the rest. This, coupled with his complete lack of opposition qualities, means he is selling out the country for his own self-aggrandizment. That to me is pretty unforgivable.

Sorry. I still don't see how your position is sound. It seems like a dereliction of duty.

Now granted, the UK political system is ridiculous with it's two-parties and a bit system. If you dig up a political map of Finland, or any other proportional representation, multi-party country, I think you'll notice that it's pretty far from a simple either-or choice. Coalition governments are about debate and compromise.

I don't think of voting as a duty. Indeed from my personal perspective, if I voted, I'd have no right to complain about the system because I'd have been a willing participant. Verminstar got the complete wrong end of the stick when said I am complaining about the result.

Think of it this way - the turnout for the Brexit referendum was 70%ish. That number is often cited as why this is such a powerful mandate for Brexit. The more people who vote, the more the system is endorsed by the population. As someone who finds the system rotten, I would consider myself hypocritical if I participated in it.

And I suppose I do like to keep my hands clean. I'm from the Kantian school of ethics.

Democracies absolutely require an educated public (good access to schools, and a solid foundational education for everybody), and an aggressive, credible and free press.

The biggest threat currently is the mass of disinformation being spread over the net and social media, as well as the fraudulent propaganda "news" organisations like Fox and the Daily Mail.

We need aggressive legislation to combat the deliberate spread of falsehoods. If people can't tell what is true and what is false, democracy will wither and die.

Some would call this a direct attack on freedom of the press and free speech. Journalists report things every day that may or may not be true. If they find something out important, but can't absolutely prove it, are they to report it? Was Andrew Gilligan right to report on Tony Blairs "dodgy dossier"? He had a source he couldn't reveal (the late Dr David Kelly), so what would he do under your system?

Whilst fake news should be tackled what you're describing might be dangerous. It could be manipulated to favour the powerful. Perhaps a better method would be to insure the clear separation of news and opinion in the popular press? Allow the papers to report what they feel they can, as now, but make sure they keep the "Fury as migrants!" and "You paid the bill for scroungers!" rhetoric separated from the actual news content.

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Now we have Fuzzy arguing for abolition of universal suffrage, Adept arguing for the abolition of free speech, and me finding myself in agreement with verminstar.

Fantastic, isn't it? We've got the School of Athens here!

As I said earlier, it seems like we as a society have found ourselves in a bit of a mess right now.

I think that will find universal agreement though.

 

[Don Alvarez]

We need aggressive legislation to combat the deliberate spread of falsehoods. If people can't tell what is true and what is false, democracy will wither and die.

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Now we have Fuzzy arguing for abolition of universal suffrage, Adept arguing for the abolition of free speech, and me finding myself in agreement with verminstar.

As I said earlier, it seems like we as a society have found ourselves in a bit of a mess right now.

If we all search with open minds, we'll likely find even the most polar opposites among us will share common ground on some issues. Much as I disagree with Adept on alot of things, I agree with this, though its a slippery slope that would need to be approached with the utmost caution. In the US the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, however I don't feel they exercise that right anymore with the appropriate levels of integrity or responsibility that they should. We shouldn't abridge what they say, but when stuff is being published that is outright manufactured or malicious, there should be consequences, enough so that others would think twice before following suit. News outlets wield great influence, some use it very recklessly, and probably should be held accountable to some degree.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that will find universal agreement though.

I certainly agree.