= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
drethelin comments on Politics Discussion Thread February 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (146)
Incidentally, my biggest problem with these threads comes from the fact that the positions I'm most interested in hearing good arguments in opposition to, I suspect I wouldn't find any opposition on here. I'm fairly aware of the first-principles differences which result in most of my disagreements; the baffling ones are things like support of drone warfare coming from people who believe in universal healthcare. (I can see support of one, or the other, but not both at the same time. And yet people exist who do support both at the same time.)
are you against drone warfare vs OTHER types of warfare or are you just against warfare? I think that might be where the confusion is. If you think we should try to save more people and therefore support healthcare and oppose warfare, I think that makes sense. I think it also makes sense to say you support healthcare because it saves lives and you support drone warfare because it saves lives in comparison to other warfare, vs the less realistic no warfare.
I was referring to a very specific use of drone warfare and was insufficiently explicit in my comment. (A peril of switching back and forth between different forums of discussion, dropping context.) It wasn't even until the latest round of comments that I realized why exactly people were baffled by my position.
Specifically I was referring to the use of drone warfare to target a nation's own citizens without judicial review.
I still don't see the contradiction. Both universal healthcare and drone warfare are fundamentally come from a belief or alief that life or death decisions about citizens should be made by the government.
Not really; universal healthcare is based on a belief (or alief) that life is a fundamental right. A simple belief that government should be making these decisions might lead to a belief in government-provided or government-run healthcare, but that's hardly the same thing as universal healthcare, which holds that government doesn't have a right to decide, only a responsibility to provide.
Ok, I think a better way to formulate my point is that both universal healthcare and drone warfare come from an alief that the government has unlimited moral authority, in the sense Arnold Kling discusses here and here.
I don't see the difference, especially when you remember that resources are finite.
You seem to be conflating intention and results in the opposite direction I usually see; you're suggesting that the practical necessities of implementing universal healthcare are a part of the ideology or principles which lead one to seek it.
Specifically an ideology/alief that causes one to decide which policies to support without thinking about how they would actually be implemented in practice.