Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

@Emerald Much of leftist policy is not strictly law.

Teaching gender fluidity in schools is not a law. But it is none the less a worrying trend.

A lot of leftist policy is cultural. Like encouraging people to have free sex and get abortions.

Edited April 7 by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, aurum said:

Consider that part of the reason it's challenging to name left-leaning policies on the books is precisely because they are so unworkable they never get on the books.

This doesn't mean that many leftists don't hold these positions. They do. They just aren't able to successfully pass them.

That's not really true. Maybe it's the case that 50%+ of lefty wish-list positions are not workable. But there's already plenty of lefty positions that have been codified into law.

There are already lots of left-leaning policies on the books that are not harmful.... like environmental protections, social safety net policies, protections under the law for vulnerable groups, limits on corporate power, etc.

But I can't think of very many problematic/harmful lefty positions on the books other than in authoritarian left governments and in negative side effects of positive lefty laws.

So, I really want people to bring up specific problematic/harmful lefty laws. I can think of overall positive ones on the books. But I would really like for people to bring up specific lefty laws that are causing a lot of problems.

Then, we can have a real discussion about them.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

So, I really want people to bring up specific problematic/harmful lefty laws.

Free trade and globalism.

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Emerald Much of leftist policy is not strictly law.

Teaching gender fluidity in schools is not a law. But it is none the less a worrying trend.

A lot of leftist policy is cultural. Like encouraging people to have free sex and get abortions.

But this thread is about policies.

And a policy is a law. So, if we're not talking about laws... we're not talking about policies.

We can talk about all these other soft positions and philosophies that people hold on another thread. But I came here to discuss harmful left-leaning laws. I'm not really interested in discussing anything else right now.

[Emerald]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Free trade and globalism.

Okay. Are there specific laws on the books around free trade and globalism that you view as particularly harmful?

[Bobby_2021]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Free trade and globalism.

 

Leo I wonder what's your reasoning for this. Trade is done for mutual benefit. There is no force involved at all. This is the best of liberalism. 

What's what's wrong with globalism. It's bad when you push it, but else it's great. 

[actuallyenlightened]

@Bobby_2021  While I'm not Leo, I'd say the decimation of American manufacturing jobs.. Which was catastrophic for the rust belt. This also reduces America's ability to wage total war. And don't forget China won't be as strong as it is now if it weren't for globalism 

[Leo Gura]

@Emerald You are being way too technical when it suits you.

Policy is not just law.

But if you want law, look at NAFTA and all sorts of globalist free trade agreements.

Edited April 7 by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Drug decriminalization in Oregon.

Oregon's addiction rates have skyrocketed and now they are forced to reverse course.

Will leftists ever admit that legalizing all drugs does more harm than good? No. They will shift blame elsewhere and make excuses.

I'd be interested in learning more about this.

What my assumption is, is that drug addiction rates would stay the same but be more visible. 

But if these statistics around addiction show an actual cause and effect relationship between the decriminalization of drugs and heightened rates of addiction, then I will reconsider my position.

My concern would be that the statistics are more reflective of heightened visibility rather than showing a cause/effect relationship between decriminalization and addiction.

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Emerald You are being way too technical when it suits you.

Policy is not just law.

But if you want law, look at NAFTA and all sorts of globalist free trade agreements.

In what way does it suit me to be technical? I'm not interested in being intellectually dishonest or twist myself in pretzels to win an argument in favor of myself or leftism or whatever. 

I'm not goofing around with semantics to be like "Aha! Gotcha!".

I really do just want to have a discussion about policy (which is law) because that's a discussion that I can actually learn from. If I wanted to talk about problems with lefty philosophy, I'd have just gone to the left-wing mega thread.

NAFTA is a discussion that we can have. Lots of US manufacturing jobs were outsourced which really gutted the middle class in the Rust Belt.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

In what way does it suit me to be technical?

Why are you limiting this discussion to only law? Politics is obviously bigger than that.

Why avoid my point about gender fluidity when that'a clearly a huge leftist position?

Edited April 7 by Leo Gura

[aurum]

11 minutes ago, Emerald said:

That's not really true. Maybe it's the case that 50%+ of lefty wish-list positions are not workable.

Well that's a highly debatable number. Regardless, if we want to go with 50%+, I'd consider that a lot.

11 minutes ago, Emerald said:

There are already lots of left-leaning policies on the books that are not harmful.... like environmental protections, social safety net policies, protections under the law for vulnerable groups, limits on corporate power, etc.

But I can't think of very many problematic/harmful lefty positions on the books other than in authoritarian left governments and in negative side effects of positive lefty laws.

That's the problem.

The left-leaning laws on the books ARE the ones that are more reasonable, less harmful and more workable. Otherwise they would not have gotten there and sustained with any length of time.

The more problematic policies just simply don't get passed. But many of these positions still very much exist among leftists regardless. And then they want to blame it on right-wing sabotage, which of course does happen but is not the full story.

The fundamental critique of leftism is that it's too utopian. Expecting to find such policies being enacted in the real world is by definition unlikely to exist.

11 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Then, we can have a real discussion about them.

I consider myself mostly a leftist. And as I already said, most of the things on the books are fairly reasonable. So there's not much to discuss.

I think a more productive conversation will not strictly focus on current laws. It's about leftism more generally, and self-reflecting on how and why we as leftists get it wrong.

If you want to strictly focus on current laws, that's obviously your choice.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Why are you limiting this discussion to only law? Politics is obviously bigger than that.

Why avoid my point about gender fluidity when that'a clearly a huge leftist position?

Because a policy is a law. And I want to have a discussion about harmful left wing laws.

If the thread was about the harm of leftwing philosophical positions, I would find it uninteresting since that it's more familiar territory to me. I already know what people don't like about leftwing philosophical positions and I'm not interested in the same discussions that I've had a thousand times before.

Also, I'm tired of arguing about gender fluidity. Am I doomed to be arguing about gender fluidity until I'm 80?

I can clarify my position if you want. I just don't think it's as big of a deal as you imagine it to be.

I've been a full time high school teacher... and a substitute teacher. And I've never seen it discussed in the curriculum. And I've worked with tons of kids. And kids are pretty much the same as they've always been.

And I have an elementary school kid and a middle school aged kid. And they've never gotten any education on the topic from school. 

My older one was telling me about all the different genders and sexualities when she was like 9 years old. (She's almost 13 now.) She got really into the flags for a month or two. Then, she moved onto another phase.

But she never heard any of this from teachers or as part of the school curriculum. She just heard it from friends and the internet... which is far more influential to her perspective than whatever 5 minute discussion about gender fluidity might happen in some high school sex ed class.

So, I'm not really worried about it. Things will unfold however they'll unfold. And kids will figure themselves out as they always have.

Long story short... as a parent and former teacher, I don't view it as a threat.

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, aurum said:

Well that's a highly debatable number. Regardless, if we want to go with 50%+, I'd consider that a lot.

That's the problem.

The left-leaning laws on the books ARE the ones that are more reasonable, less harmful and more workable. Otherwise they would not have gotten there and sustained with any length of time.

The more problematic policies just simply don't get passed. But many of these positions still very much exist among leftists regardless. And then they want to blame it on right-wing sabotage, which of course does happen but is not the full story.

The fundamental critique of leftism is that it's too utopian. Expecting to find such policies being enacted in the real world is by definition unlikely to exist.

I consider myself mostly a leftist. And as I already said, most of the things on the books are fairly reasonable. So there's not much to discuss.

I think a more productive conversation will not strictly focus on current laws. It's about leftism more generally, and self-reflecting on how and why we as leftists get it wrong.

If you want to strictly focus on current laws, that's obviously your choice.

Sure, it's a lot of unworkable lefty philosophical positions. But I wasn't making any claims that it was/wasn't a lot.

My point was to say, I can point to positive lefty positions that have been codified into law... but I'd like to know of some lefty positions that have been codified into law that were harmful and backfired as that what this thread is actually about. That's what I'm interested in knowing.

But you see, there are lots of right wing positions on the books too. And we can point to ones that are beneficial and ones that are detrimental. I can sort them quite easily. I could pretty easily find some right-wing policies on the books and talk about them on their merits and find a mixed bag.

When I went to think of harmful lefty laws, I could think of the positive ones. But I couldn't think of many negative lefty laws on the books. 

I chalked it up to the US government (which is what I'm most familiar with) having mostly center-right laws... so you only see the legal excesses of the right and not the legal excesses of the left. 

But I would still like for people to bring up actual left-wing policies that have been harmful. I wouldn't be satisfied with the conclusion that there are no harmful left-leaning laws on the books (except in authoritarian left countries). There must be some on the books.

But I do find it interesting how next to no one's actually bringing up actual policies. I think it's just harder to come up with real example of harmful left-wing policies on the books... and so people have to go to soft philosophical positions to point out issues.

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, actuallyenlightened said:

@Bobby_2021  While I'm not Leo, I'd say the decimation of American manufacturing jobs.. Which was catastrophic for the rust belt. This also reduces America's ability to wage total war. And don't forget China won't be as strong as it is now if it weren't for globalism 

What lol? I thought having a multi polar world is good for everyone.

You think globalism is bad because it takes power away from America? What?

Distributing power to  multiple countries across the world is good for everyone. On top of that, countries will be less willing to wage wars on each other since they are dependent on trade from each other.

I just do not get the problem with all this. We need as much trade and globalism and legal immigration as much as possible.

Edited April 7 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

@Emerald Leftist policy is dictated entirely by leftists. But when you enact laws, plenty of right wingers also have to approve of it and get in between. So laws are far more complicated and even lawyers cannot discuss and understand it's ramifications.

There is no such thing like a leftist law. Just like there is not right wing law. It is a mixed bag.

Policies are easier to discuss. They make it clear the intentions and the effects of those intentions. That is all that matters.

Edited April 7 by Bobby_2021

[aurum]

24 minutes ago, Emerald said:

My point was to say, I can point to positive lefty positions that have been codified into law... but I'd like to know of some lefty positions that have been codified into law that were harmful and backfired as that what this thread is actually about. That's what I'm interested in knowing.

I understand all that. Very reasonable.

My point is that you may struggle in your quest due to the nature of leftism and how it goes wrong. The majority of harmful leftist ideas just don't get codified.

24 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I think it's just harder to come up with real example of harmful left-wing policies on the books...and so people have to go to soft philosophical positions to point out issues.

Yes it is harder. When leftism works, it works very well.

But it's not just because it's harder that people are going philosophical. The fundamental error of leftism is philosophical. Thus, philosophy is appropriate.

24 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I wouldn't be satisfied with the conclusion that there are no harmful left-leaning laws on the books (except in authoritarian left countries). There must be some on the books.

Agreed.

Edited April 7 by aurum

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

@Emerald Leftist policy is dictated entirely by leftists. But when you enact laws, plenty of right wingers also have to approve of it and get in between. So laws are far more complicated and even lawyers cannot discuss and understand it's ramifications.

Policies are easier to discuss. They make it clear the intentions and the effects of those intentions. That is all that matters.

When people talk about policies as it pertains to politics, they usually mean codified laws as distinct from political philosophical positions.

For example, a leftist might hold the political philosophical position that "trans women are women." But that wouldn't be reflected in policy. Instead an adjacent policy to that philosophical position might be some laws around public funding for gender affirming care or what the legal protocols are for people seeking access to HRT.

So, policy and philosophical positions are fundamentally different. And I was interested in this thread because I thought it would be a thread about policy.

So, leftists tend to have similar political philosophies, which can be critiqued on their merits.

But I'd be interested in talking about the merits of actual policies that are on the books that aren't nebulous philosophical idea but are brass tacks protocols, rules, and laws.

For example, when Jordan Peterson was first getting popular he came out against Bill C16 (I think). So, he had particular issues with that policy. That's the type of critique I was hoping would happen with this thread.

[Leo Gura]

Is printing a bunch of money, going into debt, and creating inflation a law? No. But it sure is policy and can be very harmful.

Edited April 7 by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

If printing a bunch of money, going into debt, and creative inflation a law? No. But it sure is policy and can be very harmful.

If it's being done by a governing body, I will accept it as being within the realm of policy.