dangerous territory/devil's advocate

[The Johnny]

<warning: I can't decide whether I'm replying to this thread or the one about the South, so bear with me>

Upon further reflection, I think I understand my most fundamental break with (modern) Liberalism. I can't say I agree very often with Conservatism the Political Platform, but I do sympathize with Conservatism the Political Ideal. "Progressivism" seems to share at its core the same top-down "you just shut up and do it our way" mentality that I dislike about the current practice of Conservatism. Legislating morality.

Some laws (Civil Rights, etc.) need to be passed because it's unfair to ask an entire population of people to wait generations for the rest of us monkeys to warm up to the idea of behaving like civilized people. In these cases, the culture and the popular morality will eventually fall into line with the law (as it more or less has in much of the South, albeit not nearly as uniformly or as smoothly as it was supposed to).

Unquestionably, abolition of slavery was the right and moral choice. But slavery as an institution was dying anyway. The North's industrialization had already placed the Free States in the position to win the war, and the South would have found more than enough economic incentive to follow suit. But the Civil War, Abolition, and Reconstruction caused so much turmoil and social upheaval in the South that the Tribe Reflex became a regular institution there (and still is). Had slavery been allowed to dissolve into history, Civil Rights laws would have been a much easier sell -- and probably much sooner than the 1960s. And the South might not be full of people who see every attempt to effect social change as a direct assault on their "right to self-determination." Overall the country would still be to the right of Europe (thanks a lot, Puritans), but probably less than it is now. We might also have something resembling dialogue, instead of just pandering and posturing, on hot-button issues.

So my break with Liberalism is mostly about "hush now, Mommy knows what's good for you" politics. Even if the big brains are right (and we know they usually are), a morally superior conclusion enforced by means that ignore the natural progression of ideas, or that fails to put in the grassroots-level effort to actually change minds, is only going to result in generations of people stuck in bullshit.

So the South gets a free pass on still being racist, because, "look what YOU made me do!".

And the "natural progression of ideas" seems to be "progressing" to the middle ages; all these people pushing intelligent design into education.

And really think through what you are arguing ultimately: fighting racism only made it become entrenched, therefore, nothing should have been done about it, and it would be gone by now.

Also, you are under the assumption that this idea of yours of "natural progression of ideas" does work, and thats a very big one. What is even a "natural progression"? And, in the given case that it does exist, dont you think all them fundamentalists would not allow it to happen?

Put down the shit sling shot for a minute.

I never said we should have let them just stew in their backward thinking. If you'd actually read what I typed instead of what you wish I typed so we can have an argument, you'd see I emphasized that a) abolition was absolutely the "right" thing to do, and b) it takes a lot of effort to change a culture. I wasn't giving the South a free pass on anything, I was saying the progression from slavery to equality could have happened without war, and that it would have been a more solid, bottom-up transition if war hadn't brought on the tribe reflex. And it may have happened even sooner than it did happen (or is still happening, actually).

Other slave-holding countries were pressured into abolition by foreign powers. See Brazil, which was done with slavery by 1890 and did it without the added shock of civil war. Economically, slavery was a loser. The South would have figured that out. As for equality (a whole different topic), it would have been an easier pill to swallow had it not been for armies marching across their territory exporting freedom and setting fire to everything in sight.

This is really no different from the argument that the USA has no business exporting freedom to the Middle East, but for some reason that logic doesn't carry through to the Civil War.

I share your view on "moral interventions" in which they rarely (if ever) do any good.

Im just not on board with the idea that the South would "figure it out eventually", there's way too many factors involved to draw comparisons with other places and contexts.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I share your view on "moral interventions" in which they rarely (if ever) do any good.

Im just not on board with the idea that the South would "figure it out eventually", there's way too many factors involved to draw comparisons with other places and contexts.

The South already realized that slavery was as good as dead. Their Constitution prohibited importing new slaves from anywhere except from the USA (and between the Confederate States), which they obviously realized was a non-starter given the tensions between the two countries and the likelihood of pending universal abolition in the USA. With no source of new slaves other than natural procreation, and no Northern States enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act (which would surely cease in response to secession), the value of a slave would quickly drop in comparison to the cost of keeping him/her in CSA territory. That and the rapid industrialization and automation of agriculture and textiles was going to make slavery economically untenable in the very near future - something the CSA must have been aware of.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Furthermore the Civil War was never a "moral intervention" any more than our invasion of Iraq was. It was about political power, resources, and money. They just sold the Abolition angle to the rubes.


ETA: See I told you I couldn't tell the difference between this thread and the one about the South.

[The Johnny]

I share your view on "moral interventions" in which they rarely (if ever) do any good.

Im just not on board with the idea that the South would "figure it out eventually", there's way too many factors involved to draw comparisons with other places and contexts.

The South already realized that slavery was as good as dead. Their Constitution prohibited importing new slaves from anywhere except from the USA (and between the Confederate States), which they obviously realized was a non-starter given the tensions between the two countries and the likelihood of pending universal abolition in the USA. With no source of new slaves other than natural procreation, and no Northern States enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act (which would surely cease in response to secession), the value of a slave would quickly drop in comparison to the cost of keeping him/her in CSA territory. That and the rapid industrialization and automation of agriculture and textiles was going to make slavery economically untenable in the very near future - something the CSA must have been aware of.

Your argument is logical, but im not sure if the causes you attribute to the actions are historically accurate. I can't argue it do, im not that familiar with the history beyond the major points.

Furthermore the Civil War was never a "moral intervention" any more than our invasion of Iraq was. It was about political power, resources, and money. They just sold the Abolition angle to the rubes.


ETA: See I told you I couldn't tell the difference between this thread and the one about the South.

I agree, they were smoke-screens covering and justifying the real hidden reasons.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.

Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.

Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.

I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.

In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.

My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.

Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.

100% THIS.

Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.

Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.

AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.

What would that accomplish?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I dunno, Vex.

One of the consequences of the Civil War was the immediate elections of black politicians.

What you talkin about, Twid?

We had black Congressmen immediately after the Civil War. No shit. Black Congressmen. Yeah, it took us 150 and change years to get a black President, but that's big right there. And as far as rights go, the Judicial Branch is probably the most important branch in any government. You can't rely on legislation. It's at the whim of the masses. You can't rely on the executive, it's at the whim of reelection. Every bit of progress (progressive, see, painfully slow that it can be at times) has come from the Judicial.

Carpetbaggers; Reconstruction. The Civil War didn't change the culture overnight. While during Reconstruction Blacks could vote, the staying power of that "cultural revolution" was seen all over the South when Reconstruction ended and the South set in for a 75 years or so of intense intimidation of African-Americans through Jim Crow laws.

Let's take same sex marriage. There was a bit for a little while about Hawaii, but that shit was struck down. And actually created DOMA. DOMA was a reaction against the fact that Hawaii might ratify same sex marriage. Which didn't happen.

What got the ball rolling (and this is what makes me proud to be a Masshole, since we were the first to have it statewide, without any bullshit) was a gay couple sued, and the MA Supreme Court said, "yeah, there's nothing in the state constitution (the oldest continuous constitution in the world, I might add) that forbids this. Mazel Tov."

The same with Civil Rights. These were fought in court, not in Congress.

On that note, DOMA is a blatant violation of the bit in the Constitution that says that whatever public records are enacted in one state must be recognized as valid in all others, regardless of local laws (Full Faith and Credit Clause).

The Courts can't interpret laws that haven't been passed yet. And the interpretation of laws that DO exist is more or less at the mercy of the prevailing culture, anyway. I doubt the MA Supreme Court would have allowed same-sex marriage to stand in 1850, even under the exact same Constitution. What motivated progress in this case wasn't a law or a court; it was culture.

There were no laws either way, that had been passed yet.

A gay couple sued.

The supreme court said, "yeah, you're right, hey you give them a marriage license."

Gay couple eventually divorced. Seriously. God bless America.

There were no laws involved here other than the ones drafted in the 18th century, and the interpretation thereof.

Would this have been ignored in the 1700s? Yeah. Of course.

My point is, is that progress is not made with the legislative branch, nor the executive branch. Rights are recognized by the judicial.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

There were no laws either way, that had been passed yet.

A gay couple sued.

The supreme court said, "yeah, you're right, hey you give them a marriage license."

Gay couple eventually divorced. Seriously. God bless America.

There were no laws involved here other than the ones drafted in the 18th century, and the interpretation thereof.

Would this have been ignored in the 1700s? Yeah. Of course.

My point is, is that progress is not made with the legislative branch, nor the executive branch. Rights are recognized by the judicial.

That's true, the courts have to somehow give rights that little "push." But that usually only happens when prevailing culture is conducive to it, or at least won't explode over it. So the proper target for the brunt of Progressive efforts should be culture at large, not the courts. And definitely not just legislation.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

There were no laws either way, that had been passed yet.

A gay couple sued.

The supreme court said, "yeah, you're right, hey you give them a marriage license."

Gay couple eventually divorced. Seriously. God bless America.

There were no laws involved here other than the ones drafted in the 18th century, and the interpretation thereof.

Would this have been ignored in the 1700s? Yeah. Of course.

My point is, is that progress is not made with the legislative branch, nor the executive branch. Rights are recognized by the judicial.

That's true, the courts have to somehow give rights that little "push." But that usually only happens when prevailing culture is conducive to it, or at least won't explode over it. So the proper target for the brunt of Progressive efforts should be culture at large, not the courts. And definitely not just legislation.

Maybe. I dunno, I think that the judicial has a lot of leeway. They're not elected, and they're lifers. Their purpose is to judge a case as far as strict interpretation of the Constitution allows.

Now, example, I disagree with Roe v Wade. But yet, I'm pro-choice. My argument is that it's not a matter of privacy. It's a matter of right over what happens to your body.

I am against PPACA. Not because I hate Health Care. On the contrary. I believe in Universal Health Care. I'm against the mandate that says I have to buy insurance since the government won't provide me with it, unless I'm poor, and they have no idea what poor constitutes. It's moot. Obamacare is rooted in Romneycare, and if you'll recall I'm a Masshole. I've had the individual mandate for years, and I only got insurance through work to comply with Massachusetts law. Thanks Shitt Romney.

Anyway, I'm not a Justice. So, whatever. I am however glad that there is a branch of the gov't that is not beholden to the whims of the populace. Conservative has a different meaning there, and I'm definitely a Conservative when it comes to the Judicial branch, since that's the only branch that seems to understand, some of the time that Liberal and Conservative have nothing to do with Right and Left.

Twid,
Conservative Leftist, I guess.

[Cain]

I can't say I agree very often with Conservatism the Political Platform, but I do sympathize with Conservatism the Political Ideal. "Progressivism" seems to share at its core the same top-down "you just shut up and do it our way" mentality that I dislike about the current practice of Conservatism. Legislating morality.

All politics is about legislating morality.  All democratic politics, anyway.  Who suffers, who doesn't, what is considered legal, what is not...they all ultimately come down to moral criterea used to inform policy making, and getting votes based on who holds what moral positions and what tradeoffs they are willing to make to see those positions realised. 

Non-moral politics seems to only exist in certain third world dictatorships, normally the kind where the leader relies on natural resources to buy off his core of followers, and lets the rest of the population do whatever, so long as it doesn't threaten him. Ironically, this doesn't make them a moral free-for-all, it just means the people with the most guns, the army, militia or presidential security forces, do whatever they want and anyone who looks like disagreeing gets a bullet in the face.

[Placid Dingo]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

I'm not worried about it going away. I'm worried about, when mass media/commercial interest is concerned, limits should be in place.

Also when I say current practice I mean in Australia, I didn't clarify. I realise I won't convince anyone, but I do want my position to be clear.

[AFK]

Well and that's kind of something we already have in place here in the States as far as regulating what can/cannot be aired on the airwaves.  And I have to admit I'm a bit conflicted on that one.  Because it is really easy for a responsible person to avoid content they would find objectionable.  But, on the other hand, some kids have rotten parents who don't know any better and they may become subject to said content without any kind of reasonable filter for the content.


In the end I lean more towards free speech but can understand the desire for some level of regulation.

[LMNO]

V3x, what I'm seeing in your "conservative/progressive" argument is you're that you seem saying "not all conservatives are fascists, but all progressives are mommy-staters", and then moving on from there.

I see it breaking down into roughly two major ideas: "things are fine as they were" and "things can get better".  Where people go with those ideas can be extremely repressive both ways: Conservatives can restrict the ability for citizens to act freely just as much as progressives can, if it serves their ultimate agenda.

Another overly simplified breakdown can be "To ensure a strong country, the government must maintain it's power" vs "To ensure a strong country, the government must ensure a strong citizenry".  The "power" idea tends to result in military and established social hierarchies, and the "citizenry" tends to result in education and social welfare.

Or something.  I feel that a nation whose government ignores or exploits the poor is in need of improvement. 


Yes, I know that means every nation that has ever existed.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

I'm not worried about it going away. I'm worried about, when mass media/commercial interest is concerned, limits should be in place.

Also when I say current practice I mean in Australia, I didn't clarify. I realise I won't convince anyone, but I do want my position to be clear.

[Triple Zero]

Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.

Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.

Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.

I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.

In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.

My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.

Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.

100% THIS.

Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.

Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.

AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.

What would that accomplish?

Basically what it accomplishes, is porn. Here, let me use SCIENCE to explain:

POP = total amount of people applying for welfare
CWP = cost of welfare for one person
CPP = cost of a psychologist/psychiatrist/psychotechnician/psychic to evaluate one person
PF = ratio of people that would get "caught" faking eligibility

so you'd save money if:

POP * CWP > POP * CWP - PF * POP * CWP + POP * CPP

which reduces to

PF * POP * CWP > CPP * POP

meaning, if the amount of people "caught" exceeds the total cost of psych evaluating everybody that applies for welfare.

you can vary CPP by making the test shorter, or hiring less well-trained psychosniffers--which also affects PF. But then you'd also have to account for false positives and false negatives. The cost of a false negative is obvious (just one more CWP), but you can't really put a number on a false positive (when someone eligible is deemed not to be). But you can fudge those. Then you can plot everything onto a nice ROC curve, write a report and leave it in a legislator's office, where it'll be ignored unless you fudged the cost of false positives low enough. So you decide that the legislator's office is a better place to leave porn instead of reports.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.

Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.

Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.

I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.

In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.

My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.

Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.

100% THIS.

Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.

Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.

AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.

What would that accomplish?

Punishment.