Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:07 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
No, this is demonstrably false, because at least one person in this thread says they choose to wear a helmet while still thinking that being told to wear one by the government is nannyism.

The person doesn't have to disagree with the government about the risks. The mere fact that the government is saying anything at all is nannyism, to some people.
I don't know how else to say this:
If the government is TELLING you that you MUST do something, vs assigning your own risk to it and deciding for yourself, that is what I am describing here as Nannyism.

We keep getting further and further away from the OP though so I think I'll respond a few more times if necessary, but if no more clarity is reached than shown lately, I'll bow out.
  #252  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:21 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I don't know how else to say this:
If the government is TELLING you that you MUST do something, vs assigning your own risk to it and deciding for yourself, that is what I am describing here as Nannyism.
Is it nannyism when it can do harm to others, and not just one's self? Even a lack of a helmet or seatbelt can cause psychological trauma to others, by causing them to have a greater risk of enduring being a participant (or even a witness) in a gruesome, deadly incident.
  #253  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:21 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I don't know how else to say this:
If the government is TELLING you that you MUST do something, vs assigning your own risk to it and deciding for yourself, that is what I am describing here as Nannyism.

We keep getting further and further away from the OP though so I think I'll respond a few more times if necessary, but if no more clarity is reached than shown lately, I'll bow out.
Lets take the word "government" out of the equation. It seems to have a specific triggering effect.

Do you believe there is any social agreement that can be made that impinges on your absolute rights of personal freedom but that is warranted to achieve a common social good? Or, as Bone seems to lean towards, that all such common social goods are intrusive and therefore nannyisms?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #254  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:28 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Lets take the word "government" out of the equation. It seems to have a specific triggering effect.

Do you believe there is any social agreement that can be made that impinges on your absolute rights of personal freedom but that is warranted to achieve a common social good? Or, as Bone seems to lean towards, that all such common social goods are intrusive and therefore nannyisms?
It depends. I had already agreed earlier in the thread that there is certainly a cost benefit analysis to be done. I am with Bone about SSN, BUT I think it provides a really good general service. I wish they let people opt out though. If need be, make the opt out an actual contract that disallows you falling back on the government for "retirement".

In fact, most of the things that would fall into this type of category, if they allowed opt outs, I would be all for.

That may indeed be the compromise that would win the hearts of the masses, woo all the pretty girls and finally get the nice guy laid.
  #255  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:34 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
I'm curious about the "It depends" part. If SSN is nannyism, where do you draw the line? All taxes? Should all public services be fee based with an opt out clause?

I'm frequently confounded by how poorly the Libertarian philosophy is fleshed out. Perhaps it's because Libertarians are never in danger of having to live with the consequences of their own convictions.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 11-07-2019 at 09:35 AM.
  #256  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:44 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm curious about the "It depends" part. If SSN is nannyism, where do you draw the line? All taxes? Should all public services be fee based with an opt out clause?

I'm frequently confounded by how poorly the Libertarian philosophy is fleshed out. Perhaps it's because Libertarians are never in danger of having to live with the consequences of their own convictions.
The it depends was me thinking that early on in my earning years, I would have contributed to SSN. Probably in my early 30's, I would have opted out because I knew there were better return options.

My line isn't really all that important but I guess my line includes most of the services we have today but with opt out clauses.
I also imagine that for any individual service I could be persuaded that the benefit outweighed the intrusion.

I guess I've never really considered myself a full on, Capital L, Libertarian but I suppose I do lean that way
  #257  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:01 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
The it depends was me thinking that early on in my earning years, I would have contributed to SSN. Probably in my early 30's, I would have opted out because I knew there were better return options.

My line isn't really all that important but I guess my line includes most of the services we have today but with opt out clauses.
I also imagine that for any individual service I could be persuaded that the benefit outweighed the intrusion.

I guess I've never really considered myself a full on, Capital L, Libertarian but I suppose I do lean that way
That seems capricious. You seem to be saying that, '...all social intrusion is nannyism unless it can be shown to be of direct benefit to me.'
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #258  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:04 AM
Red Wiggler is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,982
So what's the Venn diagram look like with liberal elites and plain old everyday liberals? Are all libs "liberal elites?" Or just 1%? 10%

I might want to know if I need to step up my game.
  #259  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:38 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
The it depends was me thinking that early on in my earning years, I would have contributed to SSN. Probably in my early 30's, I would have opted out because I knew there were better return options.

My line isn't really all that important but I guess my line includes most of the services we have today but with opt out clauses.
I also imagine that for any individual service I could be persuaded that the benefit outweighed the intrusion.

I guess I've never really considered myself a full on, Capital L, Libertarian but I suppose I do lean that way
In your early 30's, would you have predicted a financial crisis that wiped out your 401K? What if by some cruel fate, you were just approaching retirement and your nice self directed 401K nest-egg was wiped out by a financial crisis. As you recall, many people lost their homes - which was their largest investment. It's easy to claim that you'd be smarter where they were foolish. Perhaps you possess that superior skillset and intuition that would allow you to avoid financial ruin where others failed to do so. Are you convinced that you would not end up at square one, or worse, on the street with nothing left? If so, I admire your financial prowess. If not, I admire your confidence.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 11-07-2019 at 10:39 AM.
  #260  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:39 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm curious about the "It depends" part. If SSN is nannyism, where do you draw the line? All taxes? Should all public services be fee based with an opt out clause?
They can be evaluated for merit on a case by case basis. Why move from one specific item to the general all? Not all fact patterns are the same so not all things should be treated the same.

Quote:
I'm frequently confounded by how poorly the Libertarian philosophy is fleshed out. Perhaps it's because Libertarians are never in danger of having to live with the consequences of their own convictions.
Perhaps because this thread is about what constitutes liberal elitism and not a treatise on libertarianism.
  #261  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:55 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
In your early 30's, would you have predicted a financial crisis that wiped out your 401K? What if by some cruel fate, you were just approaching retirement and your nice self directed 401K nest-egg was wiped out by a financial crisis. As you recall, many people lost their homes - which was their largest investment. It's easy to claim that you'd be smarter where they were foolish. Perhaps you possess that superior skillset and intuition that would allow you to avoid financial ruin where others failed to do so. Are you convinced that you would not end up at square one, or worse, on the street with nothing left? If so, I admire your financial prowess. If not, I admire your confidence.
Personal responsibility. I am a firm believer in it. If that happened and I wasn't smart enough to plan for it, then yes I may very well be back at square 1, or worse off but that isn't your responsibility, nor is it society's. If it is so bad and I have been contributing to a social safety net, then I may indeed need to utilize it.
If I opted out of that as well? Oh well.

All these answers were probably forseen, so it comes as no real surprise why the term nanny and liberal elite have negative tones to those wishing to presume to tell others how to live their day to day lives.

Save!
Go to the Dr!
Wear your helmet!

ALL good advice, and lots of people would be given the opportunity to buy in. Some wouldn't, some have no need, and others will probably end up dead or left behind in society.
  #262  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:05 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
@Bone: Because a large enough society can't be run from an à la carte menu. But, sure. Let's drop the libertarian line.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 11-07-2019 at 12:06 PM.
  #263  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:11 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
@Bone: Because a large enough society can't be run from an à la carte menu. But, sure. Let's drop the libertarian line.
I mean, isn't that what we have now?

You are a la carte helping some subset of our populace to the detriment of the others. And then something else for some others to the detriment of still others.

Currently the only people not being hurt by ANY of it is the ultra rich (and the liberal elite crafting said laws) and you can't fleece them much or they can leave, and they simply do not need the services you're selling.
  #264  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
AFAICT, there's no real difference in philosophy here -- just a difference in degree... i.e. what kind/level of harm to society warrants this sort of intrusion? It's not a big philosophical difference if one person puts the bar on one side of seatbelts vice the other.
  #265  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:29 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
AFAICT, there's no real difference in philosophy here -- just a difference in degree... i.e. what kind/level of harm to society warrants this sort of intrusion? It's not a big philosophical difference if one person puts the bar on one side of seatbelts vice the other.
It's never about seatbelts and helmets, is it?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #266  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:33 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I mean, isn't that what we have now?

You are a la carte helping some subset of our populace to the detriment of the others. And then something else for some others to the detriment of still others.

Currently the only people not being hurt by ANY of it is the ultra rich (and the liberal elite crafting said laws) and you can't fleece them much or they can leave, and they simply do not need the services you're selling.
Not quite the same. When choosing à la carte, you're picking what you're going to have, not whom you're going to feed it to or who you'll stick with the bill.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #267  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:10 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Personal responsibility. I am a firm believer in it. If that happened and I wasn't smart enough to plan for it, then yes I may very well be back at square 1, or worse off but that isn't your responsibility, nor is it society's. If it is so bad and I have been contributing to a social safety net, then I may indeed need to utilize it.
If I opted out of that as well? Oh well.
You say that, but do you believe you’ll end up like that, and do you have enough experience with hunger and homelessness to know how you’ll react under the circumstances? And what about if you’re not in our right mind? What if you either end up suffering from mental illness or even live long enough to experience Alzheimer’s?

It’s one thing to talk up how brave you would be in the face of death and how all these lifeboats that these damn regulations are making you keep cluttered about the neck are screwing up your promenade. It’s another thing to ride the Titanic down into the chill waters of Atlantic.

I also am for personal responsibility. In fact, as was discussed in a thread on this very board not to long ago, I suspect most people are. But if nothing else, as noted, your emaciated carcass lying on the sidewalk can drive property values down, whether it’s because you didn’t wear a helmet or you ran out of money and no one is feeling particularly charitable where you happened to have ended up homeless.
  #268  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:15 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
For the record, I would prefer to default to a "basic services, along with social safety net, to include healthcare" should be covered by taxes. Any sort of opt out with appropriate waivers/fees would be acceptable to me, but only provided the opt out system is not itself detrimental to society. In the case of motorcycle or bike helmets, I think society would get by. In the cases of fires that are allowed to burn out of control, though, and the potential for low income families to bear the burden of that and underfunded public schools disproportionately... yeah, I’m not okay with that.
See, now you're making an arbitrary determination about which services are "basic" and a "social safety net", and which ones can be ignored and society "would get by". You're using your own personal risk and cost-benefit analyses and wishing to impose your conclusions on the rest of society.

I believe, per the context of the thread, that makes you an "elite".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I don't know how else to say this:
If the government is TELLING you that you MUST do something, vs assigning your own risk to it and deciding for yourself, that is what I am describing here as Nannyism.

We keep getting further and further away from the OP though so I think I'll respond a few more times if necessary, but if no more clarity is reached than shown lately, I'll bow out.
That's exactly what I said - any damn thing the government tells you to do is nannyism. It doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter how obvious it is, it doesn't matter how massively destructive to society or other people it would be if you don't do the thing. No matter what, if they tell you to do something, that's nannyism.

So we're in complete agreement.

Telling you not to fire a gun into a crowd? Nannyism, yo. That's just them protecting you from mob justice, when you ought to be able to be able to assess that risk and decide for yourself.




And honestly, regarding the thread in general, the "anti-elite" position seems to include a rather startling number of comments along the lines of "and as a result of my preferred plan, a bunch of people will die".
  #269  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:15 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,387
Does motorcycle insurance still pay if the rider got into an accident without a helmet on?
  #270  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:19 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I don't know how else to say this:
If the government is TELLING you that you MUST do something, vs assigning your own risk to it and deciding for yourself, that is what I am describing here as Nannyism.
Just curious, how do you categorize the situation where the government is telling a woman that she MUST remain pregnant after she and her physician have decided against it? Nannyism, elitism, or something else?
  #271  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:04 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,016

What exactly is a "liberal elite"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Just curious, how do you categorize the situation where the government is telling a woman that she MUST remain pregnant after she and her physician have decided against it? Nannyism, elitism, or something else?

Obviously the rails were jumped long ago and the discussion no longer has anything to do with whether there is or what is “liberal elite” but yes, I was going to mention, what about so-called “morals” or “family values” -based laws. It’s not liberals insisting on those.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 11-07-2019 at 04:06 PM.
  #272  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:18 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Obviously the rails were jumped long ago and the discussion no longer has anything to do with whether there is or what is “liberal elite” but yes, I was going to mention, what about so-called “morals” or “family values” -based laws. It’s not liberals insisting on those.
Oh yeah. If we apply the "motorcycle helmet test" to gay marriage, the situational ethics become transparently obvious.
  #273  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:58 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Of course it's more dangerous without a helmet - I don't think anyone is disputing this. And I also don't see anyone advocating for non-helmet wearing. Whereas you seem to be engaging in an outcome based argument - that the results of non-helmet wearing is worse than the outcomes of helmet wearing when measured by injury severity. But the argument in the context of elitism is not outcome based, at least not precisely.

Because you can't measure the utility derived by an individual by not wearing a helmet, I don't think you can say that they are better off. Sure, they are more likely to die and if that's something they want to avoid, they should wear a helmet. Actually, if that's the case they shouldn't ride a motorcycle at all.

Allowing people to make that choice is a principled position, independent of the outcomes. More people will die. Let them.
Sure everyone knows not using a helmet is more dangerous - but 5% more dangerous, or 60% which is what the data shows. Decisions should be made based on information.
But I'm fine with them not wearing helmets if they purchase insurance that covers this, and not let the helmet wearing motorcycle rides subsidize their choice. Motorcycle insurance takes into account the higher risk of riding, so that's fine.

Quote:
The response to this is similar. You are focused on outcomes - what are the returns available vs. investment opportunities and which is a better outcome, etc. I don't think it much matters if people are better or worse off from a financial measure. The idea of elitism is exactly what you are demonstrating - that people don't know and someone else should decide for them.

I'm well aware that a great many people make poor choices. People should be able to make those choices, suffer the consequences for bad choices, and reap the rewards for good ones. Taking away those choices because someone knows better than the individual themself represents a type of liberal elitism.
Yes I'm focused on outcomes, because I doubt our society would be willing to let the people who didn't do the right thing for retirement die in the gutter. Since we'd think that this is immoral. And it is not like a society doing away with SS would force employers to give that money to the workers.
The argument is this:
We don't want old people to starve to death and be homeless. Yeah, this is outcomes based.
It is demonstrably true that a certain percentage of people won't save independently for retirement. As I said, this is sometimes out of carelessness but often out of economic necessity.
You clearly think that people make rational economic decisions in general, and those who don't deserve their punishment. That's economic creationism. We are wired to make bad decisions. We are wired to make irrational decisions. This has been experimentally demonstrated.
So, you are ignoring the facts in favor of ideology. And I bet you'd be against a big tax increase to feed those who didn't do what you think they should have done. Sorry, I'd rather have them be forced to pay for their own basic income, more or less.
  #274  
Old 11-07-2019, 08:16 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
The it depends was me thinking that early on in my earning years, I would have contributed to SSN. Probably in my early 30's, I would have opted out because I knew there were better return options.
Better return options implies riskier return options. Which is fine - but the purpose of Social Security it to provide a very low risk option as the base. If you have money left over after paying the SS tax you are welcome to invest it any way you want, with tax advantages. If you screw up, you'll still be able to live in retirement.
Given the number of people whose retirement plan seems to be keep working until they die (even with SS) do you really think that everyone would productively invest that 7%? Seems demonstrably false given the 401K experiment.
Sure you might do fine. What about the person without the mental capability to make good choices or avoid scams? Do they starve at 65? We're talking about society as a whole, not just those with the ability or luck to invest well.
True elitism is thinking that everyone is just like you.
  #275  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:45 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
True elitism is thinking that everyone is just like you.
Or thinking that, whenever push comes to shove, you’ll be the one to come out on top, because... you.

And to be clear, that’s a "general" you. I'm agreeing with you.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 11-08-2019 at 12:45 AM.
  #276  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:30 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Just curious, how do you categorize the situation where the government is telling a woman that she MUST remain pregnant after she and her physician have decided against it? Nannyism, elitism, or something else?
I mean I am pretty firmly pro-choice so I believe the government shouldn't be telling her that. Now at some point, we do need to look at the viability of the baby as a person as well. I am just fine with the way things stand right now with third trimester abortions off the table.

Or was there a particular incident you wished to discuss?
  #277  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:34 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I mean I am pretty firmly pro-choice so I believe the government shouldn't be telling her that. Now at some point, we do need to look at the viability of the baby as a person as well. I am just fine with the way things stand right now with third trimester abortions off the table.
Why do you think you know better than a woman and her physician that she shouldn't have a third-trimester abortion?
  #278  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:36 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
See, now you're making an arbitrary determination about which services are "basic" and a "social safety net", and which ones can be ignored and society "would get by". You're using your own personal risk and cost-benefit analyses and wishing to impose your conclusions on the rest of society.

I believe, per the context of the thread, that makes you an "elite".

That's exactly what I said - any damn thing the government tells you to do is nannyism. It doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter how obvious it is, it doesn't matter how massively destructive to society or other people it would be if you don't do the thing. No matter what, if they tell you to do something, that's nannyism.

So we're in complete agreement.

Telling you not to fire a gun into a crowd? Nannyism, yo. That's just them protecting you from mob justice, when you ought to be able to be able to assess that risk and decide for yourself.




And honestly, regarding the thread in general, the "anti-elite" position seems to include a rather startling number of comments along the lines of "and as a result of my preferred plan, a bunch of people will die".
I think the position you take is silly. It stands to reason that the law is designed to protect others vs your autonomy outweigh your autonomy.
Firing a gun into a crowd falls into this, among a whole slew of other laws but I think you knew that.

Nannyism is the attempt to protect you from yourself, not the attempt to protect others from you. Driving with lights on. Firing guns in a crowd etc
  #279  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:38 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Why do you think you know better than a woman and her physician that she shouldn't have a third-trimester abortion?
I personally do not know better, but the baby at some point becomes a person worth protecting, even at the discomfort of the mother.
I would actually probably be fine I we looked at the cases on an individual basis, taking into account the mother, father and the doctors.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 11-08-2019 at 10:43 AM.
  #280  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:55 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I personally do not know better, but the baby at some point becomes a person worth protecting, even at the discomfort of the mother.
Stating "I don't know better", but then stating a thing you know, is a contradictory statement. You are definitely putting yourself in an elite position to make decisions for others.

Quote:
I would actually probably be fine I we looked at the cases on an individual basis, taking into account the mother, father and the doctors.
Why does it matter if you are "fine"? Why does "we" have to include anything beyond a woman and her doctor? That's elitism.
  #281  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:59 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Stating "I don't know better", but then stating a thing you know, is a contradictory statement. You are definitely putting yourself in an elite position to make decisions for others.


Why does it matter if you are "fine"? Why does "we" have to include anything beyond a woman and her doctor? That's elitism.
It sounds like you are advocating true libertarianism … But don't forget the father as well. He was a participant in the creation of said baby/embryo/etc

I could be on board, tell me more!
Fine simply meant that I would be in agreement, not necessarily that I would NEED to be fine. I am not the government.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 11-08-2019 at 11:01 AM.
  #282  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:07 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
It sounds like you are advocating true libertarianism … But don't forget the father as well. He was a participant in the creation of said baby/embryo/etc.
Yeah, about that- In case of a tie vote who gets final say, in your opinion?
  #283  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:17 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Yeah, about that- In case of a tie vote who gets final say, in your opinion?
A tie in which way? Father wants/Mother doesn't might be problematic.

But mother wants/father doesn't? Tie goes to the mother, with the possibility of not receiving child support.

But of course, these are my opinions and do not carry the weight of the government mandate.
  #284  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:22 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
It sounds like you are advocating true libertarianism …
I am not advocating that. I am pointing out that all of us have boundaries of where we think it's OK to put ourselves in an elite position, and the charge of "liberal elite" is really just someone getting upset when someone else does the same thing.

Quote:
But don't forget the father as well. He was a participant in the creation of said baby/embryo/etc
The father's only participation was to ejaculate inside a woman while satisfying his own pleasure. His concerns should be subordinate to the person faced with carrying the pregnancy.

Quote:
Fine simply meant that I would be in agreement, not necessarily that I would NEED to be fine. I am not the government.
But we are the government. We make these choices via our political expression. Not choosing is also a choice.
  #285  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:38 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I am not advocating that. I am pointing out that all of us have boundaries of where we think it's OK to put ourselves in an elite position, and the charge of "liberal elite" is really just someone getting upset when someone else does the same thing.


The father's only participation was to ejaculate inside a woman while satisfying his own pleasure. His concerns should be subordinate to the person faced with carrying the pregnancy.


But we are the government. We make these choices via our political expression. Not choosing is also a choice.
Liberal elites, as espoused in this thread, is simply those people who have designed laws to protect people from themselves but this thread devolved from that to abortion...
  #286  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:45 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Liberal elites, as espoused in this thread, is simply those people who have designed laws to protect people from themselves but this thread devolved from that to abortion...
What it devolved to the insistence that elitism is "nobody knows better than the individual" what's good for them, and society has no role in making that choice.

Abortion is one good example where conservatives enthusiastically believe the opposite of that. I could also name marriage equality, the war on drugs, sodomy laws, and a host of other morality-policing instances. Conservative elitism reigns supreme in those cases.

I use those examples not to complain about forms of elitism that I don't like, nor to say that there are no liberal elites in the entire world, but to demonstrate that "elitism" is a misdirection tactic to draw attention away from policy arguments that are weak or altogether missing.
  #287  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:08 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I think the position you take is silly. It stands to reason that the law is designed to protect others vs your autonomy outweigh your autonomy.
Firing a gun into a crowd falls into this, among a whole slew of other laws but I think you knew that.

Nannyism is the attempt to protect you from yourself, not the attempt to protect others from you. Driving with lights on. Firing guns in a crowd etc
It is never, ever about protecting you from yourself. It's about protecting society from having to deal with your corpse in the gutter, your broke ass living on the street, your injured body that you conveniently didn't bother getting insurance for and can't afford to deal with.

Want evidence? Look into where those helmet laws apply. Private property? Nope! Die on your own time and more power to you. But don't slather your corpse on OUR roads! Die if you like, but don't litter!
  #288  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:21 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,679
This leads me to ask what our libertarian friends would do with regard to the consequences of eliminating all this "nannyism?"
Don't tell me everyone would do the right thing. The consequences of breaking the law are a lot clearer than those of not saving for retirement, and people still do it.
Motorcycle helmets are fairly trivial since fools kill themselves, so no big deal (so long as they don't splatter blood on my car.) But what about Social Security? Do you propose to let improvident seniors starve? Be homeless? Or would society be forced to tax itself to give them the money they chose not to save when they were working? Seems like a textbook moral hazard.

I'm curious, because people have been tiptoeing around this problem in this thread.
  #289  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:57 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 696
Umm, they don't give a shit? I don't know how many different ways they can explain this.
  #290  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:11 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
Umm, they don't give a shit? I don't know how many different ways they can explain this.
There may be no practical difference between a policy of "make them face the consequences of their actions" and "just step over the old people dying in the street," but they sound different, don't they?
And who knows, they might be for welfare when it comes down to not facing the consequences of their policies.
  #291  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:15 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
There may be no practical difference between a policy of "make them face the consequences of their actions" and "just step over the old people dying in the street," but they sound different, don't they?
And who knows, they might be for welfare when it comes down to not facing the consequences of their policies.
The usual line is that they expect private organizations like churches and charities to take care of these things. The operative difference between churches/charities and the government being that donation to the former is optional.
  #292  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:00 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
It may further be noted that I've heard it argued that the real moral hazard is that if you're forced to donate money, then it's less of a moral good than voluntarily doing it. Which, arguably, is true - it takes no moral enlightenment to pay taxes. And so these folks are angry that their taxes are used for social reasons because it deprives them of getting feel-good vibes from the helping of the poor that their money is doing.

Yes, I've seriously heard this argued.
  #293  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:17 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
It may further be noted that I've heard it argued that the real moral hazard is that if you're forced to donate money, then it's less of a moral good than voluntarily doing it. Which, arguably, is true - it takes no moral enlightenment to pay taxes. And so these folks are angry that their taxes are used for social reasons because it deprives them of getting feel-good vibes from the helping of the poor that their money is doing.

Yes, I've seriously heard this argued.
I believe it.
Given that the rich have gotten giant tax cuts, the rich now have tons more money to donate to real (not Trump) charities. If this has happened, I haven't heard about it.

As for churches, I doubt churches have been able to bear this load ever in the history of mankind, which is not the fault of the churches. Plus, if you are poor you had better be a member of a church with rich members.

Anyhow, I guess those who believe this can come up with numbers showing that the wealthy during the Hoover administration (when taxes were low) stepped right up and solved poverty during the Depression.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017