In this latest age of Science Denial is there a consensus on "Consensus in science?"

[dblack]

So socialized police (paid for collectively) is better for society than private.

No. It's definitional. Police are government. By definition they are not private. What you're suggesting is replacing government with private security. I'm not an anarchist (not yet anyway). The government is our means of peacefully resolving conflict. As such, we give them a monopoly on coercion in order to provide that function.

You see the the welfare of the population is an aspect of the means of production, you need people, people who can sleep soundly with their families, in order to produce anything.

Ok. But we're talking about the government. Not production. As a rule, in the US, the means of production aren't owned by the government. Yet.

So social stability and low crime is for the good of all.

So is hookers and blow, depending on who you ask. So what?

Socialized health is the same idea as socialized police, one protects you from burglars, rapists, thieves, the other protects you from sickness.

No, it's radically different. Policing is the exclusive province of government because it requires violence to achieve. It requires appointing agents (police officers) who are granted power the rest of us don't have. It's anything BUT voluntary.

Health care requires no coercion, no laws forcing compliance, no special powers granted to any of the actors. It's voluntary free trade.

Ultimately, our debate here hinges on your conception of government. I'm presuming that you see the government as "provider". A parental state that makes sure we have everything we need, and that we are doing everything we "should" (as defined by the current regime).

I don't look at that way at all. As I mentioned above, the overriding purpose of government is to resolve conflict peacefully. It should do very little beyond that, unless there is broad consensus on the matter. So if everyone agrees that government should provide postal service (at least 250 years ago) - so much so that they wrote it into the Constitution - that can be managed. ie the Constitution said government should run the post office. It didn't say that government should run any and every service that socialists want to control.

 

[Churchill]

No. It's definitional. Police are government. By definition they are not private.

Socialized police are also government, emphasizing the word "government" doesn't change that.

What you're suggesting is replacing government with private security. I'm not an anarchist (not yet anyway). The government is our means of peacefully resolving conflict. As such, we give them a monopoly on coercion in order to provide that function.

I didn't suggest that, I asked what you thought of it.

Ok. But we're talking about the government. Not production. The means of production aren't owned by the government. Yet.

OK, if we say that we can that health could also be government then yes?

So is hookers and blow, depending on who you ask. So what?

No, it's radically different. Policing is the exclusive province of government because it requires violence to achieve. It requires appointing agents (police officers) who are granted power the rest of us don't have. It's anything BUT voluntary.

Health care requires no coercion, no laws forcing compliance, no special powers granted to any of the actors. It's voluntary free trade.

I never said the police and health service were the same thing, I know they are different. But they each provide a social benefit and publicly running them both would be better for society.

Ultimately, our debate here hinges on your conception of government. I'm presuming that you see the government as "provider". A parental state that makes sure we have everything we need, and that we are doing everything we "should" (as defined by the current regime).

Ideally it serves the interest of the people, servants who's sole remit is to ensure the welfare of its people as defined by those people.

I don't look at that way at all. As I mentioned above, the overriding purpose of government is to resolve conflict peacefully. It should do very little beyond that unless there is broad consensus on the matter.

So USPS is a form of peaceful conflict resolution? The government should do what the people demand from it, if the majority want public healthcare and so be it.

So if everyone agrees that government should provide postal service (at least 250 years ago) - so much so that they wrote it into the Constitution - that can be managed. ie the Constitution said government should run the post office. It didn't say that government should run any and every service that socialists want to control.

There are moves afoot to privatize USPS.

What is wrong with being a socialist? I am a socialist and so I believe that government should serve the public good not the wealthy private good.

That line of thinking gave us five day work weeks, women voting, rules preventing industry from dumping pollutants into rivers, abolition of child labor and so much more, none of this arose from private wealth, it was all achieved in spite of private wealth, in opposition to private power.

Take a look at Britain before and during the industrial revolution and ask yourself if you'd like to have lived back then?

 

[dblack]

Socialized police are also government, emphasizing the word "government" doesn't change that.

The phrase "socialized police" makes no sense. It's like saying "socialized military" or "socialized courts". You're just trying to use it as wedge to justify socialize everything else.

OK, if we say that we can that health could also be government then yes?

Nope. I didn't sign up for that. If we want a proper socialist state, we'll need to come up with a different Constitution.

But they each provide a social benefit and publicly running them both would be better for society.

Better, according to whom? Again, it's about the purpose of government. It's not there to "do things that would be better for society". Mostly because "better" is highly subjective, and isn't something that needs to be resolved with majority rule.

Ideally it serves the interest of the people, servants who's sole remit is to ensure the welfare of its people as defined by those people.

Totally disagree. The government isn't there to do anything and everything that might be in the "interests of the people". The people can't always get what they want. That's exactly why we have a Constitution that limits government, limits the power of the majority to dictate to everyone else.

The government should do what the people demand from it, if the majority want public healthcare and so be it.

For ****'s sake no. Unrestricted majority rule tramples individual rights and create more conflict, not less

What is wrong with being a socialist? I am a socialist and so I believe that government should serve the public good not the wealthy private good.

I think the biggest error of socialism is the infatuation with majority rule as a means of making social decisions. To butcher a famous quote, majority rule is the "worst system, except for all the others". It's a reasonable way of coming to agreement when conformity is truly necessar - when its imperative that we all agree on one course of action. Most of the time, it isn't necessary to force everyone down the same path, and we should avoid it.

But a close second would be the naive presumption that a government run economy does away with "greed". Greedy ambitious people don't disappear under a socialist system. They just seek the power they want via other means. Under socialism, they can't achieve the wealth and power they want from private enterprise, so they join the government.

And these two points dovetail to the ugliest aspect of socialism. Much like theocracy tries to combine religious and political power, socialism seeks to combine economic power and political power under one office. It's simply too much power, too concentrated. It took us hundreds of years to figure out that theocracy, as tempting as it might be in terms of power, is a really bad idea. We're learning a similar lesson with socialism.

 

[Dante]

Like so many things in society, scientific inquiry has been polluted by the culture war...

Right there is where you lose people. Scientists all over the world are not interested in your "culture wars) narratives.

Science is science. It is Culture Warriors like yourself that bring that shit into any debate on science.

 

[Dante]

They've ignorantly accepted the left's premise - that socialism is the only answer to climate change - and their only way out is to deny the climate change.

Nobody in power, with any serious power to actually affect changes, is pushing socialism as a cure all for the nation's or society's ills.

Neil deGrasse Tyson was asked to discuss more something he said during a podcast:
- This care for and having this deep empathy for humanity.

"Yes. Precisely. He had another point though. He said it's not good enough to be right. You also have to be effective. You can say the right things and and march down the street, but if you're not affecting change, go home. You're just patting yourself on the back saying, "Oh, look how noble I am in all of my declarations." If you're not actually in the trenches making change happen, you're not in the game."


Many people I believe that come to minds like yours are maybe on the safe side of any trenches. They have the support of local communities - cities, towns, congressional districts .. but are not in any way effective in instituting any change you see as threatening something real or imagined

 

[dblack]

Right there is where you lose people. Scientists all over the world are not interested in your "culture wars) narratives.

Science is science. It is Culture Warriors like yourself that bring that shit into any debate on science.

Huh? You seem to have wildly missed my point. Did you get my post mixed up with someone else?

 

[dblack]

Nobody in power, with any serious power to actually affect changes, is pushing socialism as a cure all for the nation's or society's ills.

Neil deGrasse Tyson was asked to discuss more something he said during a podcast:
- This care for and having this deep empathy for humanity.

"Yes. Precisely. He had another point though. He said it's not good enough to be right. You also have to be effective. You can say the right things and and march down the street, but if you're not affecting change, go home. You're just patting yourself on the back saying, "Oh, look how noble I am in all of my declarations." If you're not actually in the trenches making change happen, you're not in the game."


Many people I believe that come to minds like yours are maybe on the safe side of any trenches. They have the support of local communities - cities, towns, congressional districts .. but are not in any way effective in instituting any change you see as threatening something real or imagined

??? I have no idea what you're going on about here. I oppose the culture war (I'm complaining about its influence on science) and you seem to be assuming the opposite.

 

[Dante]

Huh? You seem to have wildly missed my point. Did you get my post mixed up with someone else?

NOPE:

Like so many things in society, scientific inquiry has been polluted by the culture war...

Right there is where you lose people. Scientists all over the world are not interested in your "culture wars) narratives.

Science is science. It is Culture Warriors like yourself that bring that shit into any debate on science.

 

[Dante]

??? I have no idea what you're going on about here. I oppose the culture war (I'm complaining about its influence on science) and you seem to be assuming the opposite.

The culture wars actually have very little influence on science. What they do have is a stage to go after the science.

Scientists do their science. Then fools rush in -- as with covid.

a snippet of Brian Cox discussing this:

COVID; experts were showing people a window onto science in real time this virus either didn't exist or we didn't know it was there, it was in animal population, or whatever it was, so we didn't know it was in humans

But what about COVID, I was thinking also about, with the pandemic, as a prominent figure, were you approached at all to front any NHS or government-related campaigns? - No, because they had experts, and they had very eloquent experts, who I really have tremendous respect for, because it was extremely difficult.

I was interviewed on "Today," I think, about it, in some context or other, and I said, those experts, they were showing people a window onto science in real time.

 

[dblack]

Right there is where you lose people. Scientists all over the world are not interested in your "culture wars) narratives.

You've misunderstood my post. It think if you read the rest you'd understand it in context. I'm complaining about the same thing you are.

 

[Dante]

You've misunderstood my post. It think if you read the rest you'd understand it in context. I'm complaining about the same thing you are.

In an odd way?

 

[Dante]

Like so many things in society, scientific inquiry has been polluted by the culture war. Most of the arguments we have around science aren't really about the science (as much as we might pretend), but around the proposed political solutions.

Take climate science: we bicker back and forth, claiming and denying "facts" that supposedly support our position or don't. But really, the argument - the vehement resistance - is over the proposed solutions. Democrats want more government control over labor and resources. So the only solutions they come up with are basically MOAR SOSHULISM!!!!

As much as I think conservatives are right on most things, most of them aren't very smart. They can't formulate coherent arguments explaining why socialism is a bad solution, so instead, they pretend that climate change isn't real. They don't really know that as a fact, but it's important to their narrative that the Dems excuse for their agenda be false. They've ignorantly accepted the left's premise - that socialism is the only answer to climate change - and their only way out is to deny the climate change.

"They've ignorantly accepted the left's premise - that socialism is the only answer to climate change - and their only way out is to deny the climate change"

 

[dblack]

"They've ignorantly accepted the left's premise - that socialism is the only answer to climate change - and their only way out is to deny the climate change"

And??? What's your point?

 

[Dante]

And??? What's your point?

Lost on you a long way back

 

[Churchill]

You've misunderstood my post. It think if you read the rest you'd understand it in context. I'm complaining about the same thing you are.

There is no "culture war" this is a canard created by dimwitts to "explain" things that they otherwise can't make sense of.

Stick to the science as Dante suggested, science is objective, laws, theories all well understood.

Its how we can fly around the world, land men on the moon, send images back from Jupiter, watch our wide screen televisions and enjoy hyper efficient electric lighting and forecast the weather with more accuracy than we could a century ago.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The culture war erupts when society has to decide what to do with the knowledge granted to it by science.