Walter Williams gets it exactly right (as usual)

[MicroBalrog]

And that one stat means it's better in every single way, right?

Is any one thing better than another thing in every single way? Of course not.

In what way is society today demonstrably worse off than society in 1946 that outweighs the issues I pointed out?

[MicroBalrog]

But as long as we view the acceptance of deviant practices as bad, and you think it's great this little chat is pointless.

Observe my rationale:

If 'society' is outright condemning, say, furries (or Satanists), then 'society' will not mind when these people get their rights violated, just like people didn't care when the Branch Davidians got burned out because they were 'cultists' and just like people don't care when a person gets killed during a drug bust because drug dealers are (to many people out there) less than persons.

Also, what's the point of even the most awesome political freedom ever if the condition of retaining it is remaining straight-laced? What's the point of legalizing drugs if it's still not socially acceptable to throw awesome parties with them?

[Balog]

The wide spread acceptance (glorification, really) of sexual deviancy, broken homes, and general moral behaviour?

Also, why 1946?

[MicroBalrog]

Also, why 1946?

Because it'd be unfair to bring up evil things people did in 1945 or earlier. After all, there was the war and all. (Although technically, the war itself was outrbreak of barbarism on the part of the Germans. But still.)

The wide spread acceptance (glorification, really) of sexual deviancy, broken homes, and general moral behaviour?

Even if I agreed that 'sexual deviancy' is bad (which I don't), in the run-off between 'accepting sexual deviancy' and 'more murders', the sexual deviancy wins every single time.

Similarly, in the 'more people are being divorced' and 'Black people being forced to the back of the bus', divorces win every single time.

[Balog]

You are cherrypicking, and begging any number of questions. In any case, I think that's about all for me.

[stevelyn]

The hippie scum did a pretty good job raping the culture in the 60's. I'd like to think we could shift it back, but the relentless stream of .gov indoctrination at the public school level makes me doubt enough of the populace could grasp why it's important or desirable.

That's because those hippie scum are now the one's in charge. They're still raping.

[Lee]

Has there ever been a time and place when people didn't think their current society was in moral decline? 
I do agree that civil behavior has greatly declined....and is largely do to the "Me" love fest, and the notion that everyone is "special".

[Balog]

The Victorians were very optimistic.

[roo_ster]

MB:

In the "sexual deviancy vs murder" cage match, it is not an "either/or," but a "yes, and" sort of thing.

To clarify: sexual deviancy--relative to the norm of the society(1)--is correlated to murder and other much more serious problems.  As are popular atheism, agnosticism, loss of love of country, and other social pathologies that are signs of a civilization in decline.

SD is not a cause, but one of several symptoms, which usually start at the top and are adopted by the lower classes over time. 

The literature is rife with examples.  For instance, the transition of Rome from a Republic to an Empire is the (heh) classic case exhibiting signs of popular atheism, sexual deviancy, urban chaos, etc.  Great Britain is another, more recent example.

I think that there can be revivals of civilizational will(2).  But, even after several revivals, the end result is always the same: destruction and a revival of barbarism.




(1) Important modifier.  Also, "norm" defined as the arangements in place when the civilization was ascending, not declining.

(2) Such is my hope for America in particular.  I have much less hope for the rest of the West.

"On the ground"? Are you implying I'm not a part of Western Civilization?

Israel is an outpost of the West in a sea of savagery.  Yes, you are part of Western Civ, but not having set foot in America makes it very difficult to argue that you are part of that bit of the West any more than I am part of Israeli culture.

Recall, your words were:
"No, this is not my point. I see no proof that current American (or, in fact, Western) society is getting worse in the long term. In many ways it's getting better."

[MicroBalrog]

To clarify: sexual deviancy--relative to the norm of the society(1)--is correlated to murder and other much more serious problems.

1. We currently have less murders than we had in the era that Williams bring up.

2. For us to establish when a civilization is on decline to discuss its cultural norms during- and post-decline, we need to first prove there is a decline. :)

For instance, the transition of Rome from a Republic to an Empire is the (heh) classic case exhibiting signs of popular atheism, sexual deviancy, urban chaos, et

Roman Civilization, though, had its glory days still ahead - the Peace of August, poets like Ovid and Horace doing their thing, the Roman legal system being created, the roman roads, and stretching of the Empire to cover the whole world.

The problem with your argument, IMO is that, unless the Barbarians are already in the streets, it's difficult to prove whether a civilization is falling, because, until such a time a decline is painfully obvious, people can always bring up evidence of both positive and negative items about their society. It's just like arguing about the nature of Man - unless your idea is somehow VERY silly, you're going to be able to pull historical evidence that man is inherently evil and that he's inherently good. You can have "Lord of the Flies" based around the first message and "Tunnel in the Sky" around the second, Hobbes and Nozick, etc. etc.

  As are popular atheism, agnosticism, loss of love of country, and other social pathologies that are signs of a civilization in decline.

To the same vein, another reason why this cannot be conclusively proven at this stage is because we have different criteria for what 'civilizational rot' is. You view agnosticism as a form of rot, I view it as 'my belief system'. You view gay parades as disturbing, I view gay parades as awesome..

Yet it's not the problem I have with all this.

I think that advocates of the civilization-is-rotting, humanity-is-inherently-evil viewpoint are getting a bit ahead of themselves by going around and stating these things as if they were completely obvious axioms.

[Balog]

If "humanity is inherintly biased towards evil" isn't obvious and axiomatic nothing can be.

[roo_ster]

If "humanity is inherintly biased towards evil" isn't obvious and axiomatic nothing can be.

Mathematician on desert island with a lifetime's worth of canned goods, but no can opener, attacking his problem:
"First, assume I have a can opener..."

Adherent to utopian philosophy attacking the problem of societal arrangements:
"First, assume humanity is basically good..."


MB:

Roman civilization moved forward via inertia after becoming an Empire.  It could no longer be held together by the will of the Romans, but only by a dictator and a military establishment with loyalty toward the emperor, not Rome.

Somehow, I doubt that if the USA slid into semi-hereditary dictatorship held together by Praetorian National Guard, but still made technological advances, you would be so sanguine.  "But, we can still march down the streets in buttless chaps, so how bad can it be?"

[MicroBalrog]

Adherent to utopian philosophy attacking the problem of societal arrangements:
"First, assume humanity is basically good..."

The fact I don't have a can opener doesn't mean I cannot open the cans. I can open them with a knife, a sharp rock, or even the edge of another can if I'm really hungry and take an hour to do it. Some cans also don't require a can opener.

The fact humanity isn't a bunch of inherently evil shmucks that'll butcher each other at the basic opportunity doesn't mean we can't improve society, nor does it mean mankind is inherently good, at least not in the sense Mother Theresa is.

Somehow, I doubt that if the USA slid into semi-hereditary dictatorship held together by Praetorian National Guard, but still made technological advances, you would be so sanguine.  "But, we can still march down the streets in buttless chaps, so how bad can it be?"

The USA is not about to become a semi-hereditary dictatorship, is it? Before you consider your reply, consider all the things that are better today than on the day I was born, in terms of individual liberty (which, I believe, is a key measure of civilization)

Consider this: The state operates through a modicum of armed force, or the threat thereof. THe more government there is, the more willing we are to seize money from each other's pocket, invade each other's bedrooms, and so forth. Naturally, if it's easier for people to exercise their freedoms, it means that we a a society are less keen to sic the police on them. It's arguable that people are more free today, politically and socially, than they were during the late 1940's or '50s. (Note that I said arguable. There are ways in which we lost freedoms. On one hand, Americans can no longer own new machineguns. On the other hand, the highest income tax bracket is 35% and Obama is going to raise it to 38% - not 70% as would be acceptable at that oh-so-civilized time. You can also carry weapons for your protection in 39 states of the Union, including at least 15 where you can do so without a license (at least in some parts of the state). The Fairness Doctrine is no more. People are no longer allowed to come to your home and arrest you on inane charges for having sex in the wrong position (yes, they rarely did that in the '40's too. The fact SCOTUS threw these laws out is STILL positive). We have Lopez, Morrison,, and Heller.

Now, I will be the first one to admit bad things are happening and the world isn't perfect, but enough good things are happening for us to be able to legitimately disagree with your notion.

[Strings]

>You can also carry weapons for your protection in 39 states of the Union, including at least 15 where you can do so without a license (at least in some parts of the state).<

Ummm... actually, it's 48 states. Minor nitpick...

[makattak]

The fact I don't have a can opener doesn't mean I cannot open the cans. I can open them with a knife, a sharp rock, or even the edge of another can if I'm really hungry and take an hour to do it. Some cans also don't require a can opener.

The fact humanity isn't a bunch of inherently evil shmucks that'll butcher each other at the basic opportunity doesn't mean we can't improve society, nor does it mean mankind is inherently good, at least not in the sense Mother Theresa is.

The USA is not about to become a semi-hereditary dictatorship, is it? Before you consider your reply, consider all the things that are better today than on the day I was born, in terms of individual liberty (which, I believe, is a key measure of civilization)

Consider this: The state operates through a modicum of armed force, or the threat thereof. THe more government there is, the more willing we are to seize money from each other's pocket, invade each other's bedrooms, and so forth. Naturally, if it's easier for people to exercise their freedoms, it means that we a a society are less keen to sic the police on them. It's arguable that people are more free today, politically and socially, than they were during the late 1940's or '50s. (Note that I said arguable. There are ways in which we lost freedoms. On one hand, Americans can no longer own new machineguns. On the other hand, the highest income tax bracket is 35% and Obama is going to raise it to 38% - not 70% as would be acceptable at that oh-so-civilized time. You can also carry weapons for your protection in 39 states of the Union, including at least 15 where you can do so without a license (at least in some parts of the state). The Fairness Doctrine is no more. People are no longer allowed to come to your home and arrest you on inane charges for having sex in the wrong position (yes, they rarely did that in the '40's too. The fact SCOTUS threw these laws out is STILL positive). We have Lopez, Morrison,, and Heller.

Now, I will be the first one to admit bad things are happening and the world isn't perfect, but enough good things are happening for us to be able to legitimately disagree with your notion.

I will note for you, Micro:

You point out improvements in the last century.

How about we compare to the PREVIOUS century.

110 years ago, there was no federal income tax. Not "only 35%", none.

110 years ago, you could carry EVERYWHERE in the country. (Englad as well).

110 years ago, the idea of the government controlling a major manufacturing company was preposterous.

If not for the technological improvements, I dare say we would be far worse off. (I would, in fact, suggest that the state of Western Civilization 110 years ago is the reason we have had these technological improvements.)

[Balog]

But but but, 1946?!?! :)

[MicroBalrog]

You point out improvements in the last century.

Because the author of the original article that started this thread brought up the 1940's as a period of good and proper.

First off, you're falling into the mistake of thinking that just because I'm claiming civilization is not collapsing and is in good shape in many ways, I'm claiming 'all is good in this best of all words'.

I am claiming that civilization is not dying.

110 years ago, there was no federal income tax. Not "only 35%", none.

Cherry-picking, you are. A Federal Income Tax was enacted in 1894 and repealed in 1895. The Federal government relied on high tariffs and "sin taxes" on alcohol, tobacco, amd chewing gum.

110 years ago, you could carry EVERYWHERE in the country. (Englad as well).

Only if you were white.

110 years ago, the idea of the government controlling a major manufacturing company was preposterous.

On the other hand, government was already in control of the rail system. Twenty years later FedGov nationalized all rail.

Also, about half the population was not allowed to vote (except in four states) - surely that counts? Should the fact suffragists were regularly jailed count? Should the fact that the Federal government explicitly violated the Constitution by selectively disenfranchising women in Utah count (because they were voting for stuff the Feds disapproved of)?

Imagine today they disenfranchised the men of Texas for voting for gun rights.

[makattak]

Also, about half the population was not allowed to vote (except in four states) - surely that counts? Should the fact suffragists were regularly jailed count? Should the fact that the Federal government explicitly violated the Constitution by selectively disenfranchising women in Utah count (because they were voting for stuff the Feds disapproved of)?

Imagine today they disenfranchised the men of Texas for voting for gun rights.

I expected this one.

I am unconvinced that universal suffrage is a victory for liberty. It is a victory for democracy, but I am suspicious of the ability of a democracy to maintain liberty.

How are people more free because they can vote? Voting is not an "inalienable right".

[MicroBalrog]

Do you think it is within the proper role of the Federal government to say "The people of Utah are voting for local laws we don't like, let's go in and disenfranchise parts of the population because THEY'RE NOT VOTING RIGHT?"

Interfering with local legislatures is one of the crimes that the colonists accused the King of.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

How are people more free because they can vote? Voting is not an "inalienable right".

Voting specifically isn't. Be able to control the government and to establish a different one if the current one becomes oppressive, however, is.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[makattak]

Do you think it is within the proper role of the Federal government to say "The people of Utah are voting for local laws we don't like, let's go in and disenfranchise parts of the population because THEY'RE NOT VOTING RIGHT?"

Interfering with local legislatures is one of the crimes that the colonists accused the King of.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

Voting specifically isn't. Be able to control the government and to establish a different one if the current one becomes oppressive, however, is.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The first example you used is a problem of federalism, not franchise. I'm all for federalism.

Federalism would also deal with the second problem. Don't like what your town/state is doing? Move to one that is more in line with your views.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm talking specifically about how Utah's women were deliberately disenfranchised because when they were allowed to vote,  they voted to preserve polygamy.

As for franchise, see above.