I am familiar with the general utilitarian argument (and with some of its historical misapplications) but I don't know which of Peter Singer's thought experiments you mean.
The "by sacrificing our luxuries, we could save the lives of children" thought experiment?
Would I be allowed to ask questions like "How many children could have been helped with the health care that an additional $15k in the system would have been able to provide?" or is that completely different and doesn't take into account the stuff that happens in practice rather than some idealized theory about resource allocation?
And did Congress pass a law making us more like Canada and Western Europe?
Did congress make us more like one of those actually functioning health care systems that work?
Or did Congress collude with lobbyists to give one hell of a giveaway to corporations from citizens?
Remember, Greg: We're not going to get health care from the system that your intentions envisioned. We're going to get health care coverage from insurance companies that wrote the law that Congress passed.
And pointing at Western Europe will not change that we are going to get health care coverage from insurance companies that wrote the law that Congress passed.
Greg, I've said, again and again, that if you want more health care that there are ways to do that. I've written essays. I can repost them for you to ignore again, if you'd like.
On the other hand, I have seen essays accusing those who oppose Congress colluding with lobbyists of allowing children to die. Do you want links? I have them. (One's even to this very site!) When I cry "what about the children?", it's not mocking arguments that haven't been tossed about but arguments that have been given in support of Congress colluding with lobbyists.
But, hey. At least the Progressives get to feel warm and fuzzy when they accuse the "enemy" of not caring about The Children, right?
Because it doesn't matter what you do. It only matters that you *CARE*. Screw that. I'd rather callous and indifferent resulting in better health than caring resulting in regression to the mean.
The problem is that the Progressives completely forget about regulatory capture and they see something like Congress's Affordable Care Act and they cheer about finally being on the road to Single Payer when, no, they've just colluded with corporations to transfer money from the Citizenry to the Private Sector while screaming that the people who don't want this to happen want The Children to die.
What drives me nuts is that he replied to me and how it completely and totally missed the point of the post *AND* also completely misunderstands what a "hypocrite" is.
It's, like, the quintessential unearthing of a thread. It adds nothing to chew on, it fails to apprehend the post its responding to, and it screws up even on its own terms.
Personally, I'm curious as to how in the heck he got here, of all places, in the first place. Surely there are more recent posts that could have him complain about Catholicism! Surely!
Yes, you should be out in the private or public sector and we should be complaining about how it's a shame that you don't feel like you can go back to graduate school because of how little you're paid.
"Congressman, the earth still trembles from the damage done from the hydrogen bombs dropped on volcanoes 75 million years ago. We need to address this critical issue for The Children."
If so, wouldn’t a better policy be to nationalize (and, in fact, internationalize) all production and enslave everyone to work 18 hours a day in factories?
There's the whole "regulatory capture" dynamic that Libertarians put a great deal of emphasis on.
The choice, for many of them, is not one between private power being balanced by government and private power not being balanced by government, but one of private power colluding with government and one where it doesn't.
If you want to call him a hack whose words you wouldn't believe if he said that the sun would rise tomorrow, that's an option explored by many as well.
This criticism is usually given wholesale to Libertarianism as well.
If there is a continuum between points on the X and Y axis, saying that we need to move on this vector is often rejoined by arguments pointing out that getting to a particular asymptote is impossible to achieve.
This is usually a good way to change the subject to asymptotes rather than whether, on the continuum between these points (which is where we are, and where others are, and it's possible to rank them for the most part) whether we ought to move in this or in that direction.
(And, of course, there are more dimensions than just the two but, generally, two dimensions can give a fairly good, if shallow, representation of reality)
In my experience, the most violent arguments of this sort aren't over the egregious examples but over the experiences of one of the people in the conversation.
"You've been brainwashed!" and that sort of thing.
Always said in anger and befuddlement that the brainwashed person doesn't appreciate the help from the liberator/psychologist.
If an overwhelming number of trained experts on Christian theology agree that accepting Jesus as your personal savior gets you into the kingdom of heaven, shouldn’t we just take their word for it?
The people who didn't get into the kingdom of heaven just didn't apply the "accepting Jesus as personal savior" theories correctly. Some might say that it's never been properly applied at all.
On “On Free Markets”
I am familiar with the general utilitarian argument (and with some of its historical misapplications) but I don't know which of Peter Singer's thought experiments you mean.
The "by sacrificing our luxuries, we could save the lives of children" thought experiment?
Would I be allowed to ask questions like "How many children could have been helped with the health care that an additional $15k in the system would have been able to provide?" or is that completely different and doesn't take into account the stuff that happens in practice rather than some idealized theory about resource allocation?
"
This law did?
Knock me over with a feather.
I thought that stuff didn't really start happening until 2014.
healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html
That website doesn't say a lot of what's, apparently, going on.
"
So this bill helped you, then?
Or are you counting on it helping you in the future if something like this happens again?
"
Who measures the detriment?
How would she measure it?
"
I probably am going to die someday. I don't know when, though.
"
Which of my obligations to you am I failing to meet right now, E.C.?
For the record, I think I feel pretty safe in saying that I am meeting all of my "negative" ones.
Which of your obligations to me are you failing to meet, right now?
"
And did Congress pass a law making us more like Canada and Western Europe?
Did congress make us more like one of those actually functioning health care systems that work?
Or did Congress collude with lobbyists to give one hell of a giveaway to corporations from citizens?
Remember, Greg: We're not going to get health care from the system that your intentions envisioned. We're going to get health care coverage from insurance companies that wrote the law that Congress passed.
And pointing at Western Europe will not change that we are going to get health care coverage from insurance companies that wrote the law that Congress passed.
"
Greg, I've said, again and again, that if you want more health care that there are ways to do that. I've written essays. I can repost them for you to ignore again, if you'd like.
On the other hand, I have seen essays accusing those who oppose Congress colluding with lobbyists of allowing children to die. Do you want links? I have them. (One's even to this very site!) When I cry "what about the children?", it's not mocking arguments that haven't been tossed about but arguments that have been given in support of Congress colluding with lobbyists.
But, hey. At least the Progressives get to feel warm and fuzzy when they accuse the "enemy" of not caring about The Children, right?
Because it doesn't matter what you do. It only matters that you *CARE*. Screw that. I'd rather callous and indifferent resulting in better health than caring resulting in regression to the mean.
At the end of the day, feelings don't mean crap.
"
They do.
The problem is that the Progressives completely forget about regulatory capture and they see something like Congress's Affordable Care Act and they cheer about finally being on the road to Single Payer when, no, they've just colluded with corporations to transfer money from the Citizenry to the Private Sector while screaming that the people who don't want this to happen want The Children to die.
On “Education and Entertainment; University and Community”
This is actual evidence of the liberal bias in academia! If they wanted balance, they would have also brought it... wait for it...
Teabaggers.
THANK YOU !
On “Gary Johnson 2012”
What drives me nuts is that he replied to me and how it completely and totally missed the point of the post *AND* also completely misunderstands what a "hypocrite" is.
It's, like, the quintessential unearthing of a thread. It adds nothing to chew on, it fails to apprehend the post its responding to, and it screws up even on its own terms.
Personally, I'm curious as to how in the heck he got here, of all places, in the first place. Surely there are more recent posts that could have him complain about Catholicism! Surely!
On “liberal scholarship (a digression)”
Yes, you should be out in the private or public sector and we should be complaining about how it's a shame that you don't feel like you can go back to graduate school because of how little you're paid.
On “Why don’t we treat free trade like global warming?”
I can't tell if you're making a pretty funny joke or not so I'll treat your statement as if it were earnest:
I thought it was Hobbes who made life so difficult for the third-worlders on down.
"
"Congressman, the earth still trembles from the damage done from the hydrogen bombs dropped on volcanoes 75 million years ago. We need to address this critical issue for The Children."
"
For some reason she was sitting in front of Congress reading off of a paper.
At least it wasn't Bono.
"
Why, look at Pittsburgh and Bush's steel tariffs here in the US as living examples of 2A.
"
If so, wouldn’t a better policy be to nationalize (and, in fact, internationalize) all production and enslave everyone to work 18 hours a day in factories?
It's been attempted.
It's less sustainable than you'd think.
On “On the language of assumption”
There's the whole "regulatory capture" dynamic that Libertarians put a great deal of emphasis on.
The choice, for many of them, is not one between private power being balanced by government and private power not being balanced by government, but one of private power colluding with government and one where it doesn't.
On “Why don’t we treat free trade like global warming?”
That CAN'T be sustainable, though. I shudder to think at the eventual correction...
"
Here's Krugman.
http://www.amazon.com/Pop-Internationalism-Paul-Krugman/dp/0262611333
If you want to call him a hack whose words you wouldn't believe if he said that the sun would rise tomorrow, that's an option explored by many as well.
"
This criticism is usually given wholesale to Libertarianism as well.
If there is a continuum between points on the X and Y axis, saying that we need to move on this vector is often rejoined by arguments pointing out that getting to a particular asymptote is impossible to achieve.
This is usually a good way to change the subject to asymptotes rather than whether, on the continuum between these points (which is where we are, and where others are, and it's possible to rank them for the most part) whether we ought to move in this or in that direction.
(And, of course, there are more dimensions than just the two but, generally, two dimensions can give a fairly good, if shallow, representation of reality)
"
Awesome.
"
In my experience, the most violent arguments of this sort aren't over the egregious examples but over the experiences of one of the people in the conversation.
"You've been brainwashed!" and that sort of thing.
Always said in anger and befuddlement that the brainwashed person doesn't appreciate the help from the liberator/psychologist.
"
If an overwhelming number of trained experts on Christian theology agree that accepting Jesus as your personal savior gets you into the kingdom of heaven, shouldn’t we just take their word for it?
The people who didn't get into the kingdom of heaven just didn't apply the "accepting Jesus as personal savior" theories correctly. Some might say that it's never been properly applied at all.
"
It's not mine, it's actually Matoko_Chan's.
I thought it fit pretty well within the whole "fascist plot to impose fundamentalist Christian law" motif.