I think your overall point is correct but I actually think the means do matter. Maybe I'm wrong and there'd be the same indifference but I've often thought that there might be a little more controversy if these strikes were being conducted by manned aircraft or artillery or special forces units.
For whatever reason the drones seem to allow people to look at it as something other than an act of war.
I wouldnt call myself a Trump optimist so much as a Trump wait-and-see-ist. Part of the issue with posts like Gessen's I think is the hypocracies jr mentioned above. We've had 2 straight presidencies from each of the big parties where civil servants went right along with disastrous and illiberal policies.
Maybe if mainstream progressives and Gessen's bureaucrats hadn't been so blase about Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and the drone war and some of these other issues they would have more credibility.
This seems about right. There's also a level of entitlement underlying the whole perspective that reinforces negative stereotypes about public sector employees. If someone orders you to do something truly immoral the answer is to resign in protest and go to the press. The possibility that might happen is the trade off for all those holidays and vacation days and cheap benefits no one else gets.
The competition question is hard and there's no easy answer. If the proposed answer is emulate working conditions in the developing world I don't think that's realistic or responsible.
Regarding whether people want to be handled I operate under the assumption that the vast majority of people want a decent standard of living.
Well not to get overly pedantic but it kind of depends on what you mean by controlled. I don't think we can do much about technology making a lot of work done by humans obsolete and trying to slow it down with laws or public policy would be counterproductive. I do think we can control how we decide to handle people who are going to lose their jobs or become substantially under employed. The latter is where I'm increasingly convinced that the mid to late 20th century model is not up to the task.
Serious question- does it lead to work that pays humans (and lots of them, maybe tens of millions in the US alone) enough to sustain a minimally acceptable lifestyle by first world standards?
I don't think the much heralded end of work is quite as close as some people. I do however think that we're in for a long rot where technology and increased efficiency renders mass manpower unnecessary. A race to the bottom with the third world may delay the inevitable but I don't see how we avoid getting to a place where it isn't necessary to employ large numbers of people in the way industrial economies did or reasonable to expect it.
I actually thought the Joan Williams post linked to was even better than the Atlantic article. At some point we need to start rethinking the way our economy and social contract work. Itll be gradual but in another 30 years I think automation is only going to make the situation worse, and the traditional 40 hour work week, employer provided benefits, and a minimally decent standard of living will no longer be possible for an even bigger chunk of the population.
Supposedly Foxconn already has a completely automated site in China that can operate 24/7 with the lights off and minimal human oversight. The next big hit will be when driverless vehicles start taking over and put millions of truckers and taxi drivers out of work. Our political situation is already showing the results of what happens when you tell the masses to suck eggs and deal with an increasingly precarious economic situation while allowing a very few to become outrageously weathy.
@mike-dwyer @switters This actually probably most accurately gets to what I was trying to convey- I don't see it as a means of administering vigilante justice. That is the concern that I was trying to address.
Interestingly I've never heard the word 'fetishize' used by advocates of stricter laws that way. My intent wasnt to insult anyone who, as in the example you used has learned a skill and discipline they are proud of. What I was trying to convey was more along the lines of 'I do not have an unhealthy obsession with it.'
I don't feel the need to apologize but I do want to reach out to people who don't agree with me in a way that does not make them feel immediately defensive. I'm in a part of the country that's largely hostile to my stance on this and, fair or not, I think that puts the burden on me and people like me to try and change their way of thinking.
For point number 1 you are correct. I'm being deliberately opaque on that though for reasons of personal privacy.
On point number 2 my intent is to address a regular concern that I see raised, which is that people who purchase these types of rifles do so out of a belief that they are a solution to various social problems or see them as a means of intimidation. Im not talking about a soft spot for the shotgun you used to bring down your first buck or something along the lines of the other examples you used.
My position may sound libertarian but I think that is more a result of the broader mainstream left backing away from civil liberties as an important part of their policy platform, something I also see as a mistake. The roots of my concerns come from the problems I see in how law enforcement and the criminal justice system actually work in practice, not how I'd like like the world to be.
That means that when we talk about restrictions I'm also thinking about things like how many more people are going to have to go to jail for a long time, or how many people who havent done anything violent are going to wake up to a SWAT team coming through the door at 4AM, or find out they got put on some secret list that means they can't travel? How will that play out in a society that already has all kinds of serious inequities? Who are we making value judgments about when we set up systems that result in the wealthy being able to exercise important rights due to their ability to navigate the system but not people with lesser means?
Regarding law and order conservatives, I have no qualms about calling them on their hypocracies on this issue. I'm not among them, and my views on economic policies probably make me a Marxist of some kind in their view.
@jesse-ewiak for the record I do not think that people in Japan or European countries arent free, and I would strongly disagree with anyone who takes that perspective. There is a very different legal and cultural history there and it is not my business to tell them what is and isn't right with regard to the firearms policies that work for them.
I would also agree that the best cure for what the NSA is doing doesn't and probably can never realistically involve firearms, but I could see how new restrictions (like all criminal laws) justified expansion of existing or new programs I think are wrongheaded and illiberal.
Thank you for reading and I am absolutely happy to unpack that a bit. First, I do not think that any and all proposed regulation is a step on the way to the gulag. You can see some of my comments above laying out new laws or stricter laws that I am either amenable to, or could be convinced to support under the right circumstances.
My concern is about going further down a similar kind of path that the war on drugs and war on terrorism has already taken us. That would mean things like new exceptions to the 4th amendment, new reasons for the state to start watching, and incarcerating people (no doubt with all the usual class and racial overtones already in the justice system), the kind of thing that I think we've already allowed to become far too normalized. The intent of the passage is to provide that context for the decision. If I lived somewhere where that sort of policy wasn't so prevalent, it'd be easier for me not to feel like hyper-vigilance is necessary on all fronts.
This is why I referred to the abortion issue. I don't have a problem in principle with some basic training that is cheap or free, and easily available for all who are lawfully permitted to own a firearm. The challenge becomes whether or not what is being set up is really about safety, or if it's an arbitrary obstacle to doing something policymakers would prefer you didnt. Even if it's originally about the former it can easily become the latter.
When everything feels like a zero sum game and no one trusts each other the easiest response is to oppose everything.
We've spoken a lot about different political cultures here lately and I don't deny that there are parts of what might be called gun culture out there that fetishize the firearms themselves. I find them... unhelpful and I think they are who most advocates of stricter laws see themselves as arguing with.
Part of the point of posting this is to mitigate that somewhat if at all possible. It isn't fair to ask the other side to moderate themselves and not also put myself out there as well.
I think yours is a better analysis. 'Trump is catering to latent biases and insecurities' just doesn't have the same ring to it (nor does it make him that different from most other presidential candidates).
The Alexander piece as a whole is a great illustration of how the media failed this election and seems bent on continuing to fail.
It'd be nice if someone whose last name isn't Paul would occasionally raise these questions in the halls of power/the mainstream media. You don't have to be a fan of Vlad to consider the possibility that constant brinkmanship with the Russians can provoke as easily as it can deter.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.11.29.T}”
I think your overall point is correct but I actually think the means do matter. Maybe I'm wrong and there'd be the same indifference but I've often thought that there might be a little more controversy if these strikes were being conducted by manned aircraft or artillery or special forces units.
For whatever reason the drones seem to allow people to look at it as something other than an act of war.
"
#content
"
I wouldnt call myself a Trump optimist so much as a Trump wait-and-see-ist. Part of the issue with posts like Gessen's I think is the hypocracies jr mentioned above. We've had 2 straight presidencies from each of the big parties where civil servants went right along with disastrous and illiberal policies.
Maybe if mainstream progressives and Gessen's bureaucrats hadn't been so blase about Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and the drone war and some of these other issues they would have more credibility.
"
This seems about right. There's also a level of entitlement underlying the whole perspective that reinforces negative stereotypes about public sector employees. If someone orders you to do something truly immoral the answer is to resign in protest and go to the press. The possibility that might happen is the trade off for all those holidays and vacation days and cheap benefits no one else gets.
On “The Atlantic: Democrats’ Answer for the Rust Belt”
The competition question is hard and there's no easy answer. If the proposed answer is emulate working conditions in the developing world I don't think that's realistic or responsible.
Regarding whether people want to be handled I operate under the assumption that the vast majority of people want a decent standard of living.
"
Well not to get overly pedantic but it kind of depends on what you mean by controlled. I don't think we can do much about technology making a lot of work done by humans obsolete and trying to slow it down with laws or public policy would be counterproductive. I do think we can control how we decide to handle people who are going to lose their jobs or become substantially under employed. The latter is where I'm increasingly convinced that the mid to late 20th century model is not up to the task.
"
Serious question- does it lead to work that pays humans (and lots of them, maybe tens of millions in the US alone) enough to sustain a minimally acceptable lifestyle by first world standards?
I don't think the much heralded end of work is quite as close as some people. I do however think that we're in for a long rot where technology and increased efficiency renders mass manpower unnecessary. A race to the bottom with the third world may delay the inevitable but I don't see how we avoid getting to a place where it isn't necessary to employ large numbers of people in the way industrial economies did or reasonable to expect it.
"
Sadly you're probably right. The question will be can liberal democracy withstand the inevitable hits to its legitimacy.
"
I actually thought the Joan Williams post linked to was even better than the Atlantic article. At some point we need to start rethinking the way our economy and social contract work. Itll be gradual but in another 30 years I think automation is only going to make the situation worse, and the traditional 40 hour work week, employer provided benefits, and a minimally decent standard of living will no longer be possible for an even bigger chunk of the population.
Supposedly Foxconn already has a completely automated site in China that can operate 24/7 with the lights off and minimal human oversight. The next big hit will be when driverless vehicles start taking over and put millions of truckers and taxi drivers out of work. Our political situation is already showing the results of what happens when you tell the masses to suck eggs and deal with an increasingly precarious economic situation while allowing a very few to become outrageously weathy.
On “Confession of a Liberal Gun Owner”
@joe-sal
I nevet meant to imply i dont also have fun with it. Politically speaking though it's a matter of putting my money where my mouth is.
"
For what it's worth I can't think of any reason to object to that either. I'd imagine it would just be rolled up in homeowners or renters insurance.
"
@mike-dwyer @switters This actually probably most accurately gets to what I was trying to convey- I don't see it as a means of administering vigilante justice. That is the concern that I was trying to address.
"
@mike-dwyer
Interestingly I've never heard the word 'fetishize' used by advocates of stricter laws that way. My intent wasnt to insult anyone who, as in the example you used has learned a skill and discipline they are proud of. What I was trying to convey was more along the lines of 'I do not have an unhealthy obsession with it.'
I don't feel the need to apologize but I do want to reach out to people who don't agree with me in a way that does not make them feel immediately defensive. I'm in a part of the country that's largely hostile to my stance on this and, fair or not, I think that puts the burden on me and people like me to try and change their way of thinking.
"
@mike-dwyer
Thanks for reading.
For point number 1 you are correct. I'm being deliberately opaque on that though for reasons of personal privacy.
On point number 2 my intent is to address a regular concern that I see raised, which is that people who purchase these types of rifles do so out of a belief that they are a solution to various social problems or see them as a means of intimidation. Im not talking about a soft spot for the shotgun you used to bring down your first buck or something along the lines of the other examples you used.
"
Just to add I'm not saying that you aren't cognizant of these issues or don't care about them, just trying to explain my own thought process.
"
My position may sound libertarian but I think that is more a result of the broader mainstream left backing away from civil liberties as an important part of their policy platform, something I also see as a mistake. The roots of my concerns come from the problems I see in how law enforcement and the criminal justice system actually work in practice, not how I'd like like the world to be.
That means that when we talk about restrictions I'm also thinking about things like how many more people are going to have to go to jail for a long time, or how many people who havent done anything violent are going to wake up to a SWAT team coming through the door at 4AM, or find out they got put on some secret list that means they can't travel? How will that play out in a society that already has all kinds of serious inequities? Who are we making value judgments about when we set up systems that result in the wealthy being able to exercise important rights due to their ability to navigate the system but not people with lesser means?
Regarding law and order conservatives, I have no qualms about calling them on their hypocracies on this issue. I'm not among them, and my views on economic policies probably make me a Marxist of some kind in their view.
"
@jesse-ewiak for the record I do not think that people in Japan or European countries arent free, and I would strongly disagree with anyone who takes that perspective. There is a very different legal and cultural history there and it is not my business to tell them what is and isn't right with regard to the firearms policies that work for them.
I would also agree that the best cure for what the NSA is doing doesn't and probably can never realistically involve firearms, but I could see how new restrictions (like all criminal laws) justified expansion of existing or new programs I think are wrongheaded and illiberal.
"
Thank you for reading and I am absolutely happy to unpack that a bit. First, I do not think that any and all proposed regulation is a step on the way to the gulag. You can see some of my comments above laying out new laws or stricter laws that I am either amenable to, or could be convinced to support under the right circumstances.
My concern is about going further down a similar kind of path that the war on drugs and war on terrorism has already taken us. That would mean things like new exceptions to the 4th amendment, new reasons for the state to start watching, and incarcerating people (no doubt with all the usual class and racial overtones already in the justice system), the kind of thing that I think we've already allowed to become far too normalized. The intent of the passage is to provide that context for the decision. If I lived somewhere where that sort of policy wasn't so prevalent, it'd be easier for me not to feel like hyper-vigilance is necessary on all fronts.
"
This is why I referred to the abortion issue. I don't have a problem in principle with some basic training that is cheap or free, and easily available for all who are lawfully permitted to own a firearm. The challenge becomes whether or not what is being set up is really about safety, or if it's an arbitrary obstacle to doing something policymakers would prefer you didnt. Even if it's originally about the former it can easily become the latter.
When everything feels like a zero sum game and no one trusts each other the easiest response is to oppose everything.
"
Nope, I am neither a doctor nor am I in Indiana, just another lawyer on the east coast.
Thanks for reading!
"
Thank you!
"
We've spoken a lot about different political cultures here lately and I don't deny that there are parts of what might be called gun culture out there that fetishize the firearms themselves. I find them... unhelpful and I think they are who most advocates of stricter laws see themselves as arguing with.
Part of the point of posting this is to mitigate that somewhat if at all possible. It isn't fair to ask the other side to moderate themselves and not also put myself out there as well.
"
Thanks for the response! And I actually don't have any issue with those types of rules, provided administration is fair.
On “On Reversing the Tide”
I think yours is a better analysis. 'Trump is catering to latent biases and insecurities' just doesn't have the same ring to it (nor does it make him that different from most other presidential candidates).
The Alexander piece as a whole is a great illustration of how the media failed this election and seems bent on continuing to fail.
On “Freddie: they’re going to keep losing”
It'd be nice if someone whose last name isn't Paul would occasionally raise these questions in the halls of power/the mainstream media. You don't have to be a fan of Vlad to consider the possibility that constant brinkmanship with the Russians can provoke as easily as it can deter.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.