Mods do not judge the quality of arguments here.
I feel obligated to point out that obviously you do. The rules are full of guidance about specific qualities of arguments. Perhaps you mean to say that the mods aim to evaluate meta argument qualities, not object level.
So, actually, at the risk of being egregiously obnoxious, in the context of that comment chain, which rule(s) exactly did I break? Actually, why don't all mod warnings come with a citation? That's standard in many a Reddit forum. Don't make us guess.
Is it, by definition, always low effort to provide a link for which the context has been established and/or is self-evident? Since this platform does not allow me to provide a screenshot, a link is actually a pretty relevant counterargument for the claim that was being contested.
Would I have been fine if I had merely had a preamble of something like: "If you click on this hyperlink to a google search, as I previously recommended you conduct to evaluate the evidence for yourself, you will be able to see a fair number of posts on the topic you claim does not really get covered in EA circles."
I'm telling you what your available options are here. Not everywhere else on the Internet, but here.
Not very charitable of you regarding my reading comprehension, I must say. I've only been participating since the olden Reddit days. Never even been banned. Perhaps it was only the soft bigoty of low expectations.
People can make bad arguments. You may point out why they're bad.
God bless the Motte. Mods for, of, and by the people.
EDIT: How could I forget. Is it not implicit in the rules and the epistemic heritage of this forum, the rationality sphere and SSC, that basic norms of logic and reason and evidence are expected? A basic epistemic methodological sanity baseline. Clearly the rules indicate awareness of such concepts, but perhaps they are taken as omissible.
FtSoA
6hr ago
You've clearly never debated a flat earther and it shows.
More seriously, the right tool for the job of "is this a pretty common thing or not" was in fact a google search showing a bunch of available examples.
It shouldn't be against the rules to succinctly provide evidence someone is full of BS. When they're denying the very existence of the evidence. When they refuse to confirm their claimed absence of that evidence. Of a pretty simple issue. Trivially demonstrated facts of matter.
Also, my link was on the tail end of a series of arguments. It wasn't just a no-context injection.
"Don't do this" ought to also apply to people who won't do the very basics of epistemic due diligence.
There are many EA thought posts on avoiding purity burnout and mental health crises. There are not very many AC units in Europe. Anyone arguing otherwise is just failing very basic standards of reason.
FtSoA
7hr ago
a) It's not about economics.
Any system that runs out of other people's money is going to struggle. Any system that cannot wage war effectively via the means of production is going to struggle. You may not be interested in economics; but economics is interested in you.
Politics is the art of the possible. Saying impossible things are desirable is mostly useless.
Classical liberalism is a lot less far-fetched than Marxism, and yet. It's very much not literally impossible. Certainly it's possible to make marginal improvements even if we never achieve my particular vision of utopia.
Electoral appeal can change. Sometimes rapidly. My hope is that the next crisis event is used to steer us in a good direction, not an even worse one.
FtSoA
7hr ago
One weird trick diabetics hate.
But that would actually raise prices in the U.S., right, losing foreign sales, since it's typically not marginal cost of production that's the issue; it's the sunk cost of R&D.
So I'd prefer Trump take this issue on directly, and not make it harder for big pharma.
FtSoA
11hr ago
I got in trouble the last time I curtly linked to a google search about the prevalence of AC units in Europe so I won't provoke the mods again.
But seriously why can't you simply google the relative prevalence of AC units in the U.S. vs. Europe and stop this pointless journey of "let's count the AC units one by one"?
This is not a hard problem. This is not a controversial issue with contested epistemic status. Data is available.
And it shows you are clearly wrong. By a lot.
Or, if it doesn't, be my guest and provide data counter to that I have already provided.
FtSoA
11hr ago
When they do price fixing, it's bad. When Trump does price fixing, it's bad.
Trump's actions will make things worse, not better. He's not proposing something like I don't know we ban pharmaceutical exports to countries that refuse to pay market rates in order to make others pay their fair share. Imagine if he did that little bit of conflict theory! People would freak the fuck out and call him a mass murderer or something, but he'd be justified in threatening a trade war on that front such that America isn't paying for the bulk of innovation.
So this is a case where I think there is a Trumpian approach to perhaps make things actually better, but he's not doing that.
FtSoA
13hr ago
I can't help but notice that it sounds like your problem is "the homeless", more than "homelessness". Progressives, on the other hand, are trying to solve or alleviate "homelessness" - ie the problem experienced by the homeless where they, er, don't have homes.
You are correct that the two problems are distinct.
Where you're wrong is that progressives tend to deny the distinction, and they suck very badly at resolving either due to ideological precommitments that do not align with reality.
Keep in mind that if the vagrants are outside city limits they are no longer of any practical or legal concern of cities.
Improving the actual homeless people's lives is the outspoken priority of progressive authorities, and even if you disagree with that priority, you don't get to call them ineffective because they aren't very good at solving a completely different, if related problem that you think should be higher-priority.
The are pretty fucking bad at it, is my point. Ends, means. Inputs, outputs. Intent, outcome.
Law and fucking order is also supposed to THE primary concern of cities, and all of government actually. So when you foster an open-air drug market next to a playground you're using my tax dollars to fuck over my other tax dollars.
FtSoA
13hr ago
Tariffs are very anti-market.
Trump is also fucking with the Fed, labor statistics, and is demanding drug prices be lowered.
These are all very bad things that will likely do great damage, more in the long run than in the short run.
FtSoA
13hr ago
I mean, the market puts little to no value on their lives. I am simply pointing out that there is nothing different about keeping people alive for the sake of keeping them alive in PEPFAR than any other boring charity like food stamps or Medicaid. I suppose these people kept alive can also threaten to immigrate, which is a bad thing. So yeah. Why is this "effective?"
If you don't accept the philosophical foundations of universalisms wrt human life then, yeah, sure. No argument from me. Using markets to determine the value of a human life comes with a lot of caveats in the best of times.
Foreign aid is arguably unconstitutional, but the inception of PEPFAR was not approved by Congress. They may arguably have adopted it later on, but the inception was just GWB going rogue.
Sure, I don't know enough to debate its whole origin story. And had I been president I would not used taxpayer dollars in such a fashion. I'm actually not aware of detailed constitutional arguments/cases for/against foreign aid as a whole category. It seems if a national defense argument can be made, then it's going to be allowable by default.
PEPFAR does nothing of the sort. It just lets anyone who contracted a deadly STD keep on living with no scrutiny as to whether they can or will make the world better by their continued existence, and past performance indicates not so.
I don't think I disagree with you here, overall. I'd just say that we could have compromised/hedged and ended U.S. involvement as a handoff, not as a near-immediate shutdown.
FtSoA
13hr ago
Of course, this still biases charities towards sounding good rather than doing good, but that's really really hard to avoid.
Amen.
See also: Welfare Democracy
Ultimately, donors have to do their due diligence on efficacy and voters on sustainability.
FtSoA
13hr ago
Classical liberalism is a strictly transitory phenomenon that will degenerate into something else.
In the long run we are all very much dead. But perhaps giving up on classical liberalism altogether is premature.
And the "something else" is hard here. If we have reached the End of History, but liberal democracy is insufficiently "liberal" to be economically feasible then where we go next seems bad. I'd argue going back to the old ways.
So I'd say, reality has an anti-classical liberal bias
I'd argue many people do, not economic reality. Public choice theory teaches us this. Then you can get into "liberal" vs. "democracy" but that's a whole thing.
FtSoA
3d ago
PEPFAR is bad. It keeps people alive for the sole purpose of spending money to keep them alive.
I suppose if you place zero or negative value on the lives saved by PEPFAR, then yeah, obviously. End it yesterday.
Not sure I'd agree with that proposition, however. I'm not much of a Christian, but I do think George W. Bush had his heart in a charitable place when he got the program going.
The program is obviously unconstitutional.
Congress allocating funds? Is all foreign aid unconstitutional by definition? Generally, the constitution is far more free-wheeling on doing things for foreign policy than it is for domestic policy.
This is a worthwhile comparison in that obviously subsidizing sexual deviancy is bad.
And being able to build houses would also be bad? Like what on earth do you think you're arguing by comparison here?
Those are very different things, to me, personally. Like, sure, most sexual deviancy probably happens in houses, which someone had to build, but that's true of a broad range of human activities. Am I to understand that building more houses would lead to more sexual deviancy?
Like houses are not inherently bad, right? And training locals to build their own housing gets around the classic problem of just providing a good such that the local market demand is satisfied and domestic production gets hurt. Now such training may or may not be a worthwhile charitable intervention, but it's not obviously terrible by default.
You can argue that PEPFAR is not just ineffective, but bad for reasons of sexual deviancy or whatever else without talking about African housebuilding, I think.
FtSoA
3d ago
I could have made it worse and use the ol' LMGTFY.
There are some people in this conversation on various topics, like air conditioning units in Europe, that seemingly want to endlessly debate a relatively minor point that could be resolved with a quick google search and it baffles me.
FtSoA
3d ago
The crazy thing about markets is that they work so well, even under adverse conditions. The Chinese made some necessary compromises and it worked out pretty well for them.
You do point out a very real challenge I am painfully aware of and what is the underlying motivation of why I would write such an essay. The erosion of (classic) liberalism by progressivism has happened; can we stop it? Or are we in the U.S. doomed to the same eventual fate as the UK?
I have made exactly the same argument you do against Christians saying we need to return to Christianity--if that led us here what good would it do to redo things, even if that were possible? (I'd argue the key difference between classic liberalism, at least the free market economics of it, and Christianity is that the latter is not based on a factual understanding of reality.)
In the U.S., classic liberalism got hammered pretty hard starting during the Great Depression for about 50 years on economics, then we had a few decades of half-decent neoliberalism in both parties, and now both parties are largely past neoliberalism for the indefinite future. MAGAfication on the right may actually negatively polarize the left into becoming more neoliberal again, if we're lucky. #silverlinings
And, though my essay is aimed at progressive failures, I figure my best shot of convincing MAGA types that perhaps they should care about market economics, as the GOP once did, is by trashing progressive failures, not Trump and present antimarket policies.
FtSoA
3d ago
Have you ever heard the phrase "the plural of anecdote is not data"?
I'm not trying to convince you that your particular eyes are lying to you. But Europe is a pretty big place. In most of it, AC is not very common even as heat waves increase.
There is objective data on this fact. In my essay, I linked to such information. This is not, to my knowledge, a contested set of facts. You could, with the language skills and internet access you have go forth and rapidly find out that either I am right in my characterization, or show data that would force me to reconsider my statements.
But you standing outside of a building and telling me I'm wrong will not cut it because 1) I've been to a bit of Europe and 2) I can read sources describing the overall situation in the U.S. vs. Europe.
FtSoA
3d ago
but yeah the idea of being slavery being efficient overall is something I've never understood
Indentured servitude fixes this. I'm half kidding, but I think at least two of my ancestors were indentured at Jamestown.
Unions are bad, in my view. Should not be legally empowered by the government as they have been.
The abrupt end with little chance for handover to a different org/funding source.
How something is ended can matter quite a lot. This was not done gracefully. Or constitutionally, but that's a procedural issue.
I don't think PEPFAR and home construction training programs are a worthwhile comparison.
You really, really don't have to sell me on the downsides of humanitarian interventions as a general rule.
FtSoA
3d ago
My recommendation would be to read the article and view the source cited therein as a good starting point.
Honestly I'm surprised this is something someone wants to contest. Do you have a lot of iced beverages in your part of Europe too?
FtSoA
3d ago
What sounds good vs. what is effective is a common problem, yes.
As a matter of basic logic and follow through, I get a little peeved that if one agrees with the stance that "we, via the coercive power of the state, need to do something" then by god one should make sure it actually is effective. Frequently, this evaluation step is skipped. Homelessness, for example, remains a big problem, and it's typically worse in areas controlled by progressives doing so many things. Just this evening my wife did not want to use our nearby park to put the baby in a swing due to the homeless being all over the playground area (normally they're more broadly dispersed). The city wants to spend millions of dollars on renovating this park but they won't keep the drug-using vagrants away. A homeless man just tried kidnapping a baby out of a stroller at a public transportation station this week, too.
What's funny is that someone like Noah Smith will unironically write that public parks are (in the strict economic sense) public goods. I'd like to show him how easily taxpayer-funded spaces are excludable and rivalrous. Don't even get me started on libraries.
In short, fuck progressivism for being both expensive and ineffective.
FtSoA
3d ago
I think the typical EA isn't that far off of the typical Western liberal/progressive tradition in terms of their views on human rights?
I'm sure someone somewhere has done polling on this.
I do not believe that Effective Altruists would oppose vaccine mandates categorically under grounds of bodily autonomy, for instance.
Ah well, even my own libertarian instincts allow exceptions for bodily autonomy violations under crisis conditions. No, Covid-19 didn't meet that threshold, but plenty of historic plagues would if we had a modern outbreak. The optimal level of coercion is not zero.
I understand those as fair arguments, but they are the same fair arguments Khrushchev made for Stalin and that Marx made for Guesde.
I very much do not think those are very similar things in kind or scale. To my knowledge, no one in EA leadership was encouraging or validating Ziz or SBF with awareness of their actual behavior/intent and denounced it all upon discovery. Any kind of interesting new ideological movement that grows is at risk of attracting crazies and grifters; what matters is how that's handled and I think at worst EA was fooled by SBF like many others.
Of course. And I denounce them all as capable of the same horrors.
I suppose one can commit to a very, very strong stance on individualism. Are you an anarcho-capitalist?
FtSoA
3d ago
I think one can simultaneously believe that perhaps PEPFAR should not exist forever as a U.S.-funded program and believe that the way DOGE handled it was an unnecessary travesty that caused needless suffering.
But also you seem to be conflating "effective" with "solves something permanently" when those are not always the same thing. Sometimes the latter is not possible via charity but an effective band aid of sorts is feasible.
But really I'm not the guy to defend EA because I'm not one myself on several fronts.
We all come to miss at least some of the fallen for livening things up around here.
Kind of hilarious how much drama is generated here over banning people for being dramatic.
More options
Context Copy link