5 ms·

Yeah, pro-government interventionist is a pretty hilarious phrasing. Let's talk in comical absolutes, that's guaranteed to generate insightful discussion. Wha

by jbooth 15y ago

Yeah, pro-government interventionist is a pretty hilarious phrasing. Let's talk in comical absolutes, that's guaranteed to generate insightful discussion. What's anti-government interventionist? You don't believe in having police to intervene if you're getting your ass beat? Don't believe in courts to intervene in contract disputes? Man, I am so right I can barely stand it.

3pt14159 15y ago
How would you phrase it? Call them liberal? Socialist? Conservative? Populist? Corporatist? It is phrased that way on purpose because most political leanings favor government intervention between individuals where neither party is committing force or fraud.
- jbooth 15y ago
  I'd talk in specifics instead of loaded terms and comical straw-men. In the linked article, I'd have a problem with the length of that maternity leave, 3 years seems excessive. I generally think the US system of "you can be fired for anything besides discrimination" is the right system for knowledge-worker jobs. I've got a lot less of a problem with the idea of taxes in general, since stuff costs money, and am unabashedly in favor of government-provided healthcare on a dollars and cents basis: Every other developed nation delivers healthcare more cheaply than the US's system, no matter how messed up their national healthcare system is. I'd much prefer paying X additional dollars in taxes if the alternative is 2X additional dollars in healthcare premiums. EDIT: Sigh, apparently my support for a shorter maternity leave term than 3 years angered an anti-government-interventionist.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    I'm going to actually add on to this and zoom out a bit and explain why "pro/anti government intervention" is a silly distinction. You already conceded that government intervention is necessary in the form of a police force and a tort system. Let me throw a few more at you: * Roads? * Should it be legal to build a giant transmitter to jam my competitor radio station's signal? No? Ok, you're in favor of the FCC in some form). * National defense? * Regulations prohibiting me from selling a bunch of rat poison labelled as "Tylenol"? If you're in favor of that regulation, then welcome to the FDA in some form. * Public schools and/or a voucher system to pay for private schooling? It turns out that if we look at preceding items in terms of a sheer "NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION" dividing line, you're probably in favor of government intervention in all of them. It's just a question of quibbling over the details. That's why I think "pro government intervention" is a silly way to look at any situation.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      " Roads?"* This particular item has always bugged me. Why is it that this particular type of construction project is so often considered to be something we need a government for? It's like planting flowers in your garden with an excavator. My theory is the attitude is largely historic. The Romans excelled at road building, but the manpower needed at the time to pull of projects of that scale was only available to governments.
      - i_cannot_hack 15y ago
        What do you propose instead? Charges to be collected at every crossing?
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        Why not have a completely independent organization responsible for building roads? They would be a "government" except they wouldn't involve themselves in the slightest in offtopic subjects like defense, healthcare, education, etc. In other words, not a government at all as we commonly think of it. The importance of completely separating the organizational structures should not be underestimated. If you did so, you would no longer have the people in charge of building roads being picked by their stance on Iran or abortion...
        e7th04sh 15y ago
        No. Every meter. RFID perhaps; EU tried to experiment with GPS too. As far as i recall, too no avail tough. There are things in economy called "public goods". Long story short, as soon as owners can collect toll efficiently, the roads will cease to be one. The government will hold on to that tough.
      - bermanoid 15y ago
        How would you propose funding the building of roads, though? The problem, as I see it, is that road funding is particularly prone to monopolistic abuse - if you're the only one collecting tolls in a certain area, you could literally charge whatever you wanted, without any possibility that a competitor could undercut you because the realities of 2-dimensional geometry prohibit them from building competing roads. I'm not saying that there's necessarily no way to manage this, but this is the obvious complaint that most people in favor of public roads see, and I've never heard a compelling argument as to why the road-owners wouldn't charge excessive fees for transit in the absence of some top-down regulation preventing them from doing so.
burgerbrain 15y ago
"What's anti-government interventionist?" Some flavors of crypto-anarchism. For instance, I believe that with the development of certain technologies the approval of the general population will be irrelevant. To be fair though, things that I would consider "anti-government interventionist" are quite rare and almost without exception theoretical.

by jbooth 15y ago

3pt14159 15y ago

How would you phrase it? Call them liberal? Socialist? Conservative? Populist? Corporatist? It is phrased that way on purpose because most political leanings favor government intervention between individuals where neither party is committing force or fraud.

jbooth 15y ago
I'd talk in specifics instead of loaded terms and comical straw-men. In the linked article, I'd have a problem with the length of that maternity leave, 3 years seems excessive. I generally think the US system of "you can be fired for anything besides discrimination" is the right system for knowledge-worker jobs. I've got a lot less of a problem with the idea of taxes in general, since stuff costs money, and am unabashedly in favor of government-provided healthcare on a dollars and cents basis: Every other developed nation delivers healthcare more cheaply than the US's system, no matter how messed up their national healthcare system is. I'd much prefer paying X additional dollars in taxes if the alternative is 2X additional dollars in healthcare premiums. EDIT: Sigh, apparently my support for a shorter maternity leave term than 3 years angered an anti-government-interventionist.
- jbooth 15y ago
  I'm going to actually add on to this and zoom out a bit and explain why "pro/anti government intervention" is a silly distinction. You already conceded that government intervention is necessary in the form of a police force and a tort system. Let me throw a few more at you: * Roads? * Should it be legal to build a giant transmitter to jam my competitor radio station's signal? No? Ok, you're in favor of the FCC in some form). * National defense? * Regulations prohibiting me from selling a bunch of rat poison labelled as "Tylenol"? If you're in favor of that regulation, then welcome to the FDA in some form. * Public schools and/or a voucher system to pay for private schooling? It turns out that if we look at preceding items in terms of a sheer "NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION" dividing line, you're probably in favor of government intervention in all of them. It's just a question of quibbling over the details. That's why I think "pro government intervention" is a silly way to look at any situation.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    " Roads?"* This particular item has always bugged me. Why is it that this particular type of construction project is so often considered to be something we need a government for? It's like planting flowers in your garden with an excavator. My theory is the attitude is largely historic. The Romans excelled at road building, but the manpower needed at the time to pull of projects of that scale was only available to governments.
    - i_cannot_hack 15y ago
      What do you propose instead? Charges to be collected at every crossing?
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        Why not have a completely independent organization responsible for building roads? They would be a "government" except they wouldn't involve themselves in the slightest in offtopic subjects like defense, healthcare, education, etc. In other words, not a government at all as we commonly think of it. The importance of completely separating the organizational structures should not be underestimated. If you did so, you would no longer have the people in charge of building roads being picked by their stance on Iran or abortion...
      - e7th04sh 15y ago
        No. Every meter. RFID perhaps; EU tried to experiment with GPS too. As far as i recall, too no avail tough. There are things in economy called "public goods". Long story short, as soon as owners can collect toll efficiently, the roads will cease to be one. The government will hold on to that tough.
    - bermanoid 15y ago
      How would you propose funding the building of roads, though? The problem, as I see it, is that road funding is particularly prone to monopolistic abuse - if you're the only one collecting tolls in a certain area, you could literally charge whatever you wanted, without any possibility that a competitor could undercut you because the realities of 2-dimensional geometry prohibit them from building competing roads. I'm not saying that there's necessarily no way to manage this, but this is the obvious complaint that most people in favor of public roads see, and I've never heard a compelling argument as to why the road-owners wouldn't charge excessive fees for transit in the absence of some top-down regulation preventing them from doing so.

burgerbrain 15y ago

"What's anti-government interventionist?" Some flavors of crypto-anarchism. For instance, I believe that with the development of certain technologies the approval of the general population will be irrelevant. To be fair though, things that I would consider "anti-government interventionist" are quite rare and almost without exception theoretical.