By their actions you will know them.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

As Marcus Aurelius meditated (and Hanibal Lecter paraphrased); ...Examine this thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? What its causal nature or form? And what does it do?

(emphasis mine)

While some may question the wisom of taking advice from a Roman Emperor (or fictional serial killer) this is my default approach to almost any conundrum. In my mind results are what really matter. Other factors may provide valuable context or understanding but are ultimately incidental. Unfortunatly this results in a certian amount of percieved values dissonance. I've caught flak on this forum for calling drunk-driving and child-labor laws stupid. And been accused of being "pro-murder" by gun-control activists.

The dificulty, I think, comes from conflating the intent with the result.

How many laws do we have on the books that have failed to achieve (or worse, achieved the opposite) of their stated objective? The list is long and not limited to the Left or Right's pet issues. Gun control, welfare reform, "the war on drugs", Obamacare, and anything from conservatives involving sex are only a few that come to mind. It seems to me too many politicians and voters are more interested in doing something that sounds good than something that’s actually effective. After all, "common sense solutions" make for better sound-bytes.

That said, I must concede that on a very human level intent does matter. One of the hardest things (for me) about working as a medic was dealing with good samaritans. It was useless for me to get mad at them for moving a injured person (or explain why they shouldn't) because they were trying to help, and that's not exactly something I want to discourage either.

The question I suppose is, to what degree does intent matter to you and how does that influence your political views?

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

We've had prohibitions against murder for like, more than a hundred years now and look what its done for us. Nothing!

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I know that I personally only murder out of spite for murder laws.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

LOL

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

yes, that truth is part of the tragic degenerative human condition :(

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

On one hand it's hard to say whether or not the prohibition on murder actually makes us safer due to the lack of a proper control group.

On the other, are you really saying that the fear of punishment is the only thing that stops you from killing anyone you meet?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No I'm saying that the reason we have laws is not to prevent things, but to provide an accounting for them.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I don't buy it, By that defininition there would never be such a thing as a "victimless crime".

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Me personally, I have witnessed the "law of unintended consequences" way too many times over the course of my life to be too enamored with intent.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

law of unintended consequences

How long have we been trying to repeal Murphy's Law?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Murphy's law I always expect and deal with..
The one that ALWAYS gets me is "No good deed goes unpunished" (it's cuz I'm a nice guy and can't help myself ;) )

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Intent does not override end results.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

i was juuuust going to say something along the same lines. Because intent should be followed by a genuine ability to predict/anticipate ALL the plausible outcomes.

although in some scenarios, i'm sure it is worth running the risk of one outcome vs the other....although i can't seem to think of an current examples :/

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Do you end up saying quarks every time?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

How many laws do we have on the books that have failed to achieve (or worse, achieved the opposite) of their stated objective?

Compared to doing nothing (aka hoping or praying)?

Intent will go a long way, but results matter too.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

What I don't understand is the people who defend a policy as being neccesary or proper even after it has failed.

As for the arguement that "we have to at least do something..." sometimes "Nothing" is the best is the best thing to do.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Policies are not so easily categorized as pass/fail.

Doing nothing is better than doing harm, which is prayers saving grace.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

While there are certainly varying degrees of sucess and failure, the seperation between the two is easy as long as the goals are clearly defined.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Intent matters absolutely. However. . . .

While I conceded that unintended consequences are heinous and often laughable outcomes, I'm more concerned about politicians and activists who know full well the outcome their legislation would enable but hide the intent beneath layers of mendacity, crafting legislation with literally ironic titles, like the "Clear Skies Initiative" that allowed more industrial pollutant discharge. I could cite more.

Here in Washington State, we have largely avoided the pitfalls of misleading legislation simply with a constitutional requirement regarding the naming of legislation:"

SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

It's simple and easily enforced because of that. More than one law has been struck down in the courts simply because the title didn't match the legislation, or attempted to cover more than one legal area with one piece.

I've always wanted it to be adopted for the next federal constitutional amendment. Who's with me? (http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'd be tentatively in favor of this.

I'm still trying to spot "The Catch" so to speak.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Entrenched national interests for whom obfuscation is necessity?

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

Legislators do not vote on laws on the basis of intent, they vote on the basis of the text.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Bullshit.

Though granted, the stated intent may not be the true intent but still.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would not question it from a Roman Emperor, but I certainly would from this one. His decision to put his son as his successor set in motion the decline of the Roman Empire, and his wars against his enemies were not successful. If we're going to be taking advice from Roman Emperors, there are much better choices.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Or, this emperor proved wise beyond his peers, making several great decisions backed by a scroll filled with great advice . . . but screwed up on the son thing. Kids.

As to the more probable decline of the Empire, have you read Thomas Homer-Dixon's The Upside of Down?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My view is that the social forces that ended the Empire were the tendency to civil war as succession and the inability of the classical empire to find a means out of that trap. The precise form those circumstances blew up was the reign of Commodus and the Severans and the mistakes those men made that made the result inevitable. Aurelius is famous for the Meditations, not for his accomplishments as Emperor, and there's a reason for that.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Very interesting, I'm sure. That said, have you read The Upside of Down? Homer-Dixon takes, as a illustrative example, a hard look at the energy inputs the Empire needed to maintain the supply lines that kept the Empire the Empire. I'm not aware of anyone else who's done this.