The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2019, 09:37

I'm more or less Cowenian on growth. It's the greatest engine of suffering mitigation ever to exist on the earth and by such a large magnitude, if you do something you know will cost a half percent of growth to mitigate some near term unrest, you own that suffering over the long term. You have become a moral monster and I don't care what your other good intentions were. That's if you know it will cost growth. If you don't know, there is an affirmative moral obligation to make the best good faith effort humanly possible to evaluate costs to growth in any scenario where what you want to do could potentially have an effect.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9542
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by nicole » 12 Jun 2019, 10:00

JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 09:37
I'm more or less Cowenian on growth. It's the greatest engine of suffering mitigation ever to exist on the earth and by such a large magnitude, if you do something you know will cost a half percent of growth to mitigate some near term unrest, you own that suffering over the long term. You have become a moral monster and I don't care what your other good intentions were. That's if you know it will cost growth. If you don't know, there is an affirmative moral obligation to make the best good faith effort humanly possible to evaluate costs to growth in any scenario where what you want to do could potentially have an effect.
This is similar to how I am except instead of growth, I focus on (anti-)fertility-related policies, because contraception is the actual greatest engine of suffering mitigation ever to exist on the earth. The more that Democrats get into things like family leave, housing policy, etc., the more you have to wonder if their support for abortion, sex education, etc., is preventing more births than they are encouraging through other policies. And I'm starting to have real concerns about that, but it's still better than the other side.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24265
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2019, 12:01

JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 09:37
I'm more or less Cowenian on growth. It's the greatest engine of suffering mitigation ever to exist on the earth and by such a large magnitude, if you do something you know will cost a half percent of growth to mitigate some near term unrest, you own that suffering over the long term. You have become a moral monster and I don't care what your other good intentions were. That's if you know it will cost growth. If you don't know, there is an affirmative moral obligation to make the best good faith effort humanly possible to evaluate costs to growth in any scenario where what you want to do could potentially have an effect.
So if keeping slavery legal would prevent a quarter point of GDP growth, you'd be "A OK"?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2019, 12:15

Clearly not. The correct formulation would be “this is a human right issue of such significance and it self a generator of such suffering that the long run compounded cost to growth and associated suffering is more than justified.

Now try that with the minimum wage.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15601
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Aresen » 12 Jun 2019, 12:19

nicole wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 10:00
JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 09:37
I'm more or less Cowenian on growth. It's the greatest engine of suffering mitigation ever to exist on the earth and by such a large magnitude, if you do something you know will cost a half percent of growth to mitigate some near term unrest, you own that suffering over the long term. You have become a moral monster and I don't care what your other good intentions were. That's if you know it will cost growth. If you don't know, there is an affirmative moral obligation to make the best good faith effort humanly possible to evaluate costs to growth in any scenario where what you want to do could potentially have an effect.
This is similar to how I am except instead of growth, I focus on (anti-)fertility-related policies, because contraception is the actual greatest engine of suffering mitigation ever to exist on the earth. The more that Democrats get into things like family leave, housing policy, etc., the more you have to wonder if their support for abortion, sex education, etc., is preventing more births than they are encouraging through other policies. And I'm starting to have real concerns about that, but it's still better than the other side.
I think in just about every country that has these family leave, child support, and other 'pro-family' policies, the cost of raising kids still outweighs the government support by a wide margin. My personal feeling is 'Why the hell should I have to support your life choices?'
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9542
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by nicole » 12 Jun 2019, 12:27

Aresen wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 12:19
nicole wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 10:00
JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 09:37
I'm more or less Cowenian on growth. It's the greatest engine of suffering mitigation ever to exist on the earth and by such a large magnitude, if you do something you know will cost a half percent of growth to mitigate some near term unrest, you own that suffering over the long term. You have become a moral monster and I don't care what your other good intentions were. That's if you know it will cost growth. If you don't know, there is an affirmative moral obligation to make the best good faith effort humanly possible to evaluate costs to growth in any scenario where what you want to do could potentially have an effect.
This is similar to how I am except instead of growth, I focus on (anti-)fertility-related policies, because contraception is the actual greatest engine of suffering mitigation ever to exist on the earth. The more that Democrats get into things like family leave, housing policy, etc., the more you have to wonder if their support for abortion, sex education, etc., is preventing more births than they are encouraging through other policies. And I'm starting to have real concerns about that, but it's still better than the other side.
I think in just about every country that has these family leave, child support, and other 'pro-family' policies, the cost of raising kids still outweighs the government support by a wide margin. My personal feeling is 'Why the hell should I have to support your life choices?'
Right, but even if the cost of raising kids still outweighs the government support, the government support does lower the cost and make childrearing significantly more attainable. How many people would have kids if they have to pay for all their own childcare? As in, no public money for "schooling." I have to assume it would put a damper on things.

Then again, I was just looking at a Twitter controversy that apparently happened yesterday when Tom Nichols tweeted about a family living in their car, with a toddler, and the mom is pregnant again. He was excoriated for calling them entitled. I can't believe it's even controversial to say it's irresponsible and abusive to have another kid in that situation but here we are. We are only allowed to ask why people have to live in a car, not why those people have to literally manufacture more people living in cars.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6511
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Dangerman » 12 Jun 2019, 12:33

Ugh. I had participants at my last job that did that. Living in a car with two kids, receiving TANF, getting pregnant again 2 months into the program. Just sad.

User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 1148
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by dead_elvis » 12 Jun 2019, 13:20

I do get perturbed at how much lefties sometimes push this idea that restraint is impossible and that there aren't 5 billion ways to get off with each other that don't involve impregnation.
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24265
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2019, 14:10

JasonL wrote:Clearly not. The correct formulation would be “this is a human right issue of such significance and it self a generator of such suffering that the long run compounded cost to growth and associated suffering is more than justified.

Now try that with the minimum wage.
Is there firm evidence that minimum wage laws in the area were talking about has more than a negligible effect? By a similar token, anti-discrimination laws should be mandatory as discrimination based on race/gender/religion/gender identity/sexuality is economically inefficient. Also, the government should be much harsher on monopoly power as monopolies/monopsonies are also inefficient.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2019, 14:18

I can’t litigate each proposal here. I’m open to the arguments that say no harm to growth on this but harm to growth on that. My point is there’s an obligation to make those because the effect is so large.

Yes I’m operating within a rights framework as a baseline below which trade offs can’t be made. No exterminations or slavery or forfeiture of property to advance a growth goal.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26106
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Warren » 12 Jun 2019, 14:39

JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 14:18
No exterminations or slavery or forfeiture of property to advance a growth goal.
Did you just toss eminent domain and capital punishment in with indentured servitude as always and everywhere morally impermissibles?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24265
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2019, 14:47

JasonL wrote:I can’t litigate each proposal here. I’m open to the arguments that say no harm to growth on this but harm to growth on that. My point is there’s an obligation to make those because the effect is so large.

Yes I’m operating within a rights framework as a baseline below which trade offs can’t be made. No exterminations or slavery or forfeiture of property to advance a growth goal.
Seems like your principle is “What you want to sacrifice economic growth for is bad and not worth it, what I want to sacrifice for growth is good.” Then it becomes an argument about what is good, what is bad and we’re back to square one. Is breaking up a monopoly forfeiture of property?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2019, 14:53

Mo wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 14:47
JasonL wrote:I can’t litigate each proposal here. I’m open to the arguments that say no harm to growth on this but harm to growth on that. My point is there’s an obligation to make those because the effect is so large.

Yes I’m operating within a rights framework as a baseline below which trade offs can’t be made. No exterminations or slavery or forfeiture of property to advance a growth goal.
Seems like your principle is “What you want to sacrifice economic growth for is bad and not worth it, what I want to sacrifice for growth is good.” Then it becomes an argument about what is good, what is bad and we’re back to square one. Is breaking up a monopoly forfeiture of property?
That's entirely unfair unless you are doing the full 'tard liberal thing where rights are arbitrary things you just happen to want, which, that's a different argument that can be had somewhere back chapter 2 of "libertarianism - the very basics". The libertarian framework of rights basically exists not because they are real but because they are things we had better assume and they don't have the problems of asserting positive rights. Positive rights are incoherent just like they always are, then there's a set of things that are not rights that are policies you can argue about but your argument had damn well better consider impact to growth.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2019, 14:59

Warren wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 14:39
JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 14:18
No exterminations or slavery or forfeiture of property to advance a growth goal.
Did you just toss eminent domain and capital punishment in with indentured servitude as always and everywhere morally impermissibles?
No I'm not modifying the fundamental current understanding of a right to property, which, yes is complicated but does involve due process.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13334
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Eric the .5b » 12 Jun 2019, 15:17

thoreau wrote:
11 Jun 2019, 23:19
Eric the .5b wrote:
11 Jun 2019, 21:00
Clinton was Clinton, not Team Blue. I don't see any reason to think the Blues institutionally give a fuck for anything past 50%+1 and 270 EC votes. The Blues I hear from like to imagine demographic shifts mean that they never have to give a shit about what the 49% or less of the public that votes Red thinks. It's delusion, but they like to think it.
Fair point, but when I hear Blues speak of the Thousand Year Blue Rule, they seem to think that the first Sign will be that they win damn near everywhere because of changing demographics....
Except they frame it as starting next election or maybe, just maybe, the election after that. And the ones I hear are happy with the idea of 40%+ of the population being locked out of having any real voice in the government, so long as they're Team Red voters.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24265
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2019, 16:50

JasonL wrote:
Warren wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 14:39
JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 14:18
No exterminations or slavery or forfeiture of property to advance a growth goal.
Did you just toss eminent domain and capital punishment in with indentured servitude as always and everywhere morally impermissibles?
No I'm not modifying the fundamental current understanding of a right to property, which, yes is complicated but does involve due process.
Is right to counsel coherent or incoherent?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2019, 17:12

Ok we are going to do this I guess. The entire libertarian what is a right conversation. I want to reiterate that this is all tangential if touching at all the point that goes like "in nearly all policy discussions that are talking about things that are not basic rights you need to think about growth as the dominating feature governing human quality of life and if you screw it up the suffering is on your ledger".

There is a right to counsel because that is an essential feature in defending yourself from the state's use of force apparatus. If you can't affirmatively supply counsel you can't have claim to have a justice system. There is no right to a doctor because you can't require someone else to become a doctor and use their time in a manner they would not otherwise choose. There is no right to steaks. There is no right to daycare. 5 People with kids on an island - whose rights are being violated if you have no doctor, no steaks, and no daycare.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23940
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Jennifer » 12 Jun 2019, 17:31

Aresen wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 12:19
nicole wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 10:00
JasonL wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 09:37
I'm more or less Cowenian on growth. It's the greatest engine of suffering mitigation ever to exist on the earth and by such a large magnitude, if you do something you know will cost a half percent of growth to mitigate some near term unrest, you own that suffering over the long term. You have become a moral monster and I don't care what your other good intentions were. That's if you know it will cost growth. If you don't know, there is an affirmative moral obligation to make the best good faith effort humanly possible to evaluate costs to growth in any scenario where what you want to do could potentially have an effect.
This is similar to how I am except instead of growth, I focus on (anti-)fertility-related policies, because contraception is the actual greatest engine of suffering mitigation ever to exist on the earth. The more that Democrats get into things like family leave, housing policy, etc., the more you have to wonder if their support for abortion, sex education, etc., is preventing more births than they are encouraging through other policies. And I'm starting to have real concerns about that, but it's still better than the other side.
I think in just about every country that has these family leave, child support, and other 'pro-family' policies, the cost of raising kids still outweighs the government support by a wide margin. My personal feeling is 'Why the hell should I have to support your life choices?'
Speaking as another childfree-by-choice: I have some sympathy with that argument, but only to an extent. I mean, I have definitely complained about such people as "This never-married mother of nine quit her McDonald's cashier job after catching pregnant with her ninth child" ... but at the same time, it's not those nine kids' fault that their mom apparently suffers from a pathological inability to learn from her mistakes, and we can't call ourselves a civilized society if those kids are left to starve, or freeze because it's winter in New England and they lack coats and other winter gear.

Beside, not all "parents in need of assistance" fall into this category; modern America offers plenty of opportunities to fall into dire financial straits through no fault of your own: illness (or storm damage) not covered by insurance being just one example.

And even describing motherhood and childbirth as a "choice" only goes so far: IIRC 50 percent of American pregnancies are unplanned, while multiple states go out of their way to make getting a safe and legal abortion much more difficult, time-consuming and expensive than it has to be.

Finally, last but not least: while it is undeniably true that no individual person "needs" to become a parent, the way you "need" to have a functioning heart and lungs and other biological/medical necessities ... but as someone opposed to the extinction of humanity, I say it's obvious that society overall "needs" a certain number of children produced each year, to offset people dying out of it.

So if you're a parent and you do at least a halfway decent job of raising your kid to adulthood -- even if you're doing this for purely "selfish" reasons a la "I want the joys of parenthood for myself, and only give a shit about 'the greater good' so long as it helps me and mine" -- like it or not you're doing something useful and necessary for quote-unquote "society," and I don't think it's a problem if "society"" helps very slightly offset the costs you've taken on, via tax breaks or credits (though, of course, there is definitely room to debate just how high those credits and breaks should be).

At the same time, of course, I agree parenthood should be a choice, and firmly oppose all efforts to prevent people from getting or learning about contraception and abortion, if they want the latter.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24265
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2019, 18:23

JasonL wrote:Ok we are going to do this I guess. The entire libertarian what is a right conversation. I want to reiterate that this is all tangential if touching at all the point that goes like "in nearly all policy discussions that are talking about things that are not basic rights you need to think about growth as the dominating feature governing human quality of life and if you screw it up the suffering is on your ledger".

There is a right to counsel because that is an essential feature in defending yourself from the state's use of force apparatus. If you can't affirmatively supply counsel you can't have claim to have a justice system. There is no right to a doctor because you can't require someone else to become a doctor and use their time in a manner they would not otherwise choose. There is no right to steaks. There is no right to daycare. 5 People with kids on an island - whose rights are being violated if you have no doctor, no steaks, and no daycare.
But with a right to counsel, you’re forcing someone to defend a client they may not want to defend. Do you think PDs would choose to defend all their clients in the time and manner they want to? You’re saying this negative right completely falls apart without a positive right. 5 people on an island, whose rights are being violated if person 1 is judge and there’s a criminal complaint from person 2 against 3 and 2 hires 4 as their lawyer. Is person 5 obligated to represent 3?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27736
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by thoreau » 12 Jun 2019, 18:33

One difference is that the government that wants to use force against somebody has to spend at least some of its resources to hire public defenders, not just prosecutors and cops. So the provision of public defenders via tax funds is no more or less problematic than the provision of police protection via tax funds.

But then we can ask whether the amelioration of certain social ills might be an ounce of prevention instead of a pound of cure. It's been a while since I read Nozick, but he does take this up.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24265
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2019, 18:41

If you’re going to talk about balance, then shouldn’t PDs have equal or lower case loads to prosecutors? My point is less about public defenders qua public defenders, but about negative rights requiring positive rights, but somehow not counting as positive rights. The defense of a right should stand on its own, rather than negative = simple and good, positive = incoherent and bad.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2019, 18:57

Mo wrote:
12 Jun 2019, 18:41
If you’re going to talk about balance, then shouldn’t PDs have equal or lower case loads to prosecutors? My point is less about public defenders qua public defenders, but about negative rights requiring positive rights, but somehow not counting as positive rights. The defense of a right should stand on its own, rather than negative = simple and good, positive = incoherent and bad.
I don't think this is true. It is the talking point of every lefty I've ever met who wanted to do anything whatsoever and call it a right, but it doesn't hold. "Oh you want property rights but not a right to police" Literally yes I don't have a right to police as it stands. Something something roads and somalia.

I'd be willing to go so far as rights of process that exist only as contingencies of the state monopoly of force being a special category of rights or something, but they are contingent even in principle. A right to a BLT simply can't pass a test like that. Positive rights are not rights, they are policies and then you can defend them as such. They are subordinated to the defense of negative rights because that's the whole point.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24265
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by Mo » 12 Jun 2019, 19:03

So picketers drowning out a speaker they disagree with, the colloquial “hecklers’ veto,” legit speech or not?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27736
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by thoreau » 12 Jun 2019, 19:08

The public defender can be framed as a positive right, but it can also be framed as the state effectively putting a handicap on itself. I'm not sure that it's the most useful framing for understanding the function of the public defender, but it might provide a framework to separate a right to a PD from a right to medical care.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Right Way to View Competing Political Horrors

Post by JasonL » 12 Jun 2019, 19:11

I think the separation is pretty clear. One is contingent on state action in the execution of the monopoly of force.

Almost all speech is legit speech in the sense of "I get to use government action to silence you". Direct threats and a handful of other exceptions. Rules in spaces are contingent on the ownership of those spaces. Enforcement should generally be unconnected to speech on offer but trespass or something similar. Public space shout downs are shitty from a culture of speech standpoint but are not something the state should be involved in generally.

You are a no rights guy / whatever we like is a right guy? Really?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests