6 ms·

Policy-making isn't supposed be, at least shouldn't be, some lab experiment. The hey at least we tried isn't the best reasoning for the lack of insight of thos

Policy-making isn't supposed be, at least shouldn't be, some lab experiment. The hey at least we tried isn't the best reasoning for the lack of insight of those in charge.

gnicholas 3y ago
Justice Brandeis, who coined the term "laboratories of democracy", felt otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy
- antegamisou 3y ago
  Ah yes, I almost forgot we're talking about the US where it was OK for the state to secretly conduct mind control human experimentation for over 20 years.
  - handoflixue 3y ago
    Could you explain a bit more about how Brandeis' philosophy relates to that case? Was he actively arguing for this sort of experiment, or are you just trying to imply that "experimentation"/science means you lack any morals?
  - sib 3y ago
    Apparently it wasn't "ok" if it had to be done secretly...
    - autoexec 3y ago
      It's not as if the US government can't do something secretly then declare that it was perfectly legal after they get caught. Just because they don't want to have to go through to trouble of justifying their actions to the public that doesn't mean they must consider their actions inappropriate
      - gretch 3y ago
        History is full of governments overthrown by a dissenting populace. The US itself broke out of the British empire when they didn’t like the government anymore. If they do something egregious, then people revolt.
        autoexec 3y ago
        > If they do something egregious, then people revolt. Do you mean something egregious like the mass surveillance of the population, or the mass incarceration of citizens, or widespread theft via civil asset forfeiture, or executions by police, or human experimentation on Americans, or dropping bombs on citizens in US cities, or the military shooting protesting college kids, or lying about weapons of mass destruction to justify wars, or prisoners being tortured, or being subjected to virtual strip searches and groping at airports, or two thirds of the population living in "constitution free zones", or the authorization of the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, or any of the other many many egregious actions that have already been and/or are still being carried out by our government? My point is that the threat of revolt is extremely remote. For all of the abuses and the erosion of our rights and freedoms we've had just one attempt at violent insurrection in recent history. It involved about 2,000 rioters motivated by a conspiracy theory and it fell apart very quickly. The threat of a successful revolt is basically zero, and that's actually a good thing. A revolt is highly unlikely to solve the problems that we have. Unfortunately that also means that the threat of revolt is highly unlikely to act as any sort of deterrent that might prevent abuses of power by our government. We're far better off making use of whatever is left of our democracy than trying to re-enact the revolutionary war.
        gretch 3y ago
        The life of the average american citizen is still really good, even though the rights of some minority populations have been violated. If we look at the quality of life for american citizens compared to other the quality of life of other nations right before revolution (famously french, russian, chinese), we are not close. So maybe it's not a good idea to burn it down and start over just yet. > The threat of a successful revolt is basically zero That's what they all say. But the US lost the war in vietnam and afghanistan to natives with extremely low tech weapons.
- caditinpiscinam 3y ago
  I wonder what the people who were forcibly sterilized after Buck v Bell thought of Brandeis' philosophy.
  - handoflixue 3y ago
    Could you explain a bit more about how Brandeis' philosophy relates to that case? Was he pro-sterilization, or are you just trying to imply that "experimentation"/science means you lack any morals?
    - freejazz 3y ago
      I think the argument is that states are not laboratories for behaviors that violate the constitutional rights of others, or in the case of this law, go beyond the legislative branch's constitutional powers, so that just suggesting there isn't an experiment is in itself not sufficient to defend this law.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        I don’t think banning social media use by minors either violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional powers. And the constitutional powers of a state legislature to enact state laws are extremely broad; much more so than the powers of Congress to enact federal laws.
        freejazz 3y ago
        Well such speech restrictions have been found unconstitutional by the supreme court in prior cases, so I'm not so sure what your "characterization" of the law and its alleged constitutionality is based upon. Further, what point is it that state legislatures have broader powers than Congress? They still have no power to exceed the boundaries of the first amendment, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there either.
        philwelch 3y ago
paulddraper 3y ago
And yet it is.
handoflixue 3y ago
How else are we going to find out which policies work, if we can't perform experiments? The experiment is the basic tool of science.
- vkou 3y ago
  Some experiments can't be performed, for ethical reasons. We don't test if parachutes work by throwing people not wearing them out of planes, for one. States can experiment with variability in their legislature, but there is a unified federal law that guarantees certain fundamental rights. Much of the south is currently trampling all over them.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    Of all the states I can think of which are blatantly infringing upon an enumerated constitutional right, none of them are in the south, unless you’re going to be pedantic and count California and Hawaii.
    - vkou 3y ago
      No person without body autonomy can be considered 'secure in their person, houses, papers, or effects'. In fact, none of the other rights matter when the state can control what you can, and can't do with your own body. It is the most fundamental of rights. They are also doing a great job of trampling on the fourteenth amendment, with the occasional jabs at the first.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        > No person without body autonomy can be considered 'secure in their person, houses, papers, or effects'. It wasn’t the southern states that imposed vaccine mandates for dining in restaurants, either. I know what you’re alluding to; suffice to say that I don’t find this legal theory particularly compelling, and more importantly, neither does the Supreme Court.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Policy-making isn't supposed be, at least shouldn't be, some lab experiment. The hey at least we tried isn't the best reasoning for the lack of insight of those in charge.

gnicholas 3y ago

Justice Brandeis, who coined the term "laboratories of democracy", felt otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy

antegamisou 3y ago
Ah yes, I almost forgot we're talking about the US where it was OK for the state to secretly conduct mind control human experimentation for over 20 years.
- handoflixue 3y ago
  Could you explain a bit more about how Brandeis' philosophy relates to that case? Was he actively arguing for this sort of experiment, or are you just trying to imply that "experimentation"/science means you lack any morals?
- sib 3y ago
  Apparently it wasn't "ok" if it had to be done secretly...
  - autoexec 3y ago
    It's not as if the US government can't do something secretly then declare that it was perfectly legal after they get caught. Just because they don't want to have to go through to trouble of justifying their actions to the public that doesn't mean they must consider their actions inappropriate
    - gretch 3y ago
      History is full of governments overthrown by a dissenting populace. The US itself broke out of the British empire when they didn’t like the government anymore. If they do something egregious, then people revolt.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        > If they do something egregious, then people revolt. Do you mean something egregious like the mass surveillance of the population, or the mass incarceration of citizens, or widespread theft via civil asset forfeiture, or executions by police, or human experimentation on Americans, or dropping bombs on citizens in US cities, or the military shooting protesting college kids, or lying about weapons of mass destruction to justify wars, or prisoners being tortured, or being subjected to virtual strip searches and groping at airports, or two thirds of the population living in "constitution free zones", or the authorization of the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, or any of the other many many egregious actions that have already been and/or are still being carried out by our government? My point is that the threat of revolt is extremely remote. For all of the abuses and the erosion of our rights and freedoms we've had just one attempt at violent insurrection in recent history. It involved about 2,000 rioters motivated by a conspiracy theory and it fell apart very quickly. The threat of a successful revolt is basically zero, and that's actually a good thing. A revolt is highly unlikely to solve the problems that we have. Unfortunately that also means that the threat of revolt is highly unlikely to act as any sort of deterrent that might prevent abuses of power by our government. We're far better off making use of whatever is left of our democracy than trying to re-enact the revolutionary war.
        gretch 3y ago
        The life of the average american citizen is still really good, even though the rights of some minority populations have been violated. If we look at the quality of life for american citizens compared to other the quality of life of other nations right before revolution (famously french, russian, chinese), we are not close. So maybe it's not a good idea to burn it down and start over just yet. > The threat of a successful revolt is basically zero That's what they all say. But the US lost the war in vietnam and afghanistan to natives with extremely low tech weapons.
caditinpiscinam 3y ago
I wonder what the people who were forcibly sterilized after Buck v Bell thought of Brandeis' philosophy.
- handoflixue 3y ago
  Could you explain a bit more about how Brandeis' philosophy relates to that case? Was he pro-sterilization, or are you just trying to imply that "experimentation"/science means you lack any morals?
  - freejazz 3y ago
    I think the argument is that states are not laboratories for behaviors that violate the constitutional rights of others, or in the case of this law, go beyond the legislative branch's constitutional powers, so that just suggesting there isn't an experiment is in itself not sufficient to defend this law.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      I don’t think banning social media use by minors either violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional powers. And the constitutional powers of a state legislature to enact state laws are extremely broad; much more so than the powers of Congress to enact federal laws.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        Well such speech restrictions have been found unconstitutional by the supreme court in prior cases, so I'm not so sure what your "characterization" of the law and its alleged constitutionality is based upon. Further, what point is it that state legislatures have broader powers than Congress? They still have no power to exceed the boundaries of the first amendment, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there either.
        philwelch 3y ago

paulddraper 3y ago

And yet it is.

handoflixue 3y ago

How else are we going to find out which policies work, if we can't perform experiments? The experiment is the basic tool of science.

vkou 3y ago
Some experiments can't be performed, for ethical reasons. We don't test if parachutes work by throwing people not wearing them out of planes, for one. States can experiment with variability in their legislature, but there is a unified federal law that guarantees certain fundamental rights. Much of the south is currently trampling all over them.
- philwelch 3y ago
  Of all the states I can think of which are blatantly infringing upon an enumerated constitutional right, none of them are in the south, unless you’re going to be pedantic and count California and Hawaii.
  - vkou 3y ago
    No person without body autonomy can be considered 'secure in their person, houses, papers, or effects'. In fact, none of the other rights matter when the state can control what you can, and can't do with your own body. It is the most fundamental of rights. They are also doing a great job of trampling on the fourteenth amendment, with the occasional jabs at the first.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      > No person without body autonomy can be considered 'secure in their person, houses, papers, or effects'. It wasn’t the southern states that imposed vaccine mandates for dining in restaurants, either. I know what you’re alluding to; suffice to say that I don’t find this legal theory particularly compelling, and more importantly, neither does the Supreme Court.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago