What precise advantage, in your opinion, does France enjoy over Canada because it no longer has [a monarch]?
Obviously there are tons of confounding variables here that make the net benefit hard to measure, but clearly the main advantage is the ability of the population to elect the head of state.
(Also, Canada has the additional disadvantage of sharing its monarch with other countries; the reasons why this is problematic at least in theory should go without saying.)
I don’t think this would be the right place to enter a general discussion of these issues, but I must note that your response reflects beliefs that are, in my opinion, far below the standards of intellectual scrutiny that are supposed to be observed on LW. In particular, you seem to be assuming that, by any reasonable standards, democratic election of the head of state is clearly a good thing, while personal unions between countries are clearly bad. You also treat these claims as obvious.
To me it seems that both these claims are easily falsified by real-world evidence, and even setting aside that stronger rebuttal that would take some effort to justify, there is certainly no rational reason to treat them as self-evident.
your response reflects beliefs that are, in my opinion, far below the standards of intelectual scrutiny that are supposed to be observed on LW.
I don’t think that’s fair. We all have a great many beliefs inherited from general culture, more than we have the opportunity to scrutinize (especially without specific prompting). Even if my standards of intellectual scrutiny are very high, some of my beliefs are bound to be false; if you want to judge whether I’m meeting the LW standards of intellectual scrutiny, you should observe how I update in the face of new evidence or contrary argument, not necessarily the content of my starting beliefs themselves.
In particular, you seem to be assuming that, by any reasonable standards, democratic election of the head of state is clearly a good thing,
Only ceteris paribus, however; and I was careful not to claim that democratic election is necessarily a good thing on net in any specific case (such as that of the countries mentioned), but only a desideratum to be weighed against whatever disadvantages it may involve in a particular context.
while personal unions between countries are clearly bad
“Clearly present certain problems” would be a better paraphrase.
To me it seems that both these claims are easily falsified by real-world evidence,
If you interpreted them in the unreasonably strong senses that I have disclaimed above, I can see why you might think so. However, when understood in the sense I intended, I think my claims are perfectly true and hardly worthy of controversy.
and even setting aside that stronger claim that would take some effort to justify, there is certainly no rational reason to treat your beliefs as self-evident.
Again, I would by no means claim it is self-evident that France’s governmental structure is superior to Canada’s on the whole; only that France’s has at least some desirable features that Canada’s lacks.
OK, pardon if I have interpreted your claims too uncharitably, or if I sounded too personally critical. I didn’t mean to pick on you as having low intellectual standards or anything like that—I merely wanted to point out that your reply sounded like a cached thought of a sort that, in a different context, would likely raise a red flag for many people here, possibly including you, thus potentially indicating some widespread biases reflected in failure to notice the cached thoughts in this particular case.
When you say that “clearly the main advantage is the ability of the population to elect the head of state,” this can mean, to the best of my interpretation, either that this ability is somehow valuable in itself (so that this value should be counted as a positive term separately from its practical consequences), or that it self-evidently has advantageous implications. Do you think this interpretation is incorrect or uncharitable? I certainly find neither the former nor the latter possible meaning as “hardly worthy of controversy.”
Your subsequent comments indicate that you had in mind the former meaning, i.e. that popular election of the head of state is somehow desirable and valuable in itself, which however may need to be weighted against its possible bad practical implications. But as I said, I definitely don’t see how this claim is self-evident. How exactly would you justify it?
As for the issue of personal union (i.e. sharing the head of state with other countries), you characterized it as an “additional disadvantage,” thus implying (again to the best of my interpretation) that it is indeed, on the net, a disadvantage. But I don’t see how this could possibly be self-evident either—off-hand, I can easily produce a bunch of reasons why it could plausibly have both disadvantages and advantages. (As an off-hand example of an advantage, as a Canadian, you can still get some degree of British consular protection.) Which of these prevail of course depends both on empirical questions and how we choose to weight individual concerns. But again, I really don’t see how such an assertion could be “hardly worth of controversy.”
OK, pardon if I have interpreted your claims too uncharitably. I didn’t mean to pick on you as having low intellectual standards or anything like that—I merely wanted to point out that your reply sounded like a cached thought that
Obviously there are tons of confounding variables here that make the net benefit hard to measure, but clearly the main advantage is the ability of the population to elect the head of state.
(Also, Canada has the additional disadvantage of sharing its monarch with other countries; the reasons why this is problematic at least in theory should go without saying.)
I don’t think this would be the right place to enter a general discussion of these issues, but I must note that your response reflects beliefs that are, in my opinion, far below the standards of intellectual scrutiny that are supposed to be observed on LW. In particular, you seem to be assuming that, by any reasonable standards, democratic election of the head of state is clearly a good thing, while personal unions between countries are clearly bad. You also treat these claims as obvious.
To me it seems that both these claims are easily falsified by real-world evidence, and even setting aside that stronger rebuttal that would take some effort to justify, there is certainly no rational reason to treat them as self-evident.
I don’t think that’s fair. We all have a great many beliefs inherited from general culture, more than we have the opportunity to scrutinize (especially without specific prompting). Even if my standards of intellectual scrutiny are very high, some of my beliefs are bound to be false; if you want to judge whether I’m meeting the LW standards of intellectual scrutiny, you should observe how I update in the face of new evidence or contrary argument, not necessarily the content of my starting beliefs themselves.
Only ceteris paribus, however; and I was careful not to claim that democratic election is necessarily a good thing on net in any specific case (such as that of the countries mentioned), but only a desideratum to be weighed against whatever disadvantages it may involve in a particular context.
“Clearly present certain problems” would be a better paraphrase.
If you interpreted them in the unreasonably strong senses that I have disclaimed above, I can see why you might think so. However, when understood in the sense I intended, I think my claims are perfectly true and hardly worthy of controversy.
Again, I would by no means claim it is self-evident that France’s governmental structure is superior to Canada’s on the whole; only that France’s has at least some desirable features that Canada’s lacks.
OK, pardon if I have interpreted your claims too uncharitably, or if I sounded too personally critical. I didn’t mean to pick on you as having low intellectual standards or anything like that—I merely wanted to point out that your reply sounded like a cached thought of a sort that, in a different context, would likely raise a red flag for many people here, possibly including you, thus potentially indicating some widespread biases reflected in failure to notice the cached thoughts in this particular case.
When you say that “clearly the main advantage is the ability of the population to elect the head of state,” this can mean, to the best of my interpretation, either that this ability is somehow valuable in itself (so that this value should be counted as a positive term separately from its practical consequences), or that it self-evidently has advantageous implications. Do you think this interpretation is incorrect or uncharitable? I certainly find neither the former nor the latter possible meaning as “hardly worthy of controversy.”
Your subsequent comments indicate that you had in mind the former meaning, i.e. that popular election of the head of state is somehow desirable and valuable in itself, which however may need to be weighted against its possible bad practical implications. But as I said, I definitely don’t see how this claim is self-evident. How exactly would you justify it?
As for the issue of personal union (i.e. sharing the head of state with other countries), you characterized it as an “additional disadvantage,” thus implying (again to the best of my interpretation) that it is indeed, on the net, a disadvantage. But I don’t see how this could possibly be self-evident either—off-hand, I can easily produce a bunch of reasons why it could plausibly have both disadvantages and advantages. (As an off-hand example of an advantage, as a Canadian, you can still get some degree of British consular protection.) Which of these prevail of course depends both on empirical questions and how we choose to weight individual concerns. But again, I really don’t see how such an assertion could be “hardly worth of controversy.”
OK, pardon if I have interpreted your claims too uncharitably. I didn’t mean to pick on you as having low intellectual standards or anything like that—I merely wanted to point out that your reply sounded like a cached thought that