donttread
06-21-2015, 07:57 PM
If you don't want to call it science how about real world evidence? Rather than just spewing out what your parents taught you about politics or your favorite talking head or neighbor says what can you back it up with? I talked about this a lot lately in regards to interventionism , gun control and prohibition. However shouldn't the citizens of a modern nation be able to back up their political positions with some sort of evidence and thereby force there leaders to do the same? For example ,have standing government policies that you support accomplished their stated goals? Hell have they even moved things in the right direction towards those stated goals?
1) Has the "war on drugs" decreased drug availability and usage? What evidence can you site either way?
2) Has the "War on poverty" decreased poverty? What evidence can you site either way?
3) Has the "War on Terror" decreased the number of terrorist, terrorist strongholds or anti-American sentiment? What evidence can you site either way?
4) Have gun control policies and "gun free zones" done more good or more harm? What empirical data can you show either way?
5) Or you could evaluate government spending , debt and weapons provision/ foreign aid or any other of a multitude of topics.
Please , and this is key, if you start to read this and cannot come up with data to support your position don't just get pissed off and say "fuck off Donttread" . For example if you support prohibition but any available real world evidence shows it does not work you don't have to immediately change your POV, you could propose a new way of trying to work prohibition that might be more effective.
You wouldn't take a heart medication unbacked by science and often research the data before purchasing a new car or even a set of golf clubs. If a plan at your business or place of employment has been in effect for 20 years at some point you have probably changed that plan, eliminated it, stuck with it, or expanded it based upon actual results.
Why should government programs and political pathways be vetted any less scientifically?
I an first and foremost a Constitutionist but believe that our secondary guideline for public policy should be whether said public policy can be shown to work or not. This could also be the basis to construct Constitutional Amendments.
Thoughts?? Facts? New ideas?
1) Has the "war on drugs" decreased drug availability and usage? What evidence can you site either way?
2) Has the "War on poverty" decreased poverty? What evidence can you site either way?
3) Has the "War on Terror" decreased the number of terrorist, terrorist strongholds or anti-American sentiment? What evidence can you site either way?
4) Have gun control policies and "gun free zones" done more good or more harm? What empirical data can you show either way?
5) Or you could evaluate government spending , debt and weapons provision/ foreign aid or any other of a multitude of topics.
Please , and this is key, if you start to read this and cannot come up with data to support your position don't just get pissed off and say "fuck off Donttread" . For example if you support prohibition but any available real world evidence shows it does not work you don't have to immediately change your POV, you could propose a new way of trying to work prohibition that might be more effective.
You wouldn't take a heart medication unbacked by science and often research the data before purchasing a new car or even a set of golf clubs. If a plan at your business or place of employment has been in effect for 20 years at some point you have probably changed that plan, eliminated it, stuck with it, or expanded it based upon actual results.
Why should government programs and political pathways be vetted any less scientifically?
I an first and foremost a Constitutionist but believe that our secondary guideline for public policy should be whether said public policy can be shown to work or not. This could also be the basis to construct Constitutional Amendments.
Thoughts?? Facts? New ideas?