"We don’t need to audit the cops for everything that they do."
You assume that everything cops do is on the up-and-up, and that nobody has ever successfully played the race card against the cops. Pervasive video isn't a "wasteful audit", it's a defense mechanism.
"How are you going to ensure that every cop who pulls over a hot drunk blond arrests the blond for a DUI instead of letting them go..."
Well, there's the radio record where the cop reported the situation and ran the car's plates, to make sure that it wasn't a stolen car being driven by a thief.
There's also the camera record of the cop getting out of the cruiser and walking up to the stopped car.
You're right, I don't think that it's a valid reason; unfortunately, until courts are more willing to declare lawsuits unfounded (and until potential defendants have more confidence that unfounded lawsuits will be resolved in their favor) it's where we are.
"Can you defend this assertion? Have there been cases of municipalities being sued by parents because their children were running a lemonade stand, or selling Girl Scout cookies?"
It isn't "sued by parents because kids were running a lemonade stand", it's "sued by someone who pulled a slip-and-fall and claimed that the municipality created a hazardous situation by allowing unlicensed sidewalk vendors to operate".
CLS says: "...explain to me how does a permit in the kid's pocket protect the kid?"
It doesn't. It isn't supposed to. What it does do is twofold.
First, it protects the town from being sued when the kid runs out in the street and gets hit by a bus; or when the kid gets sick from breathing car exhaust all day; or when someone decides that they want cookies and jams on their brakes without warning and gets rear-ended.
It's about shifting liability from the jurisdiction to the private citizen performing the event. It's just like how craft fairs and farmer's markets insist that sellers have their own insurance coverage now; someone realized that these public events were a goldmine for professional slip-and-fall sufferers.
*****
Second, it lets the town deflect accusations of bigotry or bias when it enforces its own ordinances. This is the genesis of most "Zero Tolerance" policies; the validity given to arguments that judgement is inherently suspect, that prejudice is unconscious. If you pick and choose how to enforce your regulations, then how do you prove that you didn't do it based on your feelings toward a particular group?
"I have a feeling that conservatives think there are so many studies about how gender is constructed, for example, because the profession only legitimizes those studies, or blocks scholarship on more traditional topics. But, of course, it’s pretty hard to actually prevent someone in academia from working on any topic they want. "
Well, you can in theory work on whatever topic you want. The conservative potential-academic, though, might look at the typical distribution of studies and see an example of what work is likely to be accepted. If there are dozens of studies about how alternative gender theories and only one about the validity of traditional gender roles, then the potential academic might well conclude that traditional gender roles are not considered worthy of study; and "traditional gender roles" versus "alternative gender theory" is right at the heart of the typical perception of conservative/liberal character.
There is also the perception that weakly-founded research will be accepted as long as it has sufficient liberal attitude; as you point out, it's far more common to see trendy or flimsy research in liberal-leaning topics than in conservative-leaning ones.
Well, if the other party sticks their fingers in their ears and starts yelling "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEEEEEEAR YOUUUUUU", then it's hard to argue with them convincingly.
The answer is simple. The expert consensus regarding 'Free Trade' is given different weight from that regarding 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' because of how those consensuses support government involvement.
In the Free Trade case, the experts say that the government shouldn't get involved. Therefore the experts are clearly idiots and shouldn't be listened to about any damn thing, and here are some cherry-picked examples to prove my point.
In the AGW case, the experts say that massive government interference in the market is vital. Therefore the experts all agree and so should we, and there's no need to investigate further or do our own research because they're the EXPERTS, dammit!
I think what Hanley's saying here is that you need to go into great detail, because otherwise you're just spouting platitudes and fashionably-cynical catchphrases.
"It may be demonstrated where the terminus of unregulated capitalism leads: to Banana Republics. "
I look forward to your explanation of why "suggesting that the middle class isn't worse off is an argument that leads DIRECTLY to support for Banana Republics" is not a slippery-slope argument.
"So the baseline standard of living for a middle class person isn’t what it was in 1950. I’ll even go so far as to grant the point James was making: it’s unarguably better. So? Is that the only measure for the health of the middle class? Is it even the best one?"
There's plenty of people right here in this thread who insist that "baseline standard of living" is an appropriate measure for class health, at least in the sense that higher-income persons have a better standard of living and they consider this to somehow be morally wrong.
"You have to understand, James, that it is only in your head that the discussion here was a response to your post directly."
When you hit the "Reply" button under someone's post and type in a comment, the general assumption is that you are indeed making a direct reply to their post.
When you want to use someone's post as a basis for further discussion regarding other issues, that's the part were you need to stop commenting and get your own damn blog.
And...
"Clearly I am referencing your post."
...so now you are responding to the post? I'm confused.
"Now in a race (which capitalism surely is, right?!)"
...really? You're really going to insist that life is a zero-sum game, that wealth is a fixed quantity, and that one person's gain is invariably the direct result of someone else's loss?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “It’s for the Children”
"We don’t need to audit the cops for everything that they do."
You assume that everything cops do is on the up-and-up, and that nobody has ever successfully played the race card against the cops. Pervasive video isn't a "wasteful audit", it's a defense mechanism.
On “On Free Markets”
OH SHIT UNCLOSED TAG, AAAARRRGH
"
"[W]hat I’m trying to get at is that I think one can support free market policies without having to support every page in the libertarian playbook."
It would be so nice if everyone on the progressive side thought that way.
On “On Civil Society”
What exactly do military bases have to do with regulatory bureaucracy?
"
"Human beings have moral duties..."
Like *what*, exactly?
What's your justification for those "moral duties"? Where's your objectively-supported derivation of how they exist and why they apply?
"
"Thanks to James Madison and the Division of Powers, it’s awfully hard to corner the market on power in the USA. "
The Federal regulatory bureaucracy seems to have managed pretty well.
On “Education and Entertainment; University and Community”
Are we to believe that the professor honestly had no idea how to find porn on the internet?
On “It’s for the Children”
"I think discretion for cops is fine, probably a good thing even."
'Driving While Black' is an exercise of discretion. So is arresting drunk Mexicans while telling their equally-drunk white dates to go home.
"
"How are you going to ensure that every cop who pulls over a hot drunk blond arrests the blond for a DUI instead of letting them go..."
Well, there's the radio record where the cop reported the situation and ran the car's plates, to make sure that it wasn't a stolen car being driven by a thief.
There's also the camera record of the cop getting out of the cruiser and walking up to the stopped car.
"
You're right, I don't think that it's a valid reason; unfortunately, until courts are more willing to declare lawsuits unfounded (and until potential defendants have more confidence that unfounded lawsuits will be resolved in their favor) it's where we are.
"
"Can you defend this assertion? Have there been cases of municipalities being sued by parents because their children were running a lemonade stand, or selling Girl Scout cookies?"
It isn't "sued by parents because kids were running a lemonade stand", it's "sued by someone who pulled a slip-and-fall and claimed that the municipality created a hazardous situation by allowing unlicensed sidewalk vendors to operate".
"
CLS says: "...explain to me how does a permit in the kid's pocket protect the kid?"
It doesn't. It isn't supposed to. What it does do is twofold.
First, it protects the town from being sued when the kid runs out in the street and gets hit by a bus; or when the kid gets sick from breathing car exhaust all day; or when someone decides that they want cookies and jams on their brakes without warning and gets rear-ended.
It's about shifting liability from the jurisdiction to the private citizen performing the event. It's just like how craft fairs and farmer's markets insist that sellers have their own insurance coverage now; someone realized that these public events were a goldmine for professional slip-and-fall sufferers.
*****
Second, it lets the town deflect accusations of bigotry or bias when it enforces its own ordinances. This is the genesis of most "Zero Tolerance" policies; the validity given to arguments that judgement is inherently suspect, that prejudice is unconscious. If you pick and choose how to enforce your regulations, then how do you prove that you didn't do it based on your feelings toward a particular group?
On “liberal scholarship (a digression)”
"I have a feeling that conservatives think there are so many studies about how gender is constructed, for example, because the profession only legitimizes those studies, or blocks scholarship on more traditional topics. But, of course, it’s pretty hard to actually prevent someone in academia from working on any topic they want. "
Well, you can in theory work on whatever topic you want. The conservative potential-academic, though, might look at the typical distribution of studies and see an example of what work is likely to be accepted. If there are dozens of studies about how alternative gender theories and only one about the validity of traditional gender roles, then the potential academic might well conclude that traditional gender roles are not considered worthy of study; and "traditional gender roles" versus "alternative gender theory" is right at the heart of the typical perception of conservative/liberal character.
There is also the perception that weakly-founded research will be accepted as long as it has sufficient liberal attitude; as you point out, it's far more common to see trendy or flimsy research in liberal-leaning topics than in conservative-leaning ones.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
"You’re not arguing very convincingly James."
Well, if the other party sticks their fingers in their ears and starts yelling "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEEEEEEAR YOUUUUUU", then it's hard to argue with them convincingly.
On “Why don’t we treat free trade like global warming?”
The answer is simple. The expert consensus regarding 'Free Trade' is given different weight from that regarding 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' because of how those consensuses support government involvement.
In the Free Trade case, the experts say that the government shouldn't get involved. Therefore the experts are clearly idiots and shouldn't be listened to about any damn thing, and here are some cherry-picked examples to prove my point.
In the AGW case, the experts say that massive government interference in the market is vital. Therefore the experts all agree and so should we, and there's no need to investigate further or do our own research because they're the EXPERTS, dammit!
"
And thus we start again along the chain of No True Scot...
On “On the language of assumption”
Again, we see that the way to "win" an internet argument is to be enough of a screaming shit-throwing ape that your opponent quits in disgust.
"
"Without going into great detail..."
I think what Hanley's saying here is that you need to go into great detail, because otherwise you're just spouting platitudes and fashionably-cynical catchphrases.
"
The problem is that you didn't explicitly say "I THINK THIS IS BAD". Therefore, according to some people, you obviously think that it's good.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
I see we've got to the "pound on the table" stage of argument.
"
"It may be demonstrated where the terminus of unregulated capitalism leads: to Banana Republics. "
I look forward to your explanation of why "suggesting that the middle class isn't worse off is an argument that leads DIRECTLY to support for Banana Republics" is not a slippery-slope argument.
"
oooh, ice burn!
"
"So the baseline standard of living for a middle class person isn’t what it was in 1950. I’ll even go so far as to grant the point James was making: it’s unarguably better. So? Is that the only measure for the health of the middle class? Is it even the best one?"
There's plenty of people right here in this thread who insist that "baseline standard of living" is an appropriate measure for class health, at least in the sense that higher-income persons have a better standard of living and they consider this to somehow be morally wrong.
"
"You have to understand, James, that it is only in your head that the discussion here was a response to your post directly."
When you hit the "Reply" button under someone's post and type in a comment, the general assumption is that you are indeed making a direct reply to their post.
When you want to use someone's post as a basis for further discussion regarding other issues, that's the part were you need to stop commenting and get your own damn blog.
And...
"Clearly I am referencing your post."
...so now you are responding to the post? I'm confused.
"
"Now in a race (which capitalism surely is, right?!)"
...really? You're really going to insist that life is a zero-sum game, that wealth is a fixed quantity, and that one person's gain is invariably the direct result of someone else's loss?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.