…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
But we have to be careful here because someone being rich in one country does not necessarily mean someone else in the same country is forcibly impoverished by that individual’s success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_US_dollar_billionaires
The USA has 536 billionaires. Compare the standard of living in the US to that of Cuba which has no billionaires as far as I can tell, but everyone, except the communist party thugs, are equally poor.
Because of technology, wealth can be created, it doesn’t necessarily have to redistributed to make a nation more affluent. There is much to be said that the welfare state and government regulation has incentivized poverty. I live just south of the District of Columbia. A similar city is Detroit. We can see what the floods of government money did for Detroit.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/02/21/detroit-tops-2013-list-of-americas-most-miserable-cities/
Not only was Detroit and example of money being distributed, it got money from outside that flooded in from the rich. Look what happened! Redistributing wealth isn’t fundamental problem, it’s putting wealth into the most capable hands, and free markets have a way of doing that better than governments.
Would we want 100,000 dollars given to help Richard Feynmann or Charles Townes through school or $100,000 given to a dope addicted welfare mom? Why should the government decide? Why should anyone decide through the legislative process? Let industry decide who is more valuable to society. That may be harsh, but that’s what the government is doing when democracy is used to force that decision by legislation.
Government monkeying with the distribution of wealth can lead to lots of corruption by politicians more interested in advancing their own agenda than really caring for the poor like Mother Teresa cared for the poor.
Bill Gates got filthy rich and so did the silicon valley execs. I don’t think we can say these guys somehow ended up pillaging and plundering the food off of people’s tables by creating the wealth of technology that makes our lives so much better.
hotshoe_,
I replied to walto’s criticism of my willingness to take a moral stand by pointing out his lack of morality. I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you say I’m repeating it — I think I’ve only responded to walto and cubist about the morality of government force on this thread.
This is Noyau. We don’t have to be nice here. Sometimes honest isn’t nice.
It’s true that not all redistributions are helpful. In fact it’s easy to see that many will be counterproductive. That’s true of almost every kind of intentional distribution of anything. Take recipe items, e.g., or chemical mixing. The fact that they can be done badly is not an excuse for never doing them.
But if they are so easily corrupted, what do we do? The democrat says we trust an educated democracy to make wise decisions–even if they haven’t always done so. The libertarian says we trust John Locke (at least up to the the part where he talked about “enough and as good to go around”). One view is forward looking by its desire to create opportunities for those who now have few or none; the other is backward looking because intent mainly on protecting what is already owned (including the benefits ensuing from accidents like Wilt Chamberlain’s height) from non-owners. “No restrictions on trade,” they holler–even if that which is traded is water or air.
Even Nozick (eventually) realized that was a mistake.
Trying to improve the lot of the poor is a neverending challenge. I notice that a couple of progressive Europian governments are seriousily considering dropping welfare systems in favor of a guaranteed minimum income. Something suggested 40 years ago by Milton Friedman. The current American system has created several generations of fatherless homes.
It isn’t enough to have good intentions. You need an uncorrupted experimental methodology that tries things and keeps what works.
Presuppositionalism in politics is no more useful in politics than it is in theology. You don’t fix systematic problems by redistributing wealth. Not without fixing incentives for self improvement.
You’re an advocate for censorship, Patrick, even when no one is being harmed.
Nice and Honest.
Good question.
Not that this will happen, But I’d require people to pay 10-30% total tax (state,federal, local), but then let each tax payer them ear mark for themselves what accounts they want the money to go to on a list of authorized projects:
1. public roads
2. public schools
3. public housing
4. public employee pensions (yikes!)….
5. military spending
6. disaster relief
7. hospitals
8. space exploration
9. alternative energy research….
Why in this computer age can’t we do a cyber democracy? We can require them to pay taxes and only to authorized projects, but at least they can veto where some of the money goes. I for example have no problem putting money in space exploration over public housing projects (aka make tax shelters for the filthy rich and communities for drug lords). Or the disabled veterans and new veterans hospitals vs. food stamps (AKA line the pockets of grocery retailers in the name of feeding the poor).
So if someone is filthy rich, he’ll still have to pay taxes, but if he doesn’t want a dime for it to go to military spending but to education, then fine.
Unfortunately it may be too late even if such a cyber democracy were to happen.
Unfunded or unfundable pensions is an example of government mis-management. Pensions were guaranteed on non-existent money (supposed future taxpayer revenues). Politicians should never have the ability to promise money of future generations of people they don’t even know in order to line the pockets of their present voter base. Now this is creating financial disaster for taxpayers:
I feel sorry for the state employees, but should I have to pay for voter and government stupidity in another state (I don’t live in California) through some federal bailout? If I had the cyber democracy option, I could at least have the choice of deciding if I want to fund the California pension system or pay firefighters in my own county. I at least have the option.
I and other citizens will feel empowered even though they are compelled to pay taxes, at least we can say which public causes are worthy of support. That’s what I do, but that’s me.
PS
I got sick of watching the financial channels because I could see news like this every day. More taxes don’t solve this sort of problem (unfunded pensions). The problem should never have come to pass in the first place.
Mung,
No, I am not. Support your accusation or retract it (or act like phoodoo).
Sal, I too like the idea of cyber democracy, but I don’t know if the particular method you suggest is a good idea or not. For me, one of the important things is the (almost never bright) line between where voter power must be retained and where expertise should be recognized. I think voters must have the last word in, e.g., priortizing the main goals of what its government should do. I don’t even believe that “representatives” should have that power. That is, I think legislators have, to a great extent, usurped prerogatives that should be retained by the people–and from what you write above, you seem to agree with me about that.
However, I don’t think voters are particularly good at calculating utilities. So, for example, if voters think it’s important to educate all citizens through college or that a war be waged on Canada, those actions should be taken. But exactly how the education is best accomplished or the war waged should be a matter for experts–actuaries, economists, military strategists, educators, psychologists, etc. Again, though, I realize that it is quite difficult to draw that line in the right place. We just must do our best.
And, of course, I don’t deny the possibility of corruption, (or simply horrific errors) whenever societal actions are allowed to take place. As Spinoza said, “All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.”
Finally, I agree with petrushka about this:
In a cyber-democracy would everyone get a free computer, a free smart phone, government paid for internet and wireless service?
Not sure that would be necessary. There are libraries and….Starbucks.
Patrick Advocating Censorship
Here’s what I don’t like, and I bet Patrick would agree.
I don’t like how private individuals and private corporations are forced to be tax collectors.
I most certainly agree.
FWIW, I agree with you. (But I’m a nuts single-taxer.)
I have an inclination (but no facts at hand) that most Americans vote against their own, *immediate* financial well being in terms of tax and benefits.
Mung,
Here’s the full text of what I wrote as an open comment to Elizabeth:
I am asking about how she wants her rules interpreted. Elizabeth is trying an experiment here and I want to support her in that. My personal preference would be to eliminate most of the rules, Guano, and Noyau. She has chosen a different route. Given that, it is sometimes necessary for those of us not in her head to get clarification of how she wants to run the site.
Now, I do find posts like those at UD targeted at named individuals to be distasteful. I wouldn’t start one, but I would allow them were this my site. Given Elizabeth’s goals and rules, I don’t think they fit here.
Lastly, you will note that I explicitly encouraged her to keep the existing thread visible.
If you want to construct a narrative about how terrible the moderation is here, you’re going to need sturdier materials.
Exactly.
Libertarianism is backwards.
stcordova,
And there are only 3 billionaires in Finland and 5 in Denmark. And in a country where it is freezing half the year and a lot of the time there is no sunlight, the people are happy then they are in America. So why are you bragging about the fact that America has so many billionaires? You think this is a good thing for our country? Why is it great that America has 500 billionaires, except for the 500?
You think the quality of life in America is great? Why does it have so many drug addicted mother should be a better question Sal. Apparently to you, if people are poor in Cuba, its the governments fault, but if people are poor in America its their own fault. Maybe its also America’s fault that their country is so fucked up. Why are people in Finland so darn happy Sal?
A good part of it is that the Scandinavian countries have no standing military forces, don’t try to solve all the world’s problem by deploying troops and weapons, and thereby save enormous amounts of money to be redirected to other purposes. One can only boggle at the notion of the US spending $2 billion a week (or whatever the military costs) on health care and public education and scientific research.
Walto,
You mentioned Spinoza. I presume from some of your other comments you must be a scholar in the discipline of philosophy.
I have had always a keen interest in the Philosophy of Art and aesthetics. I suppose it’s because I’ve had somewhat oddball tastes for the present age, particularly in music but to some extent the visual arts. I guess I’m so aware of what I find beautiful and desirable for music vs what other people do. I’ve never liked Rap music, for example….
I’ve tried to understand what makes something beautiful to me, and whether my perception of beauty is “real” because I feel like I’m so much in the minority in my tastes.
I especially notice this when I had visited casinos and they played certain kinds of music. The one casino that played my kind of music was the Venetian and Bellagio in Las Vegas at the Fountains when they played Rachmaninoff. I broke out in tears in front of my niece when I heard it and saw the fountains:
I played that piece many times on the piano as I was a classical piano student before I degenerated into another discipline….but music is sort of where my fascination really resides to this day. It’s kind of another reality for me….
I’ve never quite comprehended how I came to view certain things as so beautiful while other people do not. Yet I notice a few who also seem to perceive the notes in the same way I do by their written words describing their impressions. How is it that some film music seems to match the character of a movie scene when other film music seems so out of place?
Any way, if you’re a philosopher, that’s the sort of philosophy that has occupied much of the philosophy compartment in my mind. There is a lot of discussion of ethics and morality, but right and wrong seem so obvious in my personal aesthetic tastes and yet my notions don’t agree with what other people perceive as right and wrong.
Patrick, that’s an interesting strategy.
I say you advocate censorship, you say you don’t and demand I support my claim. I supported my claim. In your defense, you post a link to yet another thread that you wanted censored. How odd.
Hi Mung, would you mind answering Keith’s and my question in the whistleblower thread? Thanks!
[I’m cross posting this comment from
since it may seem relevant to the point Rich is making. I can understand Rich’s viewpoint about what is said publicly and privately by the ID community. I will state my views to set the record straight about what I believe. What the UD community believes? You’ll have to ask them.]
contrast
and
There is a some subtlety here. In YEC circles we freely acknowledge the next generation is leaving the church (we are losing badly in that sense), but we feel the empirical case for ID is strengthening because of developments with ENCODE and several mainstream scientists have been critical of OOL and various population geneticists continue to advocate neutral theory. Those are MY views, not UD’s.
What UD wants to say about all this, I don’t care that much. I’ve stated my views, and you can ask the UDers yourself what they think is happening.
I am not going to participate in your attempt at a war by proxy against Barry. Please pause and let that sink in. Insult me all you like, it’s not going to help your cause, it just confirms my decision to not be your proxy warrior. 🙂
stcordova,
In no sense does neutral theory offer support for YEC!
Don’t tell his students that!
Mung,
Don’t even bother with the dodges.
There’s no one left who doesn’t see right through you and your bogus appeals to “integrity”.
Well done.
Allan,
Neutral theory shows genetic deterioration cannot be arrested by selection as a matter of principle. The means to me, there is a good chance the human race is young. You don’t agree, I respect that. But when Larry Moran gave a back handed agreement of my interpretation of Muller, a few of us YECs on the net were slapping each other on the back:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-creationist-tries-to-understand.html
Moran went on and on about how stupid I was and how I didn’t understand, but how does his final conclusion materially differ from mine, and I cited Muller first, not Larry!
And there is a parallel line of thought in Joe Felsenstein’s book:
We have a thread at TSZ that started to go into Joe’s Massive book. Since everyone can (as of now) access the book, they can read the relevant passages themselves.
John Sanford, Wes Brewer, Chris Rupe…so many others will obviously come to different conclusions than Joe Felsenstein and Larry Moran on the implications of genetic load. But that’s how the YECs interpret the results, and a lot rests on whether ENCODE is right.
Joe Felesenstein did a good job of discussing the issue of genetic load and the claims of ENCODE on page 155.
I’m cautiously optimistic ENCODE’s ultimate thesis is correct, but for slightly different reasons than seen in the popular press and even the ENCODErs themselves, namely: the epigenome, epitranscriptome, epiproteome and glycome.
I may be wrong, but I have stated why despite the fact people are leaving the church, many of us YECs are quite enthusiastic.
I know, that may sound so callous — the YECs are celebrating Jesus while the rest of the world is on it’s way to Genetic Extinction, Elimination by Natural Selection, Armageddon and Hell — but it seems to many of us YECs, Jesus is really who he said he was because the physical evidence hints that the Bible is true.
PS
My answer to Joe’s Question (Joe gave a different answer):
Let me see if I understand your argument:
If Mung had any integrity, he’d trot over to UD and insult Barry because that’s what I [keiths] would do if not for the fact that I [keiths] am banned at UD. Mung hasn’t trotted over to UD and insulted Barry like I [keiths] would do if not for the fact that I [keiths] am banned at UD. Therefore Mung has no integrity.
That about capture it?
“Praise Jesus, another atheist just went to Hell! The whole world is headed for Hell. Praise God!”
*sigh*
Mung,
No it isn’t, and you know it.
You should publically hold him accountable.
Imagine if Lizzie did that here. What do you think KeithS would (and should) do?
What’s in Barry’s purse?
Imagine if Lizzie did what here?
She’s already admitted she see’s nothing wrong with publishing private emails. If I were keiths I’d not send her any emails.
What you need to do, Richardthughes, is show me where Barry has published, without consent, the contents of private email correspondence on UD, and where he has encouraged others to do likewise. That would be an equivalent situation.
Mung,
Stop being pathetic and apply yourself. Imagine if Lizzie espoused evolution yet emailed keithS saying she didn’t think evolution was true. What would KeithS do?
Mung,
Worst dodge ever part 2. The sequel isn’t as good. I know you’d like to go off on a tangent, but for someone who’s big on honesty and calling people out*, you’re stuck with the fact that Barry publishes things he doesn’t think are true. What does that make him? What does that make you?
*Or not. What’s in Barry’s purse?
I would hope that keiths would keep private correspondence private unless he has been given permission to publish.
Mung goes for the ‘I’m thick, not ethically impaired’ defense. Fucking lowlife.
So you’ve failed to recruit me to your cause in the war against Barry.
I’ve told you what you need to do, but you can’t or won’t do that.
So now what?
The Joe Gallien ‘repeat what we all know is not true’ maneuver. The issue at hand is keeping your leaders honest and accountable. You fail miserably, foot soldier. Look, everyone, this is ID.
Well, Richardthughes, you could start a thread on the ethics and morality of publishing private email correspondence. But you won’t.
🙂
Richarthughes, doesn’t it just burn you up that I’ve not been over at UD trumpeting about all the recent bad behavior here at TSZ?
No and no, Mung. It delights me when we hold you up to the light you’re a sad, pathetic ethical midget. You could do the right thing, but you won’t. Now fuck off and buy some biosemiosis wrist bands you eunuch.
Upright Biped went to a lot of trouble setting up that web site. I wonder if he would welcome comments from biosemiosis skeptics?
Alan Fox,
It’s not fair to distract him from all his experiments and science and whatnot.. It looks like it’s already hit a wall. Unsurprising.
Poor Richardthughes,
I feel for you, I really do. It can’t be easy being a recruiter in the war against Barry, and your life obviously lacks meaning without it. Soldier on if you must.
There is no war against Barry. He is what he is . And you know. And you keep quiet. You’re very vocal here about how things should be, but you’ve shown your true colors. Enjoy Barry’s purse. I’ll be sure to remind you as you address the perceived shortcomings of others.
Mung,
We’re enjoying the spectacle. You have neither the integrity nor the balls to stand up to Barry.
What’s in Barry’s purse?
One day he’ll work out he’s not in the audience but on the stage. We’ve seen this one before, but it’s always funny…
I should keep quiet about how things ought to be here, I suppose, since there isn’t a chance in hell of them ever changing.
Why are you comparing TSZ (a blog) to Barry (a person)? You know, what with it not being a war against Barry [or so you say].
Oh, I am well aware that a primary purpose of this site is to provide a platform for people to mock me and others like me. Even though that’s not supposed to be the purpose of the site. And for whatever reason, Elizabeth continues to allow it.