4 ms·

It's unproductive to discuss political labels. It's sufficient to say this is a case where regulation was helpful - as are most cases involving protecting commo

by highd 9y ago

It's unproductive to discuss political labels. It's sufficient to say this is a case where regulation was helpful - as are most cases involving protecting common resources. Issues are independent from each other. Continuing to discuss each point as it fits into the frameworks of the popular ideologies only serves to polarize when productive change requires unification.

fenomas 9y ago
This is a huge meta-issue that I wish people would watch out for. When one says "Libertarians are wrong about X", and someone answers (as several did here) that Libertarians don't necessarily believe X, you're not arguing about X but about the definition of the word "Libertarian". But all too often that argument can then continue indefinitely, with both parties thinking they're arguing about X, even though they may not actually disagree about anything except definitions of terms.
- highd 9y ago
  Exactly. Not to mention the inevitable "No true Scotsman!". This is the fundamental root of the degradation of political discourse over the past few decades, IMO. Conversations without labels I've found almost inevitably result in previously opposed party members finding common ground and shared paths to improvements. Policy discussion should revolve around 2 questions, IMO: 1) What should the world be like? 2) What could be done to make the world like we want? People will often find that different aspects of those two questions cut across party-line ideologies in surprising ways.
azinman2 9y ago
Which is why I said 'and their ilk', generally meaning people who want favor the market to make decisions instead of the government. We do have a political party in power who's promise is to remove regulations, __especially__ those involving common resources (including this very one on cars!), so it's not irrelevant point. I agree with you that labels create sides, but the reality is those that want labels (e.g. each respective party) attach their label to their causes and vocabulary. Regulations (and the abolishment of) is one that the right seems to want to claim.
- hueving 9y ago
  You just doubled down on labels. Way to miss the point. >generally meaning people who want favor the market to make decisions instead of the government People who favor no regulation aren't against all regulation. You see the difference, right? >Regulations (and the abolishment of) is one that the right seems to want to claim Show me where everyone on "the right" wants regulations gone. It's about as relevant of claiming that everyone on "the left" wants to throw the federal government deep into debt for a bunch of unfunded social programs because of Bernie's proposals.

by highd 9y ago

fenomas 9y ago

This is a huge meta-issue that I wish people would watch out for. When one says "Libertarians are wrong about X", and someone answers (as several did here) that Libertarians don't necessarily believe X, you're not arguing about X but about the definition of the word "Libertarian". But all too often that argument can then continue indefinitely, with both parties thinking they're arguing about X, even though they may not actually disagree about anything except definitions of terms.

highd 9y ago
Exactly. Not to mention the inevitable "No true Scotsman!". This is the fundamental root of the degradation of political discourse over the past few decades, IMO. Conversations without labels I've found almost inevitably result in previously opposed party members finding common ground and shared paths to improvements. Policy discussion should revolve around 2 questions, IMO: 1) What should the world be like? 2) What could be done to make the world like we want? People will often find that different aspects of those two questions cut across party-line ideologies in surprising ways.

azinman2 9y ago

Which is why I said 'and their ilk', generally meaning people who want favor the market to make decisions instead of the government. We do have a political party in power who's promise is to remove regulations, __especially__ those involving common resources (including this very one on cars!), so it's not irrelevant point. I agree with you that labels create sides, but the reality is those that want labels (e.g. each respective party) attach their label to their causes and vocabulary. Regulations (and the abolishment of) is one that the right seems to want to claim.

hueving 9y ago
You just doubled down on labels. Way to miss the point. >generally meaning people who want favor the market to make decisions instead of the government People who favor no regulation aren't against all regulation. You see the difference, right? >Regulations (and the abolishment of) is one that the right seems to want to claim Show me where everyone on "the right" wants regulations gone. It's about as relevant of claiming that everyone on "the left" wants to throw the federal government deep into debt for a bunch of unfunded social programs because of Bernie's proposals.