Society changes as people interact, this is natural. As you talk to another person with the hopes of altering their views you (by your defination) are doing social engineering. There is a very real differance between private groups argueing with each other with press and debate and the government telling you what you are or are not to think.
There are seperate issues that we are discussing here. One is providing for a open field in which all can prosper. The other is the making people like, accept, include, or voice their thoughts. Now the anti-discrimination laws (which I think are poorly written and should read "you can not deny a job to someone for a reason unrelated to the work") are mostly of the open field arguement and partly of the preventing you the right to not associate. While bussing it create diversity is mostly about changeing peoples thoughts and very little about creating a open field.
I think drugs are fine as long as you don't drive, work, push in schools, or other effecting the lives of others happens. For which we already have laws. Remember the old saying that your rights end at my rights? That is what I am talking about.
Private campiagns are fine. Government campaigns are not. I have no problem with the government saying no drugs allowed in school since it is a public forum. But I am not keen on the school system saying "just say no" since that is a value judgement.
"There is a very real differance between private groups argueing with each other with press and debate and the government telling you what you are or are not to think."
Does this mean you're changing your poll answer to "it depends who is doing it" and/or "it depends on what methods are used", Or have I misunderstood? So far what I get from your arguments is "the government instituting thought police is bad", which is not a very controversial statement, but also doesn't really say much about the larger question of social engineering.
It seems that you are opposed to other forms of social engineering as well, but so far your supporting arguments for that position seem to be just "government thought-police are bad" and a couple of bits that sound as though you're talking about mind-control. So I am confused.
"Now the anti-discrimination laws (which I think are poorly written and should read 'you can not deny a job to someone for a reason unrelated to the work') [...]"
Since that aspect, whether well or poorly implemented, was a shift from previous cultural attitudes that failed to censure (note: "censure", not "censor") statements such as, "I'm not going to hire a Jew," even the way you think antidiscrimination laws should have been written constitute intentional change to society. So I remain puzzled by your inconsistency and am still hoping to have the pattern made clear to me.
"I think drugs are fine as long as you don't drive, work, push in schools, or other effecting the lives of others happens."
Which wasn't what I asked. What I asked was "What about government-funded anti-drug public service announcements?"
And, taking a later snippet out-of-order:
"Private campiagns are fine. Government campaigns are not. I have no problem with the government saying no drugs allowed in school since it is a public forum. But I am not keen on the school system saying "just say no" since that is a value judgement."
This appears to both answer and not-answer what I'm asking, since you narrowed it to "the school system" at the end. Am I to construe this as meaning that any government-paid PSAs on television and radio are bad because they're government interference (even if they're encouraging, perhaps for funny reasons, compliance with the government's laws), or that they're okay as long as they're not for a captive audience such as students in school?
I suppose another way of getting at what I'm trying to understand would be: is it okay for the government to sponsor PSAs that discourage speeding and drunk driving, or must the government limit itself to passing and enforcing laws and not talking about them? And if the latter is okay, how can the existence of some types of laws (designed to discourage certain behaviours, be they safety matters or patterns of homebuying or attracting doctors to rural areas) not constitute social engineering itself?
"Remember the old saying that your rights end at my rights? That is what I am talking about."
*nod* The classic libertarian phrasing being, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". So far, antidiscrimination law and busing can be portrayed as "conflict of rights" issues, but unless we diverge into a tangent on taxes being slavery (I'd rather not right now), what about the NDSL program? Or market-altering subsidies in general? (I'm assuming you'll argue that CAFE is interference in free enterprise, which would be consistent with your reasoning regarding antidiscrimination laws. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
Is it safe for me to assume that all my third-paragraph examples (lawn-and-garden clubs, TruthOut, Earth Day, hippies, Christmas as a commercial event, the civil rights movement, MADD, Mothers Day, Fathers Day, Secretaries Day, "pre-owned", visibility campaigns, "take back the streets", creating an American kilt market, anti- cartoon-violence) are all acceptable forms of social engineering because they're not government-originated?
Can you at least see why I'm confused by what you've said so far?
(no subject)
There are seperate issues that we are discussing here. One is providing for a open field in which all can prosper. The other is the making people like, accept, include, or voice their thoughts. Now the anti-discrimination laws (which I think are poorly written and should read "you can not deny a job to someone for a reason unrelated to the work") are mostly of the open field arguement and partly of the preventing you the right to not associate. While bussing it create diversity is mostly about changeing peoples thoughts and very little about creating a open field.
I think drugs are fine as long as you don't drive, work, push in schools, or other effecting the lives of others happens. For which we already have laws. Remember the old saying that your rights end at my rights? That is what I am talking about.
Private campiagns are fine. Government campaigns are not. I have no problem with the government saying no drugs allowed in school since it is a public forum. But I am not keen on the school system saying "just say no" since that is a value judgement.
and so on.
(no subject)
"There is a very real differance between
private groups argueing with each other with press
and debate and the government telling you what you
are or are not to think."
Does this mean you're changing your poll answer
to "it depends who is doing it" and/or "it depends
on what methods are used", Or have I
misunderstood? So far what I get from your
arguments is "the government instituting thought
police is bad", which is not a very controversial
statement, but also doesn't really say much about
the larger question of social engineering.
It seems that you are opposed to other forms of
social engineering as well, but so far your
supporting arguments for that position seem to be
just "government thought-police are bad" and a
couple of bits that sound as though you're talking
about mind-control. So I am confused.
"Now the anti-discrimination laws (which I
think are poorly written and should read 'you can
not deny a job to someone for a reason unrelated
to the work') [...]"
Since that aspect, whether well or poorly
implemented, was a shift from previous
cultural attitudes that failed to censure (note:
"censure", not "censor") statements such as, "I'm
not going to hire a Jew," even the way you think
antidiscrimination laws should have been
written constitute intentional change to society.
So I remain puzzled by your inconsistency and am
still hoping to have the pattern made clear to
me.
"I think drugs are fine as long as you don't
drive, work, push in schools, or other effecting
the lives of others happens."
Which wasn't what I asked. What I asked was
"What about government-funded anti-drug public
service announcements?"
And, taking a later snippet
out-of-order:
"Private campiagns are fine. Government
campaigns are not. I have no problem with the
government saying no drugs allowed in school since
it is a public forum. But I am not keen on the
school system saying "just say no" since that is a value judgement."
This appears to both answer and not-answer what
I'm asking, since you narrowed it to "the school
system" at the end. Am I to construe this as
meaning that any government-paid PSAs on
television and radio are bad because they're
government interference (even if they're
encouraging, perhaps for funny reasons, compliance
with the government's laws), or that they're okay
as long as they're not for a captive audience such
as students in school?
I suppose another way of getting at what I'm
trying to understand would be: is it okay for the
government to sponsor PSAs that discourage
speeding and drunk driving, or must the government
limit itself to passing and enforcing laws and not
talking about them? And if the latter is okay,
how can the existence of some types of laws
(designed to discourage certain behaviours, be
they safety matters or patterns of homebuying or
attracting doctors to rural areas) not constitute
social engineering itself?
"Remember the old saying that your rights
end at my rights? That is what I am talking
about."
*nod* The classic libertarian phrasing being,
"your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".
So far, antidiscrimination law and busing can be
portrayed as "conflict of rights" issues, but
unless we diverge into a tangent on taxes being
slavery (I'd rather not right now), what about the NDSL
program? Or market-altering subsidies in general?
(I'm assuming you'll argue that CAFE is
interference in free enterprise, which would be
consistent with your reasoning regarding
antidiscrimination laws. Feel free to correct me
if I'm wrong about that.)
Is it safe for me to assume that all my
third-paragraph examples (lawn-and-garden
clubs, TruthOut, Earth Day, hippies, Christmas as
a commercial event, the civil rights movement,
MADD, Mothers Day, Fathers Day, Secretaries Day,
"pre-owned", visibility campaigns, "take back the
streets", creating an American kilt market, anti-
cartoon-violence) are all acceptable forms
of social engineering because they're not
government-originated?
Can you at least see why I'm confused by what
you've said so far?