5 ms·

Whether or not this is a good strategy depends on how much damage will be caused and whether the subject is likely to actually make the connection between their

Whether or not this is a good strategy depends on how much damage will be caused and whether the subject is likely to actually make the connection between their choice and the harm it caused. A parenting analogy may be in order. Once I stopped my then 2yr old from walking over some broken glass, to her loud objection. It would have been stupid to allow even such impermanent injuries as bloody cuts on her feet in order to "teach her a lesson" that she would not actually have learned. In today’s economy, selling your university system for scrap is a horribly damaging move even for a well-populated state with a diverse economy. In Alaska it could be fatal.

magduf 7y ago
The problem with your parenting analogy is that we live under democratic systems, where the voters get to choose how to run things (indirectly, by electing representatives). The voters are all adults. If they want to do something utterly stupid, who's supposed to step in and stop them? Any person doing so would be acting in an anti-democratic manner; usually we deride such systems of government as "authoritarian". So unless there's some benevolent aliens that you're counting on to step in and save us from ourselves, it comes down to democracy vs. authoritarianism: do we let the voters choose to shoot themselves in the foot, or do we give all the power to some person or elite cabal and let them do what they think is best? I do agree that ruining your state university system is a bad move long-term, but if that's what the voters want, if you support democracy, you have to give it to them.
- velcrovan 7y ago
  A representative democracy, which is what we have, is a good middle ground. If the governor had campaigned on gutting the university in particular to achieve his goal, rather than on a vague promise of "more $" I might be more inclined to agree with you. As it is I think the responsible thing to do is for the legislature to override him on this if possible until the next election.
  - magduf 7y ago
    How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? Create it out of thin air? The voters got exactly what they voted for, and most likely they voted for legislators with the same views as the governor. You're right though: it is a pretty good middle ground. It results in a state/nation that operates more or less according to the wishes of its citizens. The citizens of Alaska want bigger oil dividends and don't care about university education, so that's exactly what they're getting. Of course, this doesn't mean the citizens are getting what's best for them, but they're getting what they think is best, and if that means disaster for them in the future, it's their own fault.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? They probably had no coherent picture of how that would happen, specific benefits with vague sacrifices is a pretty standard approach to political messaging.
      - magduf 7y ago
        Yes, but it's the voters' responsibility to understand this. They have no one to blame but themselves. Remember, we're adults now, we aren't children in a playground where we can call for adults to set things right when we screw up. The voters have the ultimate power to choose who runs the government, so the results are their own responsibility.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Yes, but it's the voters' responsibility to understand this Perhaps, but “X was responsible for understanding that this would be the consequence” and “X was aware that this would be the consequence and actively preferred it” are very different claims.
        magduf 7y ago
horsawlarway 7y ago
I feel like this is a pretty terrible analogy. The voting population of Alaska is comprised of adults. Not children to be parented. The structure of power between federal gov and states is explicitly designed to give states the freedom to experiment with different policies (the whole "Laboratories of democracy" thing). You think this cut will do lots of damage. The voting population in Alaska (or their duly elected representatives) believe otherwise. Given that there's no magic ball to tell you how this will work out, it's blatantly un-democratic to claim you know better than the voters. Instead we get to watch what happens to a university system when you cut the operating budget in half with little warning and no planning. --- My hypothesis is that it's going to go badly, but I'm not sure by any means. It could be that these drastic cuts force the university system to trim real administrative fat, it could force them to be creative with purchasing and contracting to cut costs. It could have no real impact whatsoever.

magduf 7y ago

The problem with your parenting analogy is that we live under democratic systems, where the voters get to choose how to run things (indirectly, by electing representatives). The voters are all adults. If they want to do something utterly stupid, who's supposed to step in and stop them? Any person doing so would be acting in an anti-democratic manner; usually we deride such systems of government as "authoritarian". So unless there's some benevolent aliens that you're counting on to step in and save us from ourselves, it comes down to democracy vs. authoritarianism: do we let the voters choose to shoot themselves in the foot, or do we give all the power to some person or elite cabal and let them do what they think is best? I do agree that ruining your state university system is a bad move long-term, but if that's what the voters want, if you support democracy, you have to give it to them.

velcrovan 7y ago
A representative democracy, which is what we have, is a good middle ground. If the governor had campaigned on gutting the university in particular to achieve his goal, rather than on a vague promise of "more $" I might be more inclined to agree with you. As it is I think the responsible thing to do is for the legislature to override him on this if possible until the next election.
- magduf 7y ago
  How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? Create it out of thin air? The voters got exactly what they voted for, and most likely they voted for legislators with the same views as the governor. You're right though: it is a pretty good middle ground. It results in a state/nation that operates more or less according to the wishes of its citizens. The citizens of Alaska want bigger oil dividends and don't care about university education, so that's exactly what they're getting. Of course, this doesn't mean the citizens are getting what's best for them, but they're getting what they think is best, and if that means disaster for them in the future, it's their own fault.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? They probably had no coherent picture of how that would happen, specific benefits with vague sacrifices is a pretty standard approach to political messaging.
    - magduf 7y ago
      Yes, but it's the voters' responsibility to understand this. They have no one to blame but themselves. Remember, we're adults now, we aren't children in a playground where we can call for adults to set things right when we screw up. The voters have the ultimate power to choose who runs the government, so the results are their own responsibility.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Yes, but it's the voters' responsibility to understand this Perhaps, but “X was responsible for understanding that this would be the consequence” and “X was aware that this would be the consequence and actively preferred it” are very different claims.
        magduf 7y ago

horsawlarway 7y ago

I feel like this is a pretty terrible analogy. The voting population of Alaska is comprised of adults. Not children to be parented. The structure of power between federal gov and states is explicitly designed to give states the freedom to experiment with different policies (the whole "Laboratories of democracy" thing). You think this cut will do lots of damage. The voting population in Alaska (or their duly elected representatives) believe otherwise. Given that there's no magic ball to tell you how this will work out, it's blatantly un-democratic to claim you know better than the voters. Instead we get to watch what happens to a university system when you cut the operating budget in half with little warning and no planning. --- My hypothesis is that it's going to go badly, but I'm not sure by any means. It could be that these drastic cuts force the university system to trim real administrative fat, it could force them to be creative with purchasing and contracting to cut costs. It could have no real impact whatsoever.