3 ms·

“so do I get to make sweeping generalization about those states based on that” If you did, that would be just as meaningless. Why do you want to make sweeping

by zepto 6y ago

“so do I get to make sweeping generalization about those states based on that” If you did, that would be just as meaningless. Why do you want to make sweeping generalizations? What’s your point? There exists an island nation of ~5 million is better run than many parts America but worse than the best parts? What generalization do you seriously think you can make from that?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
robocat 6y ago
My original point is “The problem is there is no better” is a defeatist attitude: there is a lot better. Every other country in the world manages to model their own policies by using other countries of smaller or larger size, that have wildly different societies and governance. Each state government in the United States holds legal and administrative jurisdiction within its bounds, yet somehow US states are special, and other countries have nothing worthwhile copying. Almost every time someone says that other countries manage to do something better, the same tired canards are brought out in attack, usually with the undercurrent of “USA #1”, therefore any other way of doing things is wrong or inapplicable. I don’t normally argue the point, because the counter-arguments like yours are so predictable and so spectacularly irrelevant. You mentioned Covid. Watching the arc of excuses made by citizens of the US has been a black comedy: it started with excuses about how China managed to control Covid, it moved on to different excuses when some other Asian countries managed low death counts, then the excuses changed again once some first world countries got their shit together. The underlying premise was “USA #1” therefore if another country is doing better then let’s pipe up with a irrelevant excuse meme. The pattern is tragically hilarious.
- zepto 6y ago
  “The problem is there is no better” is a defeatist attitude: there is a lot better. Not really for a 350m region. You don’t need to go outside the US to be able to contrast two different regions of 5 million people. Showing that some administrative groups of 5 million have better outcomes than others does nothing to explain how to run a state of 350m in a better way. You have offered us nothing of explanatory value, merely a statistically obvious observation. My “counter argument” is predictable because it’s pointing out a predictable flaw I’m what you are saying. Ignoring it doesn’t make it less true. If you understand the causes of NZ’s better than average governance, and can also explain why it underperforms some states, then why not offer an explanation? If you can’t offer explanations, then perhaps that tells us something.
  - robocat 6y ago
    I wasn’t clear about an underlying assumption: I thought it was obvious the topic is corruption at the state level, and my arguments revolve around whether the state of California can do better... I am not arguing anything about the USA as a whole. California could compare itself with other countries and improve some of its governance. I believe that a major roadblock to that path is the ambiance of American excellence, that blinkers the sight of citizens to solutions found in other parts of the world. Individually, there are many citizens with a suitable social wealth that could choose to have a demonstrable effect upon the governance of their state. Keep an open mind, try to avoid memes of mindless arguments, make an effort to improve your own governance, and if all else fails if you are technically wealthy you could always move to a country that has better social wealth. California is the largest state on many important metrics, so usually it is comparing against other states that are much smaller on those metrics. I believe the size of New Zealand is not a reason to ridicule any comparison (zepto’s original answer “argued” that the size of NZ matters, which I feel is an evasion).
    - zepto 6y ago
      California isn’t an independent country, so it can’t just adopt arbitrary solutions from other countries. Even if it could, there is an assumption you are making that you can identify what ‘solutions’ led to particular results and can simply adopt them. That certainly doesn’t seem to be a valid assumption about how governance works globally. Also ‘California’ isn’t a person. ‘It’ can’t compare itself to anything. Individual Californians can make whatever comparisons they like, and so can politicans and other leaders. Do you have something to offer about what they might want to look at that would help them? Do you even have an understanding of the problems? It seems like not everyone would agree on what they are. Otherwise it just seems like your position is essentially just a claim that because there is another country that you think is run better, there are some ideas that you don’t actually understand yourself, that could help. Edit: you added a paragraph to your comment after I posted my reply. Please don’t do this as it can look like you are trying to change the context of the reply, which would be a dishonest move. You added > I believe the size of New Zealand is not a reason to ridicule any comparison (zepto’s original answer “argued” that the size of NZ matters, which I feel is an evasion) You say you ‘feel’ it’s an ‘evasion’ which is a way of dismissing this comment without addressing it. If you think the comparison is valid then why not tell us what could California or the US adopt from NZ that would make things better? If you don’t know, then what’s the point of the comparison, other than a kind of vague nationalism? Edit 2: oh - I see you have changed a whole bunch of things about your earlier comments to make it look as though you made points that I failed to respond to. You are completely intellectually dishonest and as such have nothing to offer to political discourse about corruption.

by zepto 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

robocat 6y ago

My original point is “The problem is there is no better” is a defeatist attitude: there is a lot better. Every other country in the world manages to model their own policies by using other countries of smaller or larger size, that have wildly different societies and governance. Each state government in the United States holds legal and administrative jurisdiction within its bounds, yet somehow US states are special, and other countries have nothing worthwhile copying. Almost every time someone says that other countries manage to do something better, the same tired canards are brought out in attack, usually with the undercurrent of “USA #1”, therefore any other way of doing things is wrong or inapplicable. I don’t normally argue the point, because the counter-arguments like yours are so predictable and so spectacularly irrelevant. You mentioned Covid. Watching the arc of excuses made by citizens of the US has been a black comedy: it started with excuses about how China managed to control Covid, it moved on to different excuses when some other Asian countries managed low death counts, then the excuses changed again once some first world countries got their shit together. The underlying premise was “USA #1” therefore if another country is doing better then let’s pipe up with a irrelevant excuse meme. The pattern is tragically hilarious.

zepto 6y ago
“The problem is there is no better” is a defeatist attitude: there is a lot better. Not really for a 350m region. You don’t need to go outside the US to be able to contrast two different regions of 5 million people. Showing that some administrative groups of 5 million have better outcomes than others does nothing to explain how to run a state of 350m in a better way. You have offered us nothing of explanatory value, merely a statistically obvious observation. My “counter argument” is predictable because it’s pointing out a predictable flaw I’m what you are saying. Ignoring it doesn’t make it less true. If you understand the causes of NZ’s better than average governance, and can also explain why it underperforms some states, then why not offer an explanation? If you can’t offer explanations, then perhaps that tells us something.
- robocat 6y ago
  I wasn’t clear about an underlying assumption: I thought it was obvious the topic is corruption at the state level, and my arguments revolve around whether the state of California can do better... I am not arguing anything about the USA as a whole. California could compare itself with other countries and improve some of its governance. I believe that a major roadblock to that path is the ambiance of American excellence, that blinkers the sight of citizens to solutions found in other parts of the world. Individually, there are many citizens with a suitable social wealth that could choose to have a demonstrable effect upon the governance of their state. Keep an open mind, try to avoid memes of mindless arguments, make an effort to improve your own governance, and if all else fails if you are technically wealthy you could always move to a country that has better social wealth. California is the largest state on many important metrics, so usually it is comparing against other states that are much smaller on those metrics. I believe the size of New Zealand is not a reason to ridicule any comparison (zepto’s original answer “argued” that the size of NZ matters, which I feel is an evasion).
  - zepto 6y ago
    California isn’t an independent country, so it can’t just adopt arbitrary solutions from other countries. Even if it could, there is an assumption you are making that you can identify what ‘solutions’ led to particular results and can simply adopt them. That certainly doesn’t seem to be a valid assumption about how governance works globally. Also ‘California’ isn’t a person. ‘It’ can’t compare itself to anything. Individual Californians can make whatever comparisons they like, and so can politicans and other leaders. Do you have something to offer about what they might want to look at that would help them? Do you even have an understanding of the problems? It seems like not everyone would agree on what they are. Otherwise it just seems like your position is essentially just a claim that because there is another country that you think is run better, there are some ideas that you don’t actually understand yourself, that could help. Edit: you added a paragraph to your comment after I posted my reply. Please don’t do this as it can look like you are trying to change the context of the reply, which would be a dishonest move. You added > I believe the size of New Zealand is not a reason to ridicule any comparison (zepto’s original answer “argued” that the size of NZ matters, which I feel is an evasion) You say you ‘feel’ it’s an ‘evasion’ which is a way of dismissing this comment without addressing it. If you think the comparison is valid then why not tell us what could California or the US adopt from NZ that would make things better? If you don’t know, then what’s the point of the comparison, other than a kind of vague nationalism? Edit 2: oh - I see you have changed a whole bunch of things about your earlier comments to make it look as though you made points that I failed to respond to. You are completely intellectually dishonest and as such have nothing to offer to political discourse about corruption.