3 ms·

"change things" vs "change things but ostensibly back to the way they were before". For instance, ruling against Roe v. Wade. Regardless of what you think of

"change things" vs "change things but ostensibly back to the way they were before". For instance, ruling against Roe v. Wade. Regardless of what you think of that, it, such a ruling was a deviation from the status quo. It was "changing things" as surely as the original ruling changed things.

thegrimmest 4y ago
Sure, or "we made a mistake changing things, let's put them back". It just depends on the timescales you consider when determining the status quo.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Putting things back where they were depends on our recollection of the past, which is imperfect and subject to various biases and confusion with myth. But even ignoring that, the circumstances of the present are different than the circumstances of the past so past laws won't work the same in the present as they did in the past. Even if you could perfectly replicate past laws in the present, you couldn't get the same effect out of those laws because the inputs (the state of society) have changed. Nobody can roll back the clock. What conservatives actually do in fact is propose ways to change things going into the future.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    > depends on our recollection of the past, which is imperfect We do have pretty good records to help us sort it out, especially for recent history. > the circumstances of the present are different than the circumstances of the past Surely some circumstances, such as human nature and social biology, have not changed. I'm not sure that "the state of society" is the primary differentiating factor in the effectiveness of laws, particularly laws relating to fundamental human behaviours like violence or reproduction.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > I'm not sure that "the state of society" is the primary differentiating factor in the effectiveness of laws, particularly laws relating to fundamental human behaviours like violence or reproduction. I think it is, since there is great cultural variation in the ways humans think about violence and sex. Monogamy or harems; human sacrifice or the abolition of the death penalty. Any combination of these can be "normal" to people raised in that context, there is little which is fundamental about the way human societies are structured with respect to these subjects.
      - thegrimmest 4y ago
        And yet, some things are near universally constant amongst large scale agrarian civilizations. For instance the confinement of violent criminals or the institution of marriage. You're right in that there is some variation, but there do actually seem to be some choices in this regard that are more conducive to a stable, prosperous, society. Just like there are many ways to run a company, but only some of them lead to success. Point being that if you live in such a society, "changing things" may lead you off the golden path that brought you where you are. It's true that some change is inevitable, but any operator of any system that prioritizes stability above all is always wary of any unnecessary change.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > And yet, some things are near universally constant amongst large scale agrarian civilizations. For instance the confinement of violent criminals Certainly not. Imprisonment for violent crimes is far from being a universal constant of human culture. There have been and are cultures in which violent criminals are only detained so they can be executed. Or beaten and then released. Or simply fined. Or not charged at all. What even counts as violent crime varies considerably even in developed countries today. Legal self-defense in one country may be murder in another. Similarly, marriage is only culturally universal in a very abstract sense. Who are you allowed to marry? How many consecutive marriages are you allowed to have? Under what conditions can a marriage be broken? Can you be sold for marriage against your will? > You're right in that there is some variation, but there do actually seem to be some choices in this regard that are more conducive to a stable, prosperous, society. Just like there are many ways to run a company, but only some of them lead to success. Point being that if you live in such a society, "changing things" may lead you off the golden path that brought you where you are. It's true that some change is inevitable, but any operator of any system that prioritizes stability above all is always wary of any unnecessary change. I agree. My point is that liberals, progressives, conservatives.. pretty much everybody except the most apathetic, seek to make a change to society to turn society in a direction they think will be for the better. Each have different value systems and experiences, and accordingly have different opinions about what's wrong in society and what would constitute society being better. Conservatives frame themselves as apart from this by saying they don't want change, but "not change" is itself a change they want to impose on society to bring society back into line with their values.

thegrimmest 4y ago

Sure, or "we made a mistake changing things, let's put them back". It just depends on the timescales you consider when determining the status quo.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Putting things back where they were depends on our recollection of the past, which is imperfect and subject to various biases and confusion with myth. But even ignoring that, the circumstances of the present are different than the circumstances of the past so past laws won't work the same in the present as they did in the past. Even if you could perfectly replicate past laws in the present, you couldn't get the same effect out of those laws because the inputs (the state of society) have changed. Nobody can roll back the clock. What conservatives actually do in fact is propose ways to change things going into the future.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  > depends on our recollection of the past, which is imperfect We do have pretty good records to help us sort it out, especially for recent history. > the circumstances of the present are different than the circumstances of the past Surely some circumstances, such as human nature and social biology, have not changed. I'm not sure that "the state of society" is the primary differentiating factor in the effectiveness of laws, particularly laws relating to fundamental human behaviours like violence or reproduction.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > I'm not sure that "the state of society" is the primary differentiating factor in the effectiveness of laws, particularly laws relating to fundamental human behaviours like violence or reproduction. I think it is, since there is great cultural variation in the ways humans think about violence and sex. Monogamy or harems; human sacrifice or the abolition of the death penalty. Any combination of these can be "normal" to people raised in that context, there is little which is fundamental about the way human societies are structured with respect to these subjects.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      And yet, some things are near universally constant amongst large scale agrarian civilizations. For instance the confinement of violent criminals or the institution of marriage. You're right in that there is some variation, but there do actually seem to be some choices in this regard that are more conducive to a stable, prosperous, society. Just like there are many ways to run a company, but only some of them lead to success. Point being that if you live in such a society, "changing things" may lead you off the golden path that brought you where you are. It's true that some change is inevitable, but any operator of any system that prioritizes stability above all is always wary of any unnecessary change.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > And yet, some things are near universally constant amongst large scale agrarian civilizations. For instance the confinement of violent criminals Certainly not. Imprisonment for violent crimes is far from being a universal constant of human culture. There have been and are cultures in which violent criminals are only detained so they can be executed. Or beaten and then released. Or simply fined. Or not charged at all. What even counts as violent crime varies considerably even in developed countries today. Legal self-defense in one country may be murder in another. Similarly, marriage is only culturally universal in a very abstract sense. Who are you allowed to marry? How many consecutive marriages are you allowed to have? Under what conditions can a marriage be broken? Can you be sold for marriage against your will? > You're right in that there is some variation, but there do actually seem to be some choices in this regard that are more conducive to a stable, prosperous, society. Just like there are many ways to run a company, but only some of them lead to success. Point being that if you live in such a society, "changing things" may lead you off the golden path that brought you where you are. It's true that some change is inevitable, but any operator of any system that prioritizes stability above all is always wary of any unnecessary change. I agree. My point is that liberals, progressives, conservatives.. pretty much everybody except the most apathetic, seek to make a change to society to turn society in a direction they think will be for the better. Each have different value systems and experiences, and accordingly have different opinions about what's wrong in society and what would constitute society being better. Conservatives frame themselves as apart from this by saying they don't want change, but "not change" is itself a change they want to impose on society to bring society back into line with their values.