Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[novice]

From this follows that when we say that something must be done through government, we, essentially, say that something must be done through violence.

But we don't speak about "stopping evil" when we say that government should provide everyone with education and healthcare.

Note the difference between "must" and "should". Health care and education doesn't have to be provided by the government, but it should.

There is an underlying premise in what you're describing (It's not clear to me if it's your personal premise or a premise you're attributing to some ideology) that anything that doesn't have to be provided by government, shouldn't be. It's a well known capitalist maxim, one with which I disagree.

[Bacchus]

I think the premise is that violence is bad. In this case, violence in the form of threatening people with jail unless they give up a part of their income for social services.

I have to say I felt warm and fuzzy reading the above comments about how the state is defined by caring about welfare of society and controlled by citizens to ensure it stays true to that agenda. Maybe there is a Santa Claus out there too, after all.

[Gazglum]

That is a very cynical view Gavagai. I would say that it’s not the ‘application of violence’ that makes states work, it is because a State can monopolise violence that all other interactions are possible. Corporations can only function if property rights and other legal rights are guaranteed, and those rights can only be protected if everyone has a reasonable expectation that somebody won’t steal everything they have. How long would charities be able to provide education if there was nothing to stop bands of marauders coming and stealing all their textbooks?

[Qgqqqqq]

When did RB start discussing politics? I thought that was an unspoken no-no.

From an outside perspective, the current American election is a clear choice between a flawed, competent, not particularly pleasant person vs a dangerous sociopath, and that is exactly the kind of time when it is very important to exercise a right to vote.

I need to point out that Trump only became possible due to democratic voting. Republican elites were strongly against him, it was strong support from rank-and-file voters what won the primaries for him. If nomination process in Republican party was less democratic (like it used to be before), you would have Rubio or Bush #3 instead of Trump.

And it is relevant that there are non-democratic elements to the Republican primary - most prominently, winner-take-all and similar voting systems. These favor the frontrunner, which is traditionally Romney-esque, but favored Trump heavily in this race.

As I said, I'll make exceptions for local elections. Four orders of magnitude more power in every vote.

This depends heavily on the country. In NZ and the UK, national elections are far more important.

It's unfair, as we are discussing American politics generally, but I really wish that there was less of a presumption that that is to whom the conversation refers. Again, I get how you arrived there - but voter apathy and the perception of no choice is a symptom of many democracies. And it's generally untrue.

[Qgqqqqq]

I think the premise is that violence is bad. In this case, violence in the form of threatening people with jail unless they give up a part of their income for social services.

I have to say I felt warm and fuzzy reading the above comments about how the state is defined by caring about welfare of society and controlled by citizens to ensure it stays true to that agenda. Maybe there is a Santa Claus out there too, after all.

Certainly violence is bad. But we as a society have made the decision that this is the way society should function. It is possible to move away from that, and thus the threat of jail essentially comes from the people.

Leaving that aside, the reason for this consensus is that we have decided that there are greater evils. Invasion from a foreign power necessitates an army, which is a public good. If you accept that, than it's just about the level to which you go. If you don't, this discussion is pointless.

From there we progress downwards to essentials that are less fundamental but that the private sector also fails in, including health and education.

For education, we have decided that there is a level of advantage that is wrong for the rich to posses over the poor. The rich can still take out tutors, etc etc. But without a fundamental level of education guaranteed to the poor they will not receive that through the private sector, and thus will be unable to have any social mobility.

And if you accept that, than it's just quibbling over the details.

[Qgqqqqq]

Also: re charities fulfilling state roles.

Apart from the arguments already raised (Who controls them, ensures quality? Who decides curriculum, holds them accountable for failings? Who ensures they get sufficient funding, who decides how it is efficiently allocated so that it is equal and/or needs based? The rational answer to this begins with S and rhymes with bait.) there's a fundamental one about human dignity.

It is one thing to receive assistance from the government, and another at the whim of an individual.

[Bacchus]

Two points, Qqqqqqq. First, the way society functions is hardly at all due to decisions that "we" made, and even that "we" that is supposed to have taken the decision is so ephemereal -- who is the "we"? The reason states rule is because they can, and because rulers fought and killed for that possibility, crushing opposition internal and external. True, starting in the 18-19th century people have started having some influence over politics, but its not through a citizen compact that any current state has arisen, not even the US, however much it likes to kid itself on that front (see the Whiskey Rebellion, not to mention Indian tribes). Force rules because it works, even if the force wielders do all they can to rationalize their role as serving the good of the subjects. I mean, even abusive husbands tell these stories to the wives they beat, and many times the persuasion works.

Secondly, there is actually a difference in principle between the state providing healthcare and the state providing an army, even once we accepted that violence is a necessary evil. The state providing an army, as well as a police force, courts, jails and so on is a part of answering the threat of violence with violence, force with force, in cases where that's the only thing that works. You can't negotiate with a gang, you can't negotiate with an invader, you have to defeat them, so we need a machine for violence, and we need to finance it. It's a completely different issue to say -- hey, now that we have this great machine for violence, let's use it to do good. The difference between fighting violence with violence and using violence to promote an agenda is not "quibbling over details", it is an absolutely fundamental ethical and even legal difference. One is self-defence, the other is aggression.

EDIT: All of the above says nothing about a social justice agenda, which I largely share. Inequality sucks, poverty sucks, people not receiving an education is awful not just for them, but for everyone around them. We (and I mean individuals, wherever they live) definitely should do what we can to remedy these issues, but bringing the state on board is just a bad, bad idea that needs to be ditched at every juncture where possible. We do need national infrastructures which would be able to coordinate, supervise and promote national welfare agendas, but the more these are separate from the state, the better.

[Qgqqqqq]

We can debate and discuss how a state gained its sovereignty all you want. But it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

You could make that arguments for certain laws. But fundamental concepts of taxation, of the need for state involvement in education, exist in the societal consensus. This is how laws have power, and they are broadly accepted in the social psyche as evidenced by their lack of broad challenge. Libertarianism, anarchism, and so on are niche ideologies and this is because their precepts are not broadly accepted.

This is evidenced by the general expansion of these concepts. The social welfare state has broadly expanded, and this has occurred as democratic involvement has increased. I do not mean to state cause and effect, but that general correlation across the West weakens any argument that these are not broadly accepted.


Secondly, I don't understand your fixation on a distinction between fighting evil and doing good. Surely, inequality is an evil? Why isn't it an agenda to prevent an invader from imposing its law upon you? And again, the broadest strokes of 'the agenda of the state' are in agreement with the citizenry.

Moreover, you have only proposed principled rejections. Practically, what are your solutions? Absent the coercion of the state, how can a certain level of education be guaranteed to the citizenry?

How is ensuring a basic level of literacy is provided to the most destitute - as a marginal case - a nefarious agenda of the state? Assuming that you agree this at least should be provided, what is your model for providing it?

[AdrienIer]

I think the premise is that violence is bad. In this case, violence in the form of threatening people with jail unless they give up a part of their income for social services.

I have to say I felt warm and fuzzy reading the above comments about how the state is defined by caring about welfare of society and controlled by citizens to ensure it stays true to that agenda. Maybe there is a Santa Claus out there too, after all.

There are plenty of examples in history (although perhaps more in French history, hence our more healthy relationship with the state) where the people made the state change, and made it implement change for the benefit of the people in a nice virtuous circle. See the 1936 election (and strikes).

Two points, Qqqqqqq. First, the way society functions is hardly at all due to decisions that "we" made, and even that "we" that is supposed to have taken the decision is so ephemereal -- who is the "we"? The reason states rule is because they can, and because rulers fought and killed for that possibility, crushing opposition internal and external. True, starting in the 18-19th century people have started having some influence over politics, but its not through a citizen compact that any current state has arisen, not even the US, however much it likes to kid itself on that front (see the Whiskey Rebellion, not to mention Indian tribes).

First, "we" is the majority of people (actually the majority of voters, but it's close enough). At least that's the way a democracy works. Whether it's the best way for a society to function is an entirely different debate.
Secondly, it depends on what you mean by a state "rising". I could argue that the current French state is the result of the National council of the Resistance, who represented all of the French resistance in 1945 and who created a series of rules and general principles that the French state should abide by. It's pretty damn close to a citizen compact creating a new state. Of course geographically we've been reasonably stable for a while, and you could say that France "rose" through violence of the french kings during the middle ages.

You start from the premise that state=violence. I start from the premise that a state is what it does, and at least in western Europe (and Canada, Australia and a few others) what it does is for the most part providing education, healthcare, trying to avoid ultimate poverty, security etc... Only the security part is violent.

[Old Harry]

All this "Sovereignty 101" reminds my why I dropped Philosophy at uni.

Single-payer healthcare, sensible gun control, anti-discrimination laws that cover orientation and gender-identity as well as race and sex, enforceable banking regulations, reforming the criminal assembly line justice system, decriminalizing/legalizing drugs like Cannabis, better and safer access to abortion, a minimum wage that doesn't result in corporate welfare, and a welfare system that actually tries to lift people out of poverty.

Yeah, most of this stuff I perceive as bad and think that it would move US in the direction of USSR-lite. And you are right about most of the western world, that's why I'm worried so much about US. Want at least one relatively normal place to remain in the world.

I generally agree with libertarian philosophy in an ideal world, but I have a visceral dislike for inequality, so I want things to be done to push us toward that ideal world. A minimum standard for healthcare, education and social care are essential, then I guess you need to have a police, legal system and army what with people being people. Beyond that I don't want much government, but everyone always has their own pet project that becomes part of the fabric, don't they?

I'd be interested to know what you think of safety nets in general? What should happen to someone with a disability or illness or to workers when an industry goes bust? Is there no place for state aid in any case?

I also got interested in guaranteed basic income recently (from reading The Expanse mostly) - you might even like that because it simplifies the state's responsibilities hugely...

Boring Hillary chat probably only of interest to Bacchus and I, so spoilered:

This is the stock line of the pro-Clinton messages, and I have to say I don't understand it at all. On most of the "scandals" that she has apparently "come through clean", she didn't exactly do anything of the sort. Benghazi -- she outright lied to the public, the media and families of the dead, selling the "spontaneous protest in response to a video" narrative long after it was accepted to be false within State (and it may never been accepted as true).

Is this source biased? They don't think Benghazi is clear-cut at all.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ople-who-/

Assorted Bill Clinton affairs -- she was not a friend, nor a supporter of the victims of sexual assault, by all accounts her only concern was to protect the family's standing and discredit, as far as possible, all the accusing women.

This one is hard to refute because of how hard it is to convict sexual assault, so just saying BC was never convicted of it doesn't prove he didn't, but by the same measure I don't understand how you're so certain he did - have you got a source? I know he settled (for $850 000 ) in one of the cases, but that was while he was getting impeached, so I can see why he'd just want to make it go away (or that he's guilty and wanted to hide that).

Clinton Foundation -- is a rent-seeking disaster, just read about their involvement in Haiti, where a whole chunk of international state aid was rerouted to an area which didn't even suffer from the earthquake to assist in building the infrastructure necessary for a Foundation-backed business park, which itself became a huge flop, delivering something like a quarter of the projected jobs.

Yep, this sounds incompetent. Do you know if they benefited financially?

Whitewater -- c'mon, people went to jail for this, even if this had nothing to do with Clintons (it strikes me unlikely that HRC would invest sizeable funds into a business she had no idea about), the fact that investigations did not find any reasons to prosecute the Clintons aren't a positive mark. "Ok, you were close to and invested with convicted fraudsters, but it looks like you weren't directly involved in this fraud".

Whitewater seems to me like the best indicator that they aren't corrupt - Ken Starr spent over $70 million specifically to try to bring Clinton down and couldn't do it. It might be argued that they had the establishment on their side, covering their asses, but the republican half of the establishment clearly wasn't...

What the Clinton supporters always stress is that HRC has not been prosecuted for anything. But is this really the standard? Well done, you managed not to have given probable cause of any involvement in an actual crime? The Democrats seems to think that any scandal that did not result in a conviction is a positive mark, but that's just a bizarre way of looking at things.

I like Bob's "where there's smoke there's mirrors" quote. During the Reagan presidency 138 officials were convicted on various charges, but that never seems to have reflected badly on him, why is it different for the Clintons?

Also, Democrats tend to exaggerate what the scope of reports that "exonerate" Clinton is. To wit, the IG report on e-mails -- the pro-Clinton media and campaign bent over backwards to stress that the IG "did not find any evidence the server has been hacked", whereas the report explicitly says that the security of the server was not within the scope of the investigation. The same goes for many of the historical controversies -- Clintons were investigated on specific, narrow scopes, not their general ethical standing. Regarding the latter, it is up to the public to judge, not the bureaucracy, and as I mentioned most of the incidents Clintons were investigated for, really did include behaviour that no-one can be proud of.

Heh, I think that's just how media is - I disapprove as much as you, but I don't see many political figures who don't spin things their way.

Before I come across as a fanboy though, I don't think the Clintons are whiter than white, I bet they have huge character failings and probably did bad things to get where they are (something I believe to be true of every political leader or CEO). I'm sure some of the mud flung at them must be genuine, but I see so many stories about them debunked that I'm inclined to give them a pass.

Especially given the alternative.