Police, Fire Fighters, and Teachers

Whenever budget negotiations happen on the state or local level, especially when the subject of whether or not taxes should go up, the first thing threatened is the employment of the police, the fire fighters, and the teachers. Every time spending increases or tax increases are at risk, those who advocate increases insist that failure to raise taxes or spending means that those three are threatened. On the federal level, meat inspectors, roads, and the military are threatened instead, as well as Social Security checks for seniors.

Based on the rhetoric, it seems as if the only people hired by the state and local governments are police, fire fighters, and teachers. All the tax assessors, all the code enforcers, all the inspectors and auditors are never placed at risk.

It is probably a case of offering the most valuable services up first in negotiations, the ones that would be most difficult to cut because of the repercussions of doing so. Cutting the fire fighters does put people at risk. Cutting the police endangers their ability to act as a criminal gang, as well as preventing them from occasionally catching a criminal. Cutting teachers means that parents will be responsible for their own children.

Cutting auditors and assessors simply means people will be left alone to go about their business. If police, fire fighters, and teachers were retained while all the code enforcers were furloughed or fired, it would greatly reduce the burden of government in noticeable ways.

As much as it may be the case that the most "important" services are offered up for sacrifice, on the understanding that people won't dare cut those services, the auditors and assessors will not be cut because that would allow people to find out just how much the government weighs on their daily life. People would get the temporary experience of being free, and they might decide they actually like it. As such the rhetoric must continue to be as if the only government employees are those that are considered to actually have a positive impact on people.

What does "Environmentalist" mean?

One of the greatest challenges in political discussion is undefined terms. Not all terms are undefined, but those that are generally are deliberately undefined. Being deliberately undefined, it enables the speaker to shift between definitions whenever it is advantageous to do so. One such term is "environmentalist."

The term can mean anything from "someone who wants a clean environment" to a specific ideology. But if a critic uses the latter definition, those criticized default back to the former definition in an effort to use the government fallacy to prove the critic desires a dirty environment.

But if one tries to start by defining the term ahead of time, those who use the term "environmentalist" as a self-descriptor complain bitterly about how the critic is defining terms in a negative way.

The best approach seems to be in the way of Socratic reasoning to narrow down the show the distinction between hyphenated environmentalists (such as libertarian-environmentalists) and those who use the term without any modification.

The first thing to do is to ask what is an environmentalist, pointing out that by the basic meaning of the word it would indicate someone who wants a clean environment. Then point out the problem with that definition: it includes people who want one but not badly enough to do anything about it, and it includes people who want one but consider pollution the price to pay for progress.

That will get the unhyphenated environmentalist to agree that definition is too broad, and that it should be narrowed to "someone who wants a clean environment badly enough to do something about it."

This is where it gets tricky, and the critic of the unhyphenated environmentalist must stay on the offensive. The thing to do is to point out that according to most who use the term "environmentalist" as a self descriptor, libertarians are not considered to be environmentalists. Then challenge the statist environmentalist to deny that point.

If the statist environmentalist does deny that point, then the critic can call himself an environmentalist without fear of contradiction, and then put forward free market solutions to environmental problems as environmentalism.

More likely the statist environmentalist will not deny that point, meaning that the critic can now say "therefore the definition includes 'and advocates certain solutions' to environmental problems." That turns the definition into a political definition instead of concern about the environment itself. That is the definition that would be hotly denied without the Socratic lead in, and in order to prevent referring to free market environmentalists as environmentalists the statist environmentalist will have to agree.

A clear and concise definition is exactly what is needed to argue with statist environmentalists. The Socratic elimination is one of the most effective ways to achieve that definition.