“State” (with a capital “S”) refers to one of the United States, and “States” refers to two or more of them. “State” and “States,” thus used, are proper nouns because they refer to a unique entity or entities: one or more of the United States, the union of which, under the terms and conditions stated in the Constitution, is the raison d’être for the nation. I reserve the uncapitalized word “state” for a government, or hierarchy of them, which exerts a monopoly of force within its boundaries.
Marriage, in the Western tradition, predates the state and legitimates the union of one man and one woman. As such, it is an institution that is vital to civil society and therefore to the enjoyment of liberty. The recognition of a more-or-less permanent homosexual pairing as a kind of marriage is both ill-advised and illegitimate. Such an arrangement is therefore a “marriage” (in quotation marks) or, more accurately, a homosexual cohabitation contract (HCC).
The words “liberal”, “progressive”, and their variants are usually enclosed in quotation marks (sneer quotes) because they refer to persons and movements whose statist policies are, in fact, destructive of liberty and progress. I sometimes italicize the words, just to reduce visual clutter.
I have reverted to the British style of punctuating in-line quotations, which I followed 40 years ago when I published a weekly newspaper. The British style is to enclose within quotation marks only (a) the punctuation that appears in quoted text or (b) the title of a work (e.g., a blog post) that is usually placed within quotation marks.
I have reverted because of the confusion and unsightliness caused by the American style. It calls for the placement of periods and commas within quotation marks, even if the periods and commas don’t occur in the quoted material or title. Also, if there is a question mark at the end of quoted material, it replaces the comma or period that might otherwise be placed there.
If I had continued to follow American style, I would have ended a sentence in a recent post with this:
… “A New (Cold) Civil War or Secession?” “The Culture War,” “Polarization and De-facto Partition,” and “Civil War?“
What a hodge-podge. There’s no comma between the first two entries, and the sentence ends with an inappropriate question mark. With two titles ending in question marks, there was no way for me to avoid a series in which a comma is lacking. I could have avoided the sentence-ending question mark by recasting the list, but the items are listed chronologically, which is how they should be read.
I solved these problems easily by reverting to the British style:
… “A New (Cold) Civil War or Secession?”, “The Culture War“, “Polarization and De-facto Partition“, and “Civil War?“.
This not only eliminates the hodge-podge, but is also more logical and accurate. All items are separated by commas, commas aren’t displaced by question marks, and the declarative sentence ends with a period instead of a question mark.
For much more see “Writing: A Guide“.
Politics and Prosperity 
“to the party of working-class-whites-seeking-their-share-of-government-bestowed-privileges”
Or perhaps, to the party of working class people who desire a level playing field instead of one tilted toward allowing the rich to get richer.
The Trump supports I know don’t want something they didn’t earn; they just want to opportunity to earn a decent living.
LikeLike
The idea that the playing field is tilted to favor “the rich” has some merit, on the surface. But leveling the playing field to avoid favoring “the rich” would require almost complete deregulation of the economy. I’m in favor of that, of course, but I doubt that “the rich” would be any less rich as a result. It takes smarts and ambition to game the “system,” and so the smart and ambitious would continue to do well under a different system. Talk of leveling the playing field because it’s tilted toward “the rich” has always struck me as nothing more than evidence of envy.
Trump supporters also seem rather keen to level the playing field by receiving privileges matching those already bestowed on others, namely, welfare recipients, beneficiaries of affirmative action, and illegal immigrants. I, too would like to level the playing field, but by getting rid of welfare and affirmative action, and by limiting immigration to the highly skilled (e.g., doctors and engineers).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that Trump’s proposals on this issue make sense: make it harder for business’s to acquire cheap labor through illegal immigration and make it harder to outsource jobs to other countries.
When I hear “get rid of welfare,” I cringe. To me, that’s the same kind of class warfare the democrats play but in the opposite direction. Those welfare recipients are taking your money; gotta stop ’em!
To me, welfare is a necessary concept; society works better if there’s some kind of safety net. On the other hand, it’s not a good thing when the end result seems to be generations who live off the government. The purpose should be to get people back on their feet and to do so as quickly as possible.
LikeLike
Cheap labor benefits consumers, which is all of us. I prefer cheaper labor at the high end (e.g., doctors and engineers) because that’s where consumers really benefit. Driving down the cost of yard work is hardly a burning issue, and mainly benefits the middle and upper classes, anyway.
Making it harder to “send jobs overseas” harms consumers, which is all of us. You really need to do some remedial reading in economics.
“Society” works worse when there’s a government-provided safety net because it grows to satisfy the preferences of politicians, bureaucrats, and their constituencies. It wasn’t the absence of a “safety net” that caused the Great Depression, the Great Recession, or any other economic downturn, it was government ineptitude (mainly on the part of the Federal Reserve). The availability of welfare discourages work. (More remedial reading required.) The best “safety net” is therefore the lack of government-guaranteed welfare, coupled with private welfare (from family, community, church, club, etc.), which government welfare has done much to discourage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Making it harder to “send jobs overseas” harms consumers, which is all of us. You really need to do some remedial reading in economics.”
Did you read the economists recently who reported that, “Hey, maybe we understated the negative impact of free trade.” ?
Yes, it helps consumers, but it also hurts big segments of the working class and it has transformed our economy from one where we actually make stuff. Think about both world wars. We won by outproducing everybody else. If we get into another situation like that, would we be able to ramp up production in time?
I think that we need to seriously look at all the impacts of free trade instead of blindly saying, “Well, economics says free trade is a good thing!”
I won’t disagree that the current welfare system discourages work. Are you saying, however, that it’s impossible to create any welfare system that can serve as a safety net without discouraging work?
I personally know someone who had the following circumstances. Her husband, who beat her, left. She had two kids and no job skills. She went on welfare while getting job training. After completing training, she got a job and raised those kids without further assistance.
I think that is an incredible story of what welfare should be. I’d hate for her and her children to have ended up in a much worse situation because people who have done lots of reading don’t think that welfare is needed.
LikeLike
Looking at the particular aspects of free trade is an invitation to favor some groups over others. It’s a Trump-Sanders-Clinton view of the world. Always trying to fine-tune the economy for a particular purpose, and screwing up everything else as a result. Sure, there are “negative aspects” of free trade, if one believes that certain groups of people are deserving of more than they earn, but that’s not economics, it’s special pleading. Point me to the specific article(s) to which you refer and I’ll gladly consider whether they have merit. As for remedial reading, start here and follow the links.
The business about the “hollowed out” economy is hollow. First, the manufacturing capacity of the U.S. has continued to grow. Second, the balance between manufactured goods and services reflects consumer demand, and consumers get more when they’re able to buy foreign manufactured goods at lower prices. (You might prefer that they not do this, but that’s just special pleading because you believe that certain groups “should” do better than they are doing.) Third, the U.S., though less prepared for war than I’d like to see, is more prepared than it was before World War II. Moreover, there’s ample industrial capacity to fight a large, long war. What’s holding down the size of the U.S. arsenal isn’t capacity — it’s political will (or the lack thereof).
Specific examples of welfare successes are heart-warming, but hardly dispositive. How much tax money goes down the drain to achieve relatively few successes? How many jobs could have been created with that money? The idea that a government program will somehow magically do mostly good things without doing a lot of bad things is an example of the nirvana fallacy.
LikeLike
I read a lot of articles, and I truthfully don’t know if I’m going to be able to find that link. I will, however, make an effort, and if I’m able to locate it, I’ll get you the link.
I beginning to think, however, that we’ll never be able to see eye to eye. Here’s why:
If I’m sitting down looking at a spreadsheet, it’s easy for me to balance things as, “Well, this works better for the majority of the people.” When I start thinking about those numbers as real people, however, I have more of an aversion to causing pain than I feel a reward for increasing the overall good.
Maybe that’s unreasonable of me, but I can’t think like you seem to think.
LikeLike
Here’s that article that I read. Despite our difference of opinion, I’d love to hear your take on it. Thanks.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/how-economists-were-wrong-about-free-trade/433818/
LikeLike
Regarding your penultimate comment: I agree that we’ll never be able to see eye to eye. Here’s why: For every person who benefits from a government policy or program (whether identifiable or not), there are numberless and nameless persons who pay, often the supposed beneficiaries of the program. Affirmative action is a good example, though far from the only one. Despite the seemingly “fair” language of the law, it can only lead to the selection of less-qualified people for jobs and university admissions. Many of those people are then set up for failure. (Rick Sander has documented this thoroughly in the case of law schools.) And the paying public — the anonymous consumers of the products and services tainted by affirmative action — gets less than its money’s worth.
Regarding the article: It focuses on particular losses in certain areas and seems to ignore the widespread gains to American consumers. Shifting patterns of trade and technology are an inevitable part of commerce — of making and selling things that consumers value. A lot of buggy makers went out of business as the auto industry grew; a lot of coal miners lost jobs as other sources of energy arose; a lot of clerical and secretarial positions were abolished with the rise of computerization; etc. — and these are examples of developments within the U.S. Should they have been prevented?
What’s special about foreign trade? If trade across borders is somehow bad because it might some aspects of a local economy, why not ban interstate trade, intercounty trade, and intercity trade?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So again I ask – is it theoretically impossible to design systems that return results that a) help the people who need it and b) give the rest of us a reasonable ROI?
I agree that the current systems are deeply flawed. I’m just not willing to give up on the hope of creating better ones.
LikeLike
What you’re suggesting is akin to “socialist calculation.” There are two things wrong with it. First, the designers of the system inevitably impose their own preferences. What is a “reasonable” ROI, for example? It’s the ROI required to compensate for the uncertainties, risks, and startup costs of a venture with which no one may have any experience — and no one is therefore in a position to say what’s “reasonable.” And if the ROI is high enough, and government keeps its hands off, competitors will enter the market and drive down prices and ROI to sustainable levels.
Second, no one person, group of persons, or thing (like an impossibly fast computer) can replicate the billions of pieces of changing (and uncertain) information that are reflected in consumers’ preferences, producers’ decisions about what to produce and how and when to produce it, and the myriad intersections of preferences and production decisions represented in markets. See, for example, Friedrich Hayek’s 1974 Nobel Prize Lecture, “The Pretence of Knowledge” (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html).
LikeLike
P.S. On trade, I recommend https://politicsandprosperity.com/2009/12/14/trade/.
LikeLike