3 ms·

I regret using a culture war issue as my example because this is the exact opposite of my point. Even things far afield of the culture war are coming down to ba

I regret using a culture war issue as my example because this is the exact opposite of my point. Even things far afield of the culture war are coming down to basic beliefs. Look at something as obviously beneficial and technocratic as Obama's Net Neutrality rules. No one disagrees that a neutral web is better but those got torn down because people fundamentally believe the government is incompetent and can't be trusted with regulation. Look at Obamacare. Most health policy wonks see it as a pretty tame attempt to fix some issues with insurance and most people support mandatory coverage for preexisiting conditions. But it's been constantly on the defensive as government interference in free markets despite attempts in it to create a more transparent insurance market. My wealthy suburb of Seattle attempted to block light rail despite desperate need for transit essentially because they basically don't like and don't want public transit. They don't see it as a social good. People who want drug policy changes have tried to pass every reform you can think of and by and large it hasn't really mattered how minor or radical it is. The rhetoric against reform is the same whether we're talking about recreation marijuana, safe injection sites or decriminalization. There is a segment that believe using anything other than the boot of the law upon offenders is enabling and will degrade society. And there is a segment of society that believe drug abuse isn't a moral flaw but a health concern. Again, that's a belief stemming out of values and nothing else. To your example, there are many places where public day care would be extremely controversial because people just don't believe in taxes nor the government taking care of kids. They are already often skeptical of public schools. Frankly, the main difference between Colorado in 2012 and 2018 is probably more to do with demographic shifts than how "radial" the policy is. In a nutshell I'm saying, all of it, everything comes down to these basic beliefs. There can be no conversation about what the government do if one side believes the government should be trusted with nothing. There can be no conversation about what we should do with tax dollars if one side believes there should be no taxes. There can be no conversation about how to reform drug policy if one side only believes in strict punishment.

eldavido 6y ago
I'm going to nitpick here a bit because I think it demonstrates a larger point. Net neutrality is far from a "technocratic" issue. In many countries, media companies like facebook or Netflix do partnerships with mobile phone operators where the two agree that use of Netflix doesn't count against a user's quota. Netflix wins because they get more customer use, the operator creates a more compelling offering, and the customer wins because they get a better deal. This is called zero-rating and it flies in the face of net neutrality. There's also the fundamental issue of ownership - if someone owns the cables, why can't they set the rules? Especially in situations where ISPs can compete? And really, do you want yet another set of regulations set in stone, by a body like the FCC, that's vulnerable to regulatory capture in how it interprets and enforces net neutrality? Can you even define "net neutrality" in terms clear enough for a regulator to enforce? Point being, it's not just about basic beliefs. There are substantive policy disagreements that don't arise purely from social differences. Sure, there are some people who just don't like transit. Maybe others think it's wasteful. Did you see New York spent 2.5 billion dollars to build less than two miles of subway recently? Reasonable people can disagree on whether that was a good use of money. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  I never said those fundamental beliefs were baseless. Just that generally people aren't viewing these things as trade-offs. You believe the government shouldn't be trusted with regulation and that it wastes too much money when doing transit. That's fine. You can site examples that validate those basic beliefs and I'm sure someone could site some that invalidate them. But whether you think those examples are an exception or the rule largely comes down to your values. Is this true of absolutely everyone, no. The Cato Institute produced a health plan similar to Obamacare after all. Yes, there is a small group of policy wonkish people that get off on this stuff but I don't think it's the majority. Edit: btw if my point seems to dismiss people's opinions I mean exactly the opposite. IMO posts like this say "if we could just sit down, we could see eye to eye and find compromise". But I think what they really think is, "if we could just talk, I could resolve their information deficit and they'd come my way a little". I think that's condescending honestly and underestimates how much people believe they have thought their beliefs through, how much evidence they believe thwy have observed and how invested they are in those beliefs.
mistermann 6y ago
> To your example, there are many places where public day care would be extremely controversial because people just don't believe in taxes nor the government taking care of kids. They are already often skeptical of public schools. Frankly, the main difference between Colorado in 2012 and 2018 is probably more to do with demographic shifts than how "radial" the policy is. > In a nutshell I'm saying, all of it, everything comes down to these basic beliefs. There can be no conversation about what the government do if one side believes the government should be trusted with nothing. There can be no conversation about what we should do with tax dollars if one side believes there should be no taxes. There can be no conversation about how to reform drug policy if one side only believes in strict punishment. I wonder how true memes like this really are. Indeed, various statistics and observations of what people literally say can easily lead one to form this sort of conclusion, without being terribly unreasonable. However....if one had the means of sitting down with literally each individual in these groups for a very long, non-combative heart to heart discussion, would one find that the heuristic estimates of them are completely bang on, or might there be some noteworthy differential between how we perceive people to be, and how they really are (or could be after some high quality discussion)?
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  Good point. A lot of this is my personal impression from lots of political conversations. But there are a few known interesting facts. 1 People know their party's policy positions more than any other time in modern history 2 Legislators vote more along their party lines than at any point in history 3 People split ticket and switch votes less than any time One partially confounding fact to my thesis here is that 4 People "identify" less with a party than at any time in history
  - mistermann 6y ago
    I sometimes wonder if there is an unseen fundamental problem (or many problems) hiding somewhere that we don't realize exists, and as a result we end up attributing the cause of our problems to what may often be red herrings. After all, many far more reasonable approaches (incremental improvements, at least) to many things are usually fairly obvious, and I suspect most people wouldn't really be opposed to it (if one was to sit down and have a serious conversation about it that truly addresses their nuanced concerns)...and yet, decade after decade we seem to make little forward progress (or at least, "not enough" - see: BLM), while a collective feeling of confident, "righteous" frustration and rage with those "on" "the other side" (on both sides) builds. The whole thing seems rather paradoxical, which to me is suggestive that we may indeed be missing something important in our system analysis.

eldavido 6y ago

I'm going to nitpick here a bit because I think it demonstrates a larger point. Net neutrality is far from a "technocratic" issue. In many countries, media companies like facebook or Netflix do partnerships with mobile phone operators where the two agree that use of Netflix doesn't count against a user's quota. Netflix wins because they get more customer use, the operator creates a more compelling offering, and the customer wins because they get a better deal. This is called zero-rating and it flies in the face of net neutrality. There's also the fundamental issue of ownership - if someone owns the cables, why can't they set the rules? Especially in situations where ISPs can compete? And really, do you want yet another set of regulations set in stone, by a body like the FCC, that's vulnerable to regulatory capture in how it interprets and enforces net neutrality? Can you even define "net neutrality" in terms clear enough for a regulator to enforce? Point being, it's not just about basic beliefs. There are substantive policy disagreements that don't arise purely from social differences. Sure, there are some people who just don't like transit. Maybe others think it's wasteful. Did you see New York spent 2.5 billion dollars to build less than two miles of subway recently? Reasonable people can disagree on whether that was a good use of money. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

DubiousPusher 6y ago
I never said those fundamental beliefs were baseless. Just that generally people aren't viewing these things as trade-offs. You believe the government shouldn't be trusted with regulation and that it wastes too much money when doing transit. That's fine. You can site examples that validate those basic beliefs and I'm sure someone could site some that invalidate them. But whether you think those examples are an exception or the rule largely comes down to your values. Is this true of absolutely everyone, no. The Cato Institute produced a health plan similar to Obamacare after all. Yes, there is a small group of policy wonkish people that get off on this stuff but I don't think it's the majority. Edit: btw if my point seems to dismiss people's opinions I mean exactly the opposite. IMO posts like this say "if we could just sit down, we could see eye to eye and find compromise". But I think what they really think is, "if we could just talk, I could resolve their information deficit and they'd come my way a little". I think that's condescending honestly and underestimates how much people believe they have thought their beliefs through, how much evidence they believe thwy have observed and how invested they are in those beliefs.

mistermann 6y ago

> To your example, there are many places where public day care would be extremely controversial because people just don't believe in taxes nor the government taking care of kids. They are already often skeptical of public schools. Frankly, the main difference between Colorado in 2012 and 2018 is probably more to do with demographic shifts than how "radial" the policy is. > In a nutshell I'm saying, all of it, everything comes down to these basic beliefs. There can be no conversation about what the government do if one side believes the government should be trusted with nothing. There can be no conversation about what we should do with tax dollars if one side believes there should be no taxes. There can be no conversation about how to reform drug policy if one side only believes in strict punishment. I wonder how true memes like this really are. Indeed, various statistics and observations of what people literally say can easily lead one to form this sort of conclusion, without being terribly unreasonable. However....if one had the means of sitting down with literally each individual in these groups for a very long, non-combative heart to heart discussion, would one find that the heuristic estimates of them are completely bang on, or might there be some noteworthy differential between how we perceive people to be, and how they really are (or could be after some high quality discussion)?

DubiousPusher 6y ago
Good point. A lot of this is my personal impression from lots of political conversations. But there are a few known interesting facts. 1 People know their party's policy positions more than any other time in modern history 2 Legislators vote more along their party lines than at any point in history 3 People split ticket and switch votes less than any time One partially confounding fact to my thesis here is that 4 People "identify" less with a party than at any time in history
- mistermann 6y ago
  I sometimes wonder if there is an unseen fundamental problem (or many problems) hiding somewhere that we don't realize exists, and as a result we end up attributing the cause of our problems to what may often be red herrings. After all, many far more reasonable approaches (incremental improvements, at least) to many things are usually fairly obvious, and I suspect most people wouldn't really be opposed to it (if one was to sit down and have a serious conversation about it that truly addresses their nuanced concerns)...and yet, decade after decade we seem to make little forward progress (or at least, "not enough" - see: BLM), while a collective feeling of confident, "righteous" frustration and rage with those "on" "the other side" (on both sides) builds. The whole thing seems rather paradoxical, which to me is suggestive that we may indeed be missing something important in our system analysis.