Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 In a message dated 1/14/04 9:13:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, implode7@... writes: > >>It seems to me that if in TODAY's society, big corporate farms without > >>exception use grain-feeding of cows, and make it harder for for smaller > >>pasture-feeding farms to exist, then there is nothing wrong with making > this > >>association. > > > >Gene, > > > >Most farms, even many who recognize the importance of pasture feeding, use > >grain. Even some farmers on this list use grain. For some of the farmers > I > >know personally, they do their best not to use grain, but struggle to do so > >often. > > > > How exactly do you infer from my post that I don't acknowledge that most > farms use grain? You don't acknowledge it within your post-- no inference is necessary; however, I assume you know this fact and I wasn't purporting to educate you on it. It was simply a prelude to the last sentence in the following paragraph: > > >Most beef cattle, to my understanding, are pastured no matter what farm > >they're on. They are grain finished, but that is to provide marbling, > which > >the > >consumer values. So, the practice of grain-feeding versus pasture is > largely > >consistent between corporate and smaller farms. ....That is, the above sentence, which was a response to your opinion that there is " nothing wrong with making this association, " where " this association " refers to the association of corporate factory farms with grain-feeding. > Huh? Isn't there some acknowledgement here that an HONEST categorization > of > 'pasture fed' means precisely that the animals are NOT grain finished. Isn't > that what we're talking about? What most consumers, who are uneducated about > the benefits of real pasture fed beef, may want isn't really relevant here. No, because in the context I mentioned it in, we were referring to the supposed innate tendencies of increases in scale towards methods that diminish nutritional value. I recognize that this isn't entirely clear, since I didn't quote what I was responding to, and, in fact, probably should have posted that half of the message in the " food from large corporations " thread. > Part of the reason they are so uneducated is due to large corporations, > isn't it? I don't think so. I agree that that's true in many other cases, but from the reading I've done on the shift to grain-feeding in the 19th century, I didn't get the impression anyone recognized at the time that pasture feeding had unique nutritional benefits. So, I don't think it's something that's been buried (though other things have) as something that just has never been recognized. > Every time I discuss an issue with you, I feel the ground shifting, as if > winning the argument is all you care about. I'm not sure what argument you're talking about... the point that I made didn't draw any argumentative conclusions from the facts I stated at all. 's post stated that it failed to address the argument, but I think if you look back at my post you'll see I wasn't really making an argument at all. It was just an afterthought to a previous discussion. > > >Farming doesn't bring much of an income, period. I think most farmers do it > >for the lifestyle, and many quit not because they are outcompeted (actually > >the > >ability to form contracts with a corporate distributor almost undoubtedly > >raises their income or at least economic stability), but because they can > make > >more money doing most other things. That's my impression anyway. > > > >Pasture-feeders who actually value pasturing aren't even competing with > >corporate farms. They are aiming their products at a niche market that > values > >pasturing, and are getting, often, big premiums for it. > > > >Chris > > You said that the association of grain feeding with large corporate farms > wasn't correct because of the history of grain farming dating back into the > 1800's. I gave my reasons for disagreeing with you, and I don't see anything > here that addresses what I said. These paragraphs were meant to address your sentence about corporate grain-feeding making it difficult for pasture farms to survive. I don't think pasture farms are competing with corporate factory farms, but are servicing a niche market, and, they might even have a higher profit margin than corporate farms. The reason I don't see reason for the association is because I think corporate and small farms use grain-feeding pretty consistently. So I suppose you could say grain-feeding could be " associated " with each. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 , I'll respond to this post more fully later, but just to respond quickly to two things: > And again, I strongly urge you to read _Trust Us, We're Experts_. It > documents what I'm talking about in abundant detail. I took _Trust Us, We're Experts_ out of the library today along with _Blank Slate_. If I can manage to do so before spring semester begins, I'll read them. I plan on finishing the novel I'm reading tonight, so will start reading one tomorrow. > What I think you're saying, in sum, is that if someone (a) isn't exposed to > > credible, persuasive information indicating that mainstream wisdom is > incorrect, and/or ( doesn't spend an appreciable portion of his life > digging through lies, that the full responsibility for mistaken choices is > his. IOW, the concept of fraud is bogus and should be stricken from our > vocabulary (or at least from our laws) because in a fraudulent transaction, > the only party which bears any responsibility is the victim. You accuse me > of taking an irrational position, but if you really intend to stand by that > conclusion... No, I don't believe that the full responsiblity lies on that person. I didn't mention other responsiblities because I wasn't addressing my entire world view or my entire view on government, but rather one aspect of the former: that humans have a moral responsibility to use reason, rationality, and to maximize their hapiness, honesty, and productive value. (I consider this a moral and _not_ a legal responsibility) That said, the honesty applies to both workers, consumers, businessmen, and property owners of all types, be they sole proprietors, corporations, cooperatives, or whathaveyou, and in commerce I believe honesty not only to a moral responsibility but a legal responsibility as well. One of the primary purposes of government is to enforce contracts, and dishonesty in a contract is the same as violation thereof. False advertising, if it could be documented, could reasonably be interpreted as violation of an " implied " contract. So, if someone fails to " discover " the truth amidst lies of a business, while I believe they failed their own moral responsibility if they failed to *look* for the truth (but not if they looked unsuccessfully), I believe the *legal* responsibility would lie, entirely, with the business. What I do oppose, however, is using legislative government to sanction truths. Congress is not meant to adjudicate contracts, under which honesty and dis honesty fall. Congress is meant to legislate. The design of Congress is meant specifically for that, as are the courts for their purpose, and one doing the other leads to trouble. For one, courts aren't elected (I know this is, stupidly, not true in some places). Furthermore, Congress is a great environment for cronyism, for the creation of special positions, new committees, etc, whereas the court structure stays the same and is more immune to favoratism. Dealing with scientific truths about, say, nutrition, in Congress, is subject to political whims, secrecy, and control by the incompetent. The court system is not perfect either, but it is more ideal a place for the enforcement of contracts, and the sorting out of truths. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 In a message dated 1/14/04 11:58:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, implode7@... writes: > I give up - I just don't have the time to go around in circles with you > right now. It may be that I'm just stupid and cannot understand what you're saying, but for what it's worth, I'm honestly not trying to make circular arguments. I was just sharing something that suddenly occurred to me, that I'd had the chance to read about when I worked at Old Sturbridge Village, since they had prepared numerous papers on 19th century dairying that I figure a lot of folks might not have had the opportunity to learn about. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 > > From: ChrisMasterjohn@... > Reply- > Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:35:04 EST > > Subject: Re: Re: money and health > > > In a message dated 1/14/04 9:30:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, > implode7@... writes: > >> It seems to me that if in TODAY's society, big corporate farms without >> exception use grain-feeding of cows, and make it harder for for smaller >> pasture-feeding farms to exist, then there is nothing wrong with making this >> association. > > Gene, > > Most farms, even many who recognize the importance of pasture feeding, use > grain. Even some farmers on this list use grain. For some of the farmers I > know personally, they do their best not to use grain, but struggle to do so > often. > How exactly do you infer from my post that I don't acknowledge that most farms use grain? > Most beef cattle, to my understanding, are pastured no matter what farm > they're on. They are grain finished, but that is to provide marbling, which > the > consumer values. So, the practice of grain-feeding versus pasture is largely > consistent between corporate and smaller farms. > Huh? Isn't there some acknowledgement here that an HONEST categorization of 'pasture fed' means precisely that the animals are NOT grain finished. Isn't that what we're talking about? What most consumers, who are uneducated about the benefits of real pasture fed beef, may want isn't really relevant here. Part of the reason they are so uneducated is due to large corporations, isn't it? Every time I discuss an issue with you, I feel the ground shifting, as if winning the argument is all you care about. > Farming doesn't bring much of an income, period. I think most farmers do it > for the lifestyle, and many quit not because they are outcompeted (actually > the > ability to form contracts with a corporate distributor almost undoubtedly > raises their income or at least economic stability), but because they can make > more money doing most other things. That's my impression anyway. > > Pasture-feeders who actually value pasturing aren't even competing with > corporate farms. They are aiming their products at a niche market that values > pasturing, and are getting, often, big premiums for it. > > Chris You said that the association of grain feeding with large corporate farms wasn't correct because of the history of grain farming dating back into the 1800's. I gave my reasons for disagreeing with you, and I don't see anything here that addresses what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 Chris- >However, while influence >could be considered a type of " power, " it is a qualitatively different >type of >power than *force*. I personally would designate it as " influence " rather >than >power for the sake of clarity. Influence is power. You're distinguishing between what you call power, which is 100% irresistible power, and power that's less than absolute, which you call influence. And yet even what you call power, which if I understand correctly you ascribe solely to the state and violent entities, is not absolute either. Some people choose to break the law, to dare the consequences (or to defy the mugger or the ruthless tyrant regardless of the potential consequences) so even that power is merely influence -- just a more widely persuasive form. If I buy up and influence substantial elements of the information infrastructure and thus influence millions of people to act as I want them to, against their best interests but in line with mine, I've acquired and exercised power, period. The fact that my power doesn't successfully alter the behavior of 100% of my targets as I want doesn't mean I'm impotent, it just means I'm not god. >The fact is that it is up to me, up to my free will, that is a product of my >own volition within my own consciousness, to determine to what degree I >subject myself to peer pressure or choose to " go against the grain. " On what do you base this assumption? Your experiential conception of will? Or hard science? Science contradicts you. It doesn't say you're 100% free to ignore peer pressure or anything else. If you were, there'd _be_ no pressure, no influence -- no power. But even if you were to ignore the science of human nature, consideration of everyday observations should make it clear that you're wrong. Your perception of the way choices are framed, and of what choices actually exist, is shaped -- influenced -- by others. There's no escaping that. Complete freedom would require the complete absence of emotion, of deception and self-deception, of requirements, and it would require the capacity for and exercise of perfect analysis, and perfect analysis is a theoretical and physical impossibility. >Eliminating >government's role in exercising this influence does not eliminate lies or >influence, >but does level the playing field. It would certainly alter the playing fields, and it would probably result in a net reduction of tilt in some fields, but there's no fundamental property of government that inherently worsens tilt. In fact, a fundamental property of open, democratic government (something we, admittedly, don't really have) actually tends to improve tilt: records are available for public scrutiny, and the free and _open_ competition of interests can put a stop to a wide range of lies. A business or an individual doesn't have that kind of oversight. There's another point you're missing, though. You're assuming that the government is the only party with sufficient power and appearance of objectivity for its influence to be important, and that if we just removed government we'd be left with a fair fight between multiple points of view, but in fact interested parties corrupt and subvert and hoodwink key opinion leaders (KOL is an actual industry acronym) all the time, and because it helps them even further (often a lot further than KOLs alone) they set up phony institutions to create the impression but not the reality of third-party objectivity while peddling their propaganda. The key feature distinguishing government from those other types of shenanigans is that ordinary citizens can have a voice in government whereas they're shut out almost entirely from the KOL/institution game. To be sure, said citizens have less and less of an actual voice nowadays, but we live in times of apathy and relentless anti-government propaganda which influences a lot of people to conclude that the only tool they could actually use is bad for them and should be destroyed, certainly not used well and fought for with dedication. A very clever trick, that. And again, I strongly urge you to read _Trust Us, We're Experts_. It documents what I'm talking about in abundant detail. >, if someone fails to exercise a rational choice in selecting from the >millions of sources of information at their disposal, they've failed their >own >responsibility to use that choice. What I think you're saying, in sum, is that if someone (a) isn't exposed to credible, persuasive information indicating that mainstream wisdom is incorrect, and/or ( doesn't spend an appreciable portion of his life digging through lies, that the full responsibility for mistaken choices is his. IOW, the concept of fraud is bogus and should be stricken from our vocabulary (or at least from our laws) because in a fraudulent transaction, the only party which bears any responsibility is the victim. You accuse me of taking an irrational position, but if you really intend to stand by that conclusion... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 I give up - I just don't have the time to go around in circles with you right now. From: ChrisMasterjohn@... Reply- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:41:04 EST Subject: Re: Re: money and health In a message dated 1/14/04 9:13:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, implode7@... writes: > >>It seems to me that if in TODAY's society, big corporate farms without > >>exception use grain-feeding of cows, and make it harder for for smaller > >>pasture-feeding farms to exist, then there is nothing wrong with making > this > >>association. > > > >Gene, > > > >Most farms, even many who recognize the importance of pasture feeding, use > >grain. Even some farmers on this list use grain. For some of the farmers > I > >know personally, they do their best not to use grain, but struggle to do so > >often. > > > > How exactly do you infer from my post that I don't acknowledge that most > farms use grain? You don't acknowledge it within your post-- no inference is necessary; however, I assume you know this fact and I wasn't purporting to educate you on it. It was simply a prelude to the last sentence in the following paragraph: > > >Most beef cattle, to my understanding, are pastured no matter what farm > >they're on. They are grain finished, but that is to provide marbling, > which > >the > >consumer values. So, the practice of grain-feeding versus pasture is > largely > >consistent between corporate and smaller farms. ....That is, the above sentence, which was a response to your opinion that there is " nothing wrong with making this association, " where " this association " refers to the association of corporate factory farms with grain-feeding. > Huh? Isn't there some acknowledgement here that an HONEST categorization > of > 'pasture fed' means precisely that the animals are NOT grain finished. Isn't > that what we're talking about? What most consumers, who are uneducated about > the benefits of real pasture fed beef, may want isn't really relevant here. No, because in the context I mentioned it in, we were referring to the supposed innate tendencies of increases in scale towards methods that diminish nutritional value. I recognize that this isn't entirely clear, since I didn't quote what I was responding to, and, in fact, probably should have posted that half of the message in the " food from large corporations " thread. > Part of the reason they are so uneducated is due to large corporations, > isn't it? I don't think so. I agree that that's true in many other cases, but from the reading I've done on the shift to grain-feeding in the 19th century, I didn't get the impression anyone recognized at the time that pasture feeding had unique nutritional benefits. So, I don't think it's something that's been buried (though other things have) as something that just has never been recognized. > Every time I discuss an issue with you, I feel the ground shifting, as if > winning the argument is all you care about. I'm not sure what argument you're talking about... the point that I made didn't draw any argumentative conclusions from the facts I stated at all. 's post stated that it failed to address the argument, but I think if you look back at my post you'll see I wasn't really making an argument at all. It was just an afterthought to a previous discussion. > > >Farming doesn't bring much of an income, period. I think most farmers do it > >for the lifestyle, and many quit not because they are outcompeted (actually > >the > >ability to form contracts with a corporate distributor almost undoubtedly > >raises their income or at least economic stability), but because they can > make > >more money doing most other things. That's my impression anyway. > > > >Pasture-feeders who actually value pasturing aren't even competing with > >corporate farms. They are aiming their products at a niche market that > values > >pasturing, and are getting, often, big premiums for it. > > > >Chris > > You said that the association of grain feeding with large corporate farms > wasn't correct because of the history of grain farming dating back into the > 1800's. I gave my reasons for disagreeing with you, and I don't see anything > here that addresses what I said. These paragraphs were meant to address your sentence about corporate grain-feeding making it difficult for pasture farms to survive. I don't think pasture farms are competing with corporate factory farms, but are servicing a niche market, and, they might even have a higher profit margin than corporate farms. The reason I don't see reason for the association is because I think corporate and small farms use grain-feeding pretty consistently. So I suppose you could say grain-feeding could be " associated " with each. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 >What is it liberals like to say, " you can't legislate morality " ? My view of >what a government should do is not a mirror image of my own morality. I don't >think the government should be able to punish me for telling my mother she's >worthless, for example, but that doesn't mean I would ever say that, think >that, or consider it a moral thing to do. A minister can advocate separation of >church and state. Does that mean he's not religious, because he doesn't want >the state to be religious? Does he believe that, since the state shouldn't >worship God, that he shouldn't worship God? Of course not. > >The purpose of a government is to protect peoples rights and to enforce >contracts. How is that narcissism? I was referring to the concept of " every man gets the best deal he can " concept that goes through this whole thread. But folks like Rockefeller -- not exactly a lily-livered liberal -- believed that the government's job was ALSO to provide " infrastructure " (hence the railroads and later superhighways). Government also creates a certain sense of direction (leadership?) that moves society in one direction or another, for better or worse. I can't say for " liberals " (I don't consider myself part of a philisophical group, I'm mainly trying to figure out " what is true " ) say, but for my part I don't think " morality " exists any more than " rights " do. Most of what we call " moral " is the fulfillment (or otherwise) of contracts (written and otherwise) between individuals, which in computer science are called Rules. Even in the Bible " sin " is often translated as " trespasses " -- i.e. you crossed the boundaries of a rule. But also in CompSci -- some level of control in ANY system has to be centralized, and some decentralized. The human body is a great case in point ... it IS centralized, in the brain, but the brain is rather compartmentalized itself. The " government " in most countries roughly corresponds to the nervous system and the blood stream to the infrastructure (transportation). But in any computer system, the SAME analogy exists. So the goal is ... create a system that WORKS. Who cares if it is Moral or has the correct Rights. If the system WORKS everyone will be happy because they are getting sustenance, have good health, have local control over their lives, and are doing the job they are designed for (Heidi's 3 requisites for happiness). >Sure, and I have a professional article on how Hamilton was >involved in an attempted Fascist coup. Granted, the evidence was weak and Fascism >didn't exist at the time, but it's published and you can get it at a library. >Just because PBS runs a documentary doesn't mean the opinion in it has any >merit, and if it has merit, it isn't necessarily correct. > >If you can dig up any information on it, please send it along. I don't think >railroads have the " right " to destroy anyone's business, small or large. So, >I'm not disagreeing that that would be wrong, I just very much doubt that it >actually occurred. Well, THAT part of the story seems to be agreed on by a lot of parties, which is why they were called " Robber Barons " . There is no source in history though, that is foolproof (though PBS does tend to be pretty accurate in general, as is the History channel). But I'm not a historian. I do notice that you ask for a lot more evidence than you GIVE however. >>History is FULL of examples of big corporations ruining the >>environment, harming workers, etc. If you don't believe the >>that history, > >History is full of all sorts of people harming all sorts of people and >things, including corporations. Do you think I think a corporation has the right to >hurt someone, while a private individual does not? Do you think I think a >corporation has the right to dump toxic waste in my back yard or yours? > >History is also full of examples of workers hurting businessmen. I don't >think either businessmen OR workers should have the right to hurt the other. >What I object to is the double standard, where you believe a worker has some >right that a businessman does not. Absolutely not. This came about because of the insinuation that " government " has no right to intervene. Government intervenes in the rights of workers all the time. And, fortunately, in the business of big corporations. You are correct -- people hurt each other all the time, that is THE one universal constant of human relations ... so you need a " rulekeeper " which happens to be the gov't. And it needs taxes to run. >Do you consider it moral that Reagan stopped the air traffic controller >strike? Most liberals and labor-minded folks consider it awful. Reagan claimed it >was for national security, and the public good. > >Do you agree with me that a worker has the right to use her own body as a >bargaining tool, and to choose whether or not to go to work? > >If so, why do you apply a double standard to an electric company? Because >electricity is something " the people " " need " ? Isn't that exactly what Reagan >claimed as his justification for breaking the strike? Actually, the air traffic controller strike IS one situation I didn't object to (not that I'm a fan of Reagan). But again, I don't grok " moral " . I'd tend to agree the planes need to fly though. As a computer scientist, I can say that the Air Traffic situation is HORRID -- the machines are (or, at least were) years out of date and they were working under conditions that guaranteed problems. Shoot, about the only building in Seattle that was damaged in the last earthquake was the air control tower ... because it was SOOOO outdated. So, if I was Reagan I would've looked at the situation and said " guys, you have a point. This system sucks. Let's plan a better one -- a really world-class one. That includes you guys getting rest breaks " . The strike could've been negotiated away quickly AND we'd have a better traffic system. People stuck to their ideological guns though, with horrid results. Which is one reason I don't like to fly. Now, if an electric company shuts down a reactor and then claims a " shortage " of electricity, that is a simpler situation. It is outright lying, no matter how you define that term. There is no broken system, no overworked workers. So if I were Bush, I'd be on the phone " so get the idiot reactor back online or your **** will be in a sling! " . > In one example, businesses are using force via the government to hurt >workers, and in another, consumers are using force via the government to hurt >businesses. > >I oppose both. Why do you apply a double standard? ???? First, who says I apply a double standard. Second, ALL entities in a system apply force of once sort or another. From physics to politics to your body, the " system " is a bunch of forces all pushing against each other. However, my current soapbox probably has more to do with workers because of KIDS. Kids grow into our future adults, and right now they are being farmed out from babyhood into daycares, because of WORK. I'm not claiming this is immoral, just that it doesn't work. The kids don't bond correctly. I'd rather see a society based on more Paleo rules, with the Mom caring for Kid, for some number of years, and the Mom being part of a caring group so her needs are met too. > > or you believe they have that right, > >I don't believe that corporations have the right to >-- use government force against workers or consumers >-- use government force for an unfair advantage against their competitors >-- dump their own waste on someone else's property without that person's >permission >-- use government definitions of fictional entities to avoid responsibility >for their actions (i.e. the liability of the people who found a corporation >should not be limited to the assets of the corporation for damages for which they >are at fault) > >I do believe that people have the right to: >-- own property, and retain it, barring some very significant burden of proof >-- own property collectively; e.g., form a corporation (without the limited >liability as per above) >-- use their property in any way they see fit, that does not simultaneously >violate any of the above principles > >> or that they >>only dump toxins in streams because of gov't regulation, > >That's a rather absurd characterization of my position. Yeah, it is an exaggeration. But most of your " don't have a right to " above involve the gov't. Why? Can't a corporation be a putz WITHOUT using the gov't? The only exception you give is " dumping waste " which of course I'd agree with. But I can think of a lot of ways to brutalize folks without using the gov't as leverage, if I had enough money. So is that ok, under Libertariansim? I can use my money to do whatever I want to take advantage of you, IF I don't dump toxins or use the gov't? Why is the gov't such a special case? In my life, the gov't has very little influence, day to day. Many other forces rule! > I've explained some >of the mechanisms by which government intervention in the economy primarily >benefits businesses and turns an economic system from capitalism into cronyism >in my post to . chose not to respond. You could have jumped in, but >did not. If you disagree, please dispute what I said on a point-by-point >basis. If you don't want to have the discussion, that's fine. But don't >blatantly mischaracterize my position with one only a fool would take, please. Sorry it comes across that way. That IS the way it sounds, listening to your lists. >If corporations dump toxins in streams, in all liklihood they are damage >someone's person or property, which violates the principles I bulleted above. But >why not stick to the subject at hand? You didn't mention anything about >robber barons dumping toxins, you mentioned robber barons engaging in monopolistic >practices. I responded to *that*, and you respond about toxins, which never >came up? I don't recall any specific response, to monopolistic practices, except that you didn't believe the PBC particularily. >Do you have a response to the historical, economic, or moral points I raised >in my previous post? If it is the one to , he answered it nicely. Actually I enjoy reading his posts more than I do writing mine. >> then it's an impossible argument. > >It would be less impossible if you'd be willing to follow the subject in a >step-by-step manner, rather than having me spend a half hour typing up a fairly >detailed response about a very specific point, and changing the subject to one >completely different when you respond, avoiding the initial issue completely. I do try to respond, but, as said above and many other times, I don't agree with the basics of " morality " and " rights " , for starters. So how can I argue that a thing is " moral " if I don't believe in " morality " as a standalone thing? for me the question is: " Does It Work " , which, in this context, means " do humans really work that way? " . >I hope that after this post, after reading the principles I outlined above, >you might understand my position more clearly, and perhaps that can form a >basis for a discussion that will prove more fruitful, since we seem to be >miscommunicating. Maybe miscommunicating, but I've learned a lot, to be sure. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/15/04 3:27:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > I was referring to the concept of " every man gets the best deal he can " > concept that goes through this whole thread. How is that narcissitic? Is there something narcissistic about doing a good job? About maximizing your potential? About using the brain you were lucky enough to have been given? From a social perspective, i.e., that of the " group, " a society in which the value you get is the value you offer causes everyone to offer more value. The alternative is a " from each according to his ability, to each according to his need " philosophy. It sounds nice and looks nice on paper, but it is a fundamentally pathological thought. It's led to disaster every time it's been tried-- just look at how economic productivity was destroyed in Soviet Russia, how people sank into alcoholism and lethargy. It's a fundamental contradiction of human nature, and can only work when people have very strong revolutionary or religious committments (monastaries were the only economically productive collective in USSR). What is so narcisstic about doing a good job, and exchanging it with others who also do a good job? > But folks like Rockefeller -- not exactly a lily-livered liberal -- > believed that > the government's job was ALSO to provide " infrastructure " (hence > the railroads and later superhighways). He did? Please cite something; I wasn't aware of it. Government also creates > a certain sense of direction (leadership?) that moves society in > one direction or another, for better or worse. Your qualification, " for better or worse, " is important here. The idea that government is needed for a sense of direction (Rockefeller was able to provide a sense of direction to the chatoic oil industry) is false. And, in fact, humans working for their own interests, freely exchanging with others, leads not to chaos and crass competition, but to order and cooperation. See this fantastic essay from the perspective of a pencil (yes, a pencil :-) ): http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html > > I can't say for " liberals " (I don't consider myself part of a philisophical > group, I'm mainly trying to figure out " what is true " ) say, but for my > part I don't think " morality " exists any more than " rights " do. Most > of what we call " moral " is the fulfillment (or otherwise) of contracts > (written and otherwise) between individuals, which in computer > science are called Rules. You seem to be arguing that a society's Rules are self-justifying. There is no morality and no rights, no objective standard by which to judge. By your theory, then, a society where the Rules require a woman to be stoned to death who commits adultery is in no way inferior to a society where the Rules do not. A society where the Rules require Jews to wear identification badges is justified by itself. A society where the Rules allow humans of certain ancestry to be owned as slaves is in no way inferior to one in which all humans are considered free by *right*. If people throughout history held your view, we would never have abolished slavery, as there would be no argument for the *right* of the slave to be a free woman or man. Besides, since OUR " Rules " explicitly allow for *Rights*, such as those to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the question,for our society, is moot. ________ Even in the Bible " sin " is often translated > as " trespasses " -- i.e. you crossed the boundaries of a rule. This is a total tangent, but that's an awful translation. The word in the Lord's Prayer often, unfortunately, translated as " trespasses " is " debts, " which has a very different meaning. The word translated as " sin " actually means " to miss the mark, " as if one is playing darts and misses the bullseye. So " sin " is NOT breaking a rule, and is not remotely corresponding to " crime " as is usually thought, which has to be repaid with punitive justice. _______ > But also in CompSci -- some level of control in ANY system has > to be centralized, and some decentralized. The human body > is a great case in point ... it IS centralized, in the brain, but the > brain is rather compartmentalized itself. Actually, the fact that a brain represents some sort of centralization is proof of the ego, of the existence of the individual. It is proof that humans are not a random collection of elements, and there is a distinct definition to the self. Your comparison of cells to people and governments to brains is invalid, because the crossways that results in an individual consciousness resides in the brain, whereas individual cells have no consciousness and governments represent majority opinions, not a fused, single consciousness. The " government " > in most countries roughly corresponds to the nervous system > and the blood stream to the infrastructure (transportation). But > in any computer system, the SAME analogy exists. I wonder if Tom Cowan has a written version of his lecture " The Heart is Not a Pump " that we could post and discuss. Tom Cowan's view is that the driving force of the blood stream is not actually the heart, but pressure exerted at the ends of capillaries, or something like that, and the heart's function is to stop the flow momentarily. In any case, the analogy falls apart when you examine the roll of the brain in directing the body. Motor impulses originate in the frontal lobe (aside from reflexes), and are directed to the muscles. It takes many, many muscle contractions to make a single movement, and they are all originated in a single nerve impulse. If you look at human societies, the ones organized like this are absolute disasters. Not only do they fail to function economically, but they are morally pathological, rampant with corruption, apathy, and abuse. Case in point, all the Communist countries. As proof of their moral collapse, countries that have people living who had lived with markets have actually managed to recover, like Poland, whereas countries like Russia, where the oldest generations have never seen markets can not survive in a market, because their culture has been so destroyed by Communism. On the other hand, societies where the primary impulses are generated by the individual sarcomere (contractile unit of a muscle) acting NOT to move the muscle, or even the individual myofibril, but acting solely to move its own self, flourish both economically and morally. Again, see the essay I linked above, " I, Pencil. " > > So the goal is ... create a system that WORKS. Who cares if > it is Moral or has the correct Rights. The slave, the Jew in the gas chamber, the Slav sacrificed for leibenstraum, the Soviet farmer wasting away in famine, the scientist on trial for heresy, all care if it is Moral and has the correct Rights. If the system WORKS > everyone will be happy because they are getting sustenance,have good > health, have local control over their lives, > and are doing the job they are designed for > (Heidi's 3 requisites for happiness). As you pointed out before, that's what the Communists thought. Sounds lovely in email. Pretty nasty in life. > >If you can dig up any information on it, please send it along. I don't > think > >railroads have the " right " to destroy anyone's business, small or large. > So, > >I'm not disagreeing that that would be wrong, I just very much doubt that > it > >actually occurred. > > Well, THAT part of the story seems to be agreed on by > a lot of parties, which is why they were called " Robber Barons " . No, it isn't. The term arose in the 1870s, but gained its popularity during the Depression because people were fond of anti-business sentiment at the time. I am continuing to question the validity of your claim that railroads conspired to destroy family farms. I continue to maintain that calling one a " robber " for creating wealth is an absurd bastardization of the English language. > There is no source in history though, that is foolproof (though PBS > does tend to be pretty accurate in general, as is the History channel). > But I'm not a historian. I fully agree. I have a B.A. in History, which is somewhat worthless, though I suppose I could call myself an " amateur historian. " There actually *was* a plot to create the Federal Government by force, and some of Hamilton's writings *seem* to indicate he *may* have agreed with it morally, but there's no evidence whatsoever he was involved with it, and it was hardly " Fascist. " That said, the Constitutional Convention was neither democratic nor ratified democratically, and the honest Founders there, like Washington and Madison, but especially Washington, were there because they were duped by the power-hungry folks who foisted the Massachusetts Consitution on its population by force and fraud into thinking Shay's Rebellion was an attack on private property (the opposite of the truth), so I don't know if it makes a difference in the end result whether the Constitution was adopted by force or fraud. > I do notice that you ask for a lot more evidence than you GIVE however. In what way? All you have to do is say the word, and I'll try to produce evidence or admit I can't find any. I provided documentation about the railroad policy, and extrapolated logically from it. But I'm not going to write a book or a formal paper. You need to ask me for evidence on specific points if you want me to provide it. > >History is also full of examples of workers hurting businessmen. I don't > >think either businessmen OR workers should have the right to hurt the > other. > >What I object to is the double standard, where you believe a worker has > some > >right that a businessman does not. > > Absolutely not. This came about because of the insinuation that > " government " has no right to intervene. Government intervenes in the > rights of workers all the time. And, fortunately, in the business > of big corporations. Again, the double standard. If government has the right to use force against businesses in favor of workers, why does it not have the right to do the same for businesses against workers? What I am suggesting is that both workers and businesses have exclusive rights over their own property and persons. A government should enforce the rights of both equally. That includes the right of a union to strike, but does not include the privilege of a union to physically prevent other workers from working, for example. And I thought you believed workers didn't have " rights " ? You are correct -- people hurt each other > all the time, that is THE one universal constant of human relations ... I would argue that the two constants are -- ingenuity -- envy And that the latter reults in people hurting each other. > so you need a " rulekeeper " which happens to be the gov't. And it > needs taxes to run. I agree. If our resident anarcho-capitalist happens to jump in he might provide reasoning to the contrary, but so far I agree with you, not him (though I'm willing to consider his position). The " rulekeeper " should function to a) protect the rights of persons and property enforce contracts. All I'm suggesting is a government that obeys its own laws, not the abolition of government. Beyond that, I don't believe the government should be engaging in murder, theft, or counterfeiting, which you might call, foreign policy, taxes, and monetary policy. There is a fundamental difference between taking the minimal amount of money allowed in return to obeying its fulfillment of its social contract in order to perform said functions in that contract, then to taking money for the purpose of violating that contract. > Actually, the air traffic controller strike IS one situation I didn't > object > to (not that I'm a fan of Reagan). But again, I don't grok " moral " . > I'd tend to agree the planes need to fly though. The airplanes DO need to fly, and the coal mines need to dig coal (or we'd have no electricity) and the railroads need to operate (food couldn't get from place to place), etc, etc. Do you support government intervention to break strikers in all these domains? Doesn't it bother you that air traffic controllers have one of the worst, stressful, mind-deranging jobs in the entire country, and don't get paid enough for it? You don't sympathise with their plight of being exploited by their employers? The fact that the airplanes " need " to run (so rich and middle class people can go on their luxury vacations?) is the whole point: it is the ability of the workers to show their value to their employer. With any consistency, you'd have to oppose the right of a union to strike at all. And you say you're on the side of the worker and I'm not??? > So, if I was Reagan I would've looked at the situation and said " guys, > you have a point. This system sucks. Let's plan a better one -- a > really world-class one. That includes you guys getting rest breaks " . > The strike could've been negotiated away quickly AND we'd have > a better traffic system. People stuck to their ideological guns though, > with horrid results. Which is one reason I don't like to fly. They simply stuck to their right to control their own person. It's somewhat subjective as to whether a system " sucks " or not. Some folks think abortion " sucks. " To others, it's a necessity, or a right, or a necessary evil. Some folks think raw milk " sucks. " So they ban it, and throw you in jail for selling it (in Canada, e.g.) Or, they forbid its crossing of state lines (Reagan). Furthermore, the air traffic controllers would get no recognition. Reagan's unilateral decision that a given thing or another sucks, avoids the entire point of the strike-- to prove their value. To say, " Look, this is how necessary we are. This is what happens to *you* when you don't value *us*. " > Now, if an electric company shuts down a reactor and then > claims a " shortage " of electricity, that is a simpler situation. > It is outright lying, no matter how you define that term. There > is no broken system, no overworked workers. So if I were Bush, > I'd be on the phone " so get the idiot reactor back online or > your **** will be in a sling! " . There are overworked workers. There are people who worked to invest in the electric company, who are being paid less than the market value of their product because the government is forcing them to do so. Those people had to work to save the money to invest in the capital-- they are being gypped on that work. But, if you do actually oppose the right of unions to strike in all situations and do actually believe that no one has any " rights, " then, I disagree, but you would, I suppose, be consistent. > >In one example, businesses are using force via the government to hurt > >workers, and in another, consumers are using force via the government to > hurt > >businesses. > > > >I oppose both. Why do you apply a double standard? > > ???? First, who says I apply a double standard. You don't, since you oppose a workers' right to strike. I hadn't realized that, given all the rhetoric about supporting workers and unions. > Second, ALL > entities in a system apply force of once sort or another. > From physics to politics to your body, the " system " is a bunch > of forces all pushing against each other. But the laws of physics are consistent laws. I want to apply the rule of law-- the law I choose is that every person has a moral right to control their own person and property, and the government protects that right against those who wish to control others' person and property. What you advocate is the government using force according to its whims (Reagan " deciding " that " this system sucks, so I'll get rid of it . " ), rather than to enforce laws. > > However, my current soapbox probably has more to > do with workers because of KIDS. Kids grow into our > future adults, and right now they are being farmed out > from babyhood into daycares, because of WORK. I'm not > claiming this is immoral, just that it doesn't work. The kids > don't bond correctly. I'd rather see a society based on > more Paleo rules, with the Mom caring for Kid, for some > number of years, and the Mom being part of a caring group > so her needs are met too. Me too. > >>or that they > >>only dump toxins in streams because of gov't regulation, > > > >That's a rather absurd characterization of my position. > > Yeah, it is an exaggeration. But most of your " don't have a right to " above > involve the gov't. Why? Can't a corporation be a putz WITHOUT > using the gov't? Sure. And everyone has a right to be their own putz if they aren't hurting other people's person or property. I explicitly put specific limitations on individuals, not simply government. The only exception you give is " dumping waste " > which of course I'd agree with. That's not true, I specifically said they are liable for all their actions. So, I didn't say it explicitly, but implicit in that is that a corporation or individual must fulfill his contracts and must not harm someone else's person or property. But I can think of a lot of ways > to brutalize folks without using the gov't as leverage, if I had > enough money. So is that ok, under Libertariansim? I have no idea, because I know neither your definition of " brutalize " nor the examples you had in mind. If you are speaking in a language other the Newspeak, and you actually mean to harm someone else's person or property, no, that is simply not allowed in a Libertarian society. If by " brutalize " you mean I make some fantastic invention that makes my life easier and I don't give it away to my neighbor or I sell it at a price at which I profit, then, yes, that is allowed. I can use > my money to do whatever I want to take advantage of you, > IF I don't dump toxins or use the gov't? No, you couldn't, say, take my things, hire thugs to beat me up, dig up holes in my lawn, or steal my oil if I happened to have some on my property, for example. I can't possibly list everything that amounts to violating someone else's rights, but it can essentially be summed up in the harm of someone else's person or property, or the fradulent use or unfulfillment of a contract. What, specifically, DOESN'T fall under those definitions that you consider " brutlaizing " ? > Why is the gov't such a special case? In my life, the gov't > has very little influence, day to day. Many other forces > rule! It isn't. The gov't is simply held to the same standards anyone else is. It can't take people's lives because they have a *right* to live. It can't initiate force against someone who did not initiate force themselves because they have a *right* to live in peace. It can't counterfeit money. It can't steal. Corporations or individuals can't do any of that either. So why do you claim I have a double standard? Just as corporations can't use the government to take people's property (such as taxing and subsidizing), they just the same can't hire thugs or Pinkertons to take someone else's property. Where's the double standard? > >If corporations dump toxins in streams, in all liklihood they are damage > >someone's person or property, which violates the principles I bulleted > above. But > >why not stick to the subject at hand? You didn't mention anything about > >robber barons dumping toxins, you mentioned robber barons engaging in > monopolistic > >practices. I responded to *that*, and you respond about toxins, which > never > >came up? > > I don't recall any specific response, to monopolistic practices, except that > > you didn't believe the PBC particularily. I laid out the moral justification for the practices of the railroads, as well as the social benefits. You claim that monopolies have never benefited consumers, but you are flat-out wrong. Case in point, Rockefeller benefited consumers. I think Carnegie was a monopoly too. While I wouldn't want to live in a Company Town, they largely functioned to the benefit of the people living in them. Ford had a monopoly on mass-produced cars, and benefited both consumers and his workers tremendously. It just simply defies reality to say that monopolies have never did anything positive for consumers. > Maybe miscommunicating, but I've learned a lot, to be sure. While we disagree a lot, I have a lot of respect for you, and the way you debate. Not many people can get so deeply into arguments without taking them personally. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 buying or not buying a product would not be only way of modifying a producers behavior. There is also litigation or suing because a promise was not fulfilled. An individual would also likely need to have insurance for the product to minimize risk of catastrophic loss, which would mean the insurance company would have standards to meet, and potentially an inspector. Granted , you would not need to have insurance if one was wealthy enough to self insure,,but then one would thik a wealthy person would be more likely to hire an inspector to be sure the investment was sound. Libertarians sometimes get all worked up in semantics of things...like " government " etc., not wanting to admit that these things have evolved into place for good reasons. Granted, sometimes when too many layers of " government " are created, the usefulness may deminish...but thats a problem of details, not the system itself. RE: Re: money and health >I forgot to make my main point, which is that one person's excessive is >another person's life-saving. There's a strong incentive for real estate >businesses to object to ALL codes, and to lie and say that none of them >have value. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have any safety regulations, >but the real estate businessman objects to those regulations because even >though they may save society money overall (by reducing insurance costs, >reconstruction costs, health care costs, etc.) the real estate businessman >objects to the regulations because those costs that are being reduced are >other people's costs, and they're being reduced by means of a (much, much >smaller) reduction in his profits. > >- >>>>Here here! As a person who has easily survived several major earthquakes, I'm always glad when the house starts rocking that someone had to meet code. --------->but, if i understand the libertarian perspective correctly, in a world where there were no gov't imposed building codes, you'd likely still be safe because any builder who built unsafe houses would go out of business because nobody would buy her/his inferior product. having said that, the opposition could argue that in such a world, only poor folk would live in unsafe houses because they may not be able to afford superior (more costly) housing, thus housing (and safety) might be very stratified based on income. (which it actually already is *despite* building codes...) and having said *that* i'm wagering there is some intelligent libertarian refutation of that point..? <g> Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/15/04 3:05:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > Actually, this too sounds and looks nice on paper but is a literal > impossibility. All societies (even small tribal ones) are too large and > complex for there to be a 1:1 ratio between an individual's input and his > output. That's still where the incentives lie. I didn't claim a 1:1 ratio. > > >It takes many, many muscle > >contractions to make a single movement, and they are all originated in a > >single > >nerve impulse. > > > >If you look at human societies, the ones organized like this are absolute > >disasters. > > You're being very selective in that assumption, since you condemn > governments which are centrally directed and endorse mega-corporations > which are even more centrally directed. No I'm not. A corporation centrally directs its internal economy, and pursues its self-interest. A centrally planned economy has a central authority that directs individual interests to cooperate in some fashion. In capitalism, a computer manufacturer might have thousands of employees under a single leadership, and a software developer might similarly have hundreds of employees under a central leadership. The leadership might be central within the corporation, but the software developer's sole purpose is to sell software and the computer manufacturer's sole purpose is to sell computers. Neither pursues the interest of the other, nor the interest of their customers (except insofar as it coincides with their own interest). Neither exerts planning control over the other. By contrast, in a centrally planned economy there is one agent that produces a plan both for those with an interest in selling computers and those with an interest in selling software. In one case, each interested agent (which might consist of more than one person) is pursuing its own interest; in the other, one supposedly disinterested agent is doing the planning for all interested parties. The two are fundamentally different. And, the point is, that where people pursue their own interests, you get economic growth and, within reason, a moral culture, whereas in the centrally planned economy you get economic and moral disaster. Furthermore, an intelligent executive would introduce competition into the framework of the corporation by offering bonuses to development teams for ingenuity, thereby harnessing both cooperation and competition, and would be more productive. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 , > Influence is power. You're distinguishing between what you call power, > which is 100% irresistible power, and power that's less than absolute, > which you call influence. And yet even what you call power, which if I > understand correctly you ascribe solely to the state and violent entities, > is not absolute either. Some people choose to break the law, to dare the > consequences (or to defy the mugger or the ruthless tyrant regardless of > the potential consequences) so even that power is merely influence -- just > a more widely persuasive form. I agree, and said, that influence is a form of power. But it is a qualitatively different form than power: -- A person is subjected to a multiplicity of influences, whereas only one mugger can exercise force against someone at a given time -- A person can exercise choice between influences, believe in a combination thereof, or choose to ignore influences, without suffering physical consequences for any option, while a mugging victim has only the choice of surrender or physical harm -- A person must make an initial choice to read a book, turn the tv on, read an article, or engage in discussion, whereas a person exercises no choice in encountering a mugger -- Influence can have both positive and negative effects and can be wielded with both good intentions and malice, whereas a mugger's only purpose is crime -- It is possible to abstain from violence, while it is impossible to abstain from influence, regardless of intent. All these qualitative differences form the basis for legal and moral differentiation betwen the two forms of power. There is nothing inherently immoral about persuasion, whereas any reasonable morality finds the initiation of violence inherently immoral (whether based on a concept of " rights " or social usefulness). With influence, the ultimate affect on the person resides in his mind, whereas with force, the ultimate effect on the victim is decided in the mind of the user of force. It would be not only impratical but impossible to ban the use of influence, (and doing such would ban both the bad and the good) while it is perfectly practical to ban violence. > > If I buy up and influence substantial elements of the information > infrastructure and thus influence millions of people to act as I want them > to, against their best interests but in line with mine, I've acquired and > exercised power, period. That's true, it is a form of power. However, the power you are exerting is subject to the evaluation and judgment of the individual you are exerting it on, wheras the power a force-wielder exerts is subject only to the competence with which he wields it. Furthermore, competing sources of influence prevent any given source of influence from having a decisive effect. The fact that my power doesn't successfully alter > the behavior of 100% of my targets as I want doesn't mean I'm impotent, it > just means I'm not god. But, as I've described above, the probability of success is not the only differentiating factor. That mere quantitative value is rather unimportant compared to the qualitative value of exercising an influence that competes for the favorable judgment of the target, rather than a force that can modify the behavior well being of the target without regard to the judgment of said target. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Heidi- >If it is the one to , he answered it nicely. Actually I enjoy reading his >posts more than I do writing mine. LOL and thanks! I wish I enjoyed writing them, but while these kinds of discussions always start out enjoyable enough, they seem to inevitably become more and more and more and more and more and more and more frustrating. >So how can I argue >that a thing is " moral " if I don't believe in " morality " as a standalone >thing? for >me the question is: " Does It Work " , which, in this context, means " do humans >really work that way? " . I don't agree with your position exactly -- I do believe that the concept of morality is useful and not pure invention -- but in the sense that it must have a foundation to be defensible, and that foundation must incorporate and account for real human nature, I agree completely. It used to work fairly well (at least in some times and places) to say this is moral and that's immoral " because God said so " , but we have to go beyond that now, and saying " just because " simply isn't going to work. All elements of an argument, including its foundations, must be defensible and explainable. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Chris- > From a social perspective, i.e., that of the " group, " a society in which the >value you get is the value you offer causes everyone to offer more value. Actually, this too sounds and looks nice on paper but is a literal impossibility. All societies (even small tribal ones) are too large and complex for there to be a 1:1 ratio between an individual's input and his output. >It takes many, many muscle >contractions to make a single movement, and they are all originated in a >single >nerve impulse. > >If you look at human societies, the ones organized like this are absolute >disasters. You're being very selective in that assumption, since you condemn governments which are centrally directed and endorse mega-corporations which are even more centrally directed. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 As you say it is one counter balance, but unfortunately LIFE is verycomplicated and not simple. Its also not perfect. :-( Lets look at the counter balance... if mal practice insurance goes too high, medical folk will change carreers and go into less dangerous occupations. This means less doctors. Shortages in resources usually result in higher charges. For the relatively small percentage of mistakes by a small percentage of doctors, the complications and consequences may be out of balance. How to artificially bring them back in line to a level that is acceptable to the masses, which the government actually represent (indirectly or what ever) sigh... what can one do? The government supposedly is the power of the people united. Supposedly the people elect representatives to do their bidding,,,and those representatives are supposedly smart enough tofigure out what he bottom line desire is and the manipulate the system to please the greatest amount... Thats where it gets REALLY tricky...trying to figure that out...at times it might even seem that doing the greater good might be going against what may appear to be the greatest good at the moment. Does this make any sense? This has come about through evolution and from the desire to have minimal change, cause change usually upsets everyone... so imagine the strife of those representatives to do GREAT good and change for the better when that very change is usually contrary to what most people really want. Case in point: oil. No one wants to knowingly oppress other people or countries. But they still want the bennies that cheap oil produces. Its what we know. Changing that is unknown; scarey....SO we tell the representatives to do the right thing (wink wink) but be sure to maintain the staus quo of our lives....Gee what a confusing place to be for a represenative...they know we just want them to get the job done and not burden us with the details...allow us maximum deniabiliy of being " bad people " even though our consumerism depends on cheap oil at all cost, and cheap labor to provide sneakers, computer chips, etc. Its a complicated mess it is and Libbies or others need to recognize that it is what it is. Its a long evolutionary process to get where we are...it aint gonna change over night and anarchist speaches aint gonna do it. :-( RE: Re: money and health >I forgot to make my main point, which is that one person's excessive is >another person's life-saving. There's a strong incentive for real estate >businesses to object to ALL codes, and to lie and say that none of them >have value. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have any safety regulations, >but the real estate businessman objects to those regulations because even >though they may save society money overall (by reducing insurance costs, >reconstruction costs, health care costs, etc.) the real estate businessman >objects to the regulations because those costs that are being reduced are >other people's costs, and they're being reduced by means of a (much, much >smaller) reduction in his profits. > >- >>>>Here here! As a person who has easily survived several major earthquakes, I'm always glad when the house starts rocking that someone had to meet code. --------->but, if i understand the libertarian perspective correctly, in a world where there were no gov't imposed building codes, you'd likely still be safe because any builder who built unsafe houses would go out of business because nobody would buy her/his inferior product. having said that, the opposition could argue that in such a world, only poor folk would live in unsafe houses because they may not be able to afford superior (more costly) housing, thus housing (and safety) might be very stratified based on income. (which it actually already is *despite* building codes...) and having said *that* i'm wagering there is some intelligent libertarian refutation of that point..? <g> Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 review the stats... the people were sent home...death doesnt happen instantly. 3rd cause of death in USA is doctors...haha. Granted the AMA style health care in the USA needs a bunch...but then again people dont want whats common sense,,,they want a quick fix...hence the health care as it is... whats the name of this list again? nutrition? ;-) RE: Re: money and health If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay ALL of the court costs. And many lawsuits are frivolous. Some years ago here in Michigan a college golf game was cancelled because of thunder storms. Some of the students decided to stay on the golf course. One was hit by lightening and seriously messed up for the rest of his life. In a tone that said the young man should have collected damages, the news story I read said that the courts threw his case out. And well they should have! The school fulfilled its obligation by canceling the match, it did not force that young man into an act of stupidity that got him hit by lightening. But I have known of many cases with no more merit than this one where the plaintiff collected huge sums of money. Like the stupid woman who put her cup of HOT coffee between her legs in her car and then sued Mcs for huge sums. Doctor shortages may not be all bad. When surgeons have gone on strike the death rate at that hospital goes down. This has happened several times. The doctors did only emergency surgeries. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- As you say it is one counter balance, but unfortunately LIFE is verycomplicated and not simple. Its also not perfect. :-( Lets look at the counter balance... if mal practice insurance goes too high, medical folk will change carreers and go into less dangerous occupations. This means less doctors. Shortages in resources usually result in higher charges. For the relatively small percentage of mistakes by a small percentage of doctors, the complications and consequences may be out of balance. How to artificially bring them back in line to a level that is acceptable to the masses, which the government actually represent (indirectly or what ever) sigh... what can one do? The government supposedly is the power of the people united. Supposedly the people elect representatives to do their bidding,,,and those representatives are supposedly smart enough tofigure out what he bottom line desire is and the manipulate the system to please the greatest amount... Thats where it gets REALLY tricky...trying to figure that out...at times it might even seem that doing the greater good might be going against what may appear to be the greatest good at the moment. Does this make any sense? This has come about through evolution and from the desire to have minimal change, cause change usually upsets everyone... so imagine the strife of those representatives to do GREAT good and change for the better when that very change is usually contrary to what most people really want. Case in point: oil. No one wants to knowingly oppress other people or countries. But they still want the bennies that cheap oil produces. Its what we know. Changing that is unknown; scarey....SO we tell the representatives to do the right thing (wink wink) but be sure to maintain the staus quo of our lives....Gee what a confusing place to be for a represenative...they know we just want them to get the job done and not burden us with the details...allow us maximum deniabiliy of being " bad people " even though our consumerism depends on cheap oil at all cost, and cheap labor to provide sneakers, computer chips, etc. Its a complicated mess it is and Libbies or others need to recognize that it is what it is. Its a long evolutionary process to get where we are...it aint gonna change over night and anarchist speaches aint gonna do it. :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Its all screwed up.... doctors need to see many patients to be able to cover cost of medical school and start up practice and of course insurance...the more people they see, the more chance they have of missing stuff, not getting complete picture (like other meds that the patient is taking but doent think of telling doctor) ...the more stuff they miss, the greater chance of mistakes and wrongful procedures to the detriment of the patient... which creates dissatisfaction and law suits...which means higher doctor costs which means more patients need to be seen...agghhh! There is no ending the cycle once it starts... :-( So ya get a new paradigm like Patch Adam practicing medicne for free with all the time needed to do diagnoses...of course no big car, country club etc....but it works for some people... :-) RE: Re: money and health If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay ALL of the court costs. And many lawsuits are frivolous. Some years ago here in Michigan a college golf game was cancelled because of thunder storms. Some of the students decided to stay on the golf course. One was hit by lightening and seriously messed up for the rest of his life. In a tone that said the young man should have collected damages, the news story I read said that the courts threw his case out. And well they should have! The school fulfilled its obligation by canceling the match, it did not force that young man into an act of stupidity that got him hit by lightening. But I have known of many cases with no more merit than this one where the plaintiff collected huge sums of money. Like the stupid woman who put her cup of HOT coffee between her legs in her car and then sued Mcs for huge sums. Doctor shortages may not be all bad. When surgeons have gone on strike the death rate at that hospital goes down. This has happened several times. The doctors did only emergency surgeries. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- As you say it is one counter balance, but unfortunately LIFE is verycomplicated and not simple. Its also not perfect. :-( Lets look at the counter balance... if mal practice insurance goes too high, medical folk will change carreers and go into less dangerous occupations. This means less doctors. Shortages in resources usually result in higher charges. For the relatively small percentage of mistakes by a small percentage of doctors, the complications and consequences may be out of balance. How to artificially bring them back in line to a level that is acceptable to the masses, which the government actually represent (indirectly or what ever) sigh... what can one do? The government supposedly is the power of the people united. Supposedly the people elect representatives to do their bidding,,,and those representatives are supposedly smart enough tofigure out what he bottom line desire is and the manipulate the system to please the greatest amount... Thats where it gets REALLY tricky...trying to figure that out...at times it might even seem that doing the greater good might be going against what may appear to be the greatest good at the moment. Does this make any sense? This has come about through evolution and from the desire to have minimal change, cause change usually upsets everyone... so imagine the strife of those representatives to do GREAT good and change for the better when that very change is usually contrary to what most people really want. Case in point: oil. No one wants to knowingly oppress other people or countries. But they still want the bennies that cheap oil produces. Its what we know. Changing that is unknown; scarey....SO we tell the representatives to do the right thing (wink wink) but be sure to maintain the staus quo of our lives....Gee what a confusing place to be for a represenative...they know we just want them to get the job done and not burden us with the details...allow us maximum deniabiliy of being " bad people " even though our consumerism depends on cheap oil at all cost, and cheap labor to provide sneakers, computer chips, etc. Its a complicated mess it is and Libbies or others need to recognize that it is what it is. Its a long evolutionary process to get where we are...it aint gonna change over night and anarchist speaches aint gonna do it. :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 yea... but how many bright people will be willing to take on all that medical school debt, the extra years, the residency crap and be satisfied to get a chicken for dinner ? and still have some crackpot with a lawyer try and exploit an honest mistake? ya gotta start over... eating right, which of course is totally against the food industry, the work ethic, etc etc sigh :-( ya gotta trash the whole thin as a bad evolutionary outcome and star different...but howmany would be willing to give up the status quo for that? RE: Re: money and health You forgot all the return visits required by the bad effects of the prescribed drugs. Patch Adam would probably be great for most of us. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- Its all screwed up.... doctors need to see many patients to be able to cover cost of medical school and start up practice and of course insurance...the more people they see, the more chance they have of missing stuff, not getting complete picture (like other meds that the patient is taking but doent think of telling doctor) ...the more stuff they miss, the greater chance of mistakes and wrongful procedures to the detriment of the patient... which creates dissatisfaction and law suits...which means higher doctor costs which means more patients need to be seen...agghhh! There is no ending the cycle once it starts... :-( So ya get a new paradigm like Patch Adam practicing medicne for free with all the time needed to do diagnoses...of course no big car, country club etc....but it works for some people... :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/15/04 10:22:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, implode7@... writes: But to conclude that a > concept that is truly humanitarian, whether workable or not, now or ever, > is > PATHOLOGICAL, is ridiculous, and shows that you are the ideologue (not so > vague reference to the Chomsky debate awhile back). Perhaps I should have said pathogenic. Where it's introduced, it produces disaster. The views I'm expressing in this thread ARE ideological. So no, if I were you, or another reader, I wouldn't take them at face value. > >What is so narcisstic about doing a good job, and exchanging it with > others > >who also do a good job? > > I don't think that was what you were saying above. What you are saying here > does not contradict 'to each according..' etc, does it? It is, because in a free exchange, what you get is not what you " need, " it's what others are willing to give you. Like I said, " from each according to ability, to each according to need " DOES look good on paper. What's pathological is the way it works in society. The incentives the system creates is for everyone to be the least able, so they don't have to produce as much, or out of fear that they will be required to do more work to service others' " needs, " and to engage in nasty debates about who needs what. If it's top-down, it's tyrannical, and still gives the incentive to be the least able, rather than the most able. So no, it isn't a fundamentally evil thought, but in practice, it has pathological results-- it's pathogenic. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 >> concept that goes through this whole thread. > >How is that narcissitic? Is there something narcissistic about doing a good >job? About maximizing your potential? About using the brain you were lucky >enough to have been given? Seeing things primarily through " how it benefits me " is the definition of narcissism. Seeing things in terms of " how it benefits everyone " is rare in this country, but it is the more common view in, say, an African tribe. I TRY to view things like " doing a good job " in terms of how it benefits everyone ... which usually it does. " charging the most money for a product " does NOT necessarily benefit everyone. >>From a social perspective, i.e., that of the " group, " a society in which the >value you get is the value you offer causes everyone to offer more value. > >The alternative is a " from each according to his ability, to each according >to his need " philosophy. It sounds nice and looks nice on paper, but it is a >fundamentally pathological thought. Yes, it is pathological. Because it deals with the individuals again, instead of the whole society as a group and the effect of that philosophy on the group, and how it interacts with how human brains are made. Which is the problem I have with MOST economic theories. Too limited in perspective. What is so narcisstic about doing a good job, and exchanging it with others >who also do a good job? Because it is a limited viewpoint, and as you stated it there, it is ONLY talking about economic exchange, which is about 1/10 of what really goes on in an exchange. And it is only talking about it in terms of ME (two MEs, in this case) which is, again by definition, narcissistic. >> But folks like Rockefeller -- not exactly a lily-livered liberal -- >> believed that >> the government's job was ALSO to provide " infrastructure " (hence >> the railroads and later superhighways). > >He did? Please cite something; I wasn't aware of it. Ack. You always ask for proof but rarely provide it. The whole era of the Robber Barons was about creating an infrastructure of railroads, for the good of the nation. And making a fortune off it, for some folks. > The idea that government is needed for a sense of direction (Rockefeller was >able to provide a sense of direction to the chatoic oil industry) is false. >And, in fact, humans working for their own interests, freely exchanging with >others, leads not to chaos and crass competition, but to order and cooperation. All systems require organization and structure. Sure, industry can provide it. And with honest folk like Fastow in charge I'm sure it will benefit all of us. He was highly competitive, but did it lead to order and cooperation? If the feds hadn't prosecuted him, wouldn't he have just retired nicely with hundreds of millions in the bank? >See this fantastic essay from the perspective of a pencil (yes, a pencil :-) >): > ><http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html>http://www.econlib.org/libr\ ary/Essays/rdPncl1.html > >> > >You seem to be arguing that a society's Rules are self-justifying. There is >no morality and no rights, no objective standard by which to judge. No, I'm saying you can't use IDEOLOGICAL standards. The only standards that are really reliable are " what works " -- i.e. you need objective standards, not ones that make good sound bytes. The concept of " morality " as it is generally used, us purely ideological or religious, ditto with " rights " . They are disconnected from reality in the same way " to each according to his need " is. Society, and all systems, ARE run by rules. Some rules work, some don't. You optimize the system by optimizing the rules. >By your theory, then, a society where the Rules require a woman to be stoned >to death who commits adultery is in no way inferior to a society where the >Rules do not. A society where the Rules require Jews to wear identification >badges is justified by itself. A society where the Rules allow humans of certain >ancestry to be owned as slaves is in no way inferior to one in which all >humans are considered free by *right*. Well, all those examples are examples of societies that didn't run very well. If you need a standard by which to judge whether the rules work well, I like mine: a society where you maximize the amount of choices and health and good life for the maximum number of people. Most oppressive societies are ones that tweak the rules to maximize power for a small number of people. Those societies are generally unstable also, and eventually crash and burn (the slaves rebel) and are less productive. So you could use several different objective measures to the " success " of a given society. > Besides, since OUR " Rules " explicitly allow for *Rights*, such as those to >Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the question,for our society, is >moot. Which is, IMO, not a bad rule to start out with. > ________ >Even in the Bible " sin " is often translated >> as " trespasses " -- i.e. you crossed the boundaries of a rule. > >This is a total tangent, but that's an awful translation. The word in the >Lord's Prayer often, unfortunately, translated as " trespasses " is " debts, " which >has a very different meaning. The word translated as " sin " actually means > " to miss the mark, " as if one is playing darts and misses the bullseye. So > " sin " is NOT breaking a rule, and is not remotely corresponding to " crime " as is >usually thought, which has to be repaid with punitive justice. Not punitive? Then why all the bit about atoning for sin? In the OT there is definitely the idea that if you do X you have to pay Y to make up for it. > Your comparison of cells to people and governments to brains is invalid, >because the crossways that results in an individual consciousness resides in the >brain, whereas individual cells have no consciousness and governments represent >majority opinions, not a fused, single consciousness. Ummm ... I'm talking about *systems* -- most systems have no consciousness, and many are on computers. There IS feedback and communication and there are rules. The body does have local nervous control over things ... pain, for one ... the pain signal only has to get as far as your spinal cord to cause a " jerk " reaction. Most people who study the brain do NOT think it is a fused, single consciousness. Oliver Sax has good writings on that subject. The brain is full of subsystems, just like a computer. You THINK you are one consciousness, but that is a kind of illusion. Most of what you do you don't think about at all. But I'm not trying to make an exact analogy ... systems analysis works on ANY system even though all sytems are very different, the same rules apply. Kind of like math and chemistry -- universal principles. > On the other hand, societies where the primary impulses are generated by the >individual sarcomere (contractile unit of a muscle) acting NOT to move the >muscle, or even the individual myofibril, but acting solely to move its own self, >flourish both economically and morally. Again, see the essay I linked above, > " I, Pencil. " That is my point though ... all systems are a combination of local vs. central control vs. individual control. For each system there is an ideal mix of the three. Each system can be objectively analyzed to figure out the ideal mix, without ideology. > > So the goal is ... create a system that WORKS. Who cares if >> it is Moral or has the correct Rights. > >The slave, the Jew in the gas chamber, the Slav sacrificed for leibenstraum, >the Soviet farmer wasting away in famine, the scientist on trial for heresy, >all care if it is Moral and has the correct Rights. Again, those systems didn't WORK, for any length of time. They collapsed. Neal son has a great take on this in Cryptonomicon -- societies that are free and open generally have the greatest technological gain. >If the system WORKS >> everyone will be happy because they are getting sustenance,have good >> health, have local control over their lives, >> and are doing the job they are designed for >> (Heidi's 3 requisites for happiness). > >As you pointed out before, that's what the Communists thought. Sounds lovely >in email. Pretty nasty in life. No, they are *measurements* to see IF the system is working. If people are enslaved, gassed, rioting in the streets ... that is a sign the system doesn't work. If the people are happy, healthy, productive ... that is a sign too. The Communist state was totalitarian and by any standard wasn't working -- people were starving. And it eventually collapsed. > >No, it isn't. The term arose in the 1870s, but gained its popularity during >the Depression because people were fond of anti-business sentiment at the >time. I am continuing to question the validity of your claim that railroads >conspired to destroy family farms. I continue to maintain that calling one a > " robber " for creating wealth is an absurd bastardization of the English language. Seriously? That seems rather revisionist. I'll try to find something you might consider " proof " then -- I take it you found something wrong with the previous links. >Again, the double standard. If government has the right to use force against >businesses in favor of workers, why does it not have the right to do the same >for businesses against workers? > >What I am suggesting is that both workers and businesses have exclusive >rights over their own property and persons. A government should enforce the rights >of both equally. That includes the right of a union to strike, but does not >include the privilege of a union to physically prevent other workers from >working, for example. > >And I thought you believed workers didn't have " rights " ? I said I don't believe in " rights " as some kind of a universal standard ... they don't *exist* in an objective sense. That isn't the same as saying rules don't exist ... there are all kinds of generally accepted rules of " fair play " and some rules work, some don't. Unhappy, unhealthy workers don't *work* (pun intendended). I didn't mention the word " rights " -- you keep using it, as in " the right to force " and I can't argue it because I don't believe in the existence of " rights " in the way you do. As for control ... local control in most things is generally desirable. But not exclusively desirable ... for workers or for companies. NO ONE has total control over themselves or their property, it can't happen, if we are living as a society and not individuals out in the woods. >You are correct -- people hurt each other >> all the time, that is THE one universal constant of human relations ... > >I would argue that the two constants are >-- ingenuity >-- envy > >And that the latter reults in people hurting each other. Hmm. So do you think that it is right that Fastow is going to jail? Was his damage to investors " violence " ? > >The " rulekeeper " should function to >a) protect the rights of persons and property > enforce contracts. See, there are those " Rights " again. Rights aren't objective. I'd say the Rulekeeper should enforce the rules, and someone should also be monitoring that the rules work. > The airplanes DO need to fly, and the coal mines need to dig coal (or we'd >have no electricity) and the railroads need to operate (food couldn't get from >place to place), etc, etc. Do you support government intervention to break >strikers in all these domains? Haven't I been saying all along that I don't think there are quick fixes or simple policy solutions? A GOOD answer is not usually a simple one of " I support " or " I am against " . >Doesn't it bother you that air traffic controllers have one of the worst, >stressful, mind-deranging jobs in the entire country, and don't get paid enough >for it? You don't sympathise with their plight of being exploited by their >employers? Sure it bothers me. Esp. when I'm on a plane. But the whole system of " working " bothers me -- it doesn't fit how humans are made. How to fix the problem? Does anyone know? The system is always evolving, I don't think there is a quick fix. > >The fact that the airplanes " need " to run (so rich and middle class people >can go on their luxury vacations?) is the whole point: it is the ability of the >workers to show their value to their employer. > >With any consistency, you'd have to oppose the right of a union to strike at >all. > >And you say you're on the side of the worker and I'm not??? I don't recall talking about " sides " . Some solutions work, and some don't. Some of your solutions I don't think would work. The solution I gave to the airtraffic controllers would have WORKED if the situation was truly as it was portrayed -- negotiation, upgrading the air traffic control system, and it would have benefitted the workers and the airlines. > >They simply stuck to their right to control their own person. It's somewhat >subjective as to whether a system " sucks " or not. It wasn't just " their person " they were striking for. They were trying to improve the air traffic system. That isn't really " subjective " -- you can measure how many near misses there are per day and how old the equipment is. And for raw milk, we are always trying for OBJECTIVE data. And Air Traffic does NOT just affect the controllers, it effects everyone, so I can't see how you can say it has to do with " their right to control their own person " . > But, if you do actually oppose the right of unions to strike in all >situations and do actually believe that no one has any " rights, " then, I disagree, but >you would, I suppose, be consistent. I don't unilaterally oppose anything, that is the point. I guess you could say I unilaterally oppose decisions based on ideology rather than measurable objective results and logical thinking. I also support cooperation and negotiation over force. I support rules that make sense, supported by a group that is " public " and not " private " . > Second, ALL >> entities in a system apply force of once sort or another. >> From physics to politics to your body, the " system " is a bunch >> of forces all pushing against each other. > >But the laws of physics are consistent laws. I want to apply the rule of >law-- the law I choose is that every person has a moral right to control their >own person and property, and the government protects that right against those >who wish to control others' person and property. What you advocate is the >government using force according to its whims (Reagan " deciding " that " this system >sucks, so I'll get rid of it . " ), rather than to enforce laws. Ummm .. no, what I advocate is open and rational decision making, which by it's nature has to be flexible. Flexible doesn't mean " whim based " . In most companies nowadays there are all kinds of " performance measurements " in place so the company can decide if a given policy or mechanism is working. The issue with air traffic controls is very objective as these things go. Reagan didn't want to spend money, also objective. He didn't like unions, which is a power struggle -- he wanted to give power to corporations, the unions wanted power for the workers. >Sure. And everyone has a right to be their own putz if they aren't hurting >other people's person or property. I explicitly put specific limitations on >individuals, not simply government. But in a connected system it is not always clear that a person is " only hurting themselves " . THAT is why there is so much argument about things like abortion ... the central issue is ... when is the kid a KID and not an extension of the parent? If me not doing my job right disrupts the economy, does it become eveyone's business? If workers can't get health care and there is a tuburculosis outbreak, whose problem is it? It is the interconnectivity issue -- and the issue of infrastructure and how the future generations will grow up -- that make all these issues so difficult. Not as simple as " my property " . I can use >> my money to do whatever I want to take advantage of you, >> IF I don't dump toxins or use the gov't? > >No, you couldn't, say, take my things, hire thugs to beat me up, dig up holes >in my lawn, or steal my oil if I happened to have some on my property, for >example. I can't possibly list everything that amounts to violating someone >else's rights, but it can essentially be summed up in the harm of someone else's >person or property, or the fradulent use or unfulfillment of a contract. > >What, specifically, DOESN'T fall under those definitions that you consider > " brutlaizing " ? I think I was quoting you for the word " brutalizing " -- but whatever word you use, there are lots of shades of grey. Esp. when it comes to basic services (sewage, garbage, transportation, water, and food) and raising your kids. Refusing to provide a service, or jacking up the price, or playing favorites to give unfair advantage to some industries, are demonstrably bad for society. >It isn't. The gov't is simply held to the same standards anyone else is. It >can't take people's lives because they have a *right* to live. It can't >initiate force against someone who did not initiate force themselves because they >have a *right* to live in peace. It can't counterfeit money. It can't steal. > >Corporations or individuals can't do any of that either. So why do you claim >I have a double standard? In general I'd agree the gov't shouldn't commit crimes or break it's own laws. But in our society, the Nation core does have a unique place, as do the courts. Someone has to be the " police " and manage the units of transaction, and deal with other Nations. Unless we all go back to being city-states and having *local* wars like we used to. >Just as corporations can't use the government to take people's property (such >as taxing and subsidizing), they just the same can't hire thugs or Pinkertons >to take someone else's property. Where's the double standard? You seem to get down on the gov't more than others ... maybe I am misunderstanding. However, if the gov't didn't stop the Pinkertons, who would? >It just simply defies reality to say that monopolies have never did anything >positive for consumers. No, and in some cases a well-run open monopoly works a lot better. The " open " part is the issue. If there is public oversight, a monopoly can be very efficient. Case in point being Enron ... public utilities are monopolies, and often run very well. But if you privatize the utility so make is supposedly non-monopolistic, then a putz takes it over, now you have a non-controlled monopoly that can wreck havoc and was demonstrably BAD for consumers. I get hurt every other month when I pay my electric bill. Which is where the gov't has to step in and play policeman. Ditto for stock fraud. A " benign dictator " is a very nice workable system ... if you can make sure that the dictator is always benign. Carnegie might have been, but were his successors? Gates does some good things, but he also has givent his country the buggiest mess of computers we've ever seen, largely by using monopolistic and illegal practices. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 >What is so narcisstic about doing a good job, and exchanging it with others >who also do a good job? Because it is a limited viewpoint, and as you stated it there, it is ONLY talking about economic exchange, which is about 1/10 of what really goes on in an exchange. And it is only talking about it in terms of ME (two MEs, in this case) which is, again by definition, narcissistic. Economics deals with all human behavior. Microeconomics includes the decision not to work as well as the decision to work. More broadly praxeology looks at all human behavior, which is essentially economics. The desire for leisure, for example, is used in micro to demonstrate opportunity costs. The time people work is settled by an equilibria between their deisre for leisure curve and their desire for money curve. > >>But folks like Rockefeller -- not exactly a lily-livered liberal -- > >>believed that > >>the government's job was ALSO to provide " infrastructure " (hence > >>the railroads and later superhighways). > > > >He did? Please cite something; I wasn't aware of it. > > Ack. You always ask for proof but rarely provide it. Again, if you want evidence, ask for it. The > whole era of the Robber Barons was about creating > an infrastructure of railroads, for the good of the nation. > And making a fortune off it, for some folks. But you said Rockefeller wanted the GOVERNMENT to do it. I find that hard to believe. Had you said, : " Rockefeller thought there should be a railroad, " I wouldn't have questioned you. > Those societies are generally unstable also, and eventually > crash and burn (the slaves rebel) and are less productive. So > you could use several different objective measures to the > " success " of a given society. Well, the institution of slavery has existed from ancient times until very recently. Now it's gone in places where there is a concept of the rights and dignity of the individual, whereas the pockets where it is still practiced do not carry that ideology. > >Besides, since OUR " Rules " explicitly allow for *Rights*, such as those to > > >Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the question,for our society, > is > >moot. > > Which is, IMO, not a bad rule to start out with. Thus validating the concept of rights, then? > Not punitive? Then why all the bit about atoning for sin? In the OT > there is definitely the idea that if you do X you have to pay Y to > make up for it. I honestly don't have the time for this right now. The ancient Christian tradition and the one the East maintains conceptualizes it in a fundamentally different way, and to remain true to the linguistics of the original Greek, you have to maintain those concepts. But it would be an awful big can of worms to open in a tangent on a tangential post! > > >Your comparison of cells to people and governments to brains is invalid, > >because the crossways that results in an individual consciousness resides > in the > >brain, whereas individual cells have no consciousness and governments > represent > >majority opinions, not a fused, single consciousness. > > Ummm ... I'm talking about *systems* -- most systems have no consciousness, > and many are on computers. There IS feedback and communication > and there are rules. The body does have local nervous control over > things ... pain, for one ... the pain signal only has to get as far as your > spinal cord to cause a " jerk " reaction. But you were comparing these systems to social systems. Social systems work fundamentally different, in part because they are made up of conscious beings who have their own values and interests. When humans act in self-interest, order and the product of ingenuity arises. But if a sarcomere acted in its own " interest " instead of listening to the nerve impulse your body wouldn't work, and would collapse in chaos. It's not really a valid comaprison. > Most people who study the brain do NOT think it is a fused, > single consciousness. Oliver Sax has good writings on that > subject. The brain is full of subsystems, just like a computer. > You THINK you are one consciousness, but that is a kind > of illusion. Most of what you do you don't think about at all. If I think I am one consciousness, I am one consciousness. That's too apparent to argue about. Granted, if the brain is damaged in some way, you can have different parts of the brain acting indepently of one another. But that hardly disproves the obvious-- which is that the ultimate result is a consciousness, and an ego. > But I'm not trying to make an exact analogy ... systems > analysis works on ANY system even though all sytems are > very different, the same rules apply. Kind of like math > and chemistry -- universal principles. But you are applying principles by which systems of unconscious elements interact to systems in which conscious elements act, each with their own interest. It's fundamentally to give an order and expect obedience from a person who is interested in disobeying the order than to give a muscle fiber a nerve impulse. > > Again, those systems didn't WORK, for any length of time. They > collapsed. Neal son has a great take on this > in Cryptonomicon -- societies that are free and open > generally have the greatest technological gain. > Some of them didn't. But there are hunter-gatherer societies who maintained somewhat vicious rules, such as giving death to adulterers or those engaging in pre-marital sex, who have survived for thousands of years. Are they justified based on their survival? > No, they are *measurements* to see IF the system is working. > If people are enslaved, gassed, rioting in the streets ... > that is a sign the system doesn't work. If the people > are happy, healthy, productive ... that is a sign too. > The Communist state was totalitarian and by any > standard wasn't working -- people were starving. And > it eventually collapsed. So what about the Church-State alliance that brutally punished dissenters, and survived for over a millenium? Again, what about ancient societies that engaged in ritualistic human sacrifice or pratice(d) cannibalism and DID survive. Are they justified merely by their survival? If everyone's happy except the few sacrificial victims? > >No, it isn't. The term arose in the 1870s, but gained its popularity > during > >the Depression because people were fond of anti-business sentiment at the > >time. I am continuing to question the validity of your claim that > railroads > >conspired to destroy family farms. I continue to maintain that calling one > a > > " robber " for creating wealth is an absurd bastardization of the English > language. > > Seriously? That seems rather revisionist. I'll try to find something > you might consider " proof " then -- I take it you found something > wrong with the previous links. What do you mean revisionist? The term Robber Baron was around from the time of the Robber Barons (1870s would be around that time), but it didn't become very popular, according to a source I just read, until the Depression. Revisionists in the 50s painted them as " industrial statesmen " instead. > Hmm. So do you think that it is right that Fastow is > going to jail? Was his damage to investors " violence " ? You'll have to familiarize me with who this Fastow fellow is :-P > Haven't I been saying all along that I don't think there are quick fixes > or simple policy solutions? A GOOD answer is not usually a simple > one of " I support " or " I am against " . So the ability to choose to go to work or not, or to drink raw milk, should be subject to the random whims of whoever is in office? If the rules change and bend according to whatever the President thinks, say, then they aren't really " rules " per se. Theres just a ruleER. > It wasn't just " their person " they were striking for. They were trying > to improve the air traffic system. That isn't really " subjective " -- > you can measure how many near misses there are per day and > how old the equipment is. And for raw milk, we are always trying > for OBJECTIVE data. And Air Traffic does NOT just affect the controllers, > it effects everyone, so I can't see how you can say it has to do > with " their right to control their own person " . Whether they go on strike or not is a matter of what they can do with their own person. The government shouldn't be able to break strikes, and unions shouldn't be able to physically prevent " scabs " from taking their place-- you should have some sort of right to choose whether to work or not and to choose what you do with your own person. > The issue with air traffic controls is very objective > as these things go. Reagan didn't want to spend money, > also objective. He didn't like unions, which is a power > struggle -- he wanted to give power to corporations, > the unions wanted power for the workers. Since we don't share any premises, I realize we can't get far, but it shouldn't be up to Reagan to give power to corporations or to workers. Corporations shouldn't have any power beyond to dispose with their property as they wish, and to hire and fire who they want. Unions should have every right to engage in voluntary association, to make collective decisions, to pool their money how they want, or to strike or work as they wish, but shouldn't have the right to demand involuntary participation or prevent other people from working. It shouldn't be Reagan's decision as to whether they can effectively bargain or not. > If me > not doing my job right disrupts the economy, does > it become eveyone's business? Not unless you are slave labor. If you don't do a job right, your employer can deal with it. If workers can't get health > care and there is a tuburculosis outbreak, whose > problem is it? It is the interconnectivity issue -- and > the issue of infrastructure and how the future > generations will grow up -- that make all these issues > so difficult. Not as simple as " my property " . I *do* want people to have good health care. However, I believe the way to good health care, and propserity in general, is freedom, and sense, rather than excess. A system based on profit allows greater technology, and allows doctors to compete by providing the best care to their patients. A system based on insurance for maintenance care is a bureacratic mess, and a government system severely limits choices and the potential for progress. > I think I was quoting you for the word " brutalizing " -- but whatever word > you use, there are lots of shades of grey. Esp. when it comes to > basic services (sewage, garbage, transportation, water, and food) > and raising your kids. Refusing to provide a service, or jacking > up the price, or playing favorites to give unfair advantage to some > industries, are demonstrably bad for society. No, it isn't. My farmer just jacked up the price of lard. Why? Because she's the only person around selling pasture-raised organic lard, and people are buying it from all over the place. And, because she can. She raised the price from $6 to $8.50. Buy doing that, she's doing us all a service. Because the higher the price goes, the more incentive for someone else to get in on the action. So, by pursuing her own self-interest, she's unconsciously sending a signal to society-- that demand for lard is higher than supply. That induces supply to increase, until we reach and equilibrium. Had she not been self-interested and had she considered my right to cheaper lard over her interest of more money, we would be forever stuck with too high a demand for good lard, and too little supply. Same thing with electricity, or housing, or anything else. If there is a shortage of supply, the last thing you need is cheap prices! That will encourage overconsumption, and lead to shortages. What you need is for the supplier to jack up the price whenever he can get away with it-- if there's plenty of supply, he CAN'T get away with it. If there isn't enough supply, he CAN. If you put price caps, you get shortages. One of the Roman Emperors, Dometian Diocletian, I forget which one, put price caps on food and wound up with massive famine. It's not just a matter of rights; it IS what WORKS. No one person trying to decide what's " fair " can possibly tabulate all the information necessary to set the right prices to induce people to conserve during shortages, to consume during excess, and to induce suppliers to supply more in shortages. In the Soviet Union they realized that after a while and tried to use K-Mart catalogues to set prices, but that didn't really work, since supply and demand in USSR don't necessarily correspond to US. If a supplier tried to be selfless and keep costs low, it would destroy the price system and send all the wrong signals and incentives to the rest of society. > In general I'd agree the gov't shouldn't commit crimes or break it's > own laws. But in our society, the Nation core does have a unique > place, as do the courts. Someone has to be the " police " and manage > the units of transaction, and deal with other Nations. Unless we > all go back to being city-states and having *local* wars like we > used to. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I agree with you. > >Just as corporations can't use the government to take people's property > (such > >as taxing and subsidizing), they just the same can't hire thugs or > Pinkertons > >to take someone else's property. Where's the double standard? > > You seem to get down on the gov't more than others ... maybe > I am misunderstanding. However, if the gov't didn't > stop the Pinkertons, who would? The government should stop the Pinkertons, if the Pinkertons are stealing other people's proeprty. However, I'm not aware of Pinkertons ever doing that. I think Pinkertons were used to *protect* private property. > >It just simply defies reality to say that monopolies have never did > anything > >positive for consumers. > > No, and in some cases a well-run open monopoly works a lot better. > The " open " part is the issue. If there is public oversight, a monopoly > can be very efficient. Case in point being Enron ... public utilities are > monopolies, and often run very well. But if you privatize the > utility so make is supposedly non-monopolistic, then a putz > takes it over, now you have a non-controlled monopoly that > can wreck havoc and was demonstrably BAD for consumers. > I get hurt every other month when I pay my electric bill. Here in MA they had a " deregulation bill " that was anything but. It was a massive bailout for the electric companies and I think some nuclear company, and six-year price caps. But deregulation is good. Now we have an enrvironmentalist-run cooperative, which was an option we wouldn't have had before deregulation. Rockefeller and Carnegie didn't have gov't oversight or regulation, nor did Ford, but they benefited consumers and workers. > Which is where the gov't has to step in and play policeman. > Ditto for stock fraud. A " benign dictator " is a very nice workable > system ... if you can make sure that the dictator is always > benign. Carnegie might have been, but were his successors? > Gates does some good things, but he also has givent his > country the buggiest mess of computers we've ever seen, largely > by using monopolistic and illegal practices. I'm not up on it much myself. Personally I *liked* DOS! But there's no question in my mind that the present computer population was mostly computer illiterate 10 or 15 years ago, and that most people who use computers today NEED Windows, for better or worse. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/15/04 9:33:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, mfjewett@... writes: > Somehow I can't equate " every man for himself " as moral. Pretty sure I > can't call it ethical either. I DON'T believe in " every man for himself. " I DO believe in community. I DO believe in cooperation. I DO believe in generosity. ative institutions arise voluntarily, and are superior to government bureacracies. Economically, people flourish when they pursue their own interest. Here's the catch: It's in your own interest to offer value to other people! If you run a business, but you don't offer anything to your customer, the customer doesn't buy anything from you. If everyone's interest was opposed to everyone else's, then the pursuit of self-interest would be a disaster. But it isn't. People are interconnected and mutually benefit each other. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 >I don't agree with your position exactly -- I do believe that the concept >of morality is useful and not pure invention -- but in the sense that it >must have a foundation to be defensible, and that foundation must >incorporate and account for real human nature, I agree completely. It used >to work fairly well (at least in some times and places) to say this is >moral and that's immoral " because God said so " , but we have to go beyond >that now, and saying " just because " simply isn't going to work. All >elements of an argument, including its foundations, must be defensible and >explainable. : I think of " morality " as a kind of shorthand for " what seems to work " or " what the rules are " -- and your description of everything being defensible and explainable is a good way to explain it. Usually when people talk about " immoral " , for instance, they mean " breaking the sexual mores " -- which at various times has included wearing red dresses, showing your ankles, wearing makeup. Usually includes adultery, but can include various types of other sexual or semi-sexual activities. It is much clearer (to me anyway) to say " in our society, this is socially acceptable behavior " -- or even " in our religion, the rules are " (like the Torah). I actually like the Torah a lot, because it SAYS it is a set of rules, and it is very explicit. My Mom used to call rich, sugary foods " sin foods " which got me thinking about the whole issue. Is eating food a moral issue? For the Puritans it was, I think, and it is in some religions. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/15/04 11:31:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, implode7@... writes: > >I think that concluding a concept is humanitarian even while > >admitting it is not workable " now or ever " is more a sign of > >an ideological fixation than the converse. > > Really? How exactly does that work? When the US wanted to obliterate Kosovo for fun, or " credibility " or whatever, and all the pundits were clamoring " We can't just stand idly by and do nothing! " , morally indignant at the supposed crimes of the Serbs, cool-headed fellows like Chomsky pointed out that one should observe Hippocrates' rule " First, do no harm. " Of course it's moral to desire the welfare of all. But if your method is not practical, and leads to disaster despite your intentions, it is fundamentally imoral and pathological to continue to deny that reality and pursue the impractical cause. Just like the humanitarian pretext of saving refugees and all the moral indignation in the world won't change the fact that the bombing caused increased retribution, rather than solving the problem. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 I may be sorry for this, but ... At 06:47 PM 1/15/04 EST, wrote: > And, the point is, that where people pursue their own interests ... That sounds a lot like " every man for himself " (or woman, dog, whale) >... you get economic growth .... Certainly. >... and, within reason, a moral culture Somehow I can't equate " every man for himself " as moral. Pretty sure I can't call it ethical either. And what do you mean " within reason " ? MFJ Any moment in which you feel like dancing is a perfect moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/16/04 12:24:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > Your analysis only holds for single-product and/or single-service > corporations. > > When a corporate conglomerate owns, say, a pharmaceutical company and a > media company, the exact same conflict emerges, and that's just a > particularly dramatic example. I agree that that is a potential problem, but it doesn't comapre to a central economy. I'd raised the issue of a central economy, and you responded by saying I had a double standard in my opposition to centralization. So all that's relevant here is comparing the dynamic to centrally planned economy, and ther e is no comparison. > > >And, the point is, that where people pursue their own interests, you get > >economic growth and, within reason, a moral culture, whereas in the > centrally > >planned economy you get economic and moral disaster. > > The entire matter of a centrally-planned economy is a straw man you've just > introduced into the argument. From what I recall, it was a direct response to Heidi's metaphor about computer programs and nervous systems. Since the particular email wasn't addressed to you, how can I be said to be introducing a straw man, with the apparent basis that you don't advocate a centrally planned economy? I know that neither you nor Heidi agree with central planning. But it isn't a straw man at all; it was a demonstrative device, to show why the dynamics between a nervous system and a society are entirely different and why it was not a valid analogy. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.