Oh sure, if syntax=grammar, then it's mostly just fun for a quick jab, though I'd swear that it backfires at least 75% of the time when done in blog comment sections.
However, I meant syntax in the more formal (and empirical sense), which is not so easily separated from semantics.
Then again, all I meant in the original comment is that Curt was just playing with words to make it look like there's a distinction where there is none.
It was a snarky way of saying that there's no there there. Or put differently, you've made a distinction without a difference. Or still differently, yawn.
Goals: Libertarianism’s only goal is to maintain the process we call ‘freedom’ so that economic innovation and class rotation is as high as possible, and therefore delivers the highest standard of living.
So libertarians seek a PROCESS not ENDS. Progressives (liberal is a stolen term), seek ENDS.
I don't have much desire to defend Rawls, because I'm not a Rawlsian, but I will note that yes, this is precisely Rawls' point (ToJ has a long discussion about the lottery of birth).
Consider that some folks surely deserve to be in prison. But if I adopt a maximin strategy, am I not required to abolish even the institution of the prison, for fear I might end up in it?
No, this takes a simplistic view of the leximin reasoning going on behind the veil. Rawls goes into punishment in ToJ, though I cant lay out his reasoning well from memory (I tried for a few minutes): suffice it to say that one of the assumptions will be the need for at least a minimum level of protection from violators, so prisons do become necessary, even from a maximin perspective.
In other words, cutting government that actually provides services to people is okay. Cutting government that expands the most violent aspects of the state or that benefits the rich and powerful is absolutely unthinkable. Cutting services to poor people is okay, but raising taxes on the rich is tyranny.
Here's your "solution":
We need to preserve the economic foundations of civilization, and they are very much in jeopardy right now. If we have to cut Medicare or teacher pensions to do that, it needs to be done somehow.
If you don't see what I mean in my last comment, then perhaps you really should take those blinders off for once.
And I'm also suggesting that you are the sort of person who builds an ideology to support a party affiliation, rather than the other way around.
I suggest that someone write a post on problems related to cedar chips, mention Republicans and Democrats, and see how long it takes Koz to say that the solution is to vote Republican.
Seriously, though, his solution to the problem of cutting things that help people to fund things like the military and the war on drugs that Kain discusses is to vote for the people who, as Koz says outright in his friggin' comment, will do more of that: the solution to losing jobs and social programs but not reducing the defense budget or the war on drugs, is to vote for the people who, again as Koz said want to cut social programs without cutting the defense budget or the war on drugs.
I love the internet, because I just can't meet people like Koz in the offline world.
Because the first part of Article I, section 8 is the “topic sentence of the section”, and the remaining clauses (save the last) enumerate exactly which “general welfares” are the enumerated powers.
Bullshit. I mean, bull shiiiit. I've heard that before from some libertarians, but seriously, it's such a post hoc rationalization of a pet reading of that section that it's comical. It requires treating section 8, which is structured exactly like the rest of Article 1, as being written in a completely different structure from the rest of Article 1 (the other sections don’t have “topic sentences”). It also requires a serious amount of self-delusion.
Strangely, I think The Road is the best place to start, because unlike the couple other works of his I’ve read, it actually does have the constant presence of hope, in the form of the boy. Sure, we know, and the father likely knows, that there is no hope where they are going (though he lies to himself in order to lie to the boy), but the hope is something that is with them at all times because the boy is there, and that makes circumstances that are otherwise horrific beyond comprehension somehow less jarring. In a perverse way, that actually makes the book his most normal and mainstream work, and therefore his most approachable work.
By the way, if you want to read a jarring work by a McCarthy, check out Remainder by Tom McCarthy. I actually found it more disturbing than The Road, even though Tom McCarthy’s world is exactly the one we find ourselves in, I guess because there’s no boy in it.
The mobility studies I've read, and again it's not many, essentially correlate income with that of your parents. The higher the correlation, the lower the mobility. It's a little bit more complicated than that, but not much.
What study have you seen that shows the UK to have higher social mobility than the U.S.? The few studies I've seen have the U.S. near the bottom of developed nations in social mobility, but the UK at the bottom. I mean, the UK is pretty much where social mobility goes to die.
If gender is largely a social construct (which it is, which does not mean it's entirely a social construct), then gender neutrality is, by definition, a social construct. It's almost absurd to point that out. But perhaps you don't understand what "social construct" means.
Tom, that was a straight rephrasing of my last sentence. If you don't like it ' cause it says you're wrong, tough. You almost always are.
If he wanted a rephrasing of the last sentence in the previous paragraph, it would go something like: biological sexes are overlapping distributions of physical and mental traits. It is upon these distributions that gender is constructed.
It's not a matter of either or with any social category. Gender roles, for example, are socially constructed, and gender is largely a role-governed category. But it is built on a biological foundation which, while not invariant, does admit overlapping but distinct distributions.
Put differently, you and Tom are wrong -- it's not simply a matter of socially constructed or not -- but so is anyone who treats gender as socially constructed ex nihilo.
Right. The big issue was that he started small, instead of big, and launched the public relations campaign for health care reform well after the anti-health care reform public relations campaign had done its work. At that point, even though people liked individual parts of the bill, "health care reform" had become a 4-letter word.
Hmm... when did the tech boom start, officially? I graduated with a b.a. in philosophy in '98, and the data I was thinking of was from back then. I went to grad school, though, so I avoided having to even think about getting a job.
On “Libertarianism and Privilege”
And my grammar in that last sentence sucked, too! (Verb agreement is for wusses).
"
Oh sure, if syntax=grammar, then it's mostly just fun for a quick jab, though I'd swear that it backfires at least 75% of the time when done in blog comment sections.
However, I meant syntax in the more formal (and empirical sense), which is not so easily separated from semantics.
Then again, all I meant in the original comment is that Curt was just playing with words to make it look like there's a distinction where there is none.
"
It was a snarky way of saying that there's no there there. Or put differently, you've made a distinction without a difference. Or still differently, yawn.
"
Depends on what you want to discuss.
"
OK, the second claim.
"
What he didn’t foresee was the rise of the trade union to counteract the pernicious effects of his proposed solutions.
Marx didn't see the rise of trad unions? Or are you saying specifically that he didn't see trade unions working against Marx's solutions?
"
Goals: Libertarianism’s only goal is to maintain the process we call ‘freedom’ so that economic innovation and class rotation is as high as possible, and therefore delivers the highest standard of living.
So libertarians seek a PROCESS not ENDS. Progressives (liberal is a stolen term), seek ENDS.
I love semantics too.
"
These areas shouldn’t be used as justification for the drug war or any other bad policy.
A brave position.
On “Libertarianism & Power”
He mentioned the gold standard.
On “Rawlsekianism Reloaded Part IIa: The argument for Maximin (or Leximin)”
Few things are less fair than lotteries
I don't have much desire to defend Rawls, because I'm not a Rawlsian, but I will note that yes, this is precisely Rawls' point (ToJ has a long discussion about the lottery of birth).
Consider that some folks surely deserve to be in prison. But if I adopt a maximin strategy, am I not required to abolish even the institution of the prison, for fear I might end up in it?
No, this takes a simplistic view of the leximin reasoning going on behind the veil. Rawls goes into punishment in ToJ, though I cant lay out his reasoning well from memory (I tried for a few minutes): suffice it to say that one of the assumptions will be the need for at least a minimum level of protection from violators, so prisons do become necessary, even from a maximin perspective.
On “Cutting Jobs Instead of Bombs”
Koz, here's E.D.:
In other words, cutting government that actually provides services to people is okay. Cutting government that expands the most violent aspects of the state or that benefits the rich and powerful is absolutely unthinkable. Cutting services to poor people is okay, but raising taxes on the rich is tyranny.
Here's your "solution":
We need to preserve the economic foundations of civilization, and they are very much in jeopardy right now. If we have to cut Medicare or teacher pensions to do that, it needs to be done somehow.
If you don't see what I mean in my last comment, then perhaps you really should take those blinders off for once.
And I'm also suggesting that you are the sort of person who builds an ideology to support a party affiliation, rather than the other way around.
"
I suggest that someone write a post on problems related to cedar chips, mention Republicans and Democrats, and see how long it takes Koz to say that the solution is to vote Republican.
Seriously, though, his solution to the problem of cutting things that help people to fund things like the military and the war on drugs that Kain discusses is to vote for the people who, as Koz says outright in his friggin' comment, will do more of that: the solution to losing jobs and social programs but not reducing the defense budget or the war on drugs, is to vote for the people who, again as Koz said want to cut social programs without cutting the defense budget or the war on drugs.
I love the internet, because I just can't meet people like Koz in the offline world.
On “Libertarianism & Power”
Because the first part of Article I, section 8 is the “topic sentence of the section”, and the remaining clauses (save the last) enumerate exactly which “general welfares” are the enumerated powers.
Bullshit. I mean, bull shiiiit. I've heard that before from some libertarians, but seriously, it's such a post hoc rationalization of a pet reading of that section that it's comical. It requires treating section 8, which is structured exactly like the rest of Article 1, as being written in a completely different structure from the rest of Article 1 (the other sections don’t have “topic sentences”). It also requires a serious amount of self-delusion.
On “Homer without the Gods (or, the Nihilism of Cormac McCarthy)”
Strangely, I think The Road is the best place to start, because unlike the couple other works of his I’ve read, it actually does have the constant presence of hope, in the form of the boy. Sure, we know, and the father likely knows, that there is no hope where they are going (though he lies to himself in order to lie to the boy), but the hope is something that is with them at all times because the boy is there, and that makes circumstances that are otherwise horrific beyond comprehension somehow less jarring. In a perverse way, that actually makes the book his most normal and mainstream work, and therefore his most approachable work.
By the way, if you want to read a jarring work by a McCarthy, check out Remainder by Tom McCarthy. I actually found it more disturbing than The Road, even though Tom McCarthy’s world is exactly the one we find ourselves in, I guess because there’s no boy in it.
"
http://www.generationterrorists.com/cgi-bin/x-files.cgi?ep=4x07
Just search for "most dangerous man alive". You'll find your quote there.
On “The Conscience of a Liberal”
The mobility studies I've read, and again it's not many, essentially correlate income with that of your parents. The higher the correlation, the lower the mobility. It's a little bit more complicated than that, but not much.
"
What study have you seen that shows the UK to have higher social mobility than the U.S.? The few studies I've seen have the U.S. near the bottom of developed nations in social mobility, but the UK at the bottom. I mean, the UK is pretty much where social mobility goes to die.
On “Scandinavian Reality Blindness”
If gender is largely a social construct (which it is, which does not mean it's entirely a social construct), then gender neutrality is, by definition, a social construct. It's almost absurd to point that out. But perhaps you don't understand what "social construct" means.
"
Tom, that was a straight rephrasing of my last sentence. If you don't like it ' cause it says you're wrong, tough. You almost always are.
If he wanted a rephrasing of the last sentence in the previous paragraph, it would go something like: biological sexes are overlapping distributions of physical and mental traits. It is upon these distributions that gender is constructed.
That, I should note, is not a speculative claim.
"
Sure: it's not an either or proposition, so you're both wrong.
"
It's not a matter of either or with any social category. Gender roles, for example, are socially constructed, and gender is largely a role-governed category. But it is built on a biological foundation which, while not invariant, does admit overlapping but distinct distributions.
Put differently, you and Tom are wrong -- it's not simply a matter of socially constructed or not -- but so is anyone who treats gender as socially constructed ex nihilo.
On “Who’s at the table”
Right. The big issue was that he started small, instead of big, and launched the public relations campaign for health care reform well after the anti-health care reform public relations campaign had done its work. At that point, even though people liked individual parts of the bill, "health care reform" had become a 4-letter word.
On “On the value of higher education”
Hmm... when did the tech boom start, officially? I graduated with a b.a. in philosophy in '98, and the data I was thinking of was from back then. I went to grad school, though, so I avoided having to even think about getting a job.
"
If I recall, philosophy majors do pretty well employment-wise, at least relative to other humanities majors.
On “Who’s at the table”
Particularly since the mandate doesn’t make a whole lot of sense without it.
I should qualify that: it doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you're an insurance company, in which case, hey, guaranteed new customers!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.