Coronavirus - the new pandemic

[Mecha82]

I am sure that like most people who voted for Brexit clearspira doesn't either care about economy or is very uninformed about it. To me he seems to be more about things like nationalism and anti-imigration that are based on emotion that is fear rather than anything reasonable.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I am sure that like most people who voted for Brexit clearspira doesn't either care about economy or is very uninformed about it. To me he seems to be more about things like nationalism and anti-imigration that are based on emotion that is fear rather than anything reasonable.

Well I wasn't gonna bring it up because Brexit really isn't a topic about pandemics or biological viruses, but yeah I'm not sure if there are formal economic interests at heart for Brexiters. If it's all just ideology then I find the dilemma amusing.

[Riedquat]

As opposed to the ideology of "only the economy matters" from the anti-Brexiteers, coupled with their small-minded bigoted views about anyone who doesn't share their opinions? I'm afraid you couldn't find a group where it's more starkly apparent that they're unable to grasp opinions and values that they don't happen to have themselves, and mostly who are come across as materialistic to the point of absurdity (I apologies to those who just like the concept of the EU for its own sake). At any rate I'm rather sick of the "I'm right holier-than-thou" attitude from all sorts of groups these days towards anyone who doesn't share their opinions, especially considering how quick they are to come out with third-rate slurs.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The point was that ideology isn't that reliable of a foundation in itself. Relying on one isn't excused by the fact that the other people rely on one as well.

[Riedquat]

The point was that ideology isn't that reliable of a foundation in itself. Relying on one isn't excused by the fact that the other people rely on one as well.

It all boils down to what we all want the world we live in to look like and different people have different views on that. We've got plenty of history of what an absolute belief in the correctness of one person's and intolerance of others' creates.

[TGLS]

mostly who are come across as materialistic to the point of absurdity (I apologies to those who just like the concept of the EU for its own sake).

To be perfectly honest, arguing ideology is a quick ticket to nowhere. When it comes down to it, persuading people who have ideologically backed opinions is pretty difficult, while persuading people who have economically backed opinions is easier.

Let's take a less controversial example. Suppose you're in favor of some propose anti-pollution law. It needs 50%+1 votes to pass. If you're trying to win people over to get the law to pass, you're better off expending efforts on people who have economically backed opinions, over people who have ideological opinions.

[Riedquat]

mostly who are come across as materialistic to the point of absurdity (I apologies to those who just like the concept of the EU for its own sake).

To be perfectly honest, arguing ideology is a quick ticket to nowhere. When it comes down to it, persuading people who have ideologically backed opinions is pretty difficult, while persuading people who have economically backed opinions is easier.

Let's take a less controversial example. Suppose you're in favor of some propose anti-pollution law. It needs 50%+1 votes to pass. If you're trying to win people over to get the law to pass, you're better off expending efforts on people who have economically backed opinions, over people who have ideological opinions.

Economically backed opinions are ideological ones. Otherwise why care about them one way or the other? But many people making them don't realise that so they make economic arguments with no foundation, which is absurd. Sure, you can say this approach will probably have that outcome but how desirable or not that outcome is is either ideological or another step towards one that is. You need a good grasp of the facts and possibilities in order to know how to best realise your preferred goals but they're means to ends, not ends themselves. Economic arguments often fail to grasp this.

In your example the economic views are quite likely to be against the law passing and the ideological ones for it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The point was that ideology isn't that reliable of a foundation in itself. Relying on one isn't excused by the fact that the other people rely on one as well.

It all boils down to what we all want the world we live in to look like and different people have different views on that. We've got plenty of history of what an absolute belief in the correctness of one person's and intolerance of others' creates.

Yes that describes the dilemma of politics as it's existed anywhere. I'm talking about the societal factors that are relevant to Brexit.

Economic implication, international agreements and their differential effects, bureaucratic EU structure and the dynamic relationship between UK and other states. This is all stuff that's not necessarily on the common person's mind, and yet there is a lot of people (on either side) that put a progressive/reactionary spin on it. I'm familiar with my own country's dilemma, which is Trump. As far as Brexit though I'm not familiar with the institutional implications, so I'm not of the mind to take either side. I'm interested in the establishment prerogative (also of either side). If there is no establishment for one side, then yes I'm preemptively skeptical of solely reactionary positions on Britain in the EU.

[TGLS]

Economically backed opinions are ideological ones. Otherwise why care about them one way or the other?

I don't know. How about you ask twenty random people whether they'd like $20?

In your example the economic views are quite likely to be against the law passing and the ideological ones for it.

Well, there would probably be two economic arguments in the example:
1) Pollution X creates costs to society in the form of (health, lowered productivity, etc.) This outweighs the economic benefits that create Pollution X. Therefore, we should limit Pollution X.
2) Various economic benefits (farming, electricity production, widget factories, etc.) unfortunately produce Pollution X as a consequence of their operation. These benefits are greater than than it's costs to society. Therefore, we should not limit Pollution X.

This seems like it would create very short arguments, but most of the time these things are really fuzzy.

There are also some ideological arguments. For example:
1) Pollution is always bad. Therefore, we should limit Pollution X.
2) Government intervention is always bad. Therefore, we should not limit Pollution X.

I get these arguments are largely straw, but they highlight an important difference. The two economic arguments share the same values (the balance of costs and benefits), while these two arguments have no values in common. Shifting values is much harder than shifting people's bases.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Let's take a less controversial example. Suppose you're in favor of some propose anti-pollution law. It needs 50%+1 votes to pass. If you're trying to win people over to get the law to pass, you're better off expending efforts on people who have economically backed opinions, over people who have ideological opinions.

This is assuming that people will act in rational interests, which is a dubious condition to assume.

Otherwise it goes without saying that scientifically tested policy proposals are more sound than policies serving decidedly trite interests.