3 ms·

You are confounding two separate issues: Advocating and making decisions. The decisions are made by the elected government and legislative body. That doesn't me

You are confounding two separate issues: Advocating and making decisions. The decisions are made by the elected government and legislative body. That doesn't mean that knowledgeable people should not give their input. You comparison to armed services is misleading: Members of the armed services are sworn as representatives of the state. Being neutral on policy debates is part of their job. Scientists very much are not representatives of the state. They may get funding from the public, but they're not duty bound to be policy neutral. So they can quite well advocate that we totally should find a way to deflect the asteroid - it's just not up to them to decide. You're also misleading about the consent of the governed. The governed don't have to agree with every policy that the government institutes. Elected representatives are often only bound to their conscience and not to the direct will of the electorate. This may be hard to swallow in some instances, but the in your example the people that choose to ignore the asteroid have no right to also initiate the destruction of all those that don't agree. Btw: The arguments in the reason.com article you posted upstream about lies as part of lobbying campaigns have been refuted in the nytimes article quite well. Knowingly engaging in a dangerous activity and lying about the outcome does not deserve 1st amendment protection.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
I think you've missed it and I think you're going to continue to miss it so I'm not going to argue with you. The fact that you want to argue the merits of the Reason article here tells me that you've got skin in the game. Good luck to you and your cause. I will note that the issue the Reason article brings up -- using state AGs to prosecute people who publish research, even if it's fraudulent research, is very serious. It's also the exact flip-side of the complaint that congressman are subpoenaing things. It's not going to end well. What one side can do when they're in power, the other side can do when the tables are turned.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Of course, hypocrisy is no surprise: they think that they know best, and that the ends justify the means. It "doesn't deserve First Amendment protection" if they think it's incorrect, or if they think it won't help them achieve their policy goals. It's not censorship if it's in line with their cause. This is what happens when policy is made without principle, and down this path lies authoritarianism and suffering. Might-makes-right doesn't end well.
  - Xylakant 10y ago
    The issue at hand is not that one side thinks it's incorrect and because of that it doesn't deserve first amendment protection. The issue at hand is that allegedly - not proven yet, but there are strong indicators - Exxon mobiles scientists were aware of the dangers and despite their knowledge, Exxon mobile lobbied and lied about the issue. It's at least questionable if lying by a corporation to sell products and influence policy should be protected as free speech. Now, you could use a different line of lobbying: We're aware that using non-renewable carbon based energy sources are an issue, but they're the best we have and the benefits outweigh the costs. This wouldn't be lying despite better knowledge and certainly be protected. That would also be about policy decisions (what do we want and which risks do we accept) which is a valid target for lobbyism.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

I think you've missed it and I think you're going to continue to miss it so I'm not going to argue with you. The fact that you want to argue the merits of the Reason article here tells me that you've got skin in the game. Good luck to you and your cause. I will note that the issue the Reason article brings up -- using state AGs to prosecute people who publish research, even if it's fraudulent research, is very serious. It's also the exact flip-side of the complaint that congressman are subpoenaing things. It's not going to end well. What one side can do when they're in power, the other side can do when the tables are turned.

alphapapa 10y ago
Of course, hypocrisy is no surprise: they think that they know best, and that the ends justify the means. It "doesn't deserve First Amendment protection" if they think it's incorrect, or if they think it won't help them achieve their policy goals. It's not censorship if it's in line with their cause. This is what happens when policy is made without principle, and down this path lies authoritarianism and suffering. Might-makes-right doesn't end well.
- Xylakant 10y ago
  The issue at hand is not that one side thinks it's incorrect and because of that it doesn't deserve first amendment protection. The issue at hand is that allegedly - not proven yet, but there are strong indicators - Exxon mobiles scientists were aware of the dangers and despite their knowledge, Exxon mobile lobbied and lied about the issue. It's at least questionable if lying by a corporation to sell products and influence policy should be protected as free speech. Now, you could use a different line of lobbying: We're aware that using non-renewable carbon based energy sources are an issue, but they're the best we have and the benefits outweigh the costs. This wouldn't be lying despite better knowledge and certainly be protected. That would also be about policy decisions (what do we want and which risks do we accept) which is a valid target for lobbyism.