tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post4004467812203435948..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Mueller, the Sanders Tax, Rand and Revolution...David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19904406352544692512019-07-27T12:30:29.511-07:002019-07-27T12:30:29.511-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16685149672213995272019-07-27T07:26:16.384-07:002019-07-27T07:26:16.384-07:00Larry, I understand what you are saying, and I und...Larry, I understand what you are saying, and I understand that many humans have a natural tendency to listen only to the loudest voices.<br /><br />Most people tend to identify ideas with the loudest and most obnoxious people who claim to be associated with that idea. That is one of the main causes of the extreme political malice that we see today. People just need to stop doing that. They need to see people as individuals, and to not conflate ideas with their most obnoxious advocates.<br /><br />It is just not that difficult. Each individual, one person at a time, just needs to stop conflating ideas with their most obnoxious advocates. Just stop it.<br /><br />Just because a lot of other people are doing something badly gives you no excuse to exhibit the same behavior. (I am using the word "you" generically, not to refer to you personally.)<br /><br />To use your example of Christianity: I happen to be an anti-theist with respect to the Abrahamic religions. Yet I live in a city that was overrun with evangelical Christians from 1980 until 2006. I never encountered a single one of those evangelical Christians during that time. (I guess we had some unconscious method of repelling each other.) <br /><br />I knew that the Christian extremists were there in my city because I could see the psychological damage that they were doing to people, especially to kids who were trapped in school with them (as teachers, staff or classmates).<br /><br />During that time, I had many friends and acquaintances who were very moderate Christians (certainly never evangelical). They rarely mentioned religion in my presence. Most of my Christian friends (including my parents) knew that I was an atheist. Yet I always got along just fine with all of them. I never attributed any of the ideas of the obnoxious conservative Christians to my much nicer (and more civil) Christian friends just because they happened to both use the same word to describe themselves.<br /><br />I think that Christianity is basically a horrible and destructive ideology, but I would never ascribe any of the worst ideas of Christianity to people who just happened to call themselves Christian.<br /><br />I just don't see what is so difficult about avoiding the conflation of ideas with their most obnoxious advocates. It is necessary to learn to do this if we are going to have a civil society.<br /><br />Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-482294271634805832019-07-27T07:03:05.490-07:002019-07-27T07:03:05.490-07:00Alfred;
Thanks for your comments. I suspect you a...Alfred;<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. I suspect you and I disagree about very little. Your "It is an ecology" statement was particularly eye-opening. Never really thought about it in quite those terms before. It's a model that seems to fit.<br /><br />--BrianBrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14790940811516767905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23201258940711281742019-07-27T05:27:04.434-07:002019-07-27T05:27:04.434-07:00@Larry Hart
Yes, that's the problem with ident...@Larry Hart<br />Yes, that's the problem with identity politics. Any dufus can quote from "Two Corinthians" and immediately draw millions of sheeple to their cause. The remedy? Widespread literacy, especially scientific. The vehicle? Citizen Science.<br /><br />I can hear the Confederate throat clearing in preparation for accusations of elitism and cabal of enlightenment. The best support for my argument is supplied by them. I yield the floor.scidatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04992209167553267488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29228673730719538692019-07-27T05:06:10.916-07:002019-07-27T05:06:10.916-07:00Jerry Emanuelson:
Larry, you're doing the sam...Jerry Emanuelson:<br /><i><br />Larry, you're doing the same thing that others have been doing today on this forum: conflating libertarian (the philosophy) with Libertarian (members of the political party). <br /></i><br /><br />Not exactly, although I can see why it seems that way to you.<br /><br />I'm conflating a philosophy with the common perception (by the general public) <b>of</b> that philosophy as it seems to be most vocally characterized.<br /><br />It's like Norman Goldman says about Christianity--the term has been hijacked by zealots who present themselves as "Chrisitians" when what they mean is something along the lines of "mean spirited white supremacists who insist on control of women's bodies." True Christians have a point when they claim not to go along with that other interpretation, but unless they make the case generally, it doesn't matter. When Joe Public hears a politician extoll himself as a Christian, he's going to hear and understand that first thing.<br /><br />That's what I see happening with "libertarian". And it has little to do with whether or not there is an established party with the same name.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86540878006181492272019-07-26T21:51:07.954-07:002019-07-26T21:51:07.954-07:00Jerry I can see I miread some of your remark. Apol...Jerry I can see I miread some of your remark. Apologies. Alas for my limited bandwidth. Overwhelmed,<br /><br />Scidata, Gelernter almost became DT's "science adviser" quotes intended.<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35096510569293129492019-07-26T20:29:47.525-07:002019-07-26T20:29:47.525-07:00Alfred
There are two parts to the inequality argum...Alfred<br />There are two parts to the inequality argument<br /><br />The poor buggers at the bottom - their "pain" and the fact that they are too poor to act as part of society (and as consumers)<br /><br />The very rich who are rich enough to Destroy any attempt at a democracy<br /><br />I could envision a society with only one of those issues<br />But today's USA has BOTH of them<br /><br />You can argue that my engine metaphor is incomplete or sub optimum or could fail but doing NOTHING guarantees failureduncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87203616035579956922019-07-26T20:16:16.712-07:002019-07-26T20:16:16.712-07:00Alfred Differ: I grew to see ‘evolution’ for the p...Alfred Differ: <i>I grew to see ‘evolution’ for the powerful description that it really is.</i><br /><br />When evolution truly detonates in your brain, there's no going back. For me, it all came together in one stunning moment as I was reading Dawkins' "River Out of Eden".<br /><br />It's pathetic to watch modern scientists contort and strain to disprove the concept. The crucial need to skeptically test sometimes morphs into the compulsion to invent fairies and worse, to protect and nurture them like children.<br />eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE<br />The moronic 1 in 10^77 useful protein 'argument' reminds one of the '747 assembled by a whirlwind' idiocy of a decade or two ago. I hope I'm not insulting any relatives/colleagues of Berlinski, Meyer, and Gelernter. They are fine people, who've been led astray by pathological mathematics.scidatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04992209167553267488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1088937020395129612019-07-26T19:16:47.217-07:002019-07-26T19:16:47.217-07:00Duncan,
Forget your "Central planning"...Duncan,<br /><br /><i> Forget your "Central planning" I have no dog in that fight </i><br /><br />I would, but I do not think you see the harm done by the overly simplistic metaphor.<br /><br />I accept that the level of inequality is too high right now, though I probably do not accept any of the common measures used to quantify it. My issue with them mostly boils down to this. If they say the US had less inequality during any point during the Jim Crowe era, they are not aggregating enough information to detect reality. Piketty had interesting graphs in some chapters connecting inequality measures to ratios showing how dominant investment-driven income was. They made some interesting suggestions for the post-WWII era that I simply do not believe.<br /><br />The issue with the metaphor is it suggests solutions that I think are more likely to do harm than good. What you think you know strongly influences what you think you see and then what you think you should do next. Sigh. In the mid-eighties, James Burke put together a TV series called “The Day The Universe Changed.” It has ten roughly one hour episodes and is reminiscent of Connections from the late 70’s. The 80’s series was different in that it had a cyclic point to make in each show. Start in one place, work forward in time, arrive back at that place again, but realize that the entire universe had changed. As what we knew changed, the universe around us seemed to change. Of course, it was not the Universe changing, right? It was just us. Connections showed the complexity of the interconnections of our web of knowledge. The next series showed how that web had spirals that circled through space to return at a later time with a very different version of what humans think the universe is.<br /><br />The first and last episodes addresses the mental models we have that explain what we sense. The first one points them out. The last one points out how VERY robust they are against change. Yet they change.<br /><br />I cannot use the engine metaphor not because it is wrong. I used to use it… and then I was confronted with something that caused me to rethink it. It was a wrenching experience that involved Smith, Hayek, Darwin, Hofstadter, Dennett, and a number of others I like to read. I was forced to open a mental wedge between designed solutions and functional chaos. I grew to see ‘evolution’ for the powerful description that it really is. Smith’s competition is the culling force in an evolutionary model. Failure to educate our children and protect equality of opportunity limits diversity and risks genetic or memetic extinction. Entrepreneurial enthusiasm grants recognition of personal dignity which works better than sex at reproducing memes and growing them to maturity.<br /><br />I can go on and on about the experience, but what I cannot do is go back to the simple engine model. Once you mentally imagine planets whirling around the Sun, Aristotle’s universe is just weird. Worse, though, Aristotle’s geocentric model suggests to believers what they should DO when something occurs they do not like. Same with the engine metaphor, right? Lean on a lever! Turn the wheel! Step on the break! The model I’m using makes very different suggestions. Educate the children! Liberate their minds! Weed out the cheaters… but be damn careful you let them grow just enough to decide that they ARE cheaters! It is not an engine. It is an ecology.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84890814080446468232019-07-26T18:46:47.786-07:002019-07-26T18:46:47.786-07:00Jim,
I’m amused by your level 4 seriousness descr...Jim,<br /><br />I’m amused by your level 4 seriousness description of us. It is reasonably close, but if you squint at it all the options become the same thing. “Let me be!”<br /><br />I AM an atheist, but the better description that covers a large group of us is anti-evangelical. See how “Let me be!” applies? Get out of my bedroom. Don’t tell me who I cannot marry. How dare you decide my speech is heresy. All those statements require Thought Police to enforce them, so anti-evangelical is about recognizing who among the theists would hire or want to be such people.<br /><br />As for the gun nuts… well… if they aren’t killing your children… let them be.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18133250731791812032019-07-26T18:38:28.182-07:002019-07-26T18:38:28.182-07:00Brian,
I self identify as a classical liberal whe...Brian,<br /><br />I self identify as a classical liberal when talking to Libertarians. I actually registered with the local party, but not with the national one. The State doesn't make the distinction, but my local folks do. Since I'm not the pot smoker or gun fanatic some expect of registered Libertarians, I occasionally confuse the local folks. Hence... classical liberal.<br /><br />The only time I ask people to register with the party is to send a signal to the other parties that the 'non-affiliated' people actually DO have preferences. I'd rather libertarians flooded in and took back the Libertarians than see Libertarians make a joke of us all when they run fools on November ballots. Eventually I'll give up and find a different windmill to tilt at, but I think it would do the GOP a world of good if all their disaffected members took over a different party and then displaced the rump party left behind. It shouldn't be the Democrats destroying the old rump. It should be the sane former-members.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43637734660640324032019-07-26T18:30:06.177-07:002019-07-26T18:30:06.177-07:00David,
I do not think Jerry said what you think h...David,<br /><br />I do not think Jerry said what you think he said. I read some of your patent material and understand the need to GIST a bit here. You only have just so much attention to share. At the risk of shouting, I ‘uppercase’ to point at bits I do not want a reader to miss. Missed negations can screw up a complex argument… and I think that is what happened.<br /><br />Jerry,<br /><br />If I read you correctly, you were responding to A.F. Rey in response to Brian. I have the time to track back and follow an argument thread. David does not have enough dittos. Bold text helps. Uppercase helps. White space helps, but you have that covered. Mostly, though, bread crumbs showing a logic trail up through the thread work best. Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42671606701644030462019-07-26T18:24:08.291-07:002019-07-26T18:24:08.291-07:00I think, having read through the comments above, I...I think, having read through the comments above, I'm going strictly with "classical liberal." More accurate, I think, as it hearkens back to the enlightenment values of Smith, et al, and feels more accurate given the state of "libertarianism" currently. Less baggage, even if it confuses many folks...<br /><br />--BrianBrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14790940811516767905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3711131816844541782019-07-26T18:03:20.087-07:002019-07-26T18:03:20.087-07:00Larry, the fear that a Libertarian political party...Larry, the fear that a Libertarian political party would eventually try to impose its will on other people was <b>exactly</b> my main reason for opposing its formation at the time. It was originally sold as being primarily an educational organization (with the excuse that political parties get all the attention). <br /><br />The original founders of the Libertarian Party were good people with good intentions. The country was in a serious crisis at the time, and Nixon had just made a catastrophic economic decision that disassembled the long-stable Bretton-Woods world monetary system (in order to finance the Vietnam War). <br /><br /> Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3100044401772330282019-07-26T17:35:51.487-07:002019-07-26T17:35:51.487-07:00Larry, you're doing the same thing that others...Larry, you're doing the same thing that others have been doing today on this forum: conflating libertarian (the philosophy) with Libertarian (members of the political party). <br /><br />You're even doing it within a single post.Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78079194283791542322019-07-26T17:19:42.971-07:002019-07-26T17:19:42.971-07:00Jerry Emanuelson:
The word "libertarian"...Jerry Emanuelson:<br /><i><br />The word "libertarian" is the opposite of "authoritarian." <br /></i><br /><br />Except that it depends <b>whose</b> liberty and <b>whose</b> authority you are talking about.<br /><br />Today's Libertarians seem to want their own liberty protected from the liberty exercised by everyone else. Just as today's advocates of "religious liberty" mean the liberty of restrictive religious institutions to exercise the coercion their religious tenets demands over intransigent non-believers. Which is a different thing, in fact the opposite thing of what the Founding Fathers meant by the term.<br /><br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37206269527324502372019-07-26T17:14:51.942-07:002019-07-26T17:14:51.942-07:00David, I was not trying to define a political best...David, I was not trying to define a political bestiary. My original post was showing how it <b>cannot</b> be defined.<br /><br />Perhaps I should have put the words "not" and "subset" in capital or bold characters in my earlier post. <br /><br />Political philosophies <b>cannot</b> be defined only by looking at the individuals affiliated with a specific formal organization, even if that organization has a name that is the same as (or very similar to) the philosophy. <br />Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46568804387066785622019-07-26T16:48:29.870-07:002019-07-26T16:48:29.870-07:00And Alfred and I call ourselves libertarian too. ...And Alfred and I call ourselves libertarian too. Your definition is so loose as to be of not much use, Jerry. And what about that venn overlap? Can you make liberty-loving overlap with wanting a green planet, with wanting to maximize the number of poor kids who can rise up and compete? With Wanting democracy? In a sane republic where we are represented by accountable, fact and negotiation-loving adults?<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65407799832098163112019-07-26T16:33:43.808-07:002019-07-26T16:33:43.808-07:00David, please read what I wrote again.
I wish tha...David, please read what I wrote again.<br /><br />I wish that I could draw Venn diagrams on this forum.<br /><br />Are you saying that those who are not a member of a political party are not in favor of democracy?<br /><br />I am a libertarian, and have called myself a libertarian since about 1962. I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. I was opposed to the formation of the Libertarian Party at the time that it was formed (and I was quite aware of those meetings a the time that it was being formed). <br /><br />If I had to chose from among all those running for president today, I would vote for Tulsi Gabbard.<br />Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26330508146087163782019-07-26T15:57:40.209-07:002019-07-26T15:57:40.209-07:00Jerry your attempt at a defined political bestiary...Jerry your attempt at a defined political bestiary shed no lihg at all, alas. In practice, only the "democrats favor democracy" maps onto today's landscape.<br /><br />Unless the "republic" that republicans want is like the Roman Senate, utterly oligarchic.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18643740575246264872019-07-26T15:07:50.276-07:002019-07-26T15:07:50.276-07:00The word "libertarian" is the opposite o...The word "libertarian" is the opposite of "authoritarian." <br /><br />You would refer to a person who is significantly more in favor of authoritarian social structures than the average person as an "authoritarian."<br /><br />You would refer to a person who is significantly more in favor of libertarian social structures than the average person as a "libertarian."<br /><br />Members of the United States Libertarian Party are a recent subset of libertarians.<br /><br />Similarly, the United States Democratic Party constitutes a subset of those who believe in democracy.<br /><br />The United States Republican Party consists of a subset of those who advocate a republican form of government.<br /><br />It is a mistake to conflate the ideas of members of specific political organizations with the names of general philosophical concepts.<br /><br />One should not determine what is meant by "democracy" by attending the U.S. Democratic National Conventions and talking to the individuals who attend that convention and the other related events of the organization.<br /><br />One should not determine what is meant by the advocacy of a "republican form of government" by attending the U.S. Republican National Convention and talking to the individuals who attend that convention and the related events of the organization.<br /><br />Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60342276371943619582019-07-26T14:15:58.180-07:002019-07-26T14:15:58.180-07:00There is a way to get loyalty. But these SOBs will...There is a way to get loyalty. But these SOBs will never think of it.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64558501211220105122019-07-26T13:50:02.960-07:002019-07-26T13:50:02.960-07:00This single question occupied us for the rest of t...<i>This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.</i><br /><br />It never occurred to these people to ensure the guards loyalty by um...being a decent and fair-minded boss? Being nice to them? No?Laurencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15525214461529206205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57003818931991477302019-07-26T13:42:35.832-07:002019-07-26T13:42:35.832-07:00Unlike the mainland, where Native tribes were push...Unlike the mainland, where Native tribes were pushed onto ever-poorer lands, the native Hawaiian trusts own some of the best lands on the islands. That says something.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5649076579803044622019-07-26T13:40:22.681-07:002019-07-26T13:40:22.681-07:00Argue specific grievances and that's fine, tho...Argue specific grievances and that's fine, though you vastly oversimplify. There was a vastly complex history of legal sales and to this day huge land trusts in native Hawaiian hands that you conveniently toss aside. Big Island desert areas were among the first tracts that the Kings willingly parted company with, and long before "guns" came into it.<br /><br />But grievances? Sure. You don't do that. You bully. You declare that only the most radical can speak for an entire people and their elected councils have no right. You denounce the very idea that an outsider might - with less passion - suggest different ways to look at TACTICS which are often poisoned by legitimate righteous rage. And yes,sometimes the 'good' side can impulsively decide upon very, very bad or even self-defeating tactics.<br /><br />NHor are you remotely interested in probably the most clearcut case of THEOLOGICALLY resonant miracle working, that these small groups, were they sincerely religiously motivated, would certainly take into account.<br /><br />No, all you care about is category privilege and bullying.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com