| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 22 2012 01:57 xDaunt wrote: ...which is not what we are talking about. The question posed is whether it would be good idea run the public sector more like the private sector, and my argument is "yes." I think the entire point of government is to find socially optimal solutions for things. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 22 2012 06:04 DoubleReed wrote: I was under the impression that education is almost entirely decentralized in the United States. I don't really know what the Department of Education actually does (other than the occasional bad legislation like No Child Left Behind). It's more the fact that a lot of states are horribly incompetent, corrupt, or uneducated, so those states have serious problems. It just seems weird to characterize it as a nationwide problem if it's decentralized. Isn't it up to the states/counties to get their act together? What can the federal government realistically do? Standardized testing is a major problem. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 22 2012 06:22 sam!zdat wrote: I think the entire point of government is to find socially optimal solutions for things. No, that's not really the purpose at all. I think government should sometimes be used as a device to solve certain problems, but it's not up to the government to engineer the "proper" social ideal or anything. Let society do its thing. Let people do their thing. Government should just facilitate society, and serve as a foundation that let's it thrive. But it's not about optimizing society. That's more of a tyrannical concept than you might initially think. Certainly any libertarian (like xDaunt) would strongly disagree with you. Hell, I disagree with you, and I'm liberal. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 22 2012 06:04 DoubleReed wrote:It just seems weird to characterize it as a nationwide problem if it's decentralized. Isn't it up to the states/counties to get their act together? What can the federal government realistically do? The federal government can actually exert quite a bit of pressure on state governments by denying access to federal funding for education (or, conversely, promising additional funding). However, this generally falls under the purview of Congress (acting through the Dept. of Education), and we all saw how well No Child Left Behind turned out once lobbyists got their grubby hands all over it. Secondarily, such intervention frequently constitutes overreaching of federal power in the eyes of conservatives. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 22 2012 06:40 DoubleReed wrote: No, that's not really the purpose at all. I think government should sometimes be used as a device to solve certain problems, but it's not up to the government to engineer the "proper" social ideal or anything. Let society do its thing. Let people do their thing. Government should just facilitate society, and serve as a foundation that let's it thrive. But it's not about optimizing society. That's more of a tyrannical concept than you might initially think. Certainly any libertarian (like xDaunt) would strongly disagree with you. Hell, I disagree with you, and I'm liberal. Right, so what you're saying is that certain ways the government might try to achieve social optimality would not be socially optimal. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 22 2012 07:15 sunprince wrote: The federal government can actually exert quite a bit of pressure on state governments by denying access to federal funding for education (or, conversely, promising additional funding). However, this generally falls under the purview of Congress (acting through the Dept. of Education), and we all saw how well No Child Left Behind turned out once lobbyists got their grubby hands all over it. Secondarily, such intervention frequently constitutes overreaching of federal power in the eyes of conservatives. Let me try this again, what good things could the federal government possibly do for education? And I mean this as a serious question, not some rhetorical thing. Obviously the federal government can fuck it up. That's not really saying anything. It just seems that the real problem is these states and counties that don't value teachers or education at all. On June 22 2012 07:20 sam!zdat wrote: Right, so what you're saying is that certain ways the government might try to achieve social optimality would not be socially optimal. I have no idea what that means so I'm just going to agree. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On June 22 2012 06:40 DoubleReed wrote: No, that's not really the purpose at all. I think government should sometimes be used as a device to solve certain problems, but it's not up to the government to engineer the "proper" social ideal or anything. Let society do its thing. Let people do their thing. Government should just facilitate society, and serve as a foundation that let's it thrive. But it's not about optimizing society. That's more of a tyrannical concept than you might initially think. Certainly any libertarian (like xDaunt) would strongly disagree with you. Hell, I disagree with you, and I'm liberal. Liberal or libertarian is only a question of degree. Libertarians are very liberal. (yes you are democrat which is pretty close to socialist in europe in many ways!) I am not sure about what you mean when you say optimizing society since it is such a broad term. I would argue that optimizing society is exactly what you want no matter what political ideology you worship. Even though the measures and calculations changes it is still about reaching an optimal society. The degree of government involvement is always gonna be one of the most important features in your ideology. I would say that the degree of government involvement should be individual. Some needs a lot of government involvement (foodstamps, healthcare, education, roads and so on.). Others would hunt the thieving magpies out from their property with a shotgun and find it unfair that they have to pay for other people. In some countries universality is the choise because people get a more balanced view on their fellow countrymen when everyone can get a piece of the cake independent of income, while still having plenty ways of achieving economic advantages. In other countries it is the other way around, where people are treated individually and the possibility of claiming governmental support is 100 % determined from income and wealth to help the poor people the most to encourage as much selfsufficiency for people as possible. Both societies work to some degree, but neither of them works perfectly. Some will abuse both. Common for these societies are that they can only be optimal for a sub-group. The only question is: What sub-group are you part of? | ||
|
tadL
Croatia679 Posts
On June 22 2012 01:06 TheToast wrote: What? You do realize that by law all political contributions have to be reported as public data by the campaign and go into a publically searchable interent database. You can look up anyone who gave money to a campaign for any candidate in the 2008 presidential campaign. Failure to report such information would be very illegal and could get a campaign into major trouble. wrong, you now dont even have to inform. cause the guy who gives money decides if he wants that this is happen. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 22 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote: I have no idea what that means so I'm just going to agree. You don't? You're saying that you wouldn't want to live in a society in which the government tried to control things in certain ways that you think would be tyrannical. This is consistent with my claim that the purpose of government is to create social optimality, because you are saying that tyranny is not socially optimal, which is something I would agree with. Therefore, my claim is not tyrannical, as you claimed, because your objection to the claim was based on a conception of tyranny as not being socially optimal! Your idea of an optimal society is one in which "it does it's thing." This is a value judgment! Everybody makes value judgments all the time. Anybody who claims that anything is going to operate without value judgments is either confused or disingenuous. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 22 2012 08:17 sam!zdat wrote: You don't? You're saying that you wouldn't want to live in a society in which the government tried to control things in certain ways that you think would be tyrannical. This is consistent with my claim that the purpose of government is to create social optimality, because you are saying that tyranny is not socially optimal, which is something I would agree with. Therefore, my claim is not tyrannical, as you claimed, because your objection to the claim was based on a conception of tyranny as not being socially optimal! Your idea of an optimal society is one in which "it does it's thing." This is a value judgment! Everybody makes value judgments all the time. Anybody who claims that anything is going to operate without value judgments is either confused or disingenuous. Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal? Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization. And additionally keep in mind that we already established I don't believe in utopia. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On June 22 2012 08:17 sam!zdat wrote: You don't? You're saying that you wouldn't want to live in a society in which the government tried to control things in certain ways that you think would be tyrannical. This is consistent with my claim that the purpose of government is to create social optimality, because you are saying that tyranny is not socially optimal, which is something I would agree with. Therefore, my claim is not tyrannical, as you claimed, because your objection to the claim was based on a conception of tyranny as not being socially optimal! Your idea of an optimal society is one in which "it does it's thing." This is a value judgment! Everybody makes value judgments all the time. Anybody who claims that anything is going to operate without value judgments is either confused or disingenuous. I realize that I am invoking Godwin's Law, but for the sake of discussing what efficiency in governing looks like its worth the cliche. Based on any sort of realistic, grounded measure of efficiency in governance, there are two shining examples of supremely efficient government that stand out amongst the others in terms of scope of effect. The rise of the Third Reich and the hordes of Genghis Khan may seem dissimilar at first, but in terms of "getting things done" as an oversimplified qualifier, they showed the world what happens when no one argues, no one protests, and everyone wants to play ball. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 22 2012 07:35 DoubleReed wrote: Let me try this again, what good things could the federal government possibly do for education? And I mean this as a serious question, not some rhetorical thing. Obviously the federal government can fuck it up. That's not really saying anything. It just seems that the real problem is these states and counties that don't value teachers or education at all. I don't think it's a coincidence that we have a highly decentralized education system compared to most other first world nations, while simultaneously performing comparatively poorly (below average in math/science and very low high school graduation rates). The true causative variable is open to speculation, but I would venture a guess that religion plays a signficant role in this. States with a higher percentage of Christian adherents perform worse academically (in addition to higher divorce and teen pregancy rates), and a lot of conservatives who favor local/state/private schools and homeschooling are motivated by religious reasons. It doesn't take a leap of logic to understand why things like trying to put creationism in classrooms might have negative consequences for math/science learning. So to answer your question, I think the biggest positive thing federal government can do for education is to play a bigger role in keeping religion out of the classroom. We're doing something really wrong when less than half of Americans understand that humans evolved rather than were created. Another major issue it can do is address compulsory education requirements: not all states require education until age 18 (some end it as early as age 14), with the expected effects on education. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22454 Posts
On June 22 2012 08:48 farvacola wrote: I realize that I am invoking Godwin's Law, but for the sake of discussing what efficiency in governing looks like its worth the cliche. Based on any sort of realistic, grounded measure of efficiency in governance, there are two shining examples of supremely efficient government that stand out amongst the others in terms of scope of effect. The rise of the Third Reich and the hordes of Genghis Khan may seem dissimilar at first, but in terms of "getting things done" as an oversimplified qualifier, they showed the world what happens when no one argues, no one protests, and everyone wants to play ball. The most effective form of goverment is imo a benevolent dictarship. Tobad they dont really exist. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On June 22 2012 08:55 sunprince wrote: I don't think it's a coincidence that we have a highly decentralized education system compared to most other first world nations, while simultaneously performing comparatively poorly (below average in math/science and very low high school graduation rates). The true causative variable is open to speculation, but I would venture a guess that religion plays a signficant role in this. States with a higher percentage of Christian adherents perform worse academically (in addition to higher divorce and teen pregancy rates), and a lot of conservatives who favor local/state/private schools and homeschooling are motivated by religious reasons. It doesn't take a leap of logic to understand why things like trying to put creationism in classrooms might have negative consequences for math/science learning. So to answer your question, I think the biggest positive thing federal government can do for education is to play a bigger role in keeping religion out of the classroom. I'd say that's definitely a good place to start, but it only addresses the issue in part. Religion is one of a host of cultural factors that have led to a fundamental distrust of "expertise" in the United States. Medical science says vaccines are reliably safe and a necessary part of a healthy population? Screw that, I heard it gives your children autism from Jenny McCarthy, I'm gonna go with that. 95% of climate/environmental scientists describe global warming as a real problem? Well, what about this one article I read online where it clearly references a number of intelligent people who think its all a sham. There are clear systemic patterns of evolutionary influence on special makeup and environmental adaptation? Well I've grown up believing that the Earth is 6000 years old, I'm gonna stick with that. These are not unusual trains of thought, and the internet is to blame as well. With Wikipedia at your fingertips, unguided and singular access to information of all kinds tricks people into thinking difficult problems are as easy to solve as looking shit up, and the value inherent in devoting time and effort into truly understanding something is fading away. Theres some great stuff by Michael Polanyi about how the foundation of science is trust above all else, in that everything we know is part of a massive web of trust exchanges. The current temperament of the American population would scare the shit out of him. | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On June 22 2012 03:26 RCMDVA wrote: Uh. And you think we haven't? Lockheed Martin? Boeing? General Dynamics? Northrop Grumman? Raytheon? Ever hear of those guys? Do you want to even begin to compare those guys to a state-owned militrary company like in China or Russia? Sure, contractors are great(at overcharging), but who do you think pays for this military hardware? The free market? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization. My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question). Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal? I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 22 2012 08:48 farvacola wrote: I realize that I am invoking Godwin's Law, but for the sake of discussing what efficiency in governing looks like its worth the cliche. Based on any sort of realistic, grounded measure of efficiency in governance, there are two shining examples of supremely efficient government that stand out amongst the others in terms of scope of effect. The rise of the Third Reich and the hordes of Genghis Khan may seem dissimilar at first, but in terms of "getting things done" as an oversimplified qualifier, they showed the world what happens when no one argues, no one protests, and everyone wants to play ball. I'm confused. We were talking about optimality, not efficiency. The two may be related, but they are not necessarily identical. edit: And purely for the sake of pedantry, you are not invoking Godwin's Law but providing an instance of it  (is "instance" the right term w/r/t laws?) | ||
|
SkyCrawler
United States69 Posts
On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote: My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question). I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. Perhaps instead of "the goal of government is for social optimization" it should be "the goal of government is social optimization for it's constituents." For example the goal of a democratically elected government is for the social optimization of its citizens. The goal of a dictatorship is to mold society to whats optimal for the dictator. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote: The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus." | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote: My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question). I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. Uhh... no. There may not be an optimal society. I withhold that belief to begin with. So you don't even get that far, and you don't get any incoherence. It's basically an illegitimate question to be asking. Technically that position is not incoherent at all, though, because you're assuming it's the government's role to optimize society, which again I disagree with. For instance, I could say it's the private sector's role to optimize society, and then my position would be perfectly coherent. Your position is tautological and circular, which is why breaking down any specific points has these sorts of issues. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
CranKy Ducklings
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Jaedong
YSC vs hero
SC Evo League
ByuN vs Classic
Cure vs Solar
IPSL
Dragon vs Ret
Patches Events
RSL Revival
Solar vs Rogue
Maru vs NightMare
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
Bonyth vs Hawk
GSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
