3 ms·

Honestly, reading through all that, it sounds like you yourself are just as defeatist as liberals, if not more so: every possible systemic solution which has be

Honestly, reading through all that, it sounds like you yourself are just as defeatist as liberals, if not more so: every possible systemic solution which has been shown to work[1], is to you like wishing on a Monkey's Paw. And yes, there's some truth to that: there's a saying that there are no solutions, only trade offs. But good grief, this level of defeatism is insane... why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good? So again, I must ask, am I arguing with an anarchist? [1] "Hav[ing] been shown to work" meaning measurably solving the issue, not necessarily utter eradication of the issue. We needn't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

9rx 1y ago
> yourself are just as defeatist as liberals I suppose it to the eye of the beholder, but I, at least, consider myself a liberal, so that sounds reasonable. Of course a liberal is going to be as defeatist as a liberal. > why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good? Isn't it obvious? The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good". You know, like, say, you start volunteering to build houses to help solve the housing crisis as anyone who cares naturally would, but then a thief comes along and steals all your materials. The government's job would be to deal with that thief and to do what it can to ensure that no thievery happens again. It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses, even though the need is apparent and doing so would be to the greater good.
- Defletter 1y ago
  > The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good" The democratic state exists to represent, protect, and promote the welfare of the people. The idea that governments exist to "clean up the outliers" (side-stepping the worrying phrasing of that) is a 'small-c' conservative mindset, not a liberal one. No, the democratic government exists to do what the people elect it to do. The reason why ostensibly democratic governments so often disregard or even act against the wishes of their constituents is because that democracy is not really as democratic as it would like us to believe (eg: gerrymandering). Also corruption, which is arguably included in the previous point but best to make it explicit anyway. > you start volunteering to build houses [...] as anyone who cares naturally would I love the naive frivolity of the idea that people can just volunteer to build houses as if there's no training, zoning, insurance, regulations, etc, involved. Sure, I could make the teas and coffees, but like, you seem to think this is something people can do to fix the housing crisis by themselves. So how will people do the plumbing, wiring, structural analysis? Ensure the foundations are correctly laid? That walls are not out of plumb? You just hope that this effort that people make in their spare time will have all the planning permission and trained professionals enough to get this done? Are you for real? > It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses? Even in countries with public housing policies, who is being forced to build houses? The only thing I can think of that's remotely close to this is when development contracts include requirements for nearby affordable housing developments. I have no idea what you're talking about and I honestly think this argument is a complete strawman. --- You are obviously an authority on yourself, but are you really a liberal? You certainly not making liberal arguments, and not in a "hurr durr, that's because I actually want to get things done!" way, but in a wholesale rejection of systemic solutions to societal problems, the dismissal of the idea that the state has any responsibility to promote the welfare of the people, and the notion that public programmes that would promote the welfare of the people would force people to labour against their will? These are conservative talking points through and through, and I think you should reflect on that. But again, we are just bickering in a side discussion: the real discussion is about why liberals are less happy compared to conservatives. I've made my claim, you've seemingly agreed with that claim. We needn't continue this gratuitous back and forth about whether the state can and should attempt to benefit the people outside of "clean up the outliers".
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > No, the democratic government exists to do what the people elect it to do. But what else are you going to ask the government to do except clean up the outliers (or whatever phrasing you find more palatable, as if that somehow matters)? Anything that involves the population at large can just be done by the population at large on their own accord. Since you wanted to talk about other countries, consider a mandate in my country: All new cars must be electric in 2030. What purpose does that serve? Think about it. If the people want to own electric cars within that timeframe (and we know they do, else why would they ask the government to deal with it?), they can just buy electric cars. You don't need someone else to tell you to do what you were already going to do anyway! That would be just plain stupid. Of course, the real reason for the mandate is because some outliers will still try to buy ICE vehicles, contrary to wishes of the population at large. The government's job is to clean them up to ensure that everyone buys electric vehicles (or no vehicle, perhaps) by the time we get there. If every single person was on the same page, though, government really would be pointless. Of course, in reality, you'll never have a situation where everyone agrees. Hence the role of government to deal with those who are dissenters. > Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses? What on earth are you talking about? When I said it wasn't the government's job, I meant it. > You certainly not making liberal arguments Well, I mean, it would be rather pointless to argue from the liberal point of view if I am a liberal, no? What are you going to learn by reiterating what you think you already know? Argument is only a useful device if you use it to explore different ideas that are not your own. Methinks you have not thought this through.
    - Defletter 1y ago
      > Anything that involves the population at large can just be done by the population at large on their own accord. This is where I'm going to exit this discussion: this statement (which is the fundamental assumption of every argument you've presented) is so exasperatingly naive that it would require disproportionate effort on my part to rebut it, and we're already very deep into a thread that I've feebly attempted twice now to get back on-track to the happiness question. And I'm honestly not that willing to put that much effort into an internet discussion just to teach someone why a democratic government would do something for the public good and why individuals / communities may not be able to achieve it "on their own accord". I don't have the patience, the expertise, the rhetoric, or the time. Have a nice day.

9rx 1y ago

> yourself are just as defeatist as liberals I suppose it to the eye of the beholder, but I, at least, consider myself a liberal, so that sounds reasonable. Of course a liberal is going to be as defeatist as a liberal. > why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good? Isn't it obvious? The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good". You know, like, say, you start volunteering to build houses to help solve the housing crisis as anyone who cares naturally would, but then a thief comes along and steals all your materials. The government's job would be to deal with that thief and to do what it can to ensure that no thievery happens again. It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses, even though the need is apparent and doing so would be to the greater good.

Defletter 1y ago
> The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good" The democratic state exists to represent, protect, and promote the welfare of the people. The idea that governments exist to "clean up the outliers" (side-stepping the worrying phrasing of that) is a 'small-c' conservative mindset, not a liberal one. No, the democratic government exists to do what the people elect it to do. The reason why ostensibly democratic governments so often disregard or even act against the wishes of their constituents is because that democracy is not really as democratic as it would like us to believe (eg: gerrymandering). Also corruption, which is arguably included in the previous point but best to make it explicit anyway. > you start volunteering to build houses [...] as anyone who cares naturally would I love the naive frivolity of the idea that people can just volunteer to build houses as if there's no training, zoning, insurance, regulations, etc, involved. Sure, I could make the teas and coffees, but like, you seem to think this is something people can do to fix the housing crisis by themselves. So how will people do the plumbing, wiring, structural analysis? Ensure the foundations are correctly laid? That walls are not out of plumb? You just hope that this effort that people make in their spare time will have all the planning permission and trained professionals enough to get this done? Are you for real? > It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses? Even in countries with public housing policies, who is being forced to build houses? The only thing I can think of that's remotely close to this is when development contracts include requirements for nearby affordable housing developments. I have no idea what you're talking about and I honestly think this argument is a complete strawman. --- You are obviously an authority on yourself, but are you really a liberal? You certainly not making liberal arguments, and not in a "hurr durr, that's because I actually want to get things done!" way, but in a wholesale rejection of systemic solutions to societal problems, the dismissal of the idea that the state has any responsibility to promote the welfare of the people, and the notion that public programmes that would promote the welfare of the people would force people to labour against their will? These are conservative talking points through and through, and I think you should reflect on that. But again, we are just bickering in a side discussion: the real discussion is about why liberals are less happy compared to conservatives. I've made my claim, you've seemingly agreed with that claim. We needn't continue this gratuitous back and forth about whether the state can and should attempt to benefit the people outside of "clean up the outliers".
- 9rx 1y ago
  > No, the democratic government exists to do what the people elect it to do. But what else are you going to ask the government to do except clean up the outliers (or whatever phrasing you find more palatable, as if that somehow matters)? Anything that involves the population at large can just be done by the population at large on their own accord. Since you wanted to talk about other countries, consider a mandate in my country: All new cars must be electric in 2030. What purpose does that serve? Think about it. If the people want to own electric cars within that timeframe (and we know they do, else why would they ask the government to deal with it?), they can just buy electric cars. You don't need someone else to tell you to do what you were already going to do anyway! That would be just plain stupid. Of course, the real reason for the mandate is because some outliers will still try to buy ICE vehicles, contrary to wishes of the population at large. The government's job is to clean them up to ensure that everyone buys electric vehicles (or no vehicle, perhaps) by the time we get there. If every single person was on the same page, though, government really would be pointless. Of course, in reality, you'll never have a situation where everyone agrees. Hence the role of government to deal with those who are dissenters. > Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses? What on earth are you talking about? When I said it wasn't the government's job, I meant it. > You certainly not making liberal arguments Well, I mean, it would be rather pointless to argue from the liberal point of view if I am a liberal, no? What are you going to learn by reiterating what you think you already know? Argument is only a useful device if you use it to explore different ideas that are not your own. Methinks you have not thought this through.
  - Defletter 1y ago
    > Anything that involves the population at large can just be done by the population at large on their own accord. This is where I'm going to exit this discussion: this statement (which is the fundamental assumption of every argument you've presented) is so exasperatingly naive that it would require disproportionate effort on my part to rebut it, and we're already very deep into a thread that I've feebly attempted twice now to get back on-track to the happiness question. And I'm honestly not that willing to put that much effort into an internet discussion just to teach someone why a democratic government would do something for the public good and why individuals / communities may not be able to achieve it "on their own accord". I don't have the patience, the expertise, the rhetoric, or the time. Have a nice day.