The US Suffers from Not Enough Government

[AConcernedCitizen]

Ever visit section 8 housing? Not a pretty sight, and most landlords won't accept it. Welfare programs do not encourage work whatsoever. Thank God for the 1996 reforms that put a permanent 5 year cap on lifetime benefits and work requirements.

Your anecdotal critiques are based on systems currently in place in the US. And to that extent, I agree that social safety nets in the US are abysmal compared to the rest of the developed world.

Your premises don't pan out with the empirical evidence in the rest of the world though. If your hypothesis that "welfare programs do not encourage work whatsoever" were true in general, we would expect to see nations with extremely robust welfare states like Norway and Finland also experience proportionately higher unemployment rates. Instead, Norway has dramatically lower unemployment at 5.2% compared with 8.4% in the US. Finland also has lower unemployment at 7.7%

Both countries also happen to be kicking our ass by nearly every standard of living metric.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I’m sure that leftist academics can invent evidence for their claims. They do all the time. If social welfare reduced crime then the black community in the US would be the most law abiding. You can frame a study to get any theory you want validated. Results are much different

See, this is why peer-review is important. Sometimes, someone thinks that they have a brilliant understanding of how something works, when in fact they have made a really basic and glaringly obvious error. In this case you made a methodological error of assuming broad correlation based on causation, rather than evaluating a predictive model based on empirical evidence.

It would be like saying "If insulin really worked as medicine, then people with diabetes would be the healthiest people around." It is trivial for most people to understand why this 'logic' doesn't work.

 

[aociswundumho]

Your premises don't pan out with the empirical evidence in the rest of the world though. If your hypothesis that "welfare programs do not encourage work whatsoever" were true in general, we would expect to see nations with extremely robust welfare states like Norway and Finland also experience proportionately higher unemployment rates. Instead, Norway has dramatically lower unemployment at 5.2% compared with 8.4% in the US. Finland also has lower unemployment at 7.7%

Norway and Finland are tiny countries with about 5 million people each. Demographically, they are virtually all white and all Christian. I think it's very telling how you progressives invariably only pick white Christian countries for the US to emulate. I'm sure Richard Spencer would agree with you.

There are about 190 countries in the world. Name a few that have populations which are predominately black/brown and non-Christian that you admire, and that you would want the US to emulate, so you can show the other leftists here that you're not a racist.

 

[aociswundumho]

Dozens of peer-reviewed studies that confirm theoretical predictive models with empirical findings disagree with you. Here are just a few of them:

What matters is violent crime, not property crime. From your link:

Abstract
A simple economic model of criminal behavior shows that welfare payments will reduce the time allocated to illegal activities under risk aversion and other reasonable assumptions. This theoretical prediction is confirmed by the empirical findings: using a set of cross‐sectional U.S. state data for 1987, it is found that cash or in‐kind welfare programs have a negative and often significant effect on property crime. More general programs such as public housing seem to have a larger effect than those aimed primarily at women (AFDC). Medicaid and school lunch programs apparently have little effect on property crime.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What matters is violent crime, not property crime. From your link:

That is a fascinating perspective. Some of us prefer to not have our car windows smashed in or our houses broken into.

I think some of your right-leaning comrades have been rather adamant about looting and property damage being a problem recently, so you might find yourself in the minority with regards to your "theft-and-vandalism-is-fine" stance.

 

[aociswundumho]

That is a fascinating perspective. Some of us prefer to not have our car windows smashed in or our houses broken into.

Didn't a leftist just release a book entitled In Defense of Looting?

I think some of your right-leaning comrades have been rather adamant about looting and property damage being a problem recently, so you might find yourself in the minority with regards to your "theft-and-vandalism-is-fine" stance.

That's not my stance. My stance is I shouldn't have to pay people not to commit crime.

 

[Luce]

That is called Communism.

Then I guess I need to let the red flag fly.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

See, this is why peer-review is important. Sometimes, someone thinks that they have a brilliant understanding of how something works, when in fact they have made a really basic and glaringly obvious error. In this case you made a methodological error of assuming broad correlation based on causation, rather than evaluating a predictive model based on empirical evidence.

It would be like saying "If insulin really worked as medicine, then people with diabetes would be the healthiest people around." It is trivial for most people to understand why this 'logic' doesn't work.

The difference is, medicine has only been half compromised by leftist political ideology. However all sociology has been completely compromised. Peer review is your relevant when the entire field of study is fake. Go look up James Lindsay Peter Bogosian and Helen pluck rose. They literally got a sociology journal to peer review in essay that was Mein Kampf.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Norway and Finland are tiny countries with about 5 million people each. Demographically, they are virtually all white and all Christian. I think it's very telling how you progressives invariably only pick white Christian countries for the US to emulate. I'm sure Richard Spencer would agree with you.

There are about 190 countries in the world. Name a few that have populations which are predominately black/brown and non-Christian that you admire, and that you would want the US to emulate, so you can show the other leftists here that you're not a racist.

It is worse than that, white liberals actually think that if they take a system of social democracy invented by white Christian intellectuals and force it upon black and brown people With no regard for their culture and without them having any say in the manner, that they will suddenly become as happy and wealthy as Scandinavians. They do not believe that people build institutions, they believe that really smart people at the top build institutions and people will just follow the institutions and everything will be great.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Didn't a leftist just release a book entitled In Defense of Looting?

You are confused. Anarchists want to reduce government as much as possible. That makes them far-right.

That's not my stance. My stance is I shouldn't have to pay people not to commit crime.

You also shouldn't have to pay people to catch the people who commit crimes, since the crimes just shouldn't have been committed to begin with.

Irrespective of the contention that crime shouldn't exist, crime does exist. And as is so often the case, preventing the problem is less expensive than waiting until the problem has gotten out of hand before trying to fix it.

 

[aociswundumho]

You are confused. Anarchists want to reduce government as much as possible. That makes them far-right.

Hey, you finally got something right, congrats.

The error comes from people falsely equating anarchy with chaos, when anarchy in a political context simply means no state. The last thing the BLM criminals protesters want is no government, as that would mean no more free stuff - and you know how much people on the left luv getting free stuff from the government. Even the so-called "defund the police" movement is a fraud. No progressive or BLM member wants to really defund the police. Instead, they want to "reform" the police. Funny how virtually every government institution is in a perpetual need of "reform".

You also shouldn't have to pay people to catch the people who commit crimes, since the crimes just shouldn't have been committed to begin with. Irrespective of the contention that crime shouldn't exist, crime does exist. And as is so often the case, preventing the problem is less expensive than waiting until the problem has gotten out of hand before trying to fix it.

Agreed, but that's an argument for better security systems and more guns, not for giving in to some sort of institutional blackmail.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The difference is, medicine has only been half compromised by leftist political ideology. However all sociology has been completely compromised. Peer review is your relevant when the entire field of study is fake. Go look up James Lindsay Peter Bogosian and Helen pluck rose. They literally got a sociology journal to peer review in essay that was Mein Kampf.

Thanks for illustrating one of the reasons that scientific rigor is a far better method of analysis than your anecdotal thought experiments. This is a perfect example of how the scientific community regularly polices itself. Less than a year after James Lindsay Peter Bogosian and Helen Pluck Rose published their articles, their hoax was discovered, and the articles were retracted. While the vast majority of scientific journals had rightfully rejected their hoax articles, they managed to expose flaws in the review process for 4 journals which then came under scrutiny from the scientific community, and the review processes were corrected.

Also, while you claim that this is proof that "all sociology has been completely compromised" it was specifically a compromise in the review process of grievance studies, with no bearing at all on the field of criminology. Further, any fraudulent publication that makes it through peer-review will quickly be exposed upon replication, which is why scientific consensus and prevailing models never rely on a single study, but rather on a robust body of research.

I did not just present a single data analysis study from a grievance studies journal as evidence of my claims. I presented multiple criminology studies based on predictive modeling, representing a large body of research on the topic.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Agreed, but that's an argument for better security systems and more guns, not for giving in to some sort of institutional blackmail.

I shouldn't have to pay for security systems or guns to protect me from crimes that shouldn't be committed to begin with.

 

[aociswundumho]

I shouldn't have to pay for security systems or guns to protect me from crimes that shouldn't be committed to begin with.

Utopia is not an option.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Utopia is not an option.

Hey, you finally got something right, congrats.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Thanks for illustrating one of the reasons that scientific rigor is a far better method of analysis than your anecdotal thought experiments. This is a perfect example of how the scientific community regularly polices itself. Less than a year after James Lindsay Peter Bogosian and Helen Pluck Rose published their articles, their hoax was discovered, and the articles were retracted. While the vast majority of scientific journals had rightfully rejected their hoax articles, they managed to expose flaws in the review process for 4 journals which then came under scrutiny from the scientific community, and the review processes were corrected.

Also, while you claim that this is proof that "all sociology has been completely compromised" it was specifically a compromise in the review process of grievance studies, with no bearing at all on the field of criminology. Further, any fraudulent publication that makes it through peer-review will quickly be exposed upon replication, which is why scientific consensus and prevailing models never rely on a single study, but rather on a robust body of research.

I did not just present a single data analysis study from a grievance studies journal as evidence of my claims. I presented multiple criminology studies based on predictive modeling, representing a large body of research on the topic.

I want a full breakdown of the politics of every researcher and who paid for your studies. I strongly doubt government grant studies are ever going to find social spending ineffective. It’s as reliable as tobacco companies saying no connection between smoking and cancer.

And you left out the important part, the fake studies were exposed, but not by academia. By a columnist for a conservative publication. Retracting studies after peer review publication that were totally fabricated and in one case plagiarized makes the point that the process is not secure.

And even if it were, there is no moral mandate to govern by “science” science has been abused to become a tyrannical instrument. The American psyicological Association literally believes young boys should be taught masculinity is evil.

We can see the truth for ourselves as far as welfare versus law enforcement anyway, in spite of every pathetic attempt to explain it away we saw massive crime drops in 90s after massive expansion of law enforcement AND welfare reform that cut benefits for most recipients.

 

[bomberfox]

You are confused. Anarchists want to reduce government as much as possible. That makes them far-right.



You also shouldn't have to pay people to catch the people who commit crimes, since the crimes just shouldn't have been committed to begin with.

Irrespective of the contention that crime shouldn't exist, crime does exist. And as is so often the case, preventing the problem is less expensive than waiting until the problem has gotten out of hand before trying to fix it.

That spectrum is pretty much uniquely American and leftists were the ones who originated the idea.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

...there is no moral mandate to govern by “science” science has been abused to become a tyrannical instrument.

"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

 

[EMNofSeattle]

"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

So your rebuttal is quoting a known communist? Yes, ignorance of the masses is as good as the intellect of intellectuals. In fact it’s even better. It was not the so-called ignorant conservatives who committed the worst genocides of mankind. It was all intellectuals that did that. From the Jacobins to the Nazis to the communists, all done in the name of science and an intellectual ideology.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Yes, ignorance of the masses is as good as the intellect of intellectuals.

I think we have hit upon the fundamental crux of our difference of perspective then.

It was not the so-called ignorant conservatives who committed the worst genocides of mankind.

Yes, it was.

It was all intellectuals that did that.

No, it wasn't.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I think we have hit upon the fundamental crux of our difference of perspective then.



Yes, it was.

You’re going to rewrite history to ignore virtually all of the western intelligencia were outright soviet supporters?



No, it wasn't.

Yes it was.

 

[aociswundumho]

"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

That essay was primarily about Asimov decrying the state of literacy in the US - when 90% of Americans get their "free" edukashun in a government-run public skool.

Yet progressives believe the US suffers from not enough government.

 

[aociswundumho]

Hey, you finally got something right, congrats.

Seems to me you don't agree with it. Wasn't you who wrote this very utopian statement:

You also shouldn't have to pay people to catch the people who commit crimes, since the crimes just shouldn't have been committed to begin with.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That essay was primarily about Asimov decrying the state of literacy in the US - when 90% of Americans get their "free" edukashun in a government-run public skool.

Yet progressives believe the US suffers from not enough government.

And literacy was higher in that time then now despite trillions of wasted federal ed dollars since then

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Seems to me you don't agree with it. Wasn't you who wrote this very utopian statement:

On the contrary. I originally made the point that crime is a reality that should be addressed based on what is rather than what should be. My exact words were "Irrespective of the contention that crime shouldn't exist, crime does exist." This was specifically to address your utopian assertion that:

My stance is I shouldn't have to pay people not to commit crime.

This is a utopian argument of how things should and shouldn't be. My point was that utopia is not an option, and that you will end up paying one way or the other, regardless.