Yeah, I'm not particularly interested in the voucher debate at this particular Time t, but maybe Time t + tsub1 would be good.
The main thing I was hoping for was an analogy that would get people to understand how, even if they agreed in some particular end, that a particular government program that ostensibly provided this end would be something that they'd be willing to fight tooth and nail against while, at the same time, they could very well still support the particular end.
(Anyway, one of the threads you may be pleased that you missed can be found here. In it you can see me try, and fail, to get people to agree that society, in general, doesn't like the idea of food stamps being used for cigarettes. I was trying, and failing, to say many of the things you successfully said here.)
We restrict the type of foods that may be purchased with food stamps, resulting in regulatory capture of mammoth proportions.
Where's Stillwater?
In any case, I think that the attitudes toward food stamps, or the war on drugs hitting hardest in "welfare" neighborhoods, or drug testing for recipients of help is an unintended consequence of the attitude that "We, as a society, have interconnected responsibilities to each other!"
This particular cudgel has been used to get folks to help others for so long that, I suspect, the "helpers" have internalized it and see that the "helped" have a whole bunch of responsibilities of their own.
And if you add into the equation that money is fungible...
Sure, you can have food stamps, but you have to buy healthy food.
Sure, you can have a government check, but you shouldn't have cable or smoke cigarettes and you *CERTAINLY* shouldn't do drugs! If you have enough money for weed, you don't need my money. Use your own money.
And we get the cops involved because of the interconnected responsibilities that the "helped" have to us. Kick in the door. Shoot the dog. Get child protective services involved to take kids away from moms who smoke pot. (We're doing this for the children, remember?) So on and so forth and so much intrusion into the lives of others... why?
Because we, as a society, have decided that we all have interconnected responsibilities to each other.
Yeah, I know. That wasn't the original intention. The original plan had the best of intentions. "How did we get here from there?" "One step at a time."
Oh, and to clarify, I don't bring this up because Orwell was right so much, I bring it up as evidence that, on this, he was wrong for reasons bundled with the reasons that he was wrong about the pacifists.
Thank goodness for short attention spans and the amount of nuance it requires to differentiate between a quote taken in context of a roast and a quote taken out of context entirely.
I have ancestors that were alcoholics (indeed, some of them left to fight foreign countries for their government as young men and they returned as hardened drunks who needed whisky to sleep without dreaming). These ancestors did great harm to somewhat closer relatives of mine and I have heard stories about the tears shed due to this alcoholism. I have seen friends of mine cry at AA meetings. I have been to funerals of friends who died because of a bottle of booze mixed with a bottle of pills. I have heard the stories of what the parents of my friends have done after drinking too much... horrible stories that made me shudder to think that I spent the night under that same roof.
I also know what happened when this country prohibited alcohol.
Scott, this would bug me more if it weren't the case that "everything changed" for Republicans the second their functionally identical president turned the (R) next to his name into a (D).
Are you asking "well, when did a Republican government ever invade a country in the Middle East?", I'll have to check wikipedia but I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to get back to you quickly.
I understand that those who wish to intervene have the best of intentions. Indeed, I think that, when it comes to moral arguments, *THEY HAVE THE BETTER MORAL ARGUMENT*.
It's always more moral to argue for movement. It's always more moral to argue for action. Whenever you see the moral argument, it's always weighing the best possible outcome against the outcome of doing nothing which, in this case, sure as holy hell looked like a massacre of thousands.
The moral arguments arguing for non-intervention really ring hollow to me compared to the robust morality presented by the arguments for protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
But it's like chicken pox or hockey hair.
I've already been struck quite badly by the moral argument bug and my body now has quite a resistance to such arguments.
I'm stuck looking at what's likely to happen, what's likely to not happen, and what's likely to happen as soon as we stop making things not happen.
It's like prohibition, dude. You cannot use force to make people be better. We will quickly see that the culture of the Middle East created the Middle East as we know it rather than this idea that the Middle East as we know it created the culture.
Would that it were not so.
But, for what it's worth, I know that those who argue for intervention have the best of intentions and legitimately want to make the world a better place.
So we shouldn't intervene in Libya because we're not going to intervene in the Ivory Coast, Bahrain, or Saudi?
If we promised that we *WOULD* intervene in those three places, could we then intervene in Libya?
Imagine all of the lives we could save and all of the people who would finally be free of the shackles they wear!
(Of course the problem is that "DOING SOMETHING!" always has more moral weight in an argument than "none of my business"... because "AT LEAST WE TRIED!" is seen as a legitimate defense when everything that your critics said would happen eventually happens... and, praise Allah, it looks like Libya will not necessarily have everything the critics said would eventually happen happen. This will make it easier for the next guy to intervene even quicker.)
On “Playing God with the Poor”
Yeah, I'm not particularly interested in the voucher debate at this particular Time t, but maybe Time t + tsub1 would be good.
The main thing I was hoping for was an analogy that would get people to understand how, even if they agreed in some particular end, that a particular government program that ostensibly provided this end would be something that they'd be willing to fight tooth and nail against while, at the same time, they could very well still support the particular end.
I'm pleased that I found one.
"
(Anyway, one of the threads you may be pleased that you missed can be found here. In it you can see me try, and fail, to get people to agree that society, in general, doesn't like the idea of food stamps being used for cigarettes. I was trying, and failing, to say many of the things you successfully said here.)
"
We restrict the type of foods that may be purchased with food stamps, resulting in regulatory capture of mammoth proportions.
Where's Stillwater?
In any case, I think that the attitudes toward food stamps, or the war on drugs hitting hardest in "welfare" neighborhoods, or drug testing for recipients of help is an unintended consequence of the attitude that "We, as a society, have interconnected responsibilities to each other!"
This particular cudgel has been used to get folks to help others for so long that, I suspect, the "helpers" have internalized it and see that the "helped" have a whole bunch of responsibilities of their own.
And if you add into the equation that money is fungible...
Sure, you can have food stamps, but you have to buy healthy food.
Sure, you can have a government check, but you shouldn't have cable or smoke cigarettes and you *CERTAINLY* shouldn't do drugs! If you have enough money for weed, you don't need my money. Use your own money.
And we get the cops involved because of the interconnected responsibilities that the "helped" have to us. Kick in the door. Shoot the dog. Get child protective services involved to take kids away from moms who smoke pot. (We're doing this for the children, remember?) So on and so forth and so much intrusion into the lives of others... why?
Because we, as a society, have decided that we all have interconnected responsibilities to each other.
Yeah, I know. That wasn't the original intention. The original plan had the best of intentions. "How did we get here from there?" "One step at a time."
On “Why I’ve Been Quiet”
Not possible for whom? Anybody?
It'd explain a lot!
On “Notes Toward an Integration of Education and Citizenship”
Oh, and to clarify, I don't bring this up because Orwell was right so much, I bring it up as evidence that, on this, he was wrong for reasons bundled with the reasons that he was wrong about the pacifists.
"
Actually, he called the pacifists "objectively pro-fascist".
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw
The subject came up enough.
On “Birtherism”
And who invited you to ride your little pigmy pony into all this, popguns a-blazing?
When it comes to putting in a word edgewise, everyone can press the Submit button, Tom.
You probably wanted a paragraph between these two sentences.
"
What have The Children ever done for me?
"
I have my moments.
"
You mean like obesity?
"
Maybe we should make suicide illegal.
People who could otherwise be producing health care killing themselves? What right do they have to do that?
On “Rand Paul and the Imperial Presidency”
While that is certainly true (and well said), I do find myself beginning to wonder if we might have to rely on "fruitbats" to not bomb places.
The reasonable and rational can't seem to avoid it, after all.
Maybe we should explore "crazy".
"
I have a suspicion that he wouldn't necessarily have bombed Libya.
Does that sort of thing not count?
"
Thank goodness for short attention spans and the amount of nuance it requires to differentiate between a quote taken in context of a roast and a quote taken out of context entirely.
On “Birtherism”
I have ancestors that were alcoholics (indeed, some of them left to fight foreign countries for their government as young men and they returned as hardened drunks who needed whisky to sleep without dreaming). These ancestors did great harm to somewhat closer relatives of mine and I have heard stories about the tears shed due to this alcoholism. I have seen friends of mine cry at AA meetings. I have been to funerals of friends who died because of a bottle of booze mixed with a bottle of pills. I have heard the stories of what the parents of my friends have done after drinking too much... horrible stories that made me shudder to think that I spent the night under that same roof.
I also know what happened when this country prohibited alcohol.
On “A few Questions on Local Currencies”
If you could get hospitals to accept Bnotes, maybe you could save the lives of infants.
You should look into that.
Unless, of course, you don't care if children die.
"
Maybe they'll hope for 8% of the bills to never, ever be spent.
That's certainly a possibility for the first year given the novelty factor.
Hey, and if only a small percentage of local businesses accept them, that number could skyrocket into the 50's and 60's!
On “Quote for the day”
Scott, this would bug me more if it weren't the case that "everything changed" for Republicans the second their functionally identical president turned the (R) next to his name into a (D).
"
Folly is bipartisan.
"
He didn't say "Libya is bipartisan folly".
He said "War is bipartisan folly."
Are you asking "well, when did a Republican government ever invade a country in the Middle East?", I'll have to check wikipedia but I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to get back to you quickly.
On “A few Questions on Local Currencies”
"Clap louder."
On “Quote for the day”
Andrew Sullivan is our Libya.
Should we intervene?
For the record, I'm against it.
"
And here I thought all of the Reagan comparisons were specious.
"
Dude, don't get me wrong.
I understand that those who wish to intervene have the best of intentions. Indeed, I think that, when it comes to moral arguments, *THEY HAVE THE BETTER MORAL ARGUMENT*.
It's always more moral to argue for movement. It's always more moral to argue for action. Whenever you see the moral argument, it's always weighing the best possible outcome against the outcome of doing nothing which, in this case, sure as holy hell looked like a massacre of thousands.
The moral arguments arguing for non-intervention really ring hollow to me compared to the robust morality presented by the arguments for protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
But it's like chicken pox or hockey hair.
I've already been struck quite badly by the moral argument bug and my body now has quite a resistance to such arguments.
I'm stuck looking at what's likely to happen, what's likely to not happen, and what's likely to happen as soon as we stop making things not happen.
It's like prohibition, dude. You cannot use force to make people be better. We will quickly see that the culture of the Middle East created the Middle East as we know it rather than this idea that the Middle East as we know it created the culture.
Would that it were not so.
But, for what it's worth, I know that those who argue for intervention have the best of intentions and legitimately want to make the world a better place.
On “After the Fact”
So we shouldn't intervene in Libya because we're not going to intervene in the Ivory Coast, Bahrain, or Saudi?
If we promised that we *WOULD* intervene in those three places, could we then intervene in Libya?
Imagine all of the lives we could save and all of the people who would finally be free of the shackles they wear!
(Of course the problem is that "DOING SOMETHING!" always has more moral weight in an argument than "none of my business"... because "AT LEAST WE TRIED!" is seen as a legitimate defense when everything that your critics said would happen eventually happens... and, praise Allah, it looks like Libya will not necessarily have everything the critics said would eventually happen happen. This will make it easier for the next guy to intervene even quicker.)