Mock Political Argument Regarding Transparency
10/22/2022 7:11 AM MST
politics
Knowing that opponents of good policy tend to keep many avenues open to discredit or dissuade pursuit of them, it makes sense to prepare a fictional debate in order to plug these escape routes and force the opponent to confront the issue being discussed head on.
This mock argument is between two US citizens. Person 1 is a proponent of freedom of speech, and seeks to broaden access to information. Person 2 is (what the writer imagines to be) a conservative US citizen.
Person 1: Why should we limit freedom of speech, or freedom of information on the public acts of elected officials?
Person 2: There are certain matters that could be a threat to national security.
Person 1: Isn’t this the issue then? That discussions among civilians could lead to a threat to national security? Maybe the military isn’t capable of doing its job then?
Person 2: Recruitment is low so the military lacks the force necessary to deal with multiple outbreaks if they were to happen simultaneously.
Person 1: Military spending has been increasing steadily since the 1960s however. Are things really becoming this expensive? And if so, is this not just a result of inequality? We are already spending 68% of private sector money on DOD investment.
(This could continue much further)
Assuming that eventually the onus of national security is removed from the military regarding this issue, then the onus shifts to the police force (dealing with transparency at the civil level.)
Person 2: The military is fine, it’s the police which lack the funding to tackle the spread of free information.
Person 1: The police’s budget has been increasing, generally, over the last two decades: Data: Police Spending Increased Over Past Two Decades (governing.com) So spending is increasing in the military and the police.
Person 2: The crime rates, particularly for violent crimes, has been increasing since 2010: 2022 Crime Rates in U.S. Cities Report | SafeHome.org
Person 1: There is research indicating a positive correlation between violent crime and inequality: Inequality and Violent Crime* | The Journal of Law and Economics: Vol 45, No 1 (uchicago.edu)
(Debate shifts away from policing)
Person 2: So if military and police spending is doing nothing to control violent crime (at least in recent times) perhaps this is an education issue we are facing?
Person 1: Education spending has also been increasing by percent of the GDP since the 1990s. The high school graduation rate is around 85.3%: 37 High School Statistics 2022 - Graduate and Drop Out Rate (thinkimpact.com)
Person 2: So people are more educated, more enforced, and more informed. Yet they are behaving more violently? Logically it seems that there’s a cause for this. Because I am spiritual I wonder if this is a spiritual crisis the country is facing… However, because I’m a scientist I leave that as a last resort.
Obviously more research needs to be done, however, I do think it’s safe to say that philosophically there is a great schism in the US. Statistically, prison populations are less educated than the general populace: Education and Correctional Populations | Bureau of Justice Statistics (ojp.gov) Obviously poverty lends itself to crime, and in those cases the moral burden is typically on the person choosing crime over lawful employment. However, with rates increasing it does start to look like a public issue.
One reason could be the persuasiveness of media versus education. Someone may be brainwashed into believing things and fails to use their education to examine claims, etc. before jumping to the conclusion that the brainwasher intended. Historically, the elites have been proponents of good values. However, in modern times it seems like the elites have lost favor for this tactic and instead are teaching bad values, especially through advertising.
There may be an argument for ending public education entirely, as many are upset with it and the results aren’t too promising. Of course I say this tongue in cheek, as the business world has produced spectacular results historically. The burden would then be on parents to teach, who could maybe argue that society ought to financially allow at least one parent to be a teacher to their children. Traditionally, women have had this role and things worked out at that time (a bad argument, survivor’s bias, etc.) however it was a working system for a time. The major concern is of course, is if the teaching partner (to be inclusive to homosexual couples) is uneducated themselves.
If we were to become more authoritarian, perhaps requiring educational or financial attainment for reproduction should be required. From a moral standpoint, this makes some sense. If someone is morally opposed to the society they live in, it is immoral to reproduce within it (you’re forcing someone else to live in the same oppressive atmosphere.) Clearly morality evolved in humans, so if society is content on de-evolving it, the faithful should be resistant but obviously combating it directly would be fatal. The end result of course, being that humanity loses its divinity and becomes no different than other animals.