Why can’t we mandate anything? Global resurgence of patrimonial rule(thehill.com)
thehill.com
Why can’t we mandate anything? Global resurgence of patrimonial rule
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/570719-why-cant-we-mandate-anything
17 comments
It sounds like you're arguing against the article. But the article agrees with you completely.
Is it the bureaucracy that we have a problem with? To me it seems to be more related to dichotomy between safety and freedom.
While an argument can be made from both a scientific and public health perspective that alcohol is bad, that doesn't necessarily mean a government should therefore force people to make the "right" decision about their health. People who are in favour of the legality of alcohol are not anti-science or against bureaucracy, they're just people who value freedom over public health in this specific instance.
We're living in a strange time at the moment where we claim to value democracy, yet we simultaneously don't believe the public are informed enough to have any opinion about much of anything. I saw this start around the time of Brexit when people were getting annoyed that the government decided to listen to the opinion of the public rather than just doing whatever economists advised them to do. Today with COVID we see this more than ever, but at least in the UK there has been a steady trend towards our elected officials just deferring to unelected and often untrusted experts instead of representing the views of their electorate. While I think it's important we have public experts offering their thoughts on complicated decisions, I also think in a democracy we should embrace our liberty to reject the opinions of those experts for whatever reason.
We have to acknowledge there is no expert arguing on the side of freedom despite the fact many of us quite strongly value being free.
While an argument can be made from both a scientific and public health perspective that alcohol is bad, that doesn't necessarily mean a government should therefore force people to make the "right" decision about their health. People who are in favour of the legality of alcohol are not anti-science or against bureaucracy, they're just people who value freedom over public health in this specific instance.
We're living in a strange time at the moment where we claim to value democracy, yet we simultaneously don't believe the public are informed enough to have any opinion about much of anything. I saw this start around the time of Brexit when people were getting annoyed that the government decided to listen to the opinion of the public rather than just doing whatever economists advised them to do. Today with COVID we see this more than ever, but at least in the UK there has been a steady trend towards our elected officials just deferring to unelected and often untrusted experts instead of representing the views of their electorate. While I think it's important we have public experts offering their thoughts on complicated decisions, I also think in a democracy we should embrace our liberty to reject the opinions of those experts for whatever reason.
We have to acknowledge there is no expert arguing on the side of freedom despite the fact many of us quite strongly value being free.
Yep, when we defer to the public instead of experts to make decisions, we get Brexit. The devastation of a country. I don't think your example is bolstering what you think it's bolstering.
> The devastation of a country.
Don't you think it's odd you have such a strong opinion on Brexit? Anyone who believes Brexit is an obvious disaster isn't paying attention or is extremely disconnected. It's not like it was a simple obvious decision so your confidence is fascinating to me. There are obvious pro and cons depending on largely on your class and immigration status.
My dad just got a pay rise thanks for shortages it HGV drivers, he isn't complaining. As someone who's moved up into the upper-middle class it means I don't have the liberty to work in other peoples' countries without their permission anymore, but I guess the fact that bothers me just exposes how privileged I am. Most people in my family can't even afford to go aboard on holiday.
Are there any political unions you would oppose out of interest? Could you envision a situation where the economic benefits of a political union may not be worth the risks/costs?
Don't you think it's odd you have such a strong opinion on Brexit? Anyone who believes Brexit is an obvious disaster isn't paying attention or is extremely disconnected. It's not like it was a simple obvious decision so your confidence is fascinating to me. There are obvious pro and cons depending on largely on your class and immigration status.
My dad just got a pay rise thanks for shortages it HGV drivers, he isn't complaining. As someone who's moved up into the upper-middle class it means I don't have the liberty to work in other peoples' countries without their permission anymore, but I guess the fact that bothers me just exposes how privileged I am. Most people in my family can't even afford to go aboard on holiday.
Are there any political unions you would oppose out of interest? Could you envision a situation where the economic benefits of a political union may not be worth the risks/costs?
I think it's odd that you think it's odd that I have a strong opinion. Brexit is equivalent to MAGAtry in the US. A populist, nativist, authoritarian movement, favoring strongmen over institutions.
Are you sure it's not you who's in the dark about what Brexit represents, about how it fits among similar movements throughout history, and about what the ongoing list of catastrophic consequences will be, as itemized by a host of analysts, scientists, and economists? [1]
I think maybe you're trying to pin me as a political tribalist with your union question? I don't have a political tribe, and I don't care about unions. I believe in evidence-based policy, wherever that policy points, irrespective of surrounding political narratives. I believe in a rational-legal political model grounded in the veil of ignorance.
Can you tell me how authoritarianism relates to populism?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicted_impact_of_Brexit
Are you sure it's not you who's in the dark about what Brexit represents, about how it fits among similar movements throughout history, and about what the ongoing list of catastrophic consequences will be, as itemized by a host of analysts, scientists, and economists? [1]
I think maybe you're trying to pin me as a political tribalist with your union question? I don't have a political tribe, and I don't care about unions. I believe in evidence-based policy, wherever that policy points, irrespective of surrounding political narratives. I believe in a rational-legal political model grounded in the veil of ignorance.
Can you tell me how authoritarianism relates to populism?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicted_impact_of_Brexit
While I appreciate this article and find it interesting, I'd be remiss not to point out that even 100 years ago, there were people who rebelled against the rules of law and rational, reasonable public health measure and the science around it. See the anti mask league of San Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mask_League_of_San_Franci...
I don't know if the distrust for the idea of bureaucratic expertise is really that recent, it seems to me that it has always been a lever certain politicians, business men or manipulators have used to manipulate the gullible masses.
Sorry for the slightly misanthropic comment, I've been disappointed by people too many times not to become a cynic (even if I do feel wonder and awe at some of the things humanity has achieved).
I don't know if the distrust for the idea of bureaucratic expertise is really that recent, it seems to me that it has always been a lever certain politicians, business men or manipulators have used to manipulate the gullible masses.
Sorry for the slightly misanthropic comment, I've been disappointed by people too many times not to become a cynic (even if I do feel wonder and awe at some of the things humanity has achieved).
The article doesn't claim that distrust is recent. It claims the opposite.
It claims that people historically have seen strongmen as the "legitimate" authority. As a corollary, authority from anything other than strongmen was illegitimate.
We've managed to get many people to believe in systems and organizations instead of strongmen. But for various reasons, we've recently regressed.
It claims that people historically have seen strongmen as the "legitimate" authority. As a corollary, authority from anything other than strongmen was illegitimate.
We've managed to get many people to believe in systems and organizations instead of strongmen. But for various reasons, we've recently regressed.
Yes but they claim that the rise of bureaucracy and legitimate authority corresponds to the rise of the modern state, so I might be mistaken but it seemed to me that the intent was to contrast to earlier times than the 20th century?
This is the first time I've seen someone argue for the preservation of bureaucracy - I think the idea that health are policy should be rational is inarguable, but I think we could use Lewin's Three step model to Change Management as a guide to far-reaching public policy.
Increase the collaborative nature of policymaking with constituents and there'd be less panic about mandating things, because the public will feel as if they had a say in it. I think there was a subtle dig at the current administration's non-patrimonialism, but if they use collaboration and public discussion as ways of formulating healthcare measures, then there wouldn't be need for strongman leadership to require mandates.
Of course, mandating isn't necessarily the best choice, especially at any federal level, and the introduction of that idea should be floated in public discourse.
Increase the collaborative nature of policymaking with constituents and there'd be less panic about mandating things, because the public will feel as if they had a say in it. I think there was a subtle dig at the current administration's non-patrimonialism, but if they use collaboration and public discussion as ways of formulating healthcare measures, then there wouldn't be need for strongman leadership to require mandates.
Of course, mandating isn't necessarily the best choice, especially at any federal level, and the introduction of that idea should be floated in public discourse.
> This explains why social divisions about public health measures are so bitter and enduring: They are rooted in divisions about the nature of political legitimacy itself. The global rebellion against the modern bureaucratic state, and the scientific and professional expertise on which it is built, has degenerated into a zero-sum struggle against any effort whatsoever to impose binding, impersonal rules to defend the public good.
What the author misses about the "patrimonialism," (rule of the leader or man) he is criticizing is that it is relatively limited in its scope, which facilitates more individual growth and freedom than what we can infer he is advocating for which is a more presumably "maternalist" and encompassing leviathan that provides group leveling and security. The gendered etymology of the terms is probably not by accident either, where one's preference for the tools of masculine aggression (hierarchy, physicality) over feminine aggression tactics (isolation, shame) are probably psychosexual roots of political orientation you can't just reason someone out of.
If he thinks the root of a problem is other people not complying with coercion, he should consider whether it is worth reflecting on whether he is the problem.
What the author misses about the "patrimonialism," (rule of the leader or man) he is criticizing is that it is relatively limited in its scope, which facilitates more individual growth and freedom than what we can infer he is advocating for which is a more presumably "maternalist" and encompassing leviathan that provides group leveling and security. The gendered etymology of the terms is probably not by accident either, where one's preference for the tools of masculine aggression (hierarchy, physicality) over feminine aggression tactics (isolation, shame) are probably psychosexual roots of political orientation you can't just reason someone out of.
If he thinks the root of a problem is other people not complying with coercion, he should consider whether it is worth reflecting on whether he is the problem.
Oi vey.
Well, I just read that, and that's 5 minutes of my life I won't get back.
To save you time the article asserts:
Resistance to utilizing state power mandate vaccination, and politician's encouragement of distrust of the legitimacy of the bureaucratic state, is viewed to be a reactionary shift back toward a paradigm where politics is shifting to be more about the holder of office than the office itself.
The article does not at all touch on such thorny topics as:
A) the precedent set by expanding public health mandates beyond what people are willing to volunteer for, and the erosion of State legitimacy that the enforcement of such measures would result in
B) the problem of powerful State bureaucracies being run by people that can increasingly coordinate to do significant damage in a short period of time. The age of Abraham Lincoln's famous "No man can do much damage in four years" is long dead.
C) The increasingly damaged relationship of for profit media with the common citizen, and weaponization of editorial discretion. See the ivermectin debacle where even the hospital claimed to be overrun has had to come out and correct the media due to not enough boots on the ground verification or willful pushing to create a story. On the other side of the coin is lack of coverage on politically inconvenient person's like Julian Assange.
D) repeated examples of public official's regular breaching of the public trust, to no or little consequence. (broad daylight insider trading by Congress, ramming through of an approval for dubious Alzheimer's drugs etc...)
E) The continued unreasonable political efficacy of the .01% in escaping any accountability for acts of blatant corruption, and the overarching stain that leaves on the fairness and legitimacy of the system. (See the grant of immunity to the Sackler's for their role in the opioid crisis)
If you're going to try to sell everyone on big government good, return to small government bad, I at least expect a bit more homework to be done than was actually demonstrated by this article, but that's just me.
Well, I just read that, and that's 5 minutes of my life I won't get back.
To save you time the article asserts:
Resistance to utilizing state power mandate vaccination, and politician's encouragement of distrust of the legitimacy of the bureaucratic state, is viewed to be a reactionary shift back toward a paradigm where politics is shifting to be more about the holder of office than the office itself.
The article does not at all touch on such thorny topics as:
A) the precedent set by expanding public health mandates beyond what people are willing to volunteer for, and the erosion of State legitimacy that the enforcement of such measures would result in
B) the problem of powerful State bureaucracies being run by people that can increasingly coordinate to do significant damage in a short period of time. The age of Abraham Lincoln's famous "No man can do much damage in four years" is long dead.
C) The increasingly damaged relationship of for profit media with the common citizen, and weaponization of editorial discretion. See the ivermectin debacle where even the hospital claimed to be overrun has had to come out and correct the media due to not enough boots on the ground verification or willful pushing to create a story. On the other side of the coin is lack of coverage on politically inconvenient person's like Julian Assange.
D) repeated examples of public official's regular breaching of the public trust, to no or little consequence. (broad daylight insider trading by Congress, ramming through of an approval for dubious Alzheimer's drugs etc...)
E) The continued unreasonable political efficacy of the .01% in escaping any accountability for acts of blatant corruption, and the overarching stain that leaves on the fairness and legitimacy of the system. (See the grant of immunity to the Sackler's for their role in the opioid crisis)
If you're going to try to sell everyone on big government good, return to small government bad, I at least expect a bit more homework to be done than was actually demonstrated by this article, but that's just me.
I know this article meant to enrage people, but I will bite:
> For Americans who are fully vaccinated, organized political resistance to vaccination mandates is infuriating
Sigh... Because you aren't sufficiently qualified to give necessary opposition. Even good ideas need those, mandatory vaccination probably isn't among those good ideas though. Even doctors have mentioned that vaccination is political now, especially due to media writers. Some need the vaccine for a political victory, not for health reasons...
> Then we’d have a much bigger problem to solve.
Yes, Covid is a serious disease, but there are other important issues.
> In fact, our research shows that we do.
My wishing rod says the same.
> In short, we are witnessing a rebellion against the very idea of binding, impersonal legal rules and procedures.
That isn't too far off actually but they aren't impersonal at all.
> This rejection of bureaucratic expertise, procedures and science may seem strange
Your bureaucracies are intelligence agencies which aren't evil incarnate but certainly have special ambitions. You believe them without any check. In my country we made fun of people suspecting Russians behind everything. Not funny anymore, you are three decades late and far too serious about it.
Bad writers used issues like sexual and racial violence as a political cudgel against a political opposition. That is what editors of many outlets now stand for. You either believe your own framing or you don't. Both options don't speak highly of you and cannot be excused by mad kings of the past either. To propose that nobody listens to bureaucracies whose rights have been extended by patriot act after patriot act is a ridiculous analysis itself.
> Attacks such as those of former President Donald Trump on the “deep state” turned out to be attempts to demolish the bureaucratic state itself.
So the deep state does exist?
> struggle against any effort whatsoever to impose binding, impersonal rules to defend the public good.
Good. Civil liberties were reduced the last 2 decades because some people were lead by fear. But there is also no political capital to change course. I don't know how the author reaches these delusional conclusions. Overslept the last 20 years? Busy killing brain cells with alcohol? Please tell us your secret...
> Accelerating climate change, massive refugee flows, even the defense of democracy itself
We had emergencies since 20 years now. If everything is an emergencies, nothing really is.
Nobody speaks about killing bureaucracy at all, ministers responsible have their job to be responsible for the result. You cannot fire any bureaucrat in an institution as that would kill knowledge about statecraft. But you can fire those that engaged in illegal spying against their own values, you can fire those that take political prisoners to evade an embarrassment. And you should, otherwise people might stop believing any shit you say.
Perhaps if the author would be more vocal about civil liberties, people might change their mind. Freedom of speech would be a good start. Yes, I know that the butt is burning on this issue. As it should. Otherwise this article contains no sensible information.
> For Americans who are fully vaccinated, organized political resistance to vaccination mandates is infuriating
Sigh... Because you aren't sufficiently qualified to give necessary opposition. Even good ideas need those, mandatory vaccination probably isn't among those good ideas though. Even doctors have mentioned that vaccination is political now, especially due to media writers. Some need the vaccine for a political victory, not for health reasons...
> Then we’d have a much bigger problem to solve.
Yes, Covid is a serious disease, but there are other important issues.
> In fact, our research shows that we do.
My wishing rod says the same.
> In short, we are witnessing a rebellion against the very idea of binding, impersonal legal rules and procedures.
That isn't too far off actually but they aren't impersonal at all.
> This rejection of bureaucratic expertise, procedures and science may seem strange
Your bureaucracies are intelligence agencies which aren't evil incarnate but certainly have special ambitions. You believe them without any check. In my country we made fun of people suspecting Russians behind everything. Not funny anymore, you are three decades late and far too serious about it.
Bad writers used issues like sexual and racial violence as a political cudgel against a political opposition. That is what editors of many outlets now stand for. You either believe your own framing or you don't. Both options don't speak highly of you and cannot be excused by mad kings of the past either. To propose that nobody listens to bureaucracies whose rights have been extended by patriot act after patriot act is a ridiculous analysis itself.
> Attacks such as those of former President Donald Trump on the “deep state” turned out to be attempts to demolish the bureaucratic state itself.
So the deep state does exist?
> struggle against any effort whatsoever to impose binding, impersonal rules to defend the public good.
Good. Civil liberties were reduced the last 2 decades because some people were lead by fear. But there is also no political capital to change course. I don't know how the author reaches these delusional conclusions. Overslept the last 20 years? Busy killing brain cells with alcohol? Please tell us your secret...
> Accelerating climate change, massive refugee flows, even the defense of democracy itself
We had emergencies since 20 years now. If everything is an emergencies, nothing really is.
Nobody speaks about killing bureaucracy at all, ministers responsible have their job to be responsible for the result. You cannot fire any bureaucrat in an institution as that would kill knowledge about statecraft. But you can fire those that engaged in illegal spying against their own values, you can fire those that take political prisoners to evade an embarrassment. And you should, otherwise people might stop believing any shit you say.
Perhaps if the author would be more vocal about civil liberties, people might change their mind. Freedom of speech would be a good start. Yes, I know that the butt is burning on this issue. As it should. Otherwise this article contains no sensible information.
TDLR;
Dude funded by Monarchy spruiks civilization is crumbling at the hands of the Aristocrats.
>Stephen E. Hanson is vice provost for academic and >international affairs at the >>>> College of William & Mary, <<<
Capitalism has been making the earth sick for years. Its quest for profits and growth ultimately leads to an imbalance and sickness. The public purse has, and always will, fund the winners, whipe there debts and bail them out.
At some point humanity needs to come to terms with the fact that there is a limit society. A natural limit that our technology or education systems cannot overcome. With progress comes the paradox of restraint that no civialised person has been able to tame. Uneducated people will ultimately be taken advantage of by the educated, and those victors will skew society towards their interests. They do this by such acts as funding educational institutions that ensures the line continues to be towed.
At some point we need to admit it. We simply are not enlightned enough to be comfortable with our own power. No civialistion has yet to create a society based around money that lasts. At some point we must admit it. Only native aboriginal cultures, most without alphabets or mathematical systems, have been able to maintain themselves in communities that don't self destruct.
The paradox of our advancement is that we are simply not advanced enough to grasp the spirituality needed to live in harmony with others.
>Stephen E. Hanson is vice provost for academic and >international affairs at the >>>> College of William & Mary, <<<
Capitalism has been making the earth sick for years. Its quest for profits and growth ultimately leads to an imbalance and sickness. The public purse has, and always will, fund the winners, whipe there debts and bail them out.
At some point humanity needs to come to terms with the fact that there is a limit society. A natural limit that our technology or education systems cannot overcome. With progress comes the paradox of restraint that no civialised person has been able to tame. Uneducated people will ultimately be taken advantage of by the educated, and those victors will skew society towards their interests. They do this by such acts as funding educational institutions that ensures the line continues to be towed.
At some point we need to admit it. We simply are not enlightned enough to be comfortable with our own power. No civialistion has yet to create a society based around money that lasts. At some point we must admit it. Only native aboriginal cultures, most without alphabets or mathematical systems, have been able to maintain themselves in communities that don't self destruct.
The paradox of our advancement is that we are simply not advanced enough to grasp the spirituality needed to live in harmony with others.
>Capitalism has been making the earth sick for years. Its quest for profits and growth ultimately leads to an imbalance and sickness. The public purse has, and always will, fund the winners, whipe there debts and bail them out.
There is a kernel of truth to the fact that if an industry ignores everything except for short terms gains made every quarter, yes, you will end up with overtaxed oceans, polluted rivers, and smoggy skies. In that you are right, that unscrupulous mega corporations can exploit critical natural resources to the point of destruction. But considering the only meaningful rival to the capitalist system created the absurd ecological disaster that is the Aral Sea, I think there is more to the nature of the problem than 'capitalism bad.'
There is a kernel of truth to the fact that if an industry ignores everything except for short terms gains made every quarter, yes, you will end up with overtaxed oceans, polluted rivers, and smoggy skies. In that you are right, that unscrupulous mega corporations can exploit critical natural resources to the point of destruction. But considering the only meaningful rival to the capitalist system created the absurd ecological disaster that is the Aral Sea, I think there is more to the nature of the problem than 'capitalism bad.'
We can't mandate health treatments simply because there shouldn't be a need to coerce people into improving their health. Also because we don't know what the boundaries are. To an extreme extreme we will mandate that people should not consume higher more than the recommended fat daily intake.
Another very valid reason preventing a mandate: millions of people are opposing that vaccine, since the article takes it as the main example. They aren't campaigning for forbidding the vaccine, they are ferociously opposed to being forced to take it. It should make everyone think very carefully when not only a few lunatics who don't believe in science are outraged, but a decent portion of the population express their anger towards the idea of mandating medical treatments/preventions.
It is not that we can't mandate Anything. We've mandated that no one shall assassinate, steal, fraud, corrupt, partake in incestuous and pedophile activities, and many other things that make society as a whole go backwards without much doubt. Go after those who get away with infractions, that would be a better start.
Another very valid reason preventing a mandate: millions of people are opposing that vaccine, since the article takes it as the main example. They aren't campaigning for forbidding the vaccine, they are ferociously opposed to being forced to take it. It should make everyone think very carefully when not only a few lunatics who don't believe in science are outraged, but a decent portion of the population express their anger towards the idea of mandating medical treatments/preventions.
It is not that we can't mandate Anything. We've mandated that no one shall assassinate, steal, fraud, corrupt, partake in incestuous and pedophile activities, and many other things that make society as a whole go backwards without much doubt. Go after those who get away with infractions, that would be a better start.
Is a sentiment that I see the appeal of. But I've been listening to Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast, and that's not really how it goes. Shifts in power tend to have a ton of unintended side-effects, and even most of the primary effects end up being unintended ones, for better sometimes but also for worse.
I think it's easy forget just how good we have it with our flawed rule-of-law, when we haven't experienced life without it.