5 ms·

I think this a lot about our politics now, we seem to want to tear down all the institutions and values that got us here.

mschuster91 5y ago
> we seem to want to tear down all the institutions and values that got us here. Strike a "we", replace by "rich elites". "Small government" means in practice that most of what governments are doing now with taxpayer money at no-profit will be done by private for-profit companies, at a worse service level, or that regulations/regulatory agencies will be torn down. For the first, just look at private prisons - make a lot of profit for their owners, while the level of care for the prisoners (access to healthcare, drug withdrawal treatment or education is often spotty, human rights abuse claims the norm). For the second, look at how e.g. environment regulations were "relaxed" during the 45th. It's all about the grifting opportunities.
- brigandish 5y ago
  Sorry to invoke a No True Scotsman here but if you ask an advocate of truly small government (of which I am one) I very much doubt private prisons would be an example they’d accept as a fair representation of their position. The expansion of criminal law is often in pursuit of and to justify growing government and its reach. By all means end private prisons, they’re only needed at that scale because big government is violating its position and the rights of citizens by criminalising actions it should have no part in.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    "The purpose of a system is what it does". Maybe you didn't mean for your position to lead to private prisons. But it does, anyway, and that is all that matters.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      Contracting out the running of prisons by the government is a recent innovation[1]. Are we to say that government was historically small in 1983 and has remained small and then notice that somehow there are more private prisons in the US now? That's not a description I'd want to defend. The US is also not the only place where prisons are private[2], there's the southern hemisphere's Sweden a.k.a. big government paradise, and it has a private prison. To say either "public" or "private" and ascribe some sort of good or bad to them without providing any reasoning is presumptuous in the least, but to then tell someone what their actual position is - in your view - after making such a presumption would only be to compound an error. I know what I meant, try to focus on what you mean and fixing that before mischaracterising my views again, thank you. [1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/history-of-americas-private-prison-industry-timeline/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/history-of-amer... [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/critical-look-private-prisons-overseas https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/crit...
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        You claim to know what you meant, but that isn't clearly the case. GP's post was short and to the point. Your posts are long and confusing. We do have private prisons. As you note, they started under Reagan, in response to Reagan's "anti-crime" policies. Reagan is notorious for claiming to support small government and balanced budgets while actually spending us deep into deficit in order to purchase boondoggles. How are your preferences different than Reagan's?
        brigandish 5y ago
        > Your posts are long and confusing What’s the average length of a post on HN and where does that post stand? > How are your preferences different than Reagan's? You just stated that he acted contrary to his claims, if your position is that I say I’m for small government but wish to spend, spend, spend, then I can see why you’re confused. Try dropping the assumption I’m lying, the principle of charity is a wonderful thing. More to the point, as you are confused by sarcasm in the service of proof by contradiction, I’ll rephrase: Would you claim that the government was historically small in 1983? Is today’s government smaller or bigger? How do both of your answers correlate with the increasing number of private prisons? Finally, since your answers should be no, bigger, and bigger government correlates with more private prisons, what on Earth are you on about?
- dagw 5y ago
  Strike a "we", replace by "rich elites". I don't agree. My 'poor' leftie friends are all about tearing shit down, while most 'rich' people I know are pretty happy with the way things are, wanting only to make small tweaks here and there.
  - corobo 5y ago
    Yeah rich people are (usually) Tories, also known as "Conservatives" here in the UK
dpwm 5y ago
This was at least an observed property of some modern reformers in 1929: > In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence
- loceng 5y ago
  In Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, Jordan Peterson dedicates the first chapter/rule to this: "Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement."
  - loceng 5y ago
    Really confused by the initial -4 votes on this comment... If that's not sufficient proof downvotes are misused..
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

mschuster91 5y ago

> we seem to want to tear down all the institutions and values that got us here. Strike a "we", replace by "rich elites". "Small government" means in practice that most of what governments are doing now with taxpayer money at no-profit will be done by private for-profit companies, at a worse service level, or that regulations/regulatory agencies will be torn down. For the first, just look at private prisons - make a lot of profit for their owners, while the level of care for the prisoners (access to healthcare, drug withdrawal treatment or education is often spotty, human rights abuse claims the norm). For the second, look at how e.g. environment regulations were "relaxed" during the 45th. It's all about the grifting opportunities.

brigandish 5y ago
Sorry to invoke a No True Scotsman here but if you ask an advocate of truly small government (of which I am one) I very much doubt private prisons would be an example they’d accept as a fair representation of their position. The expansion of criminal law is often in pursuit of and to justify growing government and its reach. By all means end private prisons, they’re only needed at that scale because big government is violating its position and the rights of citizens by criminalising actions it should have no part in.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  "The purpose of a system is what it does". Maybe you didn't mean for your position to lead to private prisons. But it does, anyway, and that is all that matters.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    Contracting out the running of prisons by the government is a recent innovation[1]. Are we to say that government was historically small in 1983 and has remained small and then notice that somehow there are more private prisons in the US now? That's not a description I'd want to defend. The US is also not the only place where prisons are private[2], there's the southern hemisphere's Sweden a.k.a. big government paradise, and it has a private prison. To say either "public" or "private" and ascribe some sort of good or bad to them without providing any reasoning is presumptuous in the least, but to then tell someone what their actual position is - in your view - after making such a presumption would only be to compound an error. I know what I meant, try to focus on what you mean and fixing that before mischaracterising my views again, thank you. [1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/history-of-americas-private-prison-industry-timeline/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/history-of-amer... [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/critical-look-private-prisons-overseas https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/crit...
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      You claim to know what you meant, but that isn't clearly the case. GP's post was short and to the point. Your posts are long and confusing. We do have private prisons. As you note, they started under Reagan, in response to Reagan's "anti-crime" policies. Reagan is notorious for claiming to support small government and balanced budgets while actually spending us deep into deficit in order to purchase boondoggles. How are your preferences different than Reagan's?
      - brigandish 5y ago
        > Your posts are long and confusing What’s the average length of a post on HN and where does that post stand? > How are your preferences different than Reagan's? You just stated that he acted contrary to his claims, if your position is that I say I’m for small government but wish to spend, spend, spend, then I can see why you’re confused. Try dropping the assumption I’m lying, the principle of charity is a wonderful thing. More to the point, as you are confused by sarcasm in the service of proof by contradiction, I’ll rephrase: Would you claim that the government was historically small in 1983? Is today’s government smaller or bigger? How do both of your answers correlate with the increasing number of private prisons? Finally, since your answers should be no, bigger, and bigger government correlates with more private prisons, what on Earth are you on about?
dagw 5y ago
Strike a "we", replace by "rich elites". I don't agree. My 'poor' leftie friends are all about tearing shit down, while most 'rich' people I know are pretty happy with the way things are, wanting only to make small tweaks here and there.
- corobo 5y ago
  Yeah rich people are (usually) Tories, also known as "Conservatives" here in the UK

dpwm 5y ago

This was at least an observed property of some modern reformers in 1929: > In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence

loceng 5y ago
In Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, Jordan Peterson dedicates the first chapter/rule to this: "Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement."
- loceng 5y ago
  Really confused by the initial -4 votes on this comment... If that's not sufficient proof downvotes are misused..
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]