POG Politics Thread

[ackbleh]

Originally Posted by amplify

Interesting. I was thinking that this was a terrific discussion.

agreed.

[amplify]

Originally Posted by ackbleh

The children of capable parents are going to be fine either way. I think the folks both fnord and I are concerned with are the children of incompetents. It's pretty damn heartless to look at a child of a ****ty parent and say 'you're ****ed because I don't believe in governmental social services and all your parents are going to do is hit you and be bad examples. Feed you? LOL!"

If I looked at that kid, I'd give him some damn money to eat and go to school. I'm not abdicating that social responsibility in any way. First, mind your household, then, look out for your community.

Also I think that crossed the line of attacking me personally. So violent.

[ackbleh]

Originally Posted by amplify

I didn't say I'm smarter than you and I have figured out how to run the world. I don't have to explicate The Amplified Scholastic Method to your satisfaction in order to be right. I don't have to have prefabricated solutions to all of your objections to be right. It just has to be right not to commit aggressive acts against people.

I hold a lot of the same principles and values that you do, from what I can tell, and a lot of the same frustrations with the way things currently are. But in this discussion, I don't think it's fair at all for you to revert back to 'well this is a valid principle, you can't talk about the practical implications of it, that's not my problem'. Because we're not talking about a theoretical la-la land here, right? This is supposed to be the rare political discussion where we're genuinely considering each others' views. Which, believe it or not, I am. But I'm not signing up to support anything if the inevitable conclusion is that there are no social services for the poor, and I don't think anyone else should either.

Originally Posted by amplify

You are the one who has to justify your violence.

I'm hardly the taxman. I'm definitely not the military or the police.

[ackbleh]

Originally Posted by amplify

If I looked at that kid, I'd give him some damn money to eat and go to school. I'm not abdicating that social responsibility in any way. First, mind your household, then, look out for your community.

There are a lot of kids that would be like that and only one amp.

Originally Posted by amplify

Also I think that crossed the line of attacking me personally. So violent.

lol. I'm assuming you're not serious.

[lastchance]

Originally Posted by amplify

I didn't say I'm smarter than you and I have figured out how to run the world. I don't have to explicate The Amplified Scholastic Method to your satisfaction in order to be right. I don't have to have prefabricated solutions to all of your objections to be right. It just has to be right not to commit aggressive acts against people.

You are the one who has to justify your violence.

This is the consequentialist view. You're going to disagree with it.

If the consequences of doing violence are better overall than the consequences of not doing violence, the violence is morally correct.

I can't argue against a deontologist view. If it is always absolutely wrong to "interfere" with others, cause violence to others, then there is no debate.

[Zurvan]

It's interesting, but frustrating. Mostly because I don't understand how someone as intelligent as you are can believe in something so... impractical and idealistic. And I'm sure you have some view of my position that I would disagree with as thoroughly as you do with my interpretation of yours.

[amplify]

ack,

I understand. I can talk about the practical implications of my philosophy. I want it to be clear that I don't think it matters. If it is inevitable that without government coercion there are no social services for the poor, then people suck and the world is going to hell anyway. I have a pretty high opinion of people. Most are decent and care for others. Some are even heroic. The alternate opinion is analogous to the idea that we are toddlers who need to have our toys taken away so that we learn to share.

[clowntable]

Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan

Whether we had the right to go there or not, our results have been good, and most nonarabic nations are glad we did

I will just assume you are being sarcastic?

Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan

Clown, are you a true ACist?

No but it's the logical framework that makes the most sense.

Originally Posted by fnord_too

Clown,

To do the math, we need to agree on the assumptions. My assumptions are along the lines of:
Humanity should strive to maximize several things, including production, knowledge, quality of life while minimizing things like negative impact on ecology and other sentient beings (I'm not a vegetarian or anything, don't read too much into that).

We'll have a hard time agreeing because I don't think humanity as a whole should do anything. Only individuals can act.
I'd also disagree that knowledge should be maximized for example because if the choice is between working to survive and studying most people would (rightfully) prefer to work. I don't assume I'm a demigod and therefore I can't set any global goals except to maximize the possibility for individuals to make their own choices without outside interference.

The math all comes from maximizing and minimizing. If you are talking about maximizing production, just study game theory to see why pure capitalism fails in this regard.

I'm not talking about maximizing production at all. In fact I don't even think monopolies are a bad thing (eventhough most of the times it doesn't make economic sense for the "producers") because for me choice/freedom is the overriding concern and this goes for both "producers" and "consumers".

I know a pretty fair amount about business. Here is a quiz for you: what is the most sacred duty of a for profit public company?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To increase shareholder wealth. That is their fiduciary duty and not striving to that is a major break breach of ethics. Unfortunately, that is often contrary to what is good for the system as a whole. Even when you disregard people who make business decision in a purely EV fashion even when considering breaking the law (that is looking at illegal actions from the perspective of how likely is it I will get caught, what happens if I do get caught, what is the payoff of the action? And these guys do exist, even if they are not the norm), you get into a lot of situations where businesses fiduciary duty is counter to what is good for humanity as a whole.

Once again I cannot decide what "is good for humanity as whole" nor can anyone else as far as I am concerned.
Thankfully all the legal issues are already solved as far as I'm concerned via "Ethics of Liberty" (with some minor weaknesses when it comes to adequate punishment)

Examine something like this in your proposed framework:
Cigarette companies sell to all ages and are endorsed by doctors saying they are healthy while other doctors say they are not (who is certifying the doctors is another question entirely). What happens if anything?

Change cigarettes to vitamin C in a situation where another company is saying sugar pills are much more healthy and vitamin C is bad for you. Or any thing where claims are made from both sides and there are public health and/or safety issues surrounding it.

Once again, individuals should decide what's good for them and what is not good for them. As a somewhat drastic example I think it's perfectly fine for someone to commit suicide or cut off their legg if they so please.
[I may be morally obliged to try to talk them out of it but I can't make judgement calls on morals]
I'm pretty sure if there was no government there would be selfhelp groups that would form including experts from the relevant fields. Just think about internet reviews of all kinds of stuff that already exist in masses.

I am not saying the government should run everything, but I am saying that most things need oversight from a disinterested third party. There are several reasons for this that all stem from many sets of starting assumptions.

I doubt that there will ever be a government that acts as a disinterested third party. Politicians are probably the most biased people around, they need to secure reelections so they'll do whatever the can to gather votes and funding to gather more votes.
It's the name of the game, I don't blame them.

And again, a lot of people do not realize the scaling problems with a lot of problems. Take software engineering, just as an example. People see reasonably complex programs being developed in by a couple of people in a garage and think that you can scale up to huge projects linearly.

Actually, I think what most people assume is linear extrapolation almost always. This is just a common trap a lot of people fall into. You hear this rationale from people proposing a flat tax for instance, or criticizing waste on large projects (that is ones where there isn't corruption behind the scenes). But in a lot of cases it is just dis economies of scale stemming quite often in large part from the shear combinatorics of people and functions which have to interact and coordinate.

Do you think government (or government spending) "scale well"?

Also, in considering all this, how do you deal with academia? Most academia from kindergarten through the post graduate world is subsidized by governments, through taxes. I would argue quite vehemently that the long term benefits from these actions far outweigh the costs, even if it is not always immediately apparent. In these less government worlds is the theft from the people to fund these activities acceptable?

Private schools + scholarships.
The schools need to be better to attract more customers and people who get rich later to contribute (via money, guest lectures and whatnot). Scholarships for intelligent people are pretty much self explaining and I'd expect all schools to implement those because more intelligent costudents have positive effects on the other students as well as the marketing of the school (they compete for releasing awesome grads).
As far as the "long term effects" are concerned I think it schould be up to individuals to judge if they want to invest in schooling or not.

Originally Posted by metsandfinsfan

In World War 2, we stood by while great injustices were being committed, and did not get involved until after we were attacked.

Is that what you think our War policy should always be?

Why exactly did the US get involved in Iraq then? If it was to stop the injustice that was being commited there excuse me while I laugh (or wonder where massive the US troops in Sudan etc are).

[QUOTE=fnord_too;6133281]Quite simply because the benefits outweigh the costs. Market forces do not push towards system maximization (re: Nash). Rather they push towards concentrating wealth and power in smaller smaller proportional pools.
[Quote]
Really? That contradics everything I have ever learned about how markets work (I guess start with the broken window fallacy)

But back to education: a more educated populace leads indirectly to a stronger economy and better conditions. Look at say all the breakthroughs made by Universities which have translated into business and better quality of life. There is no direct and obvious link from education profit, so there is no reason for business to fund it at a loss. Additionally, there are many people who otherwise could not afford to go to school. Furthermore, standardization and (relatively) unbiased education is pretty important imo. If I am a not for profit taking donations to run schools, my agenda is going to be influenced by the agenda of those who donate (if not they will just form their own agency). This leads to basically the have not's (and a child being a have not is not in the least merit based, but purely circumstantial) basically being at the mercy of the charity of others, who may have strong agendas.

Do you think it is unthinkable that large companies would ever run small inhouse universities?
How about company funded education in exchange for working there for X years etc (like in the military)?
And ethically I think it's just not right to ask for people which will never attend university to pay for the university of someone else's kids....at gunpoint.

Really, everyone benefits from an educated populace whether they realize it or not, so imo it does fall under the auspices of the government, because education of the masses does not coincide with maximizing shareholder wealth. (It's one of those damn Nash equilibriums where if you had a system where everyone (including business) contributed to a pot of money to educate the masses they would be better off than if no one did, but each individual decision is dominated by being selfish.)

Well I am unfortunate enough to live in a country that has taken this idea to the max. As a result we have "free" universities (now moved back to minimal charges of 1k$/semester and only in some states). Surprisingly enough you see a lot of people that hang out at university without ever graduating or taking 10 years or whatnot.

Originally Posted by Zurvan

You've created a whole new set of ethical problems though. Education is suddenly reserved for the rich, or those in an area where a rich person has decided to give money so poor kids can have some education. You've removed the violence of taking tax money from people, and created a society that, 20 years down the road, is going to be 70% people with no education.

Let's face it - if rich people have the option of donating money to medical research which may be of direct help to them, or paying for poor kids to go to school and creating job competition for their kids, which do they choose? I think enough choose to not fund schools that we end up with a large society of people that can barely do arithmetic (worse than now, even)

No education is reserved for people that think they can take the risk of investing in it. Not everyone is equally intelligent (or motivated).
And as I said out of pure selfishness there would be many viable options or the not so rich.
Turning your argument upside down, do you think it is "just" to ask a working class family that will likely send none of their kids to university because they don't want to sacrifice any stream of income to pay for some rich kid's education...at gunpoint?

[amplify]

Originally Posted by lastchance

This is the consequentialist view. You're going to disagree with it.

If the consequences of doing violence are better overall than the consequences of not doing violence, the violence is morally correct.

I can't argue against a deontologist view. If it is always absolutely wrong to "interfere" with others, cause violence to others, then there is no debate.

Yeah. I will agree that I am being deontological and whatnot about this.

I'm not sure human beings are equipped to judge the manifest consequences of our actions. We can only see the ripples cast over the surface when we toss a rock into a pond. If I was omniscient, then I could absolutely judge rightly. If I can only guess at what the consequences might be, I'd better have some principles.

[Zurvan]

Turning your argument upside down, do you think it is "just" to ask a working class family that will likely send none of their kids to university because they don't want to sacrifice any stream of income to pay for some rich kid's education...at gunpoint?

You realize that adding that "at gunpoint" to every single paragraph really really weakens your argument?

Yes, I think it is fair to ask a working class family to subsidize education that they aren't going to use (if you want to look at it like that) because the rich people are paying way more tax, and are subsidizing the working class families roads, electricity supply, water system, police and national defense.

[ackbleh]

Originally Posted by amplify

ack,

I understand. I can talk about the practical implications of my philosophy. I want it to be clear that I don't think it matters. If it is inevitable that without government coercion there are no social services for the poor, then people suck and the world is going to hell anyway. I have a pretty high opinion of people. Most are decent and care for others. Some are even heroic. The alternate opinion is analogous to the idea that we are toddlers who need to have our toys taken away so that we learn to share.

Well, I'm glad that you pointed that out, because as lc just mentioned, that makes our conversation more than a little pointless. I will say that I strive to live my life pretty much the way that you have stated, and do a pretty good job of it I think. But I do not share your optimism about our human race with regard to charity and kindness.

[fnord_too]

Originally Posted by amplify

I don't have a system. I don't tell other people what to do with their children.

Forcing people to do stuff they don't want to do is unacceptable.

If a monkey made you a sandwich, would you eat it?

I don't understand "Forcing people to do stuff they don't want to do is unacceptable. " It certainly is inconsistent with "I don't tell other people what to do with their children."

My questions center around the rights of children before they reach an age of responsibility. One problem with not having a system is that if you believe children do have rights of protection, then you are faced with a major problem.

For instance, is it right for me to give my child a time out though that is forcing her to do stuff she does not want to? Is having her get a job at age 6 (where she may not even voice an objection) ok? What about marrying her off with her approval at age 8? I am not trying to be specious here, but I just don't see a model where your theories work. Apparently you don't either unless I mis interpreted the "I don't have a system" statement.

I am not one to say don't point out a problem if you don't have a better way of doing things (that is a pretty silly stance). I just don't really see the problems that you do. If you showed me a way things could be better, then I might agree that the current ways are bed (and I certainly don't think what we have is perfect). But I do see the benefits in a pragmatic way, and I can even see lots of philosophical arguments for them, counter to the philosophical arguments against them. (Hell, as far as I understand it, Confucius was basically making those arguments.)

Also, if you are starting with an individuals rights are paramount, I don't see how you can get to a less governance solution, either. (I do start with that belief, and I get to a completely different place than you do.) Perhaps we diverge at "earned wealth". I don't see me making money as something I do on my own, but as something I do in a complex system; there is a symbioses there. Another system may be better, but denying the impact of the current one is living in denial.

Perhaps I am just self serving. I know my wife would be dead and my daughters possibly doomed to early death if we did not have the medical advancement we have had, and that those advancement are in large part due to the system you decry. Government funded research has lead to myriad breakthroughs which have increased productivity and quality of life.

[metsandfinsfan]

Originally Posted by clowntable

I will just assume you are being sarcastic?

nope

Originally Posted by clowntable

Why exactly did the US get involved in Iraq then? If it was to stop the injustice that was being commited there excuse me while I laugh (or wonder where massive the US troops in Sudan etc are).

There are plenty of other reasons, but bottom line is yes, that is why we got involved there. We overthrew the govt, hanged saddam, and now there is some sore of a democracy there. It's far from being perfect, but it'll take time.
Why do you think the US got involved in Iraq? Just to finish his Daddy's war? For Oil?

the daddy thing may have some merit to it ... but it's still to stop the injustices that were being done. That's why i think the US needs to stay there to make sure the democracy suceeds, or else the War was for nothing, like some many people think it was

if it was for oil, i'd like to know how. It's not like we took the oil, or the war has helped our oil prices or anything, so i fail to understand that rationale at all.

[fnord_too]

Clown,

I have already spent way too much time in this thread to really address all of your points. It sounds like you are taking a thelmetic approach (I think that is the correct term, basically doing is the law sort of thing). If that is the case then any system that exists is what should, because it got there by people doing.

If you believe that your rights end where someone else's begin, then you run into real problems.

Also, I would much rather live in Germany with all those dead beat college kids than say Uganda or Somalia. Again, no causality, only correlation.

Sorry I cannot really give this thread any more time, I have already blown off too much stuff this morning. These discussions run too deep.

(It is funny though that we are wasting time like those dead beat college kids discussing these ivory tower topics.)

[ackbleh]

mets, there's just no way that was the reason we went into Iraq. As clown points out, there are far worse human injustices being done in Africa and we're nowhere in sight.