As a staunch proponent of the heuristic of Chesterston's Fence, I read this with expectations. My expectations, possibly unduly positive, were met with happiness. This phrase, in particular, is excellent.
"Chesterton’s Fence should give us pause, but it shouldn’t obstruct needed change."
But of course! Some things, IRS, ACA, should be ditched, buried, burned, whatever, with nary a consideration of replacing with something better. Sometimes, the truth can be found in the First Law of Systemantics, which states, "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system."
A complex system, invented from scratch, as is true of IRS, ACA, etc. will never "work" for its ostensible purposes, since it sucked from the beginning. (At least, that's my current view.)
One clue to the "suckiness" of the IRS and the ACA, as examples, is that ALMOST NOTHING about using them is simple. The simplest protocols therein are amazingly nuanced. As far as the ACA, I find this explanation from Bryan Caplan helpful. It lays out how an ostensibly simple idea becomes complicated as hell.
ObamaCare Simplified:
1. Regulation 1: Insurers cannot turn people down due, for example, to pre-existing conditions.
2. Regulation 2: Insurers cannot charge higher prices to people they would otherwise have turned down. (Mitigates first regulation.)
3. Regulation 3: People must buy insurance, as opposed to waiting until the last minute, which they might do, since they cannot be denied coverage, nor will obtaining coverage cost more because they waited. (Mitigates first 2 regulations.)
4. Regulation 4: Paying for insurance must be subsidized, since the results of the first 2 regulations is higher prices for everyone, and since the result of the third regulation is a lot more people needing help paying for the higher-priced insurance. (Mitigates first 3 regulations.)
"Progressives think Shangri-La is just one tax increase and spending program away. Conservatives hesitate to tear down anything that is settled in law or tradition, even if the progressives built it."
This is a very interesting point. One point that I would like to see made more often is how important federalism is for freedom. There's a kind of natural flexibility and intranational competition when we have different states and cities pursuing different policies. Progressives don't want this because they believe that they have the answer for every social problem (it's hard for me to fathom how this could still be the case... but here we are), and they want to absorb maximum power. This goal is placed above norms, truth, or kindness.
Reduce the power and reach of the federal government. Cut federal spending. Strengthen communities... then the really difficult work will begin.
If this was an attempt to discard Chesterton's fence, it failed. For all of your examples, it is easy to identify why the thing you wish to end was put in place, why it failed to to the job, or why the job was wrong in the first place. In fact, you've done so.
By my definition, you mischaracterize conservatism. The only workable definition of the terms liberal and conservative are:
Liberal: A broad (liberal) view of what power government should have.
Conservative: A narrow (conservative) view of what power government should have.
As an example, if you believe you government should have the right to come to my house to seize guns, determine whether I am eligible for healthcare I can afford, prevent me from purchasing vegetable seeds (a la Whitmer), take my money at gunpoint to give it to someone you think is more deserving (meaning they will vote you to have more power), you fall into the Liberal camp. I prefer to call them Communists. If you think government should not have those and similar powers, you are conservative. If you want to "conserve" ACA, you are at best a servant of an evil system. You are conflating "conservative" with "traditionalist."
I agree with what you are recommending here, but the "cuteness" of the title drives me nuts.
Your definition of liberal is a mongrelization by the early progressives and adopted by the American left more broadly. When I write liberal or liberalism, I am writing about it in the original sense, as in "Libertas omnia luce perfundit.” Liberalism is the doctrine of freedom, which means checking and minimizing government authority.
Conservatism is not necessarily a “narrow” view of government power, assuming you mean conservatives all want limited government. That might be *your* definition, but it only holds to the extent that US conservatives, especially in the US, want limited government because they wish to *conserve* the founders' wisdom. I agree with those conservatives, but that means conserving the founders’ true liberalism. (National Conservatives, for example, are at odds with the founders’ vision in many ways.)
Now, if you don't think some conservatives want to keep the ACA, I'd say it sure seems like the *conservatives* in Congress have done nothing to rid us of it. Maybe that's due to special interest threats. Then again, why do so many conservatives want SS, Medicare, and Medicaid left untouched? Why do so many conservatives want to spent $1 trillion on a bloated, corrupt military that has failed its last seven audits?
Like the term liberal, the term conservative is morphing too. (Trump is a mixed bag in this regard.)
In any case, I never attempted to "discard Chesterton's fence". In fact, I write that it is a useful heuristic, that it should "give us pause” but I also argue that “it shouldn’t obstruct needed change." In the US, we're in desperate need of reform. We don't have the luxury of pussy-footing around. Maybe we can agree that what we need is a massive pruning or scaling back of government power, but it’s the politicians that are obstructing this. But such scaling back will take a degree of radicalism that not all conservatives of the Chestertian variety are comfortable with. There are just too many fences.
In any case, I suspect we agree more than we disagree. And at the very least some RINO heads need to roll.
My definitions of liberal and conservative are not universal. They are the ones that make sense, to me, (with a few exceptions) in the US system. I would argue that you are conflating system serving Republicans with conservatives. Mitch McConnell is as much a different political species from Thomas Massie as is Nancy Pelosi.
"Maybe we can agree that what we need is a massive pruning or scaling back of government power, but it’s the politicians that are obstructing this. But such scaling back will take a degree of radicalism that not all conservatives of the Chestertian variety are comfortable with. There are just too many fences." I wholeheartedly agree with all but the notion that actual conservatives are against pruning the government forest. The weakness of the 2 party system is that Rand Paul is lumped in with Mitt Romney (the father of ACA) and Lyndsay Graham as "Republicans." To address this, we need to convince like-minded people to get involved in primaries. We need to convince people inclined to our point of view to become involved.
I suppose our only real disagreement is bypassing Chesterton's fence. If we cannot explain why the thing is there and how it has failed to do it's job or the job was destructive in the first place, we cannot convince the ignorant imbeciles (normies) that decide elections. We have to know the arguments of the other side better than our opponent in order to be able to dismantle them in a way that the normies can understand who is right. Ron DeSantis displayed this ability well in his debate with Gavin Newsome.
You and I are on the same page. I'm for eliminating every component of the federal government not specifically required by the Constitution. Then shrinking, by 50%, every remaining department. This would be a good first step. I'd like to do it tomorrow, or even better, this afternoon. Unfortunately we have to convince the 5% of the population that has not been paying attention why it will be good for them.
Good stuff Max, bravo...Mostly!!! Just a few pointed Caveats:
-- The American 'Revolutionaries'...were LED the first 8-yrs by Washington/Hamilton..Very Edmund Burkian (_Against The French Revolution_) -- Vehemently Opposed by Jefferson/Madison
-- Jefferson/Madison...were Overwhelmingly & foolishly Very PRO-Jacobin Revolutionaries...who used the guillotine (not the King, himself beheaded) to slaughter their own mostly measure/modest comrades. Indeed, Jefferson/Madison even privately/secretly Supported french revolutionary ambassdor to US Edmond-Charles Genêt, who hinted a call for Washington head! and help seize US ships in US harbors for french! Some evidence Jefferson used some govt-fund to secretly support Genet! [Washington/Hamilton Restraint to punish ALL...both amazing and commendable!!!]
--- Thankfully...Jefferson/Madison/Monroe all learned after yrs of blundering...as President to rule FAR more per Washington/Hamilton precedents...With modest protective tariffs to generate most federal income...prior to the "free-trading" Federal-Reservists & IRS champions under WWilson!
As a staunch proponent of the heuristic of Chesterston's Fence, I read this with expectations. My expectations, possibly unduly positive, were met with happiness. This phrase, in particular, is excellent.
"Chesterton’s Fence should give us pause, but it shouldn’t obstruct needed change."
But of course! Some things, IRS, ACA, should be ditched, buried, burned, whatever, with nary a consideration of replacing with something better. Sometimes, the truth can be found in the First Law of Systemantics, which states, "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system."
A complex system, invented from scratch, as is true of IRS, ACA, etc. will never "work" for its ostensible purposes, since it sucked from the beginning. (At least, that's my current view.)
^^^^^ YESSSSS ^^^^^^
And even complex systems almost always have simple protocols.
One clue to the "suckiness" of the IRS and the ACA, as examples, is that ALMOST NOTHING about using them is simple. The simplest protocols therein are amazingly nuanced. As far as the ACA, I find this explanation from Bryan Caplan helpful. It lays out how an ostensibly simple idea becomes complicated as hell.
ObamaCare Simplified:
1. Regulation 1: Insurers cannot turn people down due, for example, to pre-existing conditions.
2. Regulation 2: Insurers cannot charge higher prices to people they would otherwise have turned down. (Mitigates first regulation.)
3. Regulation 3: People must buy insurance, as opposed to waiting until the last minute, which they might do, since they cannot be denied coverage, nor will obtaining coverage cost more because they waited. (Mitigates first 2 regulations.)
4. Regulation 4: Paying for insurance must be subsidized, since the results of the first 2 regulations is higher prices for everyone, and since the result of the third regulation is a lot more people needing help paying for the higher-priced insurance. (Mitigates first 3 regulations.)
Copied and pasted that one into my notes. They may be the. Ew company motto! Thanks The Wilster!
"Progressives think Shangri-La is just one tax increase and spending program away. Conservatives hesitate to tear down anything that is settled in law or tradition, even if the progressives built it."
This is a very interesting point. One point that I would like to see made more often is how important federalism is for freedom. There's a kind of natural flexibility and intranational competition when we have different states and cities pursuing different policies. Progressives don't want this because they believe that they have the answer for every social problem (it's hard for me to fathom how this could still be the case... but here we are), and they want to absorb maximum power. This goal is placed above norms, truth, or kindness.
Reduce the power and reach of the federal government. Cut federal spending. Strengthen communities... then the really difficult work will begin.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-new-right
If this was an attempt to discard Chesterton's fence, it failed. For all of your examples, it is easy to identify why the thing you wish to end was put in place, why it failed to to the job, or why the job was wrong in the first place. In fact, you've done so.
By my definition, you mischaracterize conservatism. The only workable definition of the terms liberal and conservative are:
Liberal: A broad (liberal) view of what power government should have.
Conservative: A narrow (conservative) view of what power government should have.
As an example, if you believe you government should have the right to come to my house to seize guns, determine whether I am eligible for healthcare I can afford, prevent me from purchasing vegetable seeds (a la Whitmer), take my money at gunpoint to give it to someone you think is more deserving (meaning they will vote you to have more power), you fall into the Liberal camp. I prefer to call them Communists. If you think government should not have those and similar powers, you are conservative. If you want to "conserve" ACA, you are at best a servant of an evil system. You are conflating "conservative" with "traditionalist."
I agree with what you are recommending here, but the "cuteness" of the title drives me nuts.
Thanks for the feedback, Brian.
Your definition of liberal is a mongrelization by the early progressives and adopted by the American left more broadly. When I write liberal or liberalism, I am writing about it in the original sense, as in "Libertas omnia luce perfundit.” Liberalism is the doctrine of freedom, which means checking and minimizing government authority.
Conservatism is not necessarily a “narrow” view of government power, assuming you mean conservatives all want limited government. That might be *your* definition, but it only holds to the extent that US conservatives, especially in the US, want limited government because they wish to *conserve* the founders' wisdom. I agree with those conservatives, but that means conserving the founders’ true liberalism. (National Conservatives, for example, are at odds with the founders’ vision in many ways.)
Now, if you don't think some conservatives want to keep the ACA, I'd say it sure seems like the *conservatives* in Congress have done nothing to rid us of it. Maybe that's due to special interest threats. Then again, why do so many conservatives want SS, Medicare, and Medicaid left untouched? Why do so many conservatives want to spent $1 trillion on a bloated, corrupt military that has failed its last seven audits?
Like the term liberal, the term conservative is morphing too. (Trump is a mixed bag in this regard.)
In any case, I never attempted to "discard Chesterton's fence". In fact, I write that it is a useful heuristic, that it should "give us pause” but I also argue that “it shouldn’t obstruct needed change." In the US, we're in desperate need of reform. We don't have the luxury of pussy-footing around. Maybe we can agree that what we need is a massive pruning or scaling back of government power, but it’s the politicians that are obstructing this. But such scaling back will take a degree of radicalism that not all conservatives of the Chestertian variety are comfortable with. There are just too many fences.
In any case, I suspect we agree more than we disagree. And at the very least some RINO heads need to roll.
My definitions of liberal and conservative are not universal. They are the ones that make sense, to me, (with a few exceptions) in the US system. I would argue that you are conflating system serving Republicans with conservatives. Mitch McConnell is as much a different political species from Thomas Massie as is Nancy Pelosi.
"Maybe we can agree that what we need is a massive pruning or scaling back of government power, but it’s the politicians that are obstructing this. But such scaling back will take a degree of radicalism that not all conservatives of the Chestertian variety are comfortable with. There are just too many fences." I wholeheartedly agree with all but the notion that actual conservatives are against pruning the government forest. The weakness of the 2 party system is that Rand Paul is lumped in with Mitt Romney (the father of ACA) and Lyndsay Graham as "Republicans." To address this, we need to convince like-minded people to get involved in primaries. We need to convince people inclined to our point of view to become involved.
I suppose our only real disagreement is bypassing Chesterton's fence. If we cannot explain why the thing is there and how it has failed to do it's job or the job was destructive in the first place, we cannot convince the ignorant imbeciles (normies) that decide elections. We have to know the arguments of the other side better than our opponent in order to be able to dismantle them in a way that the normies can understand who is right. Ron DeSantis displayed this ability well in his debate with Gavin Newsome.
You and I are on the same page. I'm for eliminating every component of the federal government not specifically required by the Constitution. Then shrinking, by 50%, every remaining department. This would be a good first step. I'd like to do it tomorrow, or even better, this afternoon. Unfortunately we have to convince the 5% of the population that has not been paying attention why it will be good for them.
Evolution not Revolution
https://upr-info.org/sites/default/files/documents/201609/mcmahon_fes_evolution_not_revolution.pdf
Site gives me a 404
https://upr-info.org/sites/default/files/documents/2016-09/mcmahon_fes_evolution_not_revolution.pdf
Works for me. Try copy and paste in a search.. I tried to paste the pdf of the study, but that doesn't works
Link works here…
Good stuff Max, bravo...Mostly!!! Just a few pointed Caveats:
-- The American 'Revolutionaries'...were LED the first 8-yrs by Washington/Hamilton..Very Edmund Burkian (_Against The French Revolution_) -- Vehemently Opposed by Jefferson/Madison
-- Jefferson/Madison...were Overwhelmingly & foolishly Very PRO-Jacobin Revolutionaries...who used the guillotine (not the King, himself beheaded) to slaughter their own mostly measure/modest comrades. Indeed, Jefferson/Madison even privately/secretly Supported french revolutionary ambassdor to US Edmond-Charles Genêt, who hinted a call for Washington head! and help seize US ships in US harbors for french! Some evidence Jefferson used some govt-fund to secretly support Genet! [Washington/Hamilton Restraint to punish ALL...both amazing and commendable!!!]
--- Thankfully...Jefferson/Madison/Monroe all learned after yrs of blundering...as President to rule FAR more per Washington/Hamilton precedents...With modest protective tariffs to generate most federal income...prior to the "free-trading" Federal-Reservists & IRS champions under WWilson!
Otherwise...great job my friend!
david