tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post1333158515929571071..comments2024-03-28T06:22:23.961-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Battles over Symbols - and how to take back your vote!David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20087810573692071552018-10-30T01:53:02.015-07:002018-10-30T01:53:02.015-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.siskahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07076079736141144027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1663235765526777222015-08-28T19:01:04.358-07:002015-08-28T19:01:04.358-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66186325555560999132015-08-28T18:51:46.179-07:002015-08-28T18:51:46.179-07:00This article has an interesting conceit:that the &...This article has an interesting conceit:that the "Center" in American politics is the realm of corporatism, and not real voters.<br /><br />http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9214015/tech-nerds-politics?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=feedback-prompt&utm_medium=social&utm_source=feedback-prompt%3Afacebook#<br /><br />Well-written and full of links, this strikes me as someone who is David's fellow traveler, but writing from another angle. Check it out. Worth your time. A lot of talk about nerds' disinterest in politics too <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70034361520466989802015-08-28T18:15:34.558-07:002015-08-28T18:15:34.558-07:00Certain Traditions
This is Scotland you are talki...Certain Traditions<br /><br />This is Scotland you are talking about<br /><br />The English had their Magna-Carter - limiting the rights of the King over the Barons<br />The Scots had the "Declaration of Arbroath"<br />Basically declaring that the King of the Scots was Scot's business and that the people would select or de-select their king <br />normally on the grounds that we need a new one - that one is not breathing any more)<br />A rough and ready early form of democracy<br /><br /><br />As far as "oiling the guillotines" is concerned<br /><br />You are not free if somebody else has power over you - (The point RAH was making, and he was not known as a leftie)<br /><br />The only way you can negotiate a deal over your labor is if both parties have comparable amounts of power<br />So any negotiation between a factory owner and a worker smacks of slavery unless the workers are properly unionized so that they have comparable power<br />duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80008866778442738882015-08-28T17:52:27.055-07:002015-08-28T17:52:27.055-07:00What Adam Smith didn't point out, though, is t...What Adam Smith didn't point out, though, is that voters in a mood are a force that drives competing traders to meet. His homeland wasn't exactly democratic at the time. Commoners had less influence upon legislation that enforced old and new market rules.<br /><br />Cause and Effect. This stuff matters.<br /><br /><br />Go ahead and oil the guillotine, but be prepared to create a society too stupid to recognize why certain traditions formed in the first place.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64920131594324429122015-08-28T17:24:52.702-07:002015-08-28T17:24:52.702-07:00When the factory owners want to leave en masse, it...When the factory owners want to leave en masse, it is time to pay attention and understand why. They just might have a point to make.<br /><br />As Adam Smith said<br /><br />People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices…. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary.<br /><br />and<br /><br />To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.<br /><br />When the factory owners all want to do something it's time to oil the guillotine<br />duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54827031502747976172015-08-28T17:04:35.642-07:002015-08-28T17:04:35.642-07:00Just because I depend upon you does not make your ...Just because I depend upon you does not make your choices coercive if they fail to serve my needs. Fair markets foster dependencies among participants and produce as a byproduct a division of labor that benefits all. Make them less than fair, though, and you get what many of us feel is a form of cheating. Basically, we impose market rules and meta-rules. If you want to participate (and benefit), there are a slew of 'thou shalts' and 'thou shalt nots'.<br /><br />I suggest that it is useful to avoid over burdening the meaning of 'freedom' with the consequences of immoral market behavior. Leave it at 'not coerced' and deal with the rule breakers separately. I understand that this approaches means I could find myself one day free to starve to death if other participants fail to trade with me, but that risk is far better than confusing what freedom is. If all participants fail to trade with me, I can still resort to time-tested methods of acquiring what I need.<br /><br /><br />When the factory owners want to leave en masse, it is time to pay attention and understand why. They just might have a point to make.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46613959241430399212015-08-28T16:57:35.151-07:002015-08-28T16:57:35.151-07:00For the record, LarryHart, I certainly don't h...For the record, LarryHart, I certainly don't hold you accountable for David Brooks' blindness. Thanks for the link, even. Isn't he a piece of work? You're right.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14185813001187410502015-08-28T16:38:06.712-07:002015-08-28T16:38:06.712-07:00Hi Guys
Heinlein in one of his autobiographical wo...Hi Guys<br />Heinlein in one of his autobiographical works talks about a depression era political party in California<br />I forget the name of the party but it was promising to spread the largess around the voters<br />The local factory owners announced that if that party won they would be shutting down<br /><br />Robert Heinlein's comment was that those voters were "not free citizens" because they depended on the factory owners<br /><br />This is where the "Having some control over the society that we live in" comes in<br /><br />In a true democracy the citizens have "control" over their government<br />I personally like the idea of a constitutional democracy or republic where we don't have the "dictatorship of the majority"<br />Which is why "some control" <br /> <br />The recent study showing that the wishes of the majority has no effect on legislation in the USA means that the current situation is closer to "no control" duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76745169144068593582015-08-28T16:19:09.616-07:002015-08-28T16:19:09.616-07:00@LarryHart: Oh. Okay. My thick skull is penetrated...@LarryHart: Oh. Okay. My thick skull is penetrated. 8)<br /><br />I've meet two 'bosses' in my career who obviously intended coercion while I was at work. They did not see it that way, of course. They saw me as their tool while I was being paid. I disagreed strongly and with one I quit in very short order. The second was already pissing off others around her, so I decided to wait her out. <br /><br />Employees are not tools even in the lowest manufacturing job, but we can choose to let ourselves be treated that way. I'd rather leave and find something else to do. Any 'boss' who persisted beyond that would be an enslaver and worthy of an act of violence.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6796935823869554512015-08-28T14:31:21.828-07:002015-08-28T14:31:21.828-07:00Alfred Differ:
Your blurriness regarding the two ...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />Your blurriness regarding the two freedom definitions is an example, unfortunately. Coercion must require intent. If I choose to sell to others the stuff you need to live, I am not coercing you. What I’m doing is behaving in an immoral manner. If I choose not to sell stuff at all, the situation is similar. What we have in this case is immoral behavior in the market. The solution isn’t to broaden the definition of ‘coercion’, but to employ new terms like ‘inhuman’ and ‘what kind of monster are you?’<br /></i><br /><br />No, you didn't get what I was trying to say (which might be my fault as much as it might be yours). I was agreeing with you that scarcity of resources doesn't keep one from being "free", at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.<br /><br />For the second point, I was trying to give an example of an employer who actually <b>does</b> use the power inherent in his near-monopoly over employment <b>as</b> a club to force his "serfs" to conform to his desires above and beyond the requirements of the workplace--say to vote as he dictates or to "volunteer" for his favorite politician. In other words, I was trying to describe the situation of having no choice but to work for an employer whose intent <b>was</b> coercive. And saying that someone in that situation is not free.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34708926582554770852015-08-28T14:23:54.793-07:002015-08-28T14:23:54.793-07:00Jumper:
David Brooks' whimpering in the NYT i...Jumper:<br /><i><br />David Brooks' whimpering in the NYT is not helpful.<br /></i><br />I was not agreeing (or disagreeing) with his overall thesis.<br /><br />I meant only to call attention to the similarity between "We don't understand why every time ISIS seems to sabotage its own image, it ends up <b>gaining</b> in popularity and influence", and the same assertion applied to Donald Trump.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14930215774782886412015-08-28T14:08:22.005-07:002015-08-28T14:08:22.005-07:00@LarryHart: Okay. Your interpretation of Duncan’s ...@LarryHart: Okay. Your interpretation of Duncan’s ‘control’ makes more sense than mine. Through democracy, I get to have a say in the actions of my government, but I have no control. The people we elect are the ones who control things, so we have to be watchful. I’m probably just being overly sensitive to terminology choices, but I’ve learned over the years that these small slips cause enough confusion to matter.<br /><br />Your blurriness regarding the two freedom definitions is an example, unfortunately. Coercion must require intent. If I choose to sell to others the stuff you need to live, I am not coercing you. What I’m doing is behaving in an immoral manner. If I choose not to sell stuff at all, the situation is similar. What we have in this case is immoral behavior in the market. The solution isn’t to broaden the definition of ‘coercion’, but to employ new terms like ‘inhuman’ and ‘what kind of monster are you?’Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5134854805334343062015-08-28T13:53:25.547-07:002015-08-28T13:53:25.547-07:00David Brooks' whimpering in the NYT is not hel...David Brooks' whimpering in the NYT is not helpful.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22044898449086830072015-08-28T13:43:18.438-07:002015-08-28T13:43:18.438-07:00Alfred Differ:
4:Having some control over the soc...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />4:Having some control over the society that we live in<br /><br />The first is essentially the negative definition. The second and third are essentially the positive definition. The fourth ensures others are NOT free by either definition. Personally spiffy, but it sucks to be someone else.<br /></i><br /><br />By <b>some</b> control (emphasis mine), I took Duncan to mean something along the lines of "Having some participation in...", "Having a say in...", "Having a vote in...". You assert that he means something that makes it suck to be anyone besides him, but aren't you asserting that it has to suck to <b>be</b> him? That for anyone else to be free, he must be subject to <b>their</b> whims?<br /><br />I'm thinking of his point #4 as something along the lines of "Freedom to petition the government for redress." It doesn't mean you're going to win every petition--just that you are not a second class citizen or "guest worker" or slave --that you have legal standing in your community.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3581231477667879712015-08-28T13:32:35.630-07:002015-08-28T13:32:35.630-07:00Alfred Differ:
The first is a negative definition...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />The first is a negative definition which is what I offered. You are free if you are not coerced. The second is a positive definition which I reject. You are free if no one deprives you of or constrains your access to the means you need for life.<br /></i><br /><br />I maintain there is a blurry distinction between "coercion" and "withholding (not your term) the means of survival".<br /><br />I think you are arguing that just because one has to toil for a living doesn't mean one is not free. Which I mainly agree with, under the condition that the options to toil for a living are available, and that "willigness to work" and "ability to work" are the primary constraints upon one's access to the means of survivial.<br /><br />OTOH, when the situation arises that the means of survival are mostly the private property of someone else, and that the private owner gets to bestow or withhold such as suits his whim, that is "coercion". I see little difference between having to do what the person with a gun to my head demands, or having to do what the person who can starve my family demands.<br /><br />If working for an employer in exchange for (his) money is simply an alternative to toiling to grow one's own food and such, then yes, I think I'm agreeing with you that the worker is essentially "free" even if he has to sell his freedom of action for a number of hours each day. To me, that's an entirely different dynamic from the worker who has no choice but to work for an employer who demands obedience with the power to cut off your access to food, shelter, health care, and the like if you don't comply. In the latter case, "coercion" really does seem to be the operative dynamic.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58500184639225114962015-08-28T13:30:59.753-07:002015-08-28T13:30:59.753-07:00@Duncan: Yowza.
Freedom
1:Not being a slave
2:Not...@Duncan: Yowza.<br /><br />Freedom<br />1:Not being a slave<br />2:Not having to kowtow to anybody for the essentials of life food water living space<br />3:Having control of our own lifestyle<br />4:Having some control over the society that we live in<br /><br />The first is essentially the negative definition. The second and third are essentially the positive definition. The fourth ensures others are NOT free by either definition. Personally spiffy, but it sucks to be someone else.<br /><br />Freedom should never imply one has control over anything. As long as no one controls us, we are free. If we have no control of our own selves, that is a very different problem.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67468702549918193502015-08-28T13:25:00.936-07:002015-08-28T13:25:00.936-07:00You just have to wonder about some people:
"...You just have to wonder about some people:<br /><br />"Gartner said she did nothing illegal when contacting Henderson and was surprised Henderson viewed her contact negatively."<br /><br />To me, this translates as someone thinking, "What? You mean everyone isn't a jerk like me?"<br /><br />In my state, it's gotten bad enough that there may end up being definitions of what's geographically permissible in drawing districts. A city with a 1-road, 15 mile corridor to a sand mine isn't what any reasonable person would call reasonable. Note that, naturally, the county has stricter environmental controls than the city. <br /><br />Then again, we've had villages incorporate into cities defensively to keep from being annexed.<br /><br />And since I'm writing, on TWODA:<br /><br />I'm never quite sure whether some of the talking heads are ignorant or manipulative. I keep hoping for the former, while fearing the latter. In response to possible stricter ozone regulation, one of these winners said it wouldn't work in WI, because all our ozone is coming from Chicago and Gary anyway. Shows a basic lack of understanding of the state's weather patterns (from the west, almost never from the east at any vector, except for some lake effect breeze).raitonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59347324893750521872015-08-28T13:17:24.439-07:002015-08-28T13:17:24.439-07:00From this column in the New York Times:
http://www...<br />From this column in the New York Times:<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/opinion/david-brooks-when-isis-rapists-win.html<br /><i><br />“The clearest evidence that we do not understand this phenomenon is our consistent inability to predict — still less control — these developments,” the author writes. Every time we think ISIS has appalled the world and sabotaged itself, it holds its own or gains strength.<br /></i><br /><br />Why does this sound so much like the inability to understand the phenomenon which is Donald Trump?<br /><br />Also, from Paul Krugman's blog:<br />http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/<br /><br /><i><br />the entire Republican Party is controlled by climate denialists, and anti-science types more broadly. And in general the modern GOP is basically anti-rational analysis; it’s at war not just with the welfare state but with the Enlightenment.<br /></i>LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38087444118796063732015-08-28T13:16:52.862-07:002015-08-28T13:16:52.862-07:00Duncan Cairncross:
Security
First level
Not getti...Duncan Cairncross:<br /><i><br />Security<br />First level<br />Not getting killed/beaten up<br />Second level<br />Essentials of life food water living space<br />Third level<br />Property not getting stolen or broken<br /><br />...<br /><br /><br />Freedom<br />First level<br />Not being a slave<br />Second level<br />Not having to kowtow to anybody for the essentials of life food water living space<br />Third level<br />Having control of our own lifestyle<br />Fourth Level<br />Having some control over the society that we live in<br /></i><br /><br />As your example demonstrates, "Freedom" and "Security" are closely correlated. "Security to act freely" is a big part of it.<br /><br />Whereas locumranch seems to parse "Security" as something along the lines of "Comfort in the reliability of the status quo", that really equates to "Security" only for those who are currently comfortable <b>with</b> the status quo.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42310470584717483182015-08-28T13:15:56.106-07:002015-08-28T13:15:56.106-07:00locumranch:
Freedom & Diversity are akin to V...locumranch:<br /><i><br />Freedom & Diversity are akin to Violence (whereas Peace & Security imply Conformity), meaning that Pinker's coming Security Utopia reflects a Net LOSS of both Freedom & Diversity, justifying the assumption that our increasingly 'free' society may have created the biggest prison on the planet.<br /></i><br /><br />On the contrary, Security and Peace only imply Conformity if one is a conformist. If you have any individual tendencies which differ from the norm, then conformity is often enforced <b>by</b> violence. To (I suspect) the vast majority of human beings, "Security" involves ability to differ from the norm <b>without</b> violent retribution as a consequence--the diametric opposite of how you are using the terms.<br /><br /><br />You seem to parse the terms the way an Authoritarian does--"freedom" being the freedom to make people do what you perceive is correct, and "violence" as the effect an individual has on you when he does something you would prefer he not do. I think of "freedom" and "security" as rights of individuals to do as they wish (within the constraints imposed by the equal rights of others), whereas you seem to perceive those terms as the <b>group's</b> freedom <b>from</b> individuals. It's the same a$$-backwards thinking which is currently used to parse the 1st Amendment's "Freedom of Religion" not as the individual's freedom to practice religion as he chooses, but rather as the freedom of a <b>church</b> to impose its will <b>on</b> individuals.<br /><br />As Paul Krugman once put it, you probably cheer for President Snow against Katniss too. :)<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55581051591602984712015-08-28T13:15:37.553-07:002015-08-28T13:15:37.553-07:00@Alex: I assure you I’ve given thought to the comp...@Alex: I assure you I’ve given thought to the complexities in the meaning of ‘freedom.’ I recognize (and have written about here) two main types that lead to a number of issues upon further reflection. The first is a negative definition which is what I offered. You are free if you are not coerced. The second is a positive definition which I reject. You are free if no one deprives you of or constrains your access to the means you need for life. We all pay attention to the positive definition, but it is fraught with paradoxes. Parse most classical libs and you’ll find we (mostly) use the negative definition and address commodity restraints with different terms from our markets.<br /><br />By the negative definition, people who choose to self-censor are free. By the positive definition, they are not because they constrain each other voluntarily. By the negative definition, theists can be free when their actions involve voluntary adoption of the demands of their god. By the positive definition, they are not free.<br /><br />Parse David’s writing in his terms instead of yours and I think you’ll find someone who adheres more to the negative definition than the positive. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. If I am, I predict it will be because he respects the moral argument for the need for positive freedom. I do too, but in doing so I try to avoid terminology confusion. A definition full of paradoxes is of little use to me.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24551046219802235222015-08-28T12:53:33.626-07:002015-08-28T12:53:33.626-07:00@Alex: We could argue about what ‘release’ means, ...@Alex: We could argue about what ‘release’ means, but I like you enough not to do that. Instead, I’ll let you know I’m using the professional meaning. Once the copy is out of the control of people who have sworn to protect classified data, it is ‘released.’ If extra copies of it exist, but remain in under control of cleared personnel, then it has ‘leaked.’ Snowden did both, but it is the release I found initially annoying. Taking information with him when he fled overseas is an even worse release potential. Only a fool thinks they can by themselves protect classified information from a competent foreign government. Whether the Russians have his information isn’t something they are going to tell us without a cost involved, but we have to assume they do. I don’t care how bright someone thinks they are regarding encryption; they are a fool to face off against competent intelligence agencies. They are a worse fool that the person who represents themselves in court.<br /><br />Resignation is a matter of professionalism. Personal integrity is a big part of what we do. If you want to complain about your employer in this business, you start early by quitting. That makes it clear they don’t deserve the service you could otherwise provide.<br /><br />Regarding an insider threat program… yes. We have means of dealing with these risks. Obviously they weren’t good enough at the time, so improvements are required. Everyone in the business knows where the soft spots are, but it takes getting burned occasionally to remember that fire is hot. Unfortunately.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42691161515458906112015-08-28T12:12:49.563-07:002015-08-28T12:12:49.563-07:00Thanks Sociotard. Ah gerrymandering!
This is a f...Thanks Sociotard. Ah gerrymandering! <br /><br />This is a familiar thing in California, where most elective potitics has improved markedly, but these legacy “cities” and “districts” have olden-times grandfathered ability to basically run their own cloistered mafia dens.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12390887360915017402015-08-28T10:19:03.568-07:002015-08-28T10:19:03.568-07:00For anyone interested in Gerrymandering:
Business...For anyone interested in Gerrymandering:<br /><br /><a href="http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/27/1415949/-Business-owners-try-to-remove-all-voters-from-business-district-but-they-forgot-one-college-student" rel="nofollow">Business owners try to remove all voters from business district but they forgot one college student</a><br />the city council created a special 'business' district. This district would be allowed to vote to create a half cent sales tax to pay for local improvements rather than using property tax increases. There is a special rule that says if no registered voters exist in an area, the property owners are allowed to vote BUT one U of M student registered at her CoMO address. And the county clerk has certified that she is the sole voter allowed in the up coming vote.<br /><br /> Now the owners are barred from voting. Will have to raise taxes (if they want those district improvements) and raise them even more to pay off the debt they incurred to finance this deal. <br />sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.com