Comment by mc32
5 years ago
On all of those issues there are at least two takes-and they’ve flip-flopped over time. People on the right have a different take on how to alleviate homelessness (self empowerment vs state dependence). On immigration (remember the time Bernie _didn't_ want immigrants to take jobs from locals?) minorities (also about the extent of state help vs other empowerment vehicles).
There are varied ways to address the issues from different points of view. Parties have switched from one view to the opposing view over time, so by proxy of this we know there isn’t a “right” way and a “wrong” way but rather opposing philosophies that stress one thing over another. Why does one work better now and why will a different one work better tomorrow?
First of all, note that I did not talk at all about parties. I talked about left and right. Historically, the parties that represent right and left (or how much to the right and left they skew) has changed; which ideas fall in the category of left and right thinking have not as much.
It seems that your stance is based on the idea that a large group of people simply adopts one viewpoint or another arbitrarily, that those solutions have not changed over time, and that because of this we should treat them with equal merit. I believe this is wrong, for a number of different reasons.
First, it ignores the outcomes of the actual policies as well as the framework of thinking that it supports. Someone who has a "different take" whose outcome changes whether I or my friends can afford health care or not is not an "equal but opposite" philosophy.
To build on that, because it ignores the actual outcomes and treats all ideas as equal, it supports a framework of hyper-partisan thinking, the idea that ideology is about who you are loyal to. In this framework, your belief makes sense: just because we're loyal to different parties doesn't mean we can't be friends! But again, it ignores the very real implications of those beliefs.
Finally, it also concludes that solutions to these problems, and the people who are in charge of supporting them, cannot evolve and improve, only be renewed as a way to for members of a party to pledge loyalty. Bernie is not a perfect leftist, and has certainly had some shitty takes and policies; sometimes people get better (and sometimes they don't). As our understanding of the plight of the common people grows and adjusts to the new realities we are faced with, different solutions will evolve on the left, and that is good.
> Bernie is not a perfect leftist, and has certainly had some shitty takes and policies; sometimes people get better (and sometimes they don't).
The wording here demonstrates deep disrespect for people whose ideas, experiences, conclusions and understanding of the world differs from your own.
I meant no disrespect. If I read into your reply here, I think you feel that I am saying that anyone who is "not a perfect leftist" is "shitty"? On reflection I can see how that would be interpreted.
What I meant to wrote was 3 separate points:
- Bernie is not a perfect leftist
To be clear: I don't hold Bernie to the standard of being a "perfect leftist," rather stating the obvious that he is not one. And while I would love a candidate that agreed more with my viewpoints than him, I don't think he's a bad person because he doesn't.
- Bernie has had some shitty takes and policies
I do believe that Bernie Sanders, the politician, has not always wielded his power in my best interest; for instance, voting for the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" joint resolution that has been used as justification for our military presence in the middle east. I would, in a glib way, rate that vote and the opinions he gave during that time as a "shitty take." I don't think that disrespects him as a person.
- Sometimes people get better (and sometimes they don't)
Sometimes people evolve their politics and beliefs as they learn more and the material conditions which they exist in change, which is good. Sometimes they do not, and that's bad. I do not think that adopting strictly leftist beliefs - of which there are a cacophony of differing, conflicting ones - is inherently good. Rather the lack of evolution is bad.
> First, it ignores the outcomes of the actual policies as well as the framework of thinking that it supports. Someone who has a "different take" whose outcome changes whether I or my friends can afford health care or not is not an "equal but opposite" philosophy.
What opinions about health care policy are people allowed to have, in your view?
Please reread the post, as it didn't mention that certain opinions are barred, merely that the opinions are not "equal but opposite".
5 replies →
> remember the time Bernie _didn't_ want immigrants to take jobs from locals?
I'm plucking this bit out because I don't think that's a good summary of his position. He still doesn't "want immigrants to take jobs from locals." He's concerned about corporations abusing immigrant labor to depress American wages. He's long voted for bills to protect immigrants, even while being wary of increasing low-skill immigration. He's trying to find a middle ground between labor and immigration, and that isn't easy.
For an in-depth look:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/25/21143931/b...
I think a huge part of the difference is people's perspective on which is worse: false positives or false negatives.
Warning: opinions follow
To reduce scope to something like welfare for illustrative purposes, there's actually pretty broad agreement from both sides that some people just need help through no fault of their own and that at some level, there should be some kind of program to provide that help. And there's similar agreement that people who don't have such a need should be prevented from intentionally gaming/milking a system (getting benefits without a legitimate need). The interesting parts come in two other scenarios: 1) someone who legitimately needs help and doesn't get it, and 2) someone who doesn't need help but does get it. Those are both wasteful and unjust and we'd all like to reduce those cases to as close to zero as possible. But the left and the right disagree about which case is more unjust. The right would like to focus on efficiency and self-sufficiency, so the greater injustice is fostering an environment where you can get assistance without deserving it (which perpetuates and/or deepens the dependence), and you're willing to concede that this means some people who need help won't get it. The left, on the other hand, would like to focus on covering everyone who needs help, and anyone slipping through the cracks is an injustice, but this means that you have to accept the inefficiency of allowing some people who don't need/deserve assistance to get it, and you just shrug and say that's the cost of providing a good safety net.
I think this is basically true. although there are some issues that are so polarizing that they take precedence over the false positive vs false negative preference. the examples that immediately come to mind involve enforcement and punishment. the right generally seems to accept policies like stop-and-frisk or demanding ID from brown people near the border, regardless of how many of those targeted turn out to be doing nothing wrong. the left pretty much takes the same position on campus sexual assault cases, although it at least asserts that false positives are very rare.
False positive and false negative rates also have a relation to the injustice of a false positive. Having to provide ID and get frisked sucks but being falsely accused of a crime and having your entirely life destroyed even if rare is a massive injustice. This is the entire premise of Blackstone's Ratio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
For what it's worth I'm libertarian and lean towards having false positives for any of those three scenarios.
Yeah, I think false-positive and false-negative aren't exactly the right construct to consider for some scenarios. It's more like "whose suffering bothers you more?" People in need or those whose contribution is wasted? The racially-profiled or those who may be harmed by criminals if we aren't diligent? Wrongly-accused rapists or rape victims?
How do you empower someone without helping them?
I don't think conservatives/Republicans are strictly against helping anyone, they just disagree on the method. The historically conservative view has been to try and give them a job through which they can support themselves as opposed to a "handout" through a social program. On paper I think they would describe it as the equivalent of "teaching a man to fish" vs "giving a man a fish".
Obviously there is a lot of room for skepticism as to whether you think the approach works in practice, or if the approach is simply a front to enact changes that will nominally benefit the unempowered but in reality benefit the empowered. But I don't know of many who aren't in favor of something as vague as "helping people", and most genuinely believe they are doing so.
It’s more than that. Conservatives think that liberal social and economic ideas actively destroy the infrastructure people rely on to help themselves. An example of this is marriage. Liberals have sought to normalize divorce and the raising children outside of marriage. Both of those things are empirically proven to make people poorer—for obvious reasons. Indeed, welfare benefits are often structured to disincentivize marriage, which in turn keeps people poor. Liberals often don’t appreciate that conservative social and economic views are synergistic like that.
6 replies →
Good Q. I think it’s a nuanced distinction. Helping too much can too often lead to a lack of empowerment, IMO. The idea that you can’t help yourself, so you must be led along by another as if you were a child. I think empowerment requires helping, but helping through “nudges,” if that makes sense
In the context of a system where it's almost impossible to lose money above a certain point and almost impossible to make money below a certain point (edit: without doing something reckless, which often happens).. No this does not make sense to me.
2 replies →
I wonder if there's a correlation there, where for some people they think that offering any help is by definition paternalistic? "As if they were a child", as in believing that only children need help.
You create a system in which they can help themselves while the others have a vested interest in helping them raise. It’s called capitalism.
By providing them with opportunity?
The issue isn't that they don't have a different rationale, it's the particulars of what that rationale is built on. "State dependence" alleviates suffering when implemented in earnest, "self-empowerment" perpetuates inequality and privileges luck and momentum over innovation and (paradoxically) moment-to-moment hard work.
In America, there has always been one side on the right side of history and one on the wrong, as far as health and happiness go. People and institutions switch sides, but the sides exist all the same. It comes down to how considerate you are of your neighbors, here and abroad. It's baffling that such a rich society continues to engage interpersonally with a scarcity mindset. Bootstraps are a myth; give until you can't and then ask for what you need. If we still then have racial issues, class issues, gender issues, religious issues, then the problem goes deeper than economics, and we'll need to face that with the same level of compassion.
The thing about state dependence that I don’t like is that that means the state has power over you. Follow our rules or you lose benefits. What, you’re against X? Sorry, come correct or lose your privilege to those benefits.
We don’t want to have what they had in the old “second world” where the state could bend the will of the people because it held all the cards.
That’s not to deny that we can serve people better. Create access to capital, lessen predatory practices on innumerate consumers, incentivize women to enter more productive areas of the economy, etc.
Re: state power... ”Follow our rules or you lose benefits. What, you’re against X? Sorry, come correct or lose your privilege to those benefits.”
How is this different than private power? Honestly, I've had to put up with far more arbitrary bs from my HMO than state or federal programs. With my state and the feds at least there is a clear statement of benefits, a clear procedure to appeal, and a solid attempt to deliver on promises.
How well does that compare to, say, your cable company? Or how well have big companies done respecting your privacy? In other words, lots of people get directly screwed by private companies, too.
I'm not trying to say that government programs are the ideal answer to everything. In the USA there is a serious need for reasonable debate, responsible budgets, and a commitment to good government.
There is plenty of potential for abuse with government over reach. But there is also plenty of abuse from government under-reach, too. Isn't it in everybody's interests to have a functioning government? One that that operates under good-faith intentions to follow it's mandate?
25 replies →
> is that that means the state has power over you
This is a recurring theme that I despise. People need to start to talk about the government in a democracy as "we". You are the government, the state is a collective you are part off and have power over. You are in fact dependent on others, that is the point of a society.
So when someone says, hey, when I joined this society, I was told its people upheld the right for all its members to equal opportunity? But my parents did not have the money that yours did? And that affected my opportunity? So what gives?
When you have the attitude of the government as a seperate entity, it becomes reality. The more you see the government as such, the more it is allowed to become a ruler over others, since that's how you depict it. When it should be the CEO that you, a member of the board, elected, and can booth out when you don't like what they're doing no more, and you also can join the government if you want to contribute more, etc.
Sorry to hijike your discussion about handling the homelessness crisis , but that's a sore point for me. I find it really weak of people to look for someone else to govern them, and I wish people took responsability for their government (in democracies), because they are its owner and fundamentally have power over it. But too many prefer to delegate and pretend they're powerless against the faceless man.
13 replies →
Do you apply this same reasoning to people whose housing, food, and healthcare are all put at risk if their employer decides they don't like them?
Seems like you're concerned about what's mostly a hypothetical when done by the state today- but probably hundreds of millions of people in the US alone are being coerced to do things they don't want to under threat of losing the exact things you're worried about. And in a lot of cases, what's one big thing mitigating that coercion? The very social safety nets you're worried about!
14 replies →
>We don’t want to have what they had in the old “second world” where the state could bend the will of the people because it held all the cards.
Isn't it apparent, though, that this type of leverage is inevitable in any societal structure? Some party will have a level of power where it can coerce many others to basically do their bidding at threat of witholding some essential sustenance. In the private sector, witholding employment means poverty and the resulting wretched consequences to health and status.
The proposition that government should be the only one with that leverage is the lesser of many evils, because at least there is electoral recourse against a government that abuses it.
This is opposed to leaving that leverage with the private sector, where there is no recourse, other that not participating, which is exactly their leverage in the first place, as you will be left with no income and in poverty.
> The thing about state dependence that I don’t like is that that means the state has power over you.
This is genuinely sad-funny considering the state of the US federal government overreach (independent of sitting president), policing, justice and implementation of secret courts and police forces.
In any case, welfare states handle this quite well with a justice system largely independent from the social executive flanked by mandatory legal aid. Which, if anything, has resulted in a power imbalance towards those receiving state benefits.
>The thing about state dependence that I don’t like is that that means the state has power over you. Follow our rules or you lose benefits. What, you’re against X? Sorry, come correct or lose your privilege to those benefits.
I don't understand how this would be a valid reason to not give a benefit. Even if that benefit comes with strings or can be taken away, isn't receiving that benefit for a period of time more helpful than never receiving it at all?
7 replies →
The state always has power over you, it wouldn't be much of a state otherwise. If it doesn't respect your rights, you're screwed anyway. Capital doesn't help you when the state refuses to enforce your property rights, skills don't help you when you've been disappeared out of a helicopter.
1 reply →
This is in part a reply to you and in part a comment on all the sibling comments.
There are many cultural assumptions that are built into the comments here. Worth examining.
* "What, you’re against X? Sorry, come correct or lose your privilege to those benefits." Some countries use government to ensure every mom and baby-to-be has prenatal care and food. There is not a belief test there, just a pregnancy test. Could you give an example of the types of belief tests you are against?
I find the US emphasis on church charity rather than government services repugnant in particular because it often is used exactly for ideological coercion. Not all churches, but many, see the provision of services as a way to enforce/reward/punish certain beliefs and behaviors. I've always found that un-christ-like myself but hey I'm just a heretic. A government service that says, "hey, you're 16 and homeless so we will feed you dinner" seems much better and less coercive than a church that says, "you're 16 and homeless so we'll feed you dinner if you pray beforehand and we get to choose your pronouns".
* Many sibling commenters mention employers a lot. That's another cultural assumption that I find interesting. In the culture I was raised in, it was assumed that government help is rightfully directed primarily at the very young, the very old, and the very sick -- in general, people without employers and with fewer opportunities to 'just help themselves' or pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That is, after all, why we formed a bunch of these government agencies -- we as a people, as a community, felt bad seeing 87-year-old men starve to death in their apartments because they had limited mobility and no income, or watching 4-month-old babies refuse to get that corporate job they obviously should've that would've allowed mama who had a debilitating injury from birthing to afford formula for the kid. Ah, self-empowerment: works so well when it results in 4-year-olds becoming trash pickers to help their families, and 92-year-olds to sit by the road (if they even live that long) begging because it brings in a little cash! No. Some of these government programs were formed because there are times in a person's life where all the psychological empowerment and even job skills training classes you want aren't gonna help, but food and a place to live will.
To go back to discussions above this, I still engage a lot on Facebook for political argument purposes. It's boring just talking with people who agree with me (the people I live with, generally) so I do seek out other points of view on Facebook. It is interesting how some folks always slide an argument back to the point they want -- tried talking about Amy Coney Barrett's opinion in a Title IX case with a friend doing a PhD, and strangely enough she kept bringing it back to how universities shouldn't be policing "stuff that happens in bars". I just mention this example because campus adjudication of sexual assault cases and the relationship with Title IX and due process rights is, ugh, a totally different, complicated, legally interesting conversation than 'what happens in bars'. But we can't even have the conversation -- a conversation I feel I can contribute to in an interesting way because I've been faculty at a university and have dealt informally with harassment between students -- because it continually slides back to these fake talking points that dismiss all the important stuff! Is that social cooling or not?
4 replies →
What about all the instances where state dependence increased suffering though? What baffles me is that we continue to fall into the trap that there are only 2 ways to approach every problem.