5 ms·

Instead of quibbling about the choice of means in social engineering, maybe the first question to consider is whether such interference is a legitimate power of

by mkempe 8y ago

Instead of quibbling about the choice of means in social engineering, maybe the first question to consider is whether such interference is a legitimate power of government.

ibeckermayer 8y ago
It is a legitimate power if the people who form the government consented to give the government the power to write zoning laws. The real question is — when did we consent to be governed by these dopes?
- mkempe 8y ago
  In the US zoning laws are an early-20th-century creation, initially ruled unconstitutional but eventually unleashed by the Supreme Court in 1926 under the cover of police power. [1] However police power was not conceived so broadly at the time the first 13 States consented to the US Constitution (zoning regulation would have been seen as covertly taking one's property without compensation). As for elections, they are not unusual; the crux is what kind of powers are properly delegated by the electoral body to people in this local/city government? unlimited use of zoning laws for any purpose? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Realty_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Re....
- cirgue 8y ago
  Vote in local elections. If you want your voice heard, you have to take the time to speak.
dragonwriter 8y ago
The question “is this a good way of serving the overt goal” is easier to answer without running into clashes of first principles than “is it a proper role of government to internalize externalities”. It may be the case that “do in office kitchens produce a net negative externality” may be as easy to answer as the first question, but it at least seems to me that the answer is less obvious.
- mkempe 8y ago
  False alternative. Maybe it is none of the city government's business whether a corporation provides on-premise food to their employees, regardless of what you may imagine consequences might or might not be to the aspirations of other people and corporations. However, if the standard is "internalize externalities" then anything goes. There would be no limits to interference by local government.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    I think you just illustrated my point that it is much easier to answer the question “is the proposed policy a reasonable way of acheiving the stated goal” without running into clashes of moral first principles than it is to answer “is the proposed policy a legitimate function or government”. Which answers your upthread question about why answer the former question without first addressing the latter question. > However, if the standard is "internalize externalities" I'm not saying that is the standard, I am saying that this policy can readily be rejected without even reaching that question.
    - mkempe 8y ago
      You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism -- the rejection of principles in the name of arguing about minutiae and acting on the range of the moment, refusing to consider first principles in the name of expediency. When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, on what products, or if there are easier ways to destroy free trade -- the proper question is: is that a legitimate power of the executive? (hint: it is not)
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism Thank you. > the rejection of principles Pragmatism does not in general, or here in particular, involve rejection of principles. It may reject arguing about abstract principles when there is a simpler and less divisive means of addressing an issue. > When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, on what products, or if there are easier ways to destroy free trade -- the proper question is: is that a legitimate power of the executive? (hint: it is not) We could argue all day about whether you are right or whether it is, despite not being a legitimate independent power of the executive under the Constitution, nevertheless a statutory power of the Executive under laws duly passed by Congress under unquestioned commerce clause power—this isn't regulating intrastate transactions that might distant impact interstate or foreign trade, but directly regulating foreign trade—and, as such, a legitimate executive power. Or we could just agree that it's an idiotic counterproductive policy regardless of whether or not it's within the President's legitimate scope of legal power.

by mkempe 8y ago

Instead of quibbling about the choice of means in social engineering, maybe the first question to consider is whether such interference is a legitimate power of government.

ibeckermayer 8y ago

It is a legitimate power if the people who form the government consented to give the government the power to write zoning laws. The real question is — when did we consent to be governed by these dopes?

mkempe 8y ago
In the US zoning laws are an early-20th-century creation, initially ruled unconstitutional but eventually unleashed by the Supreme Court in 1926 under the cover of police power. [1] However police power was not conceived so broadly at the time the first 13 States consented to the US Constitution (zoning regulation would have been seen as covertly taking one's property without compensation). As for elections, they are not unusual; the crux is what kind of powers are properly delegated by the electoral body to people in this local/city government? unlimited use of zoning laws for any purpose? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Realty_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Re....
cirgue 8y ago
Vote in local elections. If you want your voice heard, you have to take the time to speak.

dragonwriter 8y ago

The question “is this a good way of serving the overt goal” is easier to answer without running into clashes of first principles than “is it a proper role of government to internalize externalities”. It may be the case that “do in office kitchens produce a net negative externality” may be as easy to answer as the first question, but it at least seems to me that the answer is less obvious.

mkempe 8y ago
False alternative. Maybe it is none of the city government's business whether a corporation provides on-premise food to their employees, regardless of what you may imagine consequences might or might not be to the aspirations of other people and corporations. However, if the standard is "internalize externalities" then anything goes. There would be no limits to interference by local government.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  I think you just illustrated my point that it is much easier to answer the question “is the proposed policy a reasonable way of acheiving the stated goal” without running into clashes of moral first principles than it is to answer “is the proposed policy a legitimate function or government”. Which answers your upthread question about why answer the former question without first addressing the latter question. > However, if the standard is "internalize externalities" I'm not saying that is the standard, I am saying that this policy can readily be rejected without even reaching that question.
  - mkempe 8y ago
    You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism -- the rejection of principles in the name of arguing about minutiae and acting on the range of the moment, refusing to consider first principles in the name of expediency. When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, on what products, or if there are easier ways to destroy free trade -- the proper question is: is that a legitimate power of the executive? (hint: it is not)
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > You're providing a textbook example of pragmatism Thank you. > the rejection of principles Pragmatism does not in general, or here in particular, involve rejection of principles. It may reject arguing about abstract principles when there is a simpler and less divisive means of addressing an issue. > When Trump idiotically threatens tariffs on Canada and Germany, it should not be an opportunity to debate how much, on what products, or if there are easier ways to destroy free trade -- the proper question is: is that a legitimate power of the executive? (hint: it is not) We could argue all day about whether you are right or whether it is, despite not being a legitimate independent power of the executive under the Constitution, nevertheless a statutory power of the Executive under laws duly passed by Congress under unquestioned commerce clause power—this isn't regulating intrastate transactions that might distant impact interstate or foreign trade, but directly regulating foreign trade—and, as such, a legitimate executive power. Or we could just agree that it's an idiotic counterproductive policy regardless of whether or not it's within the President's legitimate scope of legal power.