tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post4821668482715115346..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Bringing back feudalism -- is libertarianism an unwitting tool?David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53146698329667589162013-11-15T11:19:13.819-08:002013-11-15T11:19:13.819-08:00So many of the Libertarians I meet or exchange wit...So many of the Libertarians I meet or exchange with on the internet are not Libertarians at all, but are FoxNewsians or Rushians. They think they are Libertarians, but they seem to take everything the right says as gospel.<br /><br />They have all told me that taxes are theft and coercion. That all my beloved government institutions (in Canada) are socialism, because Canada is such a terribly socialist country. They say the only real use of a government is the military and courts to enforce contract law, although I do admit to being confused how they do either tasks without any taxes or coercion to pay for them.<br /><br />Of course, you can have a civilization without either. Perhaps not for long, but still, they are both optional. As is healthcare. I'm just willing to admit that I am willing to pay taxes to get healthcare and the catastrophic health insurance my country provides to it's citizens. <br /><br />I view it as my obligation as a member of society. I understand in a complex society I will pay for things via taxes that I don't or won't use or support, but I benefit from them being available to others. For instance, k through 12 education. <br /><br />It seems to me that many libertarians forget they once got an education and want to take it away from future children. Cutting off their nose to spite their face.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10749223028166980192013-09-19T18:28:29.711-07:002013-09-19T18:28:29.711-07:00David,
For someone who proudly takes the title of...David, <br />For someone who proudly takes the title of "contrarian", you certainly react poorly to being contradicted. By dismissively and, from my POV, insultingly jumping to the conclusion that I am "clueless", you are missing a point which I feel could be valuable to you.<br /><br />First off...<br />Not an OED "snippet". That is the full text of the abridged (online) entry. No quote-mining on my part. When it comes to what a word means (outside of a technical context at least), deferring to the OED is not a bad idea.<br /><br />Secondly...<br />Smith wrote nothing about capitalism. The word did not appear in any English text until 2 years after he died.<br />The term 'capitalism' was not really popularized until eight decades later (Das Capital), and Marx used it in a sense quite concordant with the OED definition.<br /><br />The important point you are missing...<br />The "dispersed, diverse, fluid version" you and I both hope to preserve and promote is not capitalism. Capitalism itself is perfectly consistent with the aristocracies and oligopolies. In fact, Marx's contribution was to show that capitalism will lead to those outcomes if unchecked.<br /><br />Even assuming we adopt an expansive and functionally pointless meaning for the term 'capitalism', we still don't need "more capitalism"... since as you admit, it can either be good or bad.<br />What we need to be advocating for are the necessary and appropriate checks on capitalism (and capitalists) so that a "dispersed, diverse, fluid" economy can continue exist.<br /><br />Yes, the distinction might be lost on the "clueless", but it is rather important.<br /><br />BTW: You completely miss the point about my "paean to feudalism" too. I'm not a fan of feudalism, but feudalism is more orderly, stable, and arguably just than unrestrained capitalism.<br />Fortunately, we have the great Enlightenment institutions and don't have to resort to the divine right of kinds and nobleness oblige to check the accumulation of power by the powerful.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60027321358523063242013-09-19T17:11:38.327-07:002013-09-19T17:11:38.327-07:00I'm currently doing a Coursera unit on Climate...I'm currently doing a Coursera unit on Climate Change, partly because it's run by University of Melbourne, and features ex-fellow postgraduate Prof. David Jamieson.<br /><br />Stuff I've learned so far (ranges from 'Duh!' to 'Ah...!'):<br /><br />On effect:<br />- 'greenhouse' gases are those with more than 2 atoms in their molecular makeup<br />- N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases for this reason<br />- greenhouse gases can absorb IR energy radiated from ground by 'wobbling' (Ok 'twerking' if you *must*...!)<br />- absorbed energy is re-emitted in all directions, rather than back into space, so it hangs around in the system for longer.<br />- H20 is dominant greenhouse gas, causing ~30degrees warming. (otherwise av. global temp. would be -15C, by simple blackbody calculations)<br />- atmospheric H2O concentration is saturated, but increasing temperature will increase concentration.<br />- CO2 causes warming of a degree or so, *but* this effect is magnified ~6x as it allows H2O concentrations to increase.<br /><br />As to cause:<br />- atmospheric CO2 is increasing<br />- atmospheric O2 is decreasing at same rate => combustion<br />- C14 isotopes are created in atmosphere by cosmic rays striking N14<br />- C14 has a half-life of a couple of thousand years.<br />- C14 does not occur in underground carbon sources as it will have decayed away in less than a million years (volcanoes, or fossil fuels)<br />- atmospheric C14 concentrations are dropping ie: amount is the same, but *not* increasing with CO2 levels => extra carbon is sourced from underground (not eg burning vegetation, but fossil fuels, or volcanoes)<br />- Plants preferentially absorb C12 over C13<br />- observed C13 concentrations in atmospheric CO2 are dropping => carbon source has less C13 => carbon source is fossil fuels rather than vulcanism.<br /><br />While on isotopes...<br />- O16 and O18 are naturally occurring, and stable.<br />- O18, in water (H2O18), being heavier, tends to evaporate less readily and condense more easily.<br />- This means O18 is less common in polar regions, since weather transport systems leaves it at the equator.<br />- The effect is dependent on temperature (the warmer conditions are, the more O18 can migrate)<br />- historical concentrations of CO2 and O16-18 abundances can be measured from ice cores.<br />- this allows a calibration graph to be created mapping CO2 concentrations (driver) vs O16-18 ratios => atmospheric temperature (effect)<br />- Graph suggests that CO2 concentrations of 400ppm => temperature that is 6 degrees warmer than at present.<br />- Graph is defined by best fit mechanisms from a lot of data points, but still has a lot of uncertainty in it.<br />- This is one of many techniques used to gauge temperature effects<br /><br />Here endeth the lesson. I hope people find it informative (there are a couple of items I had not been aware of). I doubt it will convince anyone, though. Too rational.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64066424664779393222013-09-19T16:52:31.966-07:002013-09-19T16:52:31.966-07:00Mel Baker:
Anyone who made an argument in which t...Mel Baker:<br /><i><br />Anyone who made an argument in which they've had to reluctantly and angrily back away from total denial to "not that bad" would be laughed out of a High School debating class. <br /></i><br /><br />Wait until they get to "We said there was climate change all along (duh!). We just don't think fossil fuels are to blame."<br /><br />Inevitably dovetailing toward "We (Republicans) have been trying to fix climate change for years, but the Democrats kept obstructing our efforts."LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24123179877283251212013-09-19T12:25:31.478-07:002013-09-19T12:25:31.478-07:00Now the latest climate change denialist argument i...Now the latest climate change denialist argument is that it won't warm that much. It's akin to be utterly thrilled when the doctor says "it's only stage 3 lung cancer, not stage 4 as we originally thought!" <br /><br />So that's it, that's your argument for blasting those of us concerned about this issue, it isn't THAT bad? <br /><br />Anyone who made an argument in which they've had to reluctantly and angrily back away from total denial to "not that bad" would be laughed out of a High School debating class. <br /><br />Mel Bakernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69142516187015725132013-09-19T11:12:19.429-07:002013-09-19T11:12:19.429-07:00Travc, sorry but you are clueless. Even though th...Travc, sorry but you are clueless. Even though the OED snippet you selected oversimplifies the hard work of Smith and Marx and so many others, even so, it does not mean what you think it means. Capitalism even by that definition can be about highly dispersed and fluid ownership or else highly consolidated and sclerotic ownership. The latter is what happens when oligarchy takes root and you have seen me inveigh against it… <br /><br />…but you fail to note that the dispersed, diverse, fluid version that empowers the maximum number of agile participants is exactly what even the Austrian School folks like F. Hayek call the "best" form. Adam Smith denounced the oligarchic version as one more type of dismal feudalism, denying and repressing all the good that can come from a vigorously competitive entrepreneurial market.<br /><br />Have you ever read Marx? He describes the "contradictions" of capitalism and how markets CAN only move from agile to sclerotic. The US repeatedly proved him wrong by taking his progression and re-setting it, both with the Progressive Era reforms of 1901 etc and the Rooseveltean reforms, and with the mostly-social reforms of our lifetime (civil rights etc.) Such a reset is desperately needed now! But not impossible. Though Marx thought it was and this time he might prove right.<br /><br />Sorry, your paean to feudalism is silly. The guys with swords took what they wanted and chopped head when peasnats objected.,<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84372017983941725862013-09-19T10:26:53.847-07:002013-09-19T10:26:53.847-07:00David, I think your "Not giving mass killers ...David, I think your "Not giving mass killers what they want" meme is catching on.<br /><a href="http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20130919/" rel="nofollow"> Least I Could Do webcomic </a>matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19286948531156773582013-09-19T04:07:12.596-07:002013-09-19T04:07:12.596-07:00In a cooler frame of mind this morning about Forbe...In a cooler frame of mind this morning about Forbes...<br /><br />The writer of that article has...difficulty...distinguishing betweeen two very different things.<br /><br />Someone who actually does produce enormous wealth (where it didn't exist before) and gets rich in the process has the right to that wealth. And I think most Americans would be happy for him and many would aspire to be him in the future.<br /><br />OTOH, someone who acquires wealth by cornering the market on essentials that the rest of us have no choice but to "bargain" for or die? Not at all the same thing.<br /><br />The author makes the same mistake Ayn Rand does, to begin with the proposition that "If you HAVE wealth, then you properly EARNED that wealth" and draw all sorts of conclusions from that faulty premise.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9648913206968556852013-09-19T01:18:38.762-07:002013-09-19T01:18:38.762-07:00Re: Climate change being a theory...
You might al...Re: Climate change being a theory...<br /><br />You might also want to point out that there is no such thing as a "fact" scientifically speaking. There is observed data of course, but even that isn't taken on faith.<br /><br />I'd actually call "climate change" a hypothesis. Do we observe the climate changing or is it statistically indistinguishable from whatever baseline (say 200 to 150 years ago)... The answer is yes, we do see it changing.<br /><br />Anthropogenic Climate Change is more of a theory in my book. It provides a more comprehensive explanatory/predictive model. Increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses trapping solar radiation and therefore causing an increased overall (net) temperature and generally more energetic weather.<br /><br />BTW: "Laws" don't outrank theories. A law is a simple empirically deduced relationship between things (like masses and the force of gravity). Also, laws only hold over a limited range of conditions. Even the law of universal gravitation isn't actually universal (or precisely correct for that matter).<br /><br />Of course, there is a lot of variation in how these terms end up being used. Historical names holding on and stuff like that. But I'm just "generally speaking".Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46641845633808066922013-09-19T00:37:23.184-07:002013-09-19T00:37:23.184-07:00David, at the risk of annoying you again and being...David, at the risk of annoying you again and being a bit pedantic...<br /><br />I don't think the word "capitalism" means what you think it means.<br />The OED defines Capitalism as:<br /><i>an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.</i><br /><br />Private owners controlling trade and industry for profit. At least without some other qualifier added to it, capitalism is pretty much the "aspiring aristocrats and lords have already won" situation.<br /><br />Given that we've had over half a century of more-or-less Orwellian attempts to re-brand capitalism as everything good and light (as opposed evil communism), using the word incorrectly is pretty understandable.<br /><br />What I think we both want is a <b>market-oriented mixed economy</b>. I'd go a bit farther and add "with a robust but limited financial system."<br />"Free enterprise" isn't a bad term either.<br /><br />Capitalism, by my understanding and I'd argue a plain reading of the word (CAPITALism), is a pretty vile system where control is in the hands of those who own the capital resources. Of course, that power will be used to accumulate more unless there is a countervailing force.<br /><br />BTW: Feudalism is arguably one of those countervailing forces which can control the capitalistic concentration of power. The lords/aristocrats didn't own their lands and serfs (the capital of the day), they were given control of them by the sovereign. The acquisition of additional lands was limited to by the crown, and the crown naturally didn't want any particular lord to become too powerful. Sovereigns checked each other's power.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67562754527877697072013-09-18T23:42:24.752-07:002013-09-18T23:42:24.752-07:00Climate change is a theory, of course.
One that&#...Climate change is a theory, of course.<br /><br />One that's pretty robust, and one with consequences. That's why it generates a bit more emotional steam than dark matter, for instance.<br />Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64283175629161022192013-09-18T21:57:02.336-07:002013-09-18T21:57:02.336-07:00http://www.salon.com/2013/09/17/the_most_depressin...http://www.salon.com/2013/09/17/the_most_depressing_discovery_about_the_brain_ever_partner/<br /><br />Cute article but hardly news, previously documented by the Stoics, Skeptics & Empiricists, that logic and rationality are easily corrupted by partiality, desire, passion & emotionality, hence the importance of 'emotional distance' & impartiality in any and all scientific endeavours.<br /><br />Regardless of the ramifications of Worst Case Scenarios like Climate Change, Polar Shifts or extinction level events, the truth or falsity of any hypothesis is NOT important.<br /><br />Only the FACTS count. Hypotheses are DESIGNED to be discarded on the basis of objective & reproducible observation. Facts come first and theory comes second. To argue otherwise is sheer folly.<br /><br />When the data conflicts with the current theory, then that theory is said to be false. When supported by evidentiary data, then we say that that theory is trustworthy, treowe or true, a type of truth which should NEVER be confused with absolute certainty.<br /><br />And, people, Climate Change is just a theory. It is a good theory, to be sure, but it should be treated with the appropriate level of indifference. Otherwise, it becomes infallible, an article of faith, a religion rather than science.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Best.locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32096498984919391782013-09-18T21:49:36.114-07:002013-09-18T21:49:36.114-07:00Rush recorded this song back in 1975, but it seems...Rush recorded this song back in 1975, but it seems far more relevant today.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekoxIb85rww</a>Jonathan S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77719956693227732572013-09-18T19:39:55.271-07:002013-09-18T19:39:55.271-07:00From the article again:
Instead, we live in a cul...From the article again:<br /><i><br />Instead, we live in a culture where Goldman Sachs is smeared as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.” That’s for the sin of successful investing, channeling savings to their most productive uses, instead of wasting them on government boondoggles like Solyndra and bridges to nowhere.<br /></i><br /><br />Really? Goldman Sachs is a crator of value? Not a thief of value?<br /><br /><i><br />There is indeed a vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity: ...<br /><br />And Ayn Rand is just the lady who can do it.<br /></i><br /><br />Heh. Ok, I know that was a low blow, but so what?<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82652725578226381222013-09-18T19:35:56.526-07:002013-09-18T19:35:56.526-07:00From the evil Forbes article:
Each particular ind...From the evil Forbes article:<br /><i><br />Each particular individual in the community who contributed to a man’s rise to wealth was paid at the time–either materially or, as in the case of parents and friends, spiritually. There is no debt to discharge. There is nothing to give back, because there was nothing taken away.<br /></i><br /><br />Nothing except the land, the water, the breathable air, the food, basically everything individuals need to support life. The 1% claim all that as their "property" now, and require the rest of us to deal with THEM for our right to live.<br /><br />It grates at my liberal sensibilities not to empathize and see the other's point of view, but in spite of myself and the way I like to view my character, I'm learning to HATE.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20779202480329415272013-09-18T19:30:00.089-07:002013-09-18T19:30:00.089-07:00Dr Brin:
Matthew it's "tumbrels" an...Dr Brin:<br /><i><br />Matthew it's "tumbrels" and yes, alas, we will likely become re-familiarized with the term. The Koch boys seem to be daring us all.<br /></i><br /><br />I re-read "A Tale of Two Cities" every five years or so, and each time it seems more relevant.<br /><br />I used to think we were headed for a new American Revolution, but the powerful seem to be doing everything in their power to prevent that from happening, not realizing (or not caring) that the only alternative is a new French Revolution instead.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90543535286879051942013-09-18T19:25:36.077-07:002013-09-18T19:25:36.077-07:00Robert:
So. How long do you think it'll take ...Robert:<br /><i><br />So. How long do you think it'll take for massive gun-control legislation to be passed by Republicans if a gunman storms one of the Koch households and kills a bunch of people there including one of the Koch Brothers?<br /><br />They ARE daring another French Revolution, after all.<br /></i><br /><br />I was thinking something similar when the news hit yesterday. Not so much a private household, but someone shooting up a CPAC meeting or an RNC fundraiser. Or maybe an NRA gathering.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58606644807744487692013-09-18T19:15:47.029-07:002013-09-18T19:15:47.029-07:00I find the one thing that gives gun guys sudden pa...I find the one thing that gives gun guys sudden pause is to explain to them that no major legislation will pass except say assault rifles or background checks and there is no "slippery slope" for one simple reason. Under Bush liberals started arming themselves.<br /><br />That makes them pause, blink... and gulp.<br /><br />The exact parallel is 1856 in the North where folks got sick and tired of irregular southern cavalry raiding from Illinois to Pennsylvania and began re-starting and drilling their militias.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88861772321058421352013-09-18T17:15:31.162-07:002013-09-18T17:15:31.162-07:00So. How long do you think it'll take for massi...So. How long do you think it'll take for massive gun-control legislation to be passed by Republicans if a gunman storms one of the Koch households and kills a bunch of people there including one of the Koch Brothers?<br /><br />They ARE daring another French Revolution, after all....<br /><br />Rob H., who is speculating in the classic "what if" scenario of writers, and not agitating the deaths of any human beings.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40771226694750135142013-09-18T12:47:59.675-07:002013-09-18T12:47:59.675-07:00@ "tumbrels" Interesting, Doc. I'd n...@ "tumbrels" Interesting, Doc. I'd never noticed the etymology before. Thanks for the correction.<br /> <br />"Tumbrel" - an open cart that tilted backward to empty out its load, in particular one used to convey condemned prisoners to the guillotine during the French Revolution.<br /><br />"Trundle" - (with reference to a wheeled vehicle or its occupants) move or cause to move slowly and heavily, typically in a noisy or uneven way.<br /><br />I have a bad habit of reading similar words as each other. My wife corrects me a lot. This is one that I hadn't caught yet.<br /><br />And it looks like the Forbes article is getting a lot of play on social media. I've seen it several times today. Expect more of this as it is no doubt increasing the clicks over there.matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48628101088892937232013-09-18T11:35:56.980-07:002013-09-18T11:35:56.980-07:00@matthew - Harry Binswanger has gone completely of...@matthew - Harry Binswanger has gone completely off the deep end. Forbes has always been supportive of the wealthy, especially after Malcolm died and Steve took over. But this article is just...extraordinary.<br /><br />As Krugnan has said, not only do the wealthy want more, they don't like any hint of disrespect either.<br /><br />I feel like I should be tugging my forelock already - if I still had one. Maybe I should buy a cloth cap?Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47388037766995415282013-09-18T11:00:46.148-07:002013-09-18T11:00:46.148-07:00Matthew it's "tumbrels" and yes, ala...Matthew it's "tumbrels" and yes, alas, we will likely become re-familiarized with the term. The Koch boys seem to be daring us all.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34210466126958515772013-09-18T07:22:51.745-07:002013-09-18T07:22:51.745-07:00And this is why the trundles will most probably ro...And this is why the trundles will most probably roll through our own streets. In our lifetimes. The single-most inexcusable, disheartening article I've read all week. From Forbes <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/09/17/give-back-yes-its-time-for-the-99-to-give-back-to-the-1/" rel="nofollow"> It's time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1% </a> matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63119529204216277062013-09-18T04:52:07.559-07:002013-09-18T04:52:07.559-07:00Preserved adult brain from a '70s mental hospi...Preserved adult brain from a '70s mental hospital has no folds and ridges on (or of) its cerebral cortex. Unfortunately the patient records were lost (along with those of another 100 preserved brains) so researchers can only guess the symptoms (other than "survived to adulthood.")<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929340.100-is-this-the-most-extraordinary-human-brain-ever-seen.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929340.100-is-this-the-most-extraordinary-human-brain-ever-seen.html</a><br /><br />Includes a picture of the smooth brain in question.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13681742835000802892013-09-17T19:50:46.545-07:002013-09-17T19:50:46.545-07:00David Brin, good post. I'm thinking that fract... David Brin, good post. I'm thinking that fractions of corporations should not be treated like commodities.stonehttp://bestrecumbentexercisebikes.us/noreply@blogger.com