The Tank has Gone to Hell

[[Syl]]

www.heritage.org/index/ranking
www.dailypaul.com/159527/freest-country ... ld-denmark

[Zarathustra]

Yes, exactly.

The Denmark ranking is out of date. It's Hong Kong.

The ranking is done entirely in terms of economic factors, deriving its definition of freedom in terms of economic freedom.

[wayfriend]

But I think real progressives and conservatives are what they are because they either believe in evolving or in preservation.

That's an extremely simplistic characterization--indeed, a caricature--that is only possible by framing (as the Left always does) everything in terms of the necessity of government, to the exclusion of any other way to achieve these goals.

That's like complaining that religious arguments are always about religion. Opposed approaches to government can be characterized by their approaches to government, neh?

And, as I have just said, just because some progressive arguments are about the necessity of government for solving some issues, doesn't make all progressive arguments about that. Progressive arguments are about changing the role of government to improve society, and it can just as easily be about lessening the role as greatening it, or be about something else entirely. The key point is that it's considering a better way of doing things, without undo hinderance by "we've always done it this way".

By your logic, progressives would be anti-abortion because it increases the role of government.

[Zarathustra]

But I think real progressives and conservatives are what they are because they either believe in evolving or in preservation.

That's an extremely simplistic characterization--indeed, a caricature--that is only possible by framing (as the Left always does) everything in terms of the necessity of government, to the exclusion of any other way to achieve these goals.

That's like complaining that religious arguments are always about religion. Opposed approaches to government can be characterized by their approaches to government, neh?

Fair enough. If you only meant to speak about the government, then it's a fair point to say that conservatives want to preserve the Constitution, and progressives want to "evolve" it into something else. For them the Constitution is a limiting factor that must be overcome in order to achieve their trans-governmental goals, rather than a document to preserve our liberty. I agree, in that sense, that conservatives are all about preservation.

But when you talk about social safety nets, you're talking about society, citizens, the populace. Sure, the government evolves in order to take on this role, but when the government intrudes to a deeper degree into our lives and our society, you no longer can draw a clear distinction between the two (government and society) when you talk about evolution vs preservation, and pretend that you're only talking about the government. You're also talking about how the government evolves society.

Taking your example, would it a purely religious complaint to say that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools? No, that's a complaint that arises from science and science education, into which religion is being forced by some. "Religious" arguments aren't always about religion when religion sticks its nose into areas that aren't religion.

If you're willing to say that Progressivism means the evolution of government and the stagnation of society, then I'll agree all day long. However, if you believe that the evolution of government also leads to a positive evolution of society (safety nets, entitlements, etc.), then we must conclude that the fact that we have record numbers of people on food stamps under Obama's term is "progress" under Progressivism, because Progressivism = more safety nets and entitlements. I suppose 100% of the population dependent upon the government would be the Utopian ideal in this situation? Free health care. Free food. Free housing. Free everything, that no one has to work for to achieve. Total dependency. Utter stagnation.

Of course that's silly, and becomes a caricature of your position. But in order to bring it back to reality, the burden is upon you to draw the line at how much of this "progress" our society can stand before it collapses. Care to draw the line? I haven't seen any hint that one exists in the minds of progressives. I haven't seen a tax increase or a government program that they'd be against. You're free to come up with examples to counter my caricature.

Progressive arguments are about changing the role of government to improve society, and it can just as easily be about lessening the role as greatening it, or be about something else entirely.

The role of government doesn't change. In order to do that, we'd have to alter the Constitution. Progressives usually argue that everything they want to do is Constitutinal. Are you now admitting that they're not? The Constitution spells out the role and the powers of the government. There is no need for the role of government to change, if everything you want to do is Constitutional. Can you give an example of how progressives want to change this role that isn't already a power given by the Constitution?

While you're at it, can you given any examples of progressive solutions that call for smaller government involvement? (I don't see how abortion rights are an example of progressivism. That's liberalism. Freedom. Remember, that "right" was seen as already in the Constitution within the right to privacy. That didn't evolve the government. The elucidated an already existing right.)

[Avatar]

First, you've gone back to a very country-specific sort of argument, "Liberals want to change the constitution!"

(Funnily enough, here it's liberals who are most invested in following the constitution.)

Second, we're back to government size...why does the size of the government matter? What do you mean by "size" anyway? Not the number of people or the number of departments surely? What then?

--A

[sgt.null]

size of gov't means people and departments and how much cash they waste in the blackhole that is their budgets...

[Avatar]

Do you think the government would spend less, or tax you less, if they suddenly closed some departments?

--A

[sgt.null]

no, they would shuffle the money elsewhere. the gov't is bloated but used to the money...

[Avatar]

Exactly. Smaller government is not going to make things cheaper.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

Exactly. Smaller government is not going to make things cheaper.

--A

not necessarily looking to make things cheaper, it getting the most amount of money to the places that actually accomplish things, other than to spend money for it's existance (Department of Education is a great example, the National Endowment for the Arts is another) or other silly things such as a grant to study the life cycle of the blue banded catapillar.

[Vraith]

Exactly. Smaller government is not going to make things cheaper.

--A

not necessarily looking to make things cheaper, it getting the most amount of money to the places that actually accomplish things, other than to spend money for it's existance (Department of Education is a great example, the National Endowment for the Arts is another) or other silly things such as a grant to study the life cycle of the blue banded catapillar.

All those things together don't cost as much busting people for pot, and actually "accomplish things."
Is the EPA on your list too? cuz that's another one that accomplishes much more than it costs.
If it's about "not the bucks, but BANG for the buck" it's the things the Rep's want to cut that "accomplish." [overall---though it would be interesting if someone did a dollar-by-dollar/program by program comparison assessing both costs AND benefit...unlike the basis the Rep's are using that ONLY counts costs and overestimates them]
Everyone loves to blame our social programs for our problems, loves to say things like "Those poor victims think they're POOR? They have no idea what REAL poverty is like and how good they have it." In a way that is the case...get rid of those programs, though, and you'll have a helluva lot fewer rich folk, and a terascat-load more poor people who know EXACTLY what it's like to be that poor, starving, jobless, and how "good" they have it. [and most of those folk would be folk that are welfare/program-haters right now].

We wouldn't have to worry about illegal immigration anymore...Mexico and Canada would be building fences and arming the borders.

[Avatar]

not necessarily looking to make things cheaper, it getting the most amount of money to the places that actually accomplish things, other than to spend money for it's existance (Department of Education is a great example, the National Endowment for the Arts is another) or other silly things such as a grant to study the life cycle of the blue banded catapillar.

So you think the government shouldn't spend money on education? Seems to me that's somewhere that needs investment...

--A

[sgt.null]

our gov't has proven that it doesn't do well spending money on education. why keep throwing good money after bad?

[Rawedge Rim]

Exactly. Smaller government is not going to make things cheaper.

--A

not necessarily looking to make things cheaper, it getting the most amount of money to the places that actually accomplish things, other than to spend money for it's existance (Department of Education is a great example, the National Endowment for the Arts is another) or other silly things such as a grant to study the life cycle of the blue banded catapillar.

All those things together don't cost as much busting people for pot, and actually "accomplish things."
Is the EPA on your list too? cuz that's another one that accomplishes much more than it costs.
If it's about "not the bucks, but BANG for the buck" it's the things the Rep's want to cut that "accomplish." [overall---though it would be interesting if someone did a dollar-by-dollar/program by program comparison assessing both costs AND benefit...unlike the basis the Rep's are using that ONLY counts costs and overestimates them]
Everyone loves to blame our social programs for our problems, loves to say things like "Those poor victims think they're POOR? They have no idea what REAL poverty is like and how good they have it." In a way that is the case...get rid of those programs, though, and you'll have a helluva lot fewer rich folk, and a terascat-load more poor people who know EXACTLY what it's like to be that poor, starving, jobless, and how "good" they have it. [and most of those folk would be folk that are welfare/program-haters right now].

We wouldn't have to worry about illegal immigration anymore...Mexico and Canada would be building fences and arming the borders.

Did I mention the EPA?

I mentioned the Dept. of Education for a reason....it's there, but it produces no results that can be measured, improves nothing, etc., it's just an agency looking for a reason to be.

The National Endowment for the Arts: You want to create art, and you are good at it, fine, create art, using your money, just don't ask me do dip into my own funds I can use for something that I want in order to finance your passion for art.

As to the War on Drugs: I have stated repeatedly that I oppose it. I think it's a solutions that creates it's own problem far in excess to the problem it's supposed to be a solution to. (Like Prohibition)

And to the remarks about the poor: Yes there are poor people, and there are people who genuinely need help. Yet there is also a significant amount of persons who are on on the public dole who claim poverty, yet own more electronics, better cars, and more jewelry, new tattoes, expensive athletic shoes, than I do; and I work two jobs and have three incomes. Think I'm kidding, ask folks who have worked around the "poor".

[Avatar]

our gov't has proven that it doesn't do well spending money on education. why keep throwing good money after bad?

The answer is not to stop spending money on education though. The answer is to spend it wisely or meaningfully.

The National Endowment for the Arts: You want to create art, and you are good at it, fine, create art, using your money, just don't ask me do dip into my own funds I can use for something that I want in order to finance your passion for art.

But it's not your money. This is sorta my point. If they stop spending money on arts, you're not going to have more money. They will just spend it on other stuff instead.

--A

[sgt.null]

avatar - the department of education, the teachers union. these do not exist to make sure money is spent well or wisely.

we still have kids taking summers off from school. i doubt many of them are tending to crops anymore...

[peter]

I can't pretend I've read all the posts and pages of this thread - but beginning at the original post and doing a few random dips I found it pretty disquieting stuff. I've always recognised that some people place a great deal of both effort and research into their posts in this forum and have been shamed by the superficiality of my contributions compared to others. I have great respect for the intellect and bredth of knowledge displayed by numerous members of the Watch and am often but often painfully aware that I am punching above my weight in offering opinions or initiating posts in the Tank. Never, never never would I wish, by not conforming to the standards of debate required for contribution to the Tank wish to be responsible in part or otherwise, to it's decline into an arena of low grade ramblings.

But the problem remains from my perspective, that I have things I want to discuss (eg Is Darwinism inextricably linked with right wing political thought; How do we know if we are Free; Is there a place for religion in politics) - but perhaps not at the level that demands 3 hours of research and a degree in political science in order to feel that one is doing the forum justice. These topics do not seem appropriate for the general discussion forum - nor would they fit well into the Tank if discussed at 'the lower level' at which my abilitities level out. But where else is there? There must be other Watchers (nervous look around) who like to contribute on subjects that are potentially heavy-weight, but can also be discussed in a lighter way. Dare I suggest it, but could not the Tank have a 'shallow-end' as well as a 'deep-end'. That way people could indicate by where they post their original topic whether they are going to be satisfied with a lighter kind of discussion or not.

[Iolanthe]

But the problem remains from my perspective, that I have things I want to discuss (eg Is Darwinism inextricably linked with right wing political thought; How do we know if we are Free; Is there a place for religion in politics) - but perhaps not at the level that demands 3 hours of research and a degree in political science in order to feel that one is doing the forum justice.

I entirely agree with you, Peter.

[lorin]

Dare I suggest it, but could not the Tank have a 'shallow-end' as well as a 'deep-end'. That way people could indicate by where they post their original topic whether they are going to be satisfied with a lighter kind of discussion or not.

I'm a shallow end wader as well.

[Vraith]

But the problem remains from my perspective, that I have things I want to discuss (eg Is Darwinism inextricably linked with right wing political thought; How do we know if we are Free; Is there a place for religion in politics) - but perhaps not at the level that demands 3 hours of research and a degree in political science in order to feel that one is doing the forum justice.

I entirely agree with you, Peter.

BAH! I'm tempted to smack you both, probably Lorin too, with the old "there aren't any stupid questions!" stick. Except it isn't broad enough to cover the issue you're addressing....which really has 2 different aspects in it [at least].
One is the topic/content/issue: why do you want to discuss those things? You AT LEAST want to communicate about them, you might want to learn, you might want to change the world's mind. All of those things are contributory, "do the forum justice," as you put it. And from my view, it isn't always, or even mostly, the "smartest one in the room," the one with the numbers, the research, the authority, that says the best or most important things, makes the most "valuable" contribution. I mean, there's one kind of value/contribution in each individuals post...but the value that matters most is in the exchange itself, what that process creates/generates, the work it does on us, all of us participants.
In other words: I fail to see the "lack of justice to the forum" you take upon your own heads.
The other part, of course is the "tone/attitude/seriousness."
Z appears to be a bit aggressive, lays claim to that himself. Cail [particularly, I think, though this is just my impression when he begins getting bored with a topic/repititions] dismissive, hard. I get that, I see it. BUT: at least part of that tone/attitude/seriousness is in YOU/US, the reading folk. I see, on purpose at least in part, fun/funny in there too [I'm sure I've got some aggression and dismissiveness in my own and others eyes, but god knows I also think I'm hysterical...and if you don't you're wrong! Go research "comedy."]
On the whole I think the Tank's reputation as the underground dogfight within the idyllic Watch environment way overrated. It ain't so tough, more puppy play than pit-bull, and a lot more bark than bite.
I know this seems kinda me on a superior high-horse lecturing...but it's the TANK!.
It may well be dumb/simplistic/trite to say [and maybe condescending/arrogant of me to say it] if you approach the tank with a different perspective it will have a different tone/attitude...but I think it's so anyway.
And it isn't fair to us other readers if you devalue yourself so don't contribute...cuz that eliminates our chance to value you/your thoughts in any way at all. [not to mention eliminates your chance to BE valued].