quote:

Mr. McReynolds' latest post is one of his less intelligible ones, as is often the case when he limits himself to playing word games. Let me try to give us something intelligible to talk about.

When the framers of the Constitution used the phrase "the general welfare" in the preamble to the Constitution, they used a well-known phrase in political writings of the time. It meant that they were establishing a government that was to serve the general interests of the country, rather than special interests. Military defense of the country is generally taken to be in everyone's interest. On the contrary, giving an export subsidy to McDonald's to help them open new reataurants overseas is generally agreed to benefit a special interest.

The words of the framers of the Constitution are entirely irrelevant to what the current policy of the United States should be. The precise wording of the Constitution is also largely irrelevant.

quote:

The sticky part is, obviously, defining the general interest.

You just figured that out? That's the whole point.

quote:

George Will has argued that there is a general interest in a minimal safety-net welfare system, because of the supposed consequences of not having such a system. Even if I accept that basic argument, it is not clear that the safety net should be at the level of a national government, nor that it must be public-sector rather than through private charity.

To demonstrate that it should not be at the national level, you have to show how there is a benefit provided from it being at the state or local level.

As for private charity, same thing. And since, however inadequate government assistance is, private charity tends to be more inadequate -- especially at the local level, when the locals all have a Not In My Back Yard attitude that involves sweeping the homeless and destitute aside rather than helping them out -- you'll have a hard time making that case.


But once again, no case has been made by you.

quote:

I think the key perspective, arrived at through centuries of experience, is to recognize that the special interests always insist that their interests coincide with the general interest, and to be skeptical about all such claims.

"Be skeptical of people's motives." A shocking and radical conclusion you've come to!

quote:

As to the original discussion about "redistribution", there is redistribution inherent in any system of taxing and spending. If taxpayer money goes to defense contractors, redistribution has occurred. The system works as well as it can work in an imperfect world when all such redistribution is an incidental by-product of serving the general interest, and the system works much less well when special interests manage to persuade Congress to buy certain airplanes that the Air Force says it does not even want, because the special interests will benefit financially. Given the difficulty of monitoring a government that is dedicated to general interest programs, I cannot think it wise to introduce entire programs whose purpose is to take money from everyone and give it to a few, because the few will then be better off.

True, for as long as your definitions work, but then it becomes essentially a tautology -- the problem is still, as you noted earlier, deciding what's in the general interest and what's not.

Can't simply go by vote, since you have two problems then -- tyranny of the majority, and conflicting/irrational goals (people will vote for both lower taxes and increased government programs), both of which, if allowed to bend to the popular will, will result in a society that is not ultimately in the general interest.

quote:

the negative effects of welfare state programs include gun battles in the streets,

There wouldn't be gun battles in the streets without a welfare state? That's funny, I seem to have watched a semi-historical movie called "Gangs of New York". There were quite a few battles in the streets. And all that predated the welfare state.

Could it be that crime is not merely a byproduct of a welfare state, but that the method of implementation matters? And so do a host of other factors which you're not bringing into your analysis?

quote:

dysfunctional schools that have given up on educating and set their sights on keeping the kids from killing each other, etc.

The school system needs serious reworking. But you've provided no evidence that that's the fault (in whole or in large part, as opposed to being a minor outlying factor) of the welfare system, as opposed to a large number of other societal and economic factors.

quote:

When the "beneficiaries" of welfare state programs have a more miserable existence than they had before the advent of the programs, I conclude that the programs do more harm than good.

That's a silly conclusion to make -- if you look, time wise, between the founding and expansion of the welfare state, and the quality of life for the poor segment of society, there is a correlation. But that does absolutely nothing to suggest causation, and with a mind-blowing number of major societal upheavals occurring during that time period, to arbitrarily pin causation on this factor seems ludicrous on its face.

quote:

At this point, Mr. McReynolds can tell us if it is still a fair characterization that those who oppose welfare-state programs are displaying a "let them eat cake" attitude.

Not any given program. Opposing the idea of any redistribution in a society is "let them eat cake". You've demonstrated already that the main problem there is you simply had no clue whatsoever about how to use the word 'redistribution' in a coherent argument.



Note, of course, that you haven't actually *made* an argument about anything yet. You've strung together a series of word-tautologies that do not actually make an argument for much of anything, except "We should support the general welfare" and "We should be skeptical of people's motives".

Well, yeah.

Pardon my wording, but, "Duh."

The problem comes in defining what's in the general welfare, which you yourself noted.


But you haven't actually made an argument about that, yet. All you've done is prove that I was right in my usage of definitions, and now you've come around to admit as such.


Are you this literally *incapable* of laying out an argument for or against any policy?

"Discussing" things with Mr. McReynolds reminds me of reading some religious debates a while ago. In some, there seemed to be a fair-minded and cordial disagreement with some hope of actually reaching at least a limited mutual understanding. In others, there was a lot of obtuse rhetoric, pretending not to know the common understanding of words, denying the clear implications of statements, shouting "you cannot prove that!" when the point is obvious, claiming to have "won" or to have "vanquished" the opponent and other personalizations of the discussion, etc. What these kind of "debaters" did not realize, it seemed to me, is that public discussions about truth are social endeavors. There is an audience that the debaters are trying to persuade. The obtuse debater can walk off the stage at the end and claim that the other side did not "win" or did not "prove" his claims (because the obtuse debater's tactics preclude rational discussion), but he also has not convinced anyone in the audience. Rather than get too flustered by the obtuse one, the other debater does well to just let him engage in such tactics and just ask the audience at the end to decide for themselves what they think.

In a similar vein, I am happy to let this discussion die. Readers of this forum might have long since concluded that this is just some personal conflict between Mr. McReynolds and myself, and stopped reading it, in which case it is a waste of time. Or, there might be an audience, in which case I will leave it to them to evaluate Mr. McReynolds' obvious dishonesty, as outlined in my previous posting.

I won't take the time to go through the latest posting by Mr. McReynolds line by line, tedious point by tedious point. A couple of examples will suffice to summarize the rhetorical style encountered there. "You just figured that out? That's the whole point." Where did I say that I had just figured something out? I was offering a broad outline of ideas to give us something productive to talk about with respect to the welfare state. None of the ideas were claimed to be new or innovative, or to have just occurred to me recently. This kind of derisive, personal tone is typical of Mr. McReynolds. Later, he says: "'Be skeptical of people's motives.' A shocking and radical conclusion you've come to!" Right. This is the kind of rhetoric that makes a conversation with Mr. McReynolds entirely unproductive. Just as one must always sidetrack to argue that one is not a bigot, or to argue about whether Mr. McReynolds said what he said, one must sidetrack to explain that a general statement was not intended to be a new and profound revelation and does not represent the pinnacle of my understanding of the subject.

Readers who are interested in the subject of the welfare state, whether it has inherent flaws or is just poorly implemented, etc., would do well to skip obtuse argumentation and read Charles Murray's books "Losing Ground" and "In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government". Then search around for reviews and replies to reviews, get a feel for the dialogue surrounding those books, see what other books might be recommended by those who were critical of Murray, and decide for themselves.

quote:

"Discussing" things with Mr. McReynolds reminds me of reading some religious debates a while ago. In some, there seemed to be a fair-minded and cordial disagreement with some hope of actually reaching at least a limited mutual understanding.

I don't need a mutual understanding. I need you to come to *my* understanding, or else disprove my understanding. In which case, if you disprove it, then I gain a new understanding -- and I still need you to come to my understanding, changed as it is by your argument.

quote:

In others, there was a lot of obtuse rhetoric, pretending not to know the common understanding of words, denying the clear implications of statements, shouting "you cannot prove that!" when the point is obvious, claiming to have "won" or to have "vanquished" the opponent and other personalizations of the discussion, etc.

If it were clear, you wouldn't have to call it clear.

If it were obvious, you wouldn't have to call it obvious.

If it were common, you wouldn't have to call it common.

And so forth. If you can't even figure out the wisdom of that, then much is lost on you.

quote:

What these kind of "debaters" did not realize, it seemed to me, is that public discussions about truth are social endeavors. There is an audience that the debaters are trying to persuade.

Incorrect. We're in pursuit of truth.

If you're trying to persuade large crowds, that's what deceit and sophistry are generally used for. (Do I take a cynical view of politicians on both sides? Perhaps. More than anything, I want them to tell me something pretty.)

One on one, like this, there is no "unseen crowd". On the internet, it's just you, me, and the pursuit of truth.

quote:

The obtuse debater can walk off the stage at the end and claim that the other side did not "win" or did not "prove" his claims (because the obtuse debater's tactics preclude rational discussion), but he also has not convinced anyone in the audience. Rather than get too flustered by the obtuse one, the other debater does well to just let him engage in such tactics and just ask the audience at the end to decide for themselves what they think.

And yet, you do not grasp this -- we are not debating for an audience.

quote:

In a similar vein, I am happy to let this discussion die. Readers of this forum might have long since concluded that this is just some personal conflict between Mr. McReynolds and myself, and stopped reading it, in which case it is a waste of time. Or, there might be an audience, in which case I will leave it to them to evaluate Mr. McReynolds' obvious dishonesty, as outlined in my previous posting.

On the contrary! We have no personal conflict. We have merely the pursuit of truth, and we have your refusal to put forth an actual argument on, well, pretty much anything.

quote:

I won't take the time to go through the latest posting by Mr. McReynolds line by line, tedious point by tedious point. A couple of examples will suffice to summarize the rhetorical style encountered there. "You just figured that out? That's the whole point." Where did I say that I had just figured something out? I was offering a broad outline of ideas to give us something productive to talk about with respect to the welfare state. None of the ideas were claimed to be new or innovative, or to have just occurred to me recently. This kind of derisive, personal tone is typical of Mr. McReynolds. Later, he says: "'Be skeptical of people's motives.' A shocking and radical conclusion you've come to!" Right. This is the kind of rhetoric that makes a conversation with Mr. McReynolds entirely unproductive. Just as one must always sidetrack to argue that one is not a bigot, or to argue about whether Mr. McReynolds said what he said, one must sidetrack to explain that a general statement was not intended to be a new and profound revelation and does not represent the pinnacle of my understanding of the subject.

Then it's not worth saying, now is it?

Say something worth saying.

That's all I'm really asking you to do.

Derisive and personal? Perhaps. Life is derisive and personal. It's also the best tone through cutting through things which are not useful to me, nor to the pursuit of truth, and casting them aside.

It's not intended to hurt your feelings, but if it does, that's hardly my fault -- this is the internet, where all our interests and expediencies are served by having some rather thick skin.

quote:

Readers who are interested in the subject of the welfare state, whether it has inherent flaws or is just poorly implemented, etc., would do well to skip obtuse argumentation and read Charles Murray's books "Losing Ground" and "In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government". Then search around for reviews and replies to reviews, get a feel for the dialogue surrounding those books, see what other books might be recommended by those who were critical of Murray, and decide for themselves.

In other words, you adamantly refuse to actually make a case for anything -- but you helpfully point out to us that there are other people out there making cases, and perhaps we might want to listen to one of them.

Thanks for the book suggestions. But they're no substitute for actually making an argument here, once you've jumped into the fray.

"The words of the framers of the Constitution are entirely irrelevant to what the current policy of the United States should be. The precise wording of the Constitution is also largely irrelevant."

Joe, do you really mean this, or were you caught up in the heat of arguement against the polemics of this Coleman guy? If you do think this is correct, I am not sure why, please explain.

I certainly think we live in the most privledged state in the world in many respects as a direct result of the constitution. To refute the wording of the constitution, is a common practice on the left, but to me, it is the absolute standard of law in our nation. Without it, and without its precise wording and the meaning of those words I seriously doubt our nation would be what it is.

quote:

Joe, do you really mean this, or were you caught up in the heat of arguement against the polemics of this Coleman guy? If you do think this is correct, I am not sure why, please explain.

It's the opposite of something said in the heat of the argument -- I think it's, if anything, the foundation of knowledge. The idea that the world of the present belongs to the past, and thus they have some say in how our country should *currently* be run (Outside of the normal logic or illogic which their structures would be judged by) is against every tenet of judging an idea by its merits that we've ever heard of.

quote:

I certainly think we live in the most privledged state in the world in many respects as a direct result of the constitution. To refute the wording of the constitution, is a common practice on the left, but to me, it is the absolute standard of law in our nation. Without it, and without its precise wording and the meaning of those words I seriously doubt our nation would be what it is.

So you think there's no way for the constitution to be improved?

...If so, why have we amended it 26 times?