In Germany during the 1930s, they had the Jews. Now, we have the Koch brothers, Big Oil, the corporations, Wall Street, etc. The more things change….

FWIW -

I think that this post is balanced, Keith – in particular considering the rhetoric in the interview. Caveats are important.

On the other hand, I’m sure it isn’t lost on you that in response to your post, you get Mark B equating the treatment of the Koch Bros with burning people in ovens.

That isn’t your fault, by any means. But is there anything that can be done to make such responses less likely? Perpetuating the same old same old won’t get us anywhere.

Of course, I am buying up stock in jello mold, so it is in my financial interest for things to remain the same.

Joshua – MarkB was making a rhetorical comparison as opposed to a literal comparison.  You seem to struggle with this concept.  In Germany everything was blamed on the Jews, no matter how preposterous the charge.  Sachs blaming the Koch brothers for inaction on GW is equally preposterous.  How the Koch brothers can frustrate the will of nations and supra-national concerns on such a shoestring budget seems odd to Ben Pile.  Me too.

Well – isn’t your request much like Brad DeLong’s oft repeated desire for a “better press corps”?  The question that Sachs responded to was explicitly framed by the anchor as “about climate change and energy policy”.  Accordingly, Sach replied with an answer about climate change, and provided a description of climate trends which fit with events leading to major agricultural impacts in recent history, which are consistent with broad projections under all major climate models, which are supported by a significant and expanding literature and which do in fact constitute a significant risk factor in feeding a world headed to 9 billion people.  I see Romm finally picked up on uber-money manager Jeremy Grantham’s July newsletter which also addresses this topic – maybe you should have a look Keith.  

LoL….can you say “cherry picked”?…sure you can…No mention of the 1930′s where drought was MUCH worse. Records on rain fall are pretty clear on this point. If not CAGW then, why CAGW now?  That’s right, I forget….it does not match the narrative.

Sachs has been a disappointment for years, so no surprises from that interview.

The lost opportunity is significant. A real drought covering significant sections of the U.S. is an opportunity to look at urban planning, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, flood plains, insurance policies and much more. 

It is an opportunity to begin implementation of low hanging fruit adaptation policies that would address changes expected for 2C warming. My co-author’s favorite example is why are low income taxpayers subsidizing the perpetual rebuilding of mansions in Malibu or Miami…

Instead it’s a tired regurgitation of the same unproven tropes.

Sachs is a thought leader because he has held authoritative positions and can articulate the conventional wisdom on a number of issues. He’s essentially yet another Captain Obvious who can be accurately quoted in advance of  opening his mouth.

Yet another missed opportunity.

(4) Keith

I don’t know what would make anything different. Just asking the question. Perhaps focusing more (as you do sometimes), on the underlying mechanics of the food fight as opposed to who is flinging jello would focus people more in that direction?

I don’t think it is exactly a bad idea for you to anticipate various reactions to your posts and adjust accordingly. I’m sure that you already to that to some extent. What is your goal in writing this post? Certainly some of your goal must be related to how you see people responding?

What does this post accomplish? Will someone, who prior to reading this post didn’t feel that rhetoric like  Sachs’ was ill-founded scientifically, have their eyes opened? I doubt it. Looks like more of the same old same old to me, which will generate comments along very well-worn paths of reasoning. I don’t have answers. As I said, from where I sit it was a balanced post.

I guess I think, however, that if there were more balance in your overall focus it might stimulate more balance from folks who identify with your focus on one side or the other. You have a bit of a unique position in the debate. The comments at your blog have a bit of a unique overall character (in my view). With the knowledge that you recognize the polemics of “realists,” maybe some “skeptics” might be more open to what you say about polemics from “skeptics.” And visa versa. What I see now, and I think this is due to an overall imbalance in your focus, is that you largely get defensive reactions from “realists” and piling on from “skeptics.” Same old, same old (with the reverse happening on other blogs that have a different overall balance).

But there is a bit of a difference here. What do you hope to do that is different, and how do you hope to achieve that goal? What is your “competitive advantage?”

Joshua,

Why would a journalist need to have an agenda and a goal with every article?  That is the definition of journalistic bias.

Maybe KK is reporting the data as he sees it, and is not serving any specific agenda?  Maybe he is simply informing his readers of interesting events?

Maybe it’s not very important to anyone how KK’s posts fit your agenda?

steven -

As often  happens, you got sloppy. I find nothing “objectionable” about Mark B’s comment about Nazis. I honestly can’t imagine anything that anyone could write in a blog post that I would find objectionable. I suppose it’s possible – but it hasn’t happened yet. And this is not the first time that you have made that mistake in interpreting my reaction.

Mark’s comment isn’t objectionable. But it is evidence. Evidence of phenomena that we have seen countless times in blog posts. I specifically pointed out I don’t think that the facile nature of Mark’s post is something for which Keith should be “blamed.” There’s no blame. Read what I wrote again. If you actually have a criticism that’s on point – I’d like to read it.

If you’re going to rant as a riff off of something I’ve said – at least get it right.

i’m still trying to figure out what Keith’s beef is with the interview…

Dr. Tobis, it’s not that we are not having the conversation about reducing fossil fuels in our economy. We are having that conversation in multiple venues with a variety of participants.

The missed opportunity with Jeffrey Sachs is that imposing that same repetitive conversation here is not only redundant, it drowns out the smaller scale conversation on subjects that have relevance and utility with regards to localized or regional phenomena. 

Just once we could have talked about dealing with drought in the affected areas.

In a generic sense perhaps. but sachs was merely answering the questions he was asked by the anchorwoman, so the criticism seems misplaced IMO.

#18  It’s a bit more enjoyable around here when people have a sense of humor.

Add me to those confused by what Keith’s problem is here. Fishman’s column lists a bunch of water-conservation steps we could take – is the point that Sachs should be promoting such things? But the question under a changing climate is how do you even plan water management measures that work. Last year we had record flooding along the Mississippi – conservation steps would have been no help in dealing with that problem of *too much* water! We have a limited budget to change infrastructure; how do we even know what we should spend it on if everything is liable to change so radically from year to year? That’s the fundamental reason why climate is a *more* critical issue than water management – if we don’t tackle climate there’s hardly any way to know whether we will have too little, too much, or just too variable a water supply to manage.

I’d also like to comment on this whole idea of “opinion leaders”. There are many loud voices in this nation and around the world, with a huge variety of opinions. You could count twitter followers or minor cable channel appearances or fading newspaper column inches to measure influence, I suppose. Time Magazine probably has a bunch of objective things to look at. But what really matters with influence is whether it has any actual impact on the world.

Sachs had influence a couple of decades ago in the remaking of Eastern Europe during the first Bush and Clinton administrations. Some of what he did worked well, some didn’t, perhaps not his fault. He’s an economist, ivory tower-ish, but not exactly a scientist. Does anybody here seriously assert that Jeffrey Sachs has had more influence on actions and policies in the US and the world over the past year or so than, say, David Koch? I doubt he has even had 1/100 of Koch’s influence on actual policy action in the recent past.

I find it interesting that Sachs flat out accuses the Koch brothers of buying politicians in that video. I wonder if there is evidence of this or if there will be consequences for a very bold statement.

I have been following Dr. Sachs’s pronouncements for a while and one thing is clear, between us we know all there is to know in the world. Dr Sachs knows everything except that he’s a shameless self-promoting windbag, and I know that………

Yeah, I don’t see it either. I am no fan of the Kochs at all. But this leaves the door open for more tit-for-tat comparisons with people ranging from George Soros on down the line. And the Kochs did fund Muller and believe me, they knew where he stood.On a brighter note, the Heartland Foundation has invited me to join their panel of experts. I told them that I was to the left of Harpo Marx and that I was not a skeptic. They gulped and said they still wanted me, as long as I only wrote about energy.I’m tempted to join just to piss some people off and confirm other people’s (mis) conceptions of me. Looks like I’d be the only high school grad on the panel.

There were a couple other good nuggets in that clip:

Eric Bates, paraphrasing Bill McKibben: “….the movement to mobilize against global warming has never really had a clear enemy because the movement has never been willing to say who’s to blame here……..”; well how about that! The Movement finally in 2012 is getting its act together & guess what? They sleuthed out it was Big Oil all the time!

Later the intrepid interviewer is pretty upset that ranchers have been slaughtering livestock because of lack of feed & says “that’s what you think of when you think of end of times in America”…..yep, the fateful day we sacrifice Elsie the Cow, the Apocolypse will indeed be nigh……..

I think Sourcewatch has already painted a black x on my door.

@ 40 KK – You’re right, poking fun at inane drones inhabiting the cable airwaves doesn’t move the conversation forward. My bad.

Regarding your final question, in this particular case yes it is too much to ask/expect.

Joshua. you ask if there is anything Keith can do to make comments like marks less frequent.

lets see you want them to be less frequent. somehow that not a ringing endorsement of them. So you dont find them objectionable, but you object to the frequency with which these non objectionable comments occur.

I get it. You have to complain about keith. you find his piece balanced, but thats not good enough for our hall monitor. You also want keith to write in such a way that the frequency of “non objectionable” comments will go down.

At what frequency of occurance will the hall monitor be satisfied? one per thread? one per week?

I enjoy how people refer to “economic interests” inhibiting the effective curtailment of emissions like they’re the asshole jocks from high school who got all the girls and tormented them.

(44) Willard -Hilarious.

“How many times do we read the same garbage back and forth over and over?”

“I comment on comments. Its what I do.”

yes, Joshua, when i see you try to hold a host to account for what the guests say, I feel like I am reading the same garbage over and over again.
Now, I note that you don’t always do this. You only do it in certain venues. Which says that you are capable of different behavior. Still, you seem to reserve this particular style for certain places. I just note that.

It’s almost as if in those places where you feel comfortable confronting the host on substance, you do. And, when you happen to agree with them, you cant avoid adding some sort of negative comment. “here keith I agree with you, but since my role here is to be critic, i will fall back on the same old garbage and add a swipe at some other commenter.. because… why?

Steven -

yes, Joshua, when i see you try to hold a host to account for what the
guests say, I feel like I am reading the same garbage over and over again.

That’s not how I see it. I don’t hold Keith to account for Mark’s facile reasoning any more than I hold Judith to account for wagathon’s political extremism. I suggest to Judith what I think she might be able to do to further her stated goal of building bridges. In general, I think she could do that by better controlling for her own biases. In part, I think that controlling for her biases would require from her a more even-handed approach to  noting the biases on both sides of the debate in proportion to the extent that they exist. You and I disagree, I guess, on that estimate of proportionality – so be it.  I think that Keith is more effective than Judith at promoting dialogue. In part, I think, that is because he is more balanced than she. It’s part of a continuum, and that’s why I offer my theories about how to move further down that path. 

I don’t advocate that Judith ban people. Ironically, I will note that you do that (you’ve suggested that she ban me). That would be, precisely, holding her to account for what commenters say. I’ve never asked for any blogger to ban or censor any commenter. Ever. .

Now, I note that you don’t always do this. You only do it in certain venues.

At which venues do you observe me “behaving” differently? Is this more of that nonsense about how you can see “through a window into [my] soul” and determine something about an attitude I have towards “certain” women? Doesn’t the fact that you’re now on me for the same thing you get on me for over at Judith’s suggest to you that you should temper your confidence in your interpretations of my “behavior?” I think I’m pretty singularly focused on asking bloggers to control for what I see are biases.

It’s almost as if in those places where you feel comfortable confronting the host on substance, you do.

Well – I tend toward being confrontational with all the hosts of blogs I comment on.  I am more comfortable doing that here than I might be at WUWT – but then again, Anthony couldn’t handle me being confrontational, so he made a false charge and then put me into moderation so I couldn’t defend against his charge. So if I do it less there it isn’t because of my comfort level.

I am less confrontational at blogs that are on the “realist” side of the debate – but even there I do tend to comment more when my take on issues is different than the perspective being offered. If I agree with a perspective I’m less likely to chime in. If I’m reading a blog where I agree with the perspective of the host but I disagree with the comments of the readers,  I tend to engage.

But that all said, a big piece of my schtick is to point out the hypocrisy of “skeptics.” I acknowledge that I’m less interested in pointing out hypocrisy amongst “realists.” If that’s a failing – or a reflection of bias, so be it. I never claimed to be perfect or unbiased. But that in itself does not negate the arguments about the hypocrisy I see amongst “skeptics.” Those arguments stand or fall on their own. 

Anyway, – enough of this nonsense. I feel like I’m in Willard’s cartoon again. Have a good night.

Keith -

In balance means what? You’re responding to one comment in a thread that is now 40 comments plus. Is your response “in balance”?

Sure, I jumped on one comment – but it was a comment that very well characterizes much of the debate in previous threads. Should I wait until post #40 on this post to say how an earlier post on this blog is representative of a pattern? Sure, maybe…But I don’t need more comments in this post to look back at previous threads to see a characteristic of people trading lame comments like Mark’s back and forth and back and forth. Sometimes there is good dialog. And sometimes you just read past the jello mold to find something useful.But the pattern I’m speaking to exists. In my view, the pattern is somewhat less entrenched here than elsewhere. Why? If you know why, then maybe you can use that to an advantage.On a bit of a tangent:One of the funnier thing about blog threads is reading when people from
both sides ask the blogger to censor or ban people for behaviors that
just magically only appear in people they are in ideological opposition
to. It’s like the entirely selective criteria people use to determine
who is or isn’t a “troll.” Trolls only exist on the other side of the
lunch room. But what lies beneath that funny pattern of hypocrisy is that people are saying that the dialog tends towards being dreck. Everyone knows it. There are discussions all the time about what a blogger should do about it. There was a thread today with many comments back and forth about whether some folks should be censored (with the usual flavor of hypocrisy attached). So why do my comments about what might be done draw so much fire?  Why would Mosher not like me suggesting a way to change the dynamic when he, himself, has advocated that I be censored to control the dialog? One reason may be because I bring it up a lot. I don’t happen to think that’s the full explanation.

As usual, Willard lowers the boom.

And with that I will raise the quality of discourse by turning off my computer, walking the dog, and going to bed.

Joshua,

Please look at Keith’s argument:

There’s a number of reasons why we can’t seem to have a sophisticated conversation about climate change or about how to make society less vulnerable to severe drought. The polluted science communication environment is certainly one of them. And yes, ideologues and entrenched business interests are another. But let’s be honest: Influential thought leaders deserve a share of the blame.

I believe what you want to say is in this argument. The main ingredients are there: a sophisticated conversation, a polluted communication environment, and thought leaders. All you need is to apply this argument to Keith’s.

If we believe that thought leaders contribute to polluting the communication environment by deteriorating the level of conversation, we burden ourselves in following through the consequences of this belief.

This kind of reasoning appeals to responsibility. It does not lay any blame. It does not appeal to any motivation.

***

I’m sorry you think I lower the boom. The Xtranormal video was not meant for your character and the Blog Warriors cartoon was there to express the idea that we can doubt Keith’s argument.

I honestly wonder what would remain from climate blogland if we could magically remove the blame games.

Joshua,

Does the term “hijacking someone else’s blog” mean anything to you?

Have you ever been in a group conversation where one person has a pathological need to dominate the conversation?  I bet you have been in hundreds of them, maybe thousands.  It’s rather annoying.

Joshua,

Just to be clear on where I stand.  I don’t mind reading your comments, I just don’t want to read 10,000 words a day.  Your comments and reactions to your comments are beginning to dominate the conversation in the last month.  This blog is better in its own way because their has been a diverse conversation in a manageable number of comments.  This is a hobby for some of us, and reading 600 comments per thread per day such as occurs over at JC’s is just not in the cards for me.And not that it likely matters much to you, but I think you would be a more effective communicator if you cut your word count down.  You have talent and make good points on occasion, but it gets lost in a blah blah blah mind dump.

@ 62 TS, pretty good article by Muller. If he uses his newly-minted voice of authority for common sense like this, then that will be all to the good. Unfortunately I doubt many media outlets that “liked” his temp reconstruction will like this article very much….

Arthur Smith #27 make the same mistake Sachs makes. There is no “record” events happening. Drought and flooding and storms are normal over even the last 100 year time scale. They just don’t happen ever year.

willard of course wants a citation that the IPCC promises an open transparent process. Of course he refused to look at what we pointed him at

“The IPCC’s work is guided by a set of principles and clear procedures for all the main activities of the organization. The document on Principles Governing IPCC Work lays down the role of the IPCC, organization, participation and key procedures and establishes comprehensiveness, objectivity, openness and transparency as guiding principles of IPCC Work. The IPCC is open to member countries of the UN and WMO. All major decisions about the organization and its work are taken by the Panel during the Plenary Sessions. ”

That is standard willard. The argument I made was rather simple.

1. The IPCC promises an open transparent process.
2. Drafts are being put out to limited distribution.
3. please provide EVIDENCE that limiting distribution leads to a BETTER DOCUMENT

willtard responds, citation needed. he comes late to the party. hasnt read the core documents and demnads that we get his weak ass up to speed

#69 : I am happy to contend that informal drafts do improve by informal consultation before being submitted to a formal process. I am willing to claim that the suggestion contained in #69 is not just wrong insofar as a goal of openness is concerned, but hostile to science and counterproductive to the sort of balance it claims to be advancing.

There is openness and then there is ridiculous intrusion. In the limit of this argument, there should be a keystroke monitor and a microphone on my computer saving everything, so that if I type or even mutter something intemperate about, say, Pat Michaels or Fred Singer, say, it must be public instantly before I get a chance to erase it.

This is ridiculous, of course, and I’m not saying Mosher suggest it, but it now becomes necessary to draw a line.

What if my wife looks over my shoulder and says “do you really want to stir that pot”? If I’m an author, is she in violation of United Nations principles? Still ridiculous. What if it’s my office mate? What if I ask my office mate to look it over? How about my former office mate who now lives in Knoxville? How about the one in Canberra?

If something I produce is going to be part of a prominent formal international process I should be able to ask my friends to look at it first. Doing so is no evidence of a violation of principles of openness or decency or honesty. It’s just a matter of trying to do a good job.

People acting as friends should be considered an extension of my own process in creating an initial composition. This seems obvious to me. I am offended by the suggestion that there is anything wrong with having close colleagues and friends involved in drafting a major public document. If something like that can be read into the rules, the rules should be clarified or amended.

Rather, this is the reasonable expectation. Until a draft is submitted, it belongs to the author. Formal process begins at a specific instant in time when the document is submitted to the formal process. Prior to that it’s just words which do not belong to that institution, even if the intent is to submit them at some point. Anything else is unworkable and quite the opposite of open.

Being in science has enough drawbacks already without this sort of harassment added in. But making science unattractive as a career sometimes seems to be an explicit goal of the whole “climate skeptic” process. 

Joshua,I think you have a unique perspective and it’s a valuable one. Have you considered starting a blog of your own? Speaking only of my personal experience, the general dissatisfaction with a range of blogs — the feeling that what they were writing was good, but not quite spot on — was a symptom that it was time to be a producer as well as a critic. It takes more energy (not necessarily more time) but it’s rewarding.

I understand Tobis’s point of excessive transparency getting in the way of getting things done, and opening up Pandora’s box for all those who clearly seek to simply disrupt the process and cause trouble (and those people do exist in politically heated arenas).

I find it similar to Wall St. regulation.  Unnecessary and overbearing regulatory structure only serve to increase end costs and reduce efficiency.  Not an inspiring combination.

However in the case of recent Wall St. shenanigans, when the industry has shown it cannot regulate itself to the clear detriment of the public, government intervention is necessary.  And this comes from an avowed capitalist.  

With the IPCC, the question arises as to whether the IPCC has lost control of its ability to self regulate for its intended purpose.  Many have lost confidence in the organization to produce honest science due to a perceived political agenda. 

The trick of course is implementing oversight that achieves the intended purpose.   

WIRED: Apocalypse NOT

Over the past half century, none of our threatened eco-pocalypses have played out as predicted. Some came partly true; some were averted by action; some were wholly chimerical. This raises a question that many find discomforting: With a track record like this, why should people accept the cataclysmic claims now being made about climate change? After all, 2012 marks the apocalyptic deadline of not just the Mayans but also a prominent figure in our own time: Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who said in 2007 that “if there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late “¦ This is the defining moment.” 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all 

Tom Scharf -@ #61, #63, and numerous other posts spread out over previous threads, many of them containing personal attacks.Have you paused to consider the depth of irony behind writing a series of posts primarily focused on insulting me, to complain about the fact that you are distracted by my posts?

I’ll point out a few things to help you going forward:Writing posts to insult me or to complain that I am distracting you will not change what, or how much I post. I consider you responsible for your own behavior. You seem like a reasonably intelligent person ““ so I’m rather surprised that you think that I would assume responsibility for what you choose do to. I suspect that the reason for your confusion is that you have IDD (Irony Deficit Disorder). It is a common infliction in the blogosphere.

There are two basic ways that I may change my posting “behavior.” One, is based purely on my own consideration: Of course, I may ““ for any variety of reasons ““ decide to post less, or to write shorter posts. I can assure you that your form of lobbying for me to do so will have no impact on my decisions  in that regard (although it will sometimes result in me writing more, and sometimes long, posts in response to you). Consider whether continued repetition of your whines will bring about the results you want.

The second is if Keith lets me know that he wants me to change what I post or how I post. It’s his blog, and I respect the process he uses to run
this blog. I am here at his discretion, and have no need nor with to disrespect the opportunity he provides to comment on his work or to engage with others who follow his work.

#64  – Willard -

I appreciate your pearls of enigma. Sometimes they help me to gain insight. You should be commended for that, as it isn’t an easy task to achieve.

That said, while I do feel I have responsibility for my actions, I don’t feel responsible for people who read my posts and then write response after response to insult me or tell me they find my posts distracting. I started on this thread with a short and rather innocuous post. My subsequent posts were in response to people who responded to my original post, and their length was at least somewhat in proportion to the complexity of the issues they raised.

(1) I am more than happy to respectfully engage anyone who responds to my comments in good faith to share perspectives.

(2) I do not feel responsible for the impact of my posts on anyone who chooses to either engage me in bad faith or who tries to make me responsible for their decisions.

(3) I have no problem with anyone deciding that I’m just another crank on the Internet, and as a result choosing to either not read my posts or read them and not respond. I am fully responsible for anyone who might react to my posts in that manner. But it isn’t something I particularly worry about.

I think it’s better when we discuss the right issues.http://3000quads.com/2012/08/19/energy-as-a-constraint-on-growth/ 

Joshua: If you start your own blog I will show up and prove your point. I know I am an asshole. But allow me an old biology joke. “Yes, I am an asshole; but every higher form of life needs one!” LOL. You will need one if you want your blog to attain a higher level of consciousness. I nominate me. Too many assholes is a sign of the lower lifeforms: cnideria, polychaetes, etc (jellyfish for the jello/mud slingers, and worms for the low life ranters and slime rakers).

Thanks to John F. Pittman for an object lesson in Begging The Question. It can be really hard to come up with good examples to show what that term actually means.

Standard fake comment from Moshpit:

> a citation that the IPCC promises an open transparent process.

No, the citation was for

The IPCC promises an open traceable transparent process.

and

The IAC recommended a transparent process with traceability.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/ipcc-vs-mcintyre-round-2/#comment-89636

First, let’s note that the concept of tracability, has not been recalled in #69, a concept that might be the result of an overinterpretation.

Second, let’s note that the IAC has no such open process as presumed by Moshpit and the college of parsomatics at Lucia’s. Since the IAC is supposed to be the authority upon which their concept of openness is supposed to be warranted, our beloved Parsomatics’ overall line of attack might go well beyond the limits of disingeniousness.

While we can deplore yet another fake comment from Moshpit, auditors might profit from it by reading that thread at Lucia’s and appreciate the debate between Ed Darrell and the Parsomatics. The result of millions of years of evolution. A miracle of nature.

#88 – Willard -

So here we go again:

The more you take yourself as a topic, the more it will get attacked.

I have not made myself the topic. I have responded to others who have made me the topic – as you did in #88.

Should I just not respond to you when you, or Tom, or anyone else makes me the topic? Perhaps, but sometimes I choose not to, and when I do respond, I feel no responsibility to you or anyone who chooses to make me the topic. It is a bit of a dilemma because I do realize that some folks don’t want to read this nonsense, and I feel some responsibility to Keith in that sense… but anyone who chooses to can simply ignore any of the comments directed at me or my comments in response. It really isn’t much of a burden, and I think it’s hilarious that anyone would try to portray it as such.

If you, or anyone else, don’t like discussing me…don’t.

It’s really quite simple.If you do make me the topic, I am likely to respond.

#86 – John -

“Why is it ethical to take from those who were successful because their
past generations invested in education, government, and wealth and give to those who did not and whose poverty in education government and wealth reflects what they did not do in a gane that may be only certain members will survive.

Your question makes some broad assumptions that I would challenge. While it is true that some have attained success for the reasons you outline, it is obviously true that it is not true for many who have attained success. As just one example, certainly we can trace the success of many people, directly, back to wealth inherited from their ancestors’ exploitation of the ancestors of those who, today, have not attained success.I don’t understand this comment:

If you accept that we will all die in order to give these poor chance while claiming this is about the survival of the human race, you argument will be morally bankrupt.

Are you saying that people accept that we all will die as a result of giving poor people a chance? There is a long tradition in this country of exactly the opposite belief – that giving poor people a chance is to everyone’s benefit.

And now Joshua joins in: Turn it on its head. Joshua provide the documentation, and etc you request from us when we make an assertation to support your claim of exploitation. Please include your proof that they would have been better off without that exploitation. Assumptions not allowed. Joshua, this moral stance is a tribe like all the other tribes you bang on about. Many cultures and people do not agree with its premises.

Willard -

Where do I find your email address? I will send you my response rather than post it, and the next time you want to discuss me and tell me that you don’t want to discuss me, you will be able to do it via email. .

#95 – John -

Joshua provide the
documentation, and etc you request from us when we make an assertation to support your claim of exploitation.

Honestly? Before accepting the veracity of my assumption, you need me to provide documentation that the ancestors of some  people who are currently successful exploited others to attain their success? 

Please include your proof that they would have been better off without that exploitation.

Not sure why that would be necessary… First, such proof would be impossible, as it would require me to prove a counterfactual in a situation where I couldn’t set up an empirical context. I can’t prove what would or would not have happened to people if they hadn’t been forced into slave labor. I can’t prove what would have happened to people who died in ovens as others financed the war machinery that enabled them to be burned..

Second, whether or not they would have been better off does not determine whether or not they were exploited. If I benefit from your slave labor, you are being exploited for my gain. Whether I feed you more than you might have eaten if you were free does not change the fact that I am exploiting you.But I’m just curious – do you think that someone who eats as a slave better than he did before he was enslaved is “better off?”

Assumptions not allowed. Joshua, this moral stance is a tribe like all the other
tribes you bang on about. Many cultures and people do not agree with its premises.

Fair enough. True, it is a tribal stance. I should modify what I said. Yes, there are some people who think that helping the poor will cause us all to die. I would say that the tribe who believes that is extremely small, and again, there is a long-standing tradition in this country of belief that helping the poor benefits the general population. I would disagree with your statement (assumption?) that “many people and cultures do not agree with its premises – if by many, you are speaking in terms relative to the overall population. (I.e., a small % of the world’s population could be considered as “many people”).

I would say in recent times Bosnia, middle east and much of Africa, my many peoples is true. I understand your position about food, yet look at the alternative, without the slavery you starve. I know I asked for a counter factual response to highlight the facts such as what happens versus our opinions about “exploitation.” Morals are opinions, what happens are facts. From these facts we can examine the robustness of the moral claims, we can examine how sensitive it is to changing conditions.

> So you think we were promised some kind of “untraceable transparency” by the IPCC?

Cute.

NiV You stole my pig!!

The history of the phrase “Nullius in Verba” goes back to the founding of the Royal Society and was a brave rationalist stance against religious dogma. It meant “we believe nothing if it is based on words alone” meaning we seek evidence, meaning we don’t take the gospel as, er, gospel.

When our NiV addresses climate, he or she over interprets the phrase to mean “don’t take anybody’s word for anything”, i.e., I expect you to demonstrate all the conclusions of climate science without room for doubt, but I don’t propose to go out of my way to develop the relevant skills or experience. I say anything about climate, NiV says “Yeah? Prove it!” More or less politely, but accepting and trusting nothing.

Yet NiV has no problem with the dogmatic assertion that “Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. It’s what will make poor countries rich.”

I stipulate that this can happen and has happened in the past, but I see several reasons that this might not be a general principle. But the claim is made in the broadest possible terms without even a hint of supporting evidence.

My question is why so many people make this obvious and sharp epistemological distinction between climate science and economics in this way. It is climate science that is rooted in universal, well-tested physics. Economic theory summarizes a few decades of human history and not very well. Yet skepticism is rarely directed at the most optimistic statements in economics, stated in the broadest of terms with no trace of caveats, by those who claim to be the dedicated guardians of reason and skepticism.

NiV is one of the smarter ones, yet still we see this bizarre dichotomy.

NiV, on what basis do you believe that capitalism will “make poor countries rich” regardless of circumstances. On what basis are you convinced, to be specific, that it will not make rich countries poor, once key resources are used up? And more to the point, on what basis do you get to make broad sweeping generalizations while nitpicking at everything someone with real expertise says about their field of knowledge.

You made a claim. Can you prove it? It happens that I am one who is not much swayed by dogma.

I howled with laughter the other day when a commenter on another site ““ a person I know is educated ““ claimed that we were all better off back in the days when we had pensions, before we had to invest our money in dirty, profit-making stocks and bonds to build our retirement. Something tells me it is “educated” people like this that are driving the Green economic agenda.  Of course, I hope, we all know how pension funds earn
their returns.

Depends whether you cashed out before or after stocks plunge. Investing is asymmetric, after something hits zero it can’t come back. BTW, for what its worth. You also fundamentally misunderstand why people save for a pension. Hint: it is not to make a fortune

 The “the government has the
right to take the fruits of your labour, you get plenty in echange” is not really all that different from “the slave-owners have the right to
take the fruits of your labour, you get plenty in exchange.” It’s still legalised theft.

Really. So saying that people have the right to elect politicians who pass tax legislation is “not really all that different from” saying that slavery is honky-dory?

And saying that offering someone the right to leave the country if they don’t want to pay taxes is the same things as chaining someone and shooting them if they try to leave?

Hmmm.  I don’t know. Somehow I see a smidgeon of a difference. 

I somehow imagine that my life circumstance, where I pay taxes in return for the social benefits thus derived, is just a tad better than someone who is forced into slave labor. Just a  whisker better.

Methinks that you are taking this whole victimization thing just a scootch too far.

#107,

“Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, – quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes.” Horace, Epistles, 20 BC.

To copy a comment I made elsewhere where I tried to explain it…

The point of the motto is not that everything must be re-examined, but that everything can be re-examined. There are no statements anywhere that cannot be challenged, and when challenged you cannot simply take someone’s word for it that it is true. You have to check.

Because what ‘Nullius in Verba’ is really about is the insight that established/traditional knowledge can be wrong, and this is a safeguard against the slow corruption of our body of knowledge. It is the immune system of science constantly searching for infections and destroying them. Most of the time, you can accept standard results fairly safely precisely because they have been combed over by this mechanism so many times before. It is the reason and mechanism by which belief in science is rationally justified. But you must never forget that this is a pragmatic compromise with scientific principle, one that is technically illegitimate, and there is no result so standard that it would not have to be re-examined again from scratch if plausibly challenged.

“I stipulate that this can happen and has happened in the past, but I see several reasons that this might not be a general principle.”

It’s a long-standing and general principle of free market economic philosophy. Something like it can be derived from game theory. (Free trade is by definition a positive-sum game.) One of the better introductions to the topic is Bastiat’s Sophisms, although I’d also recommend DeSoto’s book ‘The Mystery of Capital’. Not only has it happened in the past, but it’s happening today. Have you ever seen the Hans Rosling internet video on the Joy of Stats?

Capitalism doesn’t make poor countries rich, regardless of circumstances. The circumstances under which it works are rather delicate, and not fully understandable (see DeSoto). It’s rather like climate in that regard.

I assure you, I only believe it having thought long and hard about it, and having done a fair bit of reading. I find it somewhat counter-intuitive too – I’m certainly not taking anyone’s word for it. I do enjoy arguing about it, but it’s a big topic and off-topic too.

But I don’t really expect you to take mine for it either. Indeed, it’s one of the core disagreements between left and right. I say it not because I think you will be persuaded, but only to let you know it is a point of disagreement.

NiV, is it still OK to say that corporations have the right to take the fruits of your labour, you get plenty in exchange?” Or is it legalised theft?

I’ll take your word for it.

Sorry – that should have read:

…If slave traders had walked up to slaves [free people] living in conditions where food was uncertain,….

So, mt, free-market economics is based on “a couple of decades” of human experience, but what you talk of as “climate science” is a mature discipline dispensing prounouncements that cannot be challenged.  Sorry, but you are massively ill-informed.

Yep, that was true in the USA. Slavery was legalized in the constitution by the same guys who did the tax legislation.

How does that make slavery and taxation equivalent? Because both were codified in through an elected body? So does that mean that slavery and any laws of any type are the same in “principle” because they were codified by an elected body?

Joshua, first point slavery was a tradition in Africa long before the US engaged in it. Historically, it was in the paper world so I don’t know if you can google it, it has been proposed that slavery was founded by the aristocracy in reaction to the freeing of peasants who were “wedded to the soil.” The agricultral revolution freed the manpower that allowed the start of industrialization. It was a dicey business at first. The point is that many slaves were sold for the food and money by other people. People, governments, religions, businesses, green organizations use people. Some is voluntary, some is not. Joshua, what is the purpose of the wars in my examples? The ones I pointed to were for eradication of those who are different. What happened to their property, their oil, their right to compete for a living or even to live? Joshua, you are assigning credence to this statement “Americans tend to think that poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor.” I say that is tribal. My position is if you do not know why a person is poor, you do not know. If you are not psysic, you don’t know what I think, unless I tell you. The not trivial part of what happens allows us to make some conclusions. An example is the eradication of persons in Africa, because the oil mainly resided there and the government was composed of persons of a different religion, and wanted oil. You could use gold and the “Trail of Tears.” Takings have victims too. That is non trivial. Yet, slavery of old, oil wars of present are presented in moral terms. My point is the measurement of exploitation is as trivial and subjective as morality is trivial and subjective. The conclusion of exploitation is a moral judgement. It has facts that support it; it has adherents who are tribal. It is subjective and relative, yet mt expressed it as a certainty. If he can do so, I have no problem with a libertarian expressing taxes as theft. AT the point of assertion, it is simply tribal dogma.

When will people learn that in order for economies to flourish they must be run by noble, all knowing, resource conscious philosopher kings? I nominate Michael Tobis. 

John -

The property I have was protected by police, by environmental laws, by the military. I have water provided by municipal services. People come to collect my trash. I pay taxes.

I can sell my property and take the money with me. I can take anything I own in my house with me. I can take my family with me. My dog can come if she’d like. I often talk with friends about buying a villa in Italy and moving there together. Maybe we will some day. My friends can come with me if they choose to do so.

you ignore the cost of the externalities to those who have to move to be free in your comment at 120.

No one here has to move to be free. They are free here. They have to move (to where, Shangri-La?) if they don’t want to pay taxes. I am not the slightest bit concerned if they wish to do so. Good riddance.  Given the choice, a large % of the world’s population would willingly move here to have the opportunity to pay taxes. I would guess that most of those who wouldn’t probably pay more in taxes then I do. Relatively few would choose to move away, even fewer because they feel that paying taxes is theft. 

I am not “ignoring” any negative externalities. There are downsides to paying taxes. I have less control over where the money than I’d like. Some of the money is spent in ways that I oppose. There are unintended consequences to the system. There are imperfections. But there is no perfect system. I am not limited by a binary mindset. That some tax money is spent in ways I don’t approve of does not mean that our system is tyrannical. I realize that there is no Shangri-La. There is no free lunch. I would prefer to have free lunch, but I  am content to pay for it.

 Joshua, it is called the tyranny of the majority, or the powerful.

I don’t live in a tyranny. Maybe you live in a tyranny, but I don’t – despite that there are many things legislated in this country, and supported by a majority, that I don’t agree with. 

Where is the point that governement can do what it wants; can it do anything it wants:

“The government” is an elected body, comprising my fellow citizens.

“If your government acts like a criminal, can you tell the difference between criminals and the government?

I have no idea what that means. Could you elaborate?

(123) John -

I don’t understand the relevance of most of what you wrote in that post. Sorry. I’m not smart enough to make the connections. You’ll have to dumb it down for me. For example, I don’t see how the existing practice of slavery prior to Americans enslaving people is relevant to the question of whether or not Americans enslaving people was exploitation.

I will respond to this, however:

The conclusion of exploitation is a moral judgement.

I don’t agree. The conclusion about exploitation is a factual assessment. That isn’t to say that determining the morality about exploitation is not, within certain bounds, a subjective judgement. But slavery is exploitation. Making money from selling equipment to burn people in ovens is exploitation. If people choose to be sufficiently morally relativistic, then they can attach whatever moral judgement they would like w/r/t slavery or genocide, but that doesn’t change the simple facts of whether or not it is exploitation. If you profit by a action that directly and unequivocally  limits someone else’s freedom, then it is exploitation. There is no way around that. 

Anyway, gotta go. As I said – this has been a fascinating discussion.

Joshua you pointed out about the persons who were enslaved as though they had a choice in 116. This is naive as in it does not have much explanatory power. The slave trade in that region has been posited as being millenial. Slavery was kept in the US to form a country. Slavery was pursued by my ancestors on the island of Barbados as a reaction to the freeing of the English by Cromwell and the roundheads. You are correct that certain actions can be measured as exploitation. My point is that one must be careful of the definition of such, and that there are things worse than slavery. After all, the basis of the CAGW claim is that not ridding ourselves of certain freedoms is certain to be worse and thus ridding ourselves is justified. This was mt’s basis. You state “If you profit by a action that directly and unequivocally limits someone else’s freedom, then it is exploitation. There is no way around that. ” This is what is being proposed for us by the CAGW SIF’s (single issue fanatics). The difference is what is money. Do I have a right to purchase what I want? What are its limits? Can you restrict an otherwise legitimate activity from me while allowing others that activity? What are those limits? In each case we do accept limits. Yet in the US and other countries we ALSO accept rights to limit what can be taken, or prohibited. Criminals only accept such limts on a provisional basis, as in what do I need to do to get around it, compromise it, or invalidate it.

#115,

If you don’t want to trade the fruit of your labour with a corporation, you don’t have to. You have a choice.

#116,

“Americans tend to think that poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor.”

Poor people are poor because they don’t create wealth. It’s not the same thing at all as ‘deserving’ it. That might be because they can’t, or choose not to, or made mistakes or were unlucky.

But the answer is to enable them to create wealth for themselves, and any answer that doesn’t do that is no solution.

“If slave traders had walked up to slaves living in conditions where food was uncertain, and asked them…”

Selling yourself or your family into slavery to pay debts was not uncommon. You have no food and your family are dying so you go in to debt to pay it, then wehen the debts come due you still can’t pay it, so you pay off the debt with your bodies. People did.

#120,

“I disagree, completely, that taxation is theft. It is an agreement I accept  with free will.”

You can accept being robbed with free will. But whether you accept it or not, you’ll still pay.

“I have the right to: leave the country if I don’t want to pay taxes”

You do in your country. Other countries not so much – East Germany, Russia, North Korea, Cuba,…”Is the fact that we elect our law makers completely irrelevant to you?”

We have elections. But all the candidates on offer have the same high-spending policies, so in what way do I have a choice?

“Is the concept of freedom irrelevant to you?”

Heh. No.

#134,

Tell them that in Cuba…

> Poor people are poor because they don’t create wealth.

Define “create”.

> It was a matter of POV.

And thus John F. Pittman completes the hat trick: assumptions, assertions, and POVs.

Thanks Willard for supporting my contentions pertaining to using our resources to fight CAGW and why we are doing it. It is the assumptions, assertions, POV and don’t forget advocacy that define the proposed solutions, and sometimes the existance of effects of our increasing emissions of CO2. And yes, there are those who consider they have a right to pollute, and harm is a taking, IMO. However, if CO2 is a benfefit, we are fortunate that we do not need to support it much. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of current “green” solutions to replace our CO2 emissions. It is also unfortunate that the proposals to fight CO2 do venture into the realm of takings.

> Thanks Willard for supporting my contentions pertaining to using our resources to fight CAGW and why we are doing it.

Citation needed.

Our in-house geologist is again testing the limits of justified disingeniousness.

After reading these comments I’m tempted to change my screen name to Tabula Rasa in honour of John Rawls. But then I remember  Richard Tol. Wouldn’t want to upset him or the real Tabula Rasa…. 

Speaking of John Rawls…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19284017

(147) AA -

Nice article. I also note that polls show that a majority of Americans feel that their taxes are basically fair. So much for the argument that large %’s of Americans thinking that the rich should be taxed more is simply out of “envy” and a desire to pay less in taxes. Why do “conservatives” have such a low opinion of Americans – the majority of whom think that the rich should pay more in taxes? What about “conservatives” has them assume that others are motivated by “envy?”

Thanks for the link Andrew. Excellent article that nicely illustrates Rawls ideas.

So, we took the American society and we asked people to imagine it divided into five buckets, the wealthiest 20%, the next 20%, the next, the next and the poorest 20%.

First of all, we asked people: how much wealth do you think is concentrated in each of those buckets?It turns out people get it very wrong.

Continue reading the main story”

Start Quote

Even Americans understand that inequality is not a good idea and principle”

The reality is that the bottom two buckets together, the bottom 40% of Americans, own 0.3% of the wealth; 0.3%, almost nothing, whereas the top 20% own about 84% of the wealth.

I think if those stats were on every bumper sticker in America we’d be having a very different conversation in this election cycle. 

(152) Marlowe -

And the quip about changing your name? Is it to mock people who, you think, just accept whatever they hear as gospel? What is the connection between tabula rasa and Rawls? Why would changing your name to that be in his honor?

John’s point about the Tyranny of the Majority is a fair one – that’s why many democratic countries have a constitution, bill of rights etc., because it’s recognised that there should be limits to the power of the state regardless of whether such powers might have a democratic mandate. So I think it follows that in a democracy it can be legitimate for people to argue that they are being subject to unreasonable treatment by a government pursuing policies on which it was elected, and for this reason I don’t like the “if you don’t like it you can go and live elsewhere” argument, as well as the fact that for most of us that simply isn’t a practical option. 

Which is not to say the “all taxation is theft” argument has any validity. Surely there are functions which we would all agree it is necessary for governments to carry out – defence of the realm and maintaining law and order for a start, and these have to be paid for, as do the expenses involved in the operation of government itself. How are the necessary funds to be raised if not by taxation? And is it not legitimate that we might decide that there are other tasks/functions which we should undertake, and pay for, collectively? If so then how far should we go – where do we draw the line from how much the government should be doing and collecting in taxation? I would strongly argue that in general these kind of questions are exactly the kind which should be answered through the democratic process. 

Yes, it is frustrating when one finds that one’s views are not represented by any party which has a chance of being elected, so I have some sympathy with NiV in that respect. As Joshua points out, we can to try and build support for our views, promote candidates who share our outlook, or otherwise promote our cause using the democratic mechanisms available. We can also try to put in place better democratic mechanisms so minority views are not so easily marginalised. But there is no democratic system which will allow everyone’s views to prevail.

AA -

As for tyranny of the majority. John mistook my response as indicating that I didn’t understand the concept. Not true.

As an abstracted concept it is an important consideration. But my point is that a claim that we are victims of a tyranny imposed by a majority needs to be contextualized. I do not live in a tyranny imposed by a majority. No one in this country does, even if they are in a minority w/r/t important political realities. As imperfect as our political process is, we do not live in a tyranny. Is that a subjective statement? Perhaps. But I would argue (subjectively) that you’d have to stretch so far to create an argument that we live in a tyranny that you stop making sense. In other words, the mitigating aspects that you mention vis a vis tyranny are real and unarguable (although, of course, not perfect).

 So I think it follows that in a democracy it can be legitimate for people to argue that they are being subject to unreasonable treatment by a government pursuing policies on which it was elected and for this reason I don’t like the “if you don’t like it you can go and live elsewhere” argument, as well as the fact that for most of us
that simply isn’t a practical option..

I get your point, but there is, I would say, a sizable difference between “unreasonable treatment” and tyranny. And that is why the argument that you can leave does, IMO, apply. It is not a tyranny, at least largely in part, because you can leave. And whether or not it is a practical option does not negate the simple fact that you can leave. You can leave, but it would require sacrifice. The sacrifice is why some people feel it isn’t “practical.” But that is a choice that they make. Many people don’t want to make the sacrifice, but only a tiny majority of people couldn’t actually do it. Millions of people with very few resources enter this country because they feel it is worth the sacrifice. Their journey to get here, for many, is hardly what we could call “practical.”

I am not saying “love it or leave it.” I am saying that the reality of being able to leave is relevant to the determination of what is, or isn’t, tyrannical. You have a choice to not love it and stay anyway.

I would also say that it is important to balance any consideration of a “tyranny of the majority” with the “tyranny of the minority.” Perhaps, in a real and not theoretical sense, that is more characteristic of what we have in this country than a tyranny of the majority.

Did you read the article Harry?

I see your point Harry…and I’ll agree that it seems unfair to pay you at the same rate as the person making eight less widgets per hour. But does this automatically mean that you should receive 3 or 4 hundred times as much…or potentially an infinite ammount. Why such an abhorance of limits? In this argument about being rewarded in accordance with what one does…when is enough enough? And would you consider slowing down a touch and only producing say, five widgets an hour?

Shorter Ariely: “Deep down inside, people are secret communists because I asked them what they thought about a John Rawls quote”Ladies and Gentlemen: Science at work.

Sharp eyes, PDA!

the intellectual bankruptcy of conservative commenters on this thread wrt to Rawls’ theory of a just society are revealing if not unexpected. Maybe Sashka will drop by and defend the honour of the ayn rand worshippers that seem to have infested CaS.

But what of Agrarian Justice? Is there such a thing? Is all land, at one point unused and unclaimed, that of collective prosperity?

Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before.

One wonders about Thomas Paine’s trauma and guilt.

John -

No Joshua I indicated that you were not factoring in a tyranny of the majority. 

Fair enough. Apologies. But you still have it wrong. I am factoring that in, and saying that it is immaterial because we don’t live in a tyranny. Yes, minorities may not have their rights as well represented as majorities, but that does not make the situation tyrannical. In my view, it only looks that way if you bring a binary mindset to the table

It is not my claim that we live in a tyranny…

The logic here evades me. You brought up the subject of a tyranny of the majority in a discussion about poverty, the fairness of taxation, etc.

You have not commented about rights wrt what we are being asked by some to sacrifice.

Also true. And deliberate. I avoided going down that road with you because it is so complicated. In short, my view is that  your application of “tyranny” is overstated. I feel that sacrifice needs to be (and should be) made. I feel that those who have more to give up should sacrifice more. That is a moral judgement but my underlying rationale for the moral judgement I make is, I assume, not that different from yours: The end result should bring the maximum best result to the most people. I’m going to guess that we have a basic disagreement about the mechanics of how that works. A discussion of those mechanics crosses over the discussion we’re having now. but I don’t think that they are necessarily directly linked, and I don’t accept what seems to me to be your attempt to use what we were discussing as an analogy.

While that other discussion would be worthwhile at some point, I suppose, I’m reluctant to go there in the blogosphere because usually it devolves when someone attributes nefarious motivations. I will say, however, that thus far I have not found you to impose a morality judgment upon me – within reason. I fear that introducing the notion of “tyranny” will bring it to that level unnecessarily. Maybe we would get there somewhere down the road. It doesn’t seem to me like a good starting point. I’m not inclined to begin a discussion with trying to explain why mitigation policies are not the equivalent of a tyranny. From where I sit, such a notion can only involve arguing about inaccurate, ideological, binary, stereotypes. Seems to me it would be better to start with a discussion of how we view the costs and benefits of different types of mitigation efforts, the need for such efforts, etc.

#171 There is nothing in particular that I disagree with you on Joshua. However, I think the point that we differ on is where the line of reasonableness is crossed. In particular, you disagreed with me in that you stated:”" 
I will respond to this, however:

The conclusion of exploitation is a moral judgement.

I don’t agree. The conclusion about exploitation is a factual assessment. That isn’t to say that determining the morality about exploitation is not, within certain bounds, a subjective judgement.”"  A simple example was the carraige house in 146 that you made. I would argue that this is an example of why exploitation is a point of veiw. If one is not paid for the investment and risk, they would tend not to do it. I don’t mind so much that persons use perjorative descriptions, as much as they do not consider that such are often simplistic and offered solutions may  not work. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to market efficiency and what money is. Another point is that you did what you did with your property, and did not force them to rent from you. You should reap rewards for it. It is not immoral and I would say it is not exploitation. I would say it would be the State exploiting you if they made you take your private property, invest as they saw fit, and forced you to accept what payment they chose. There are many things discussed as though it cannot be anything other than exploitation, and I disagree with this. As stated I see much of this as tribal posturing and demonization. Another post pointed to China, and I agree just what would one define as exploitation these since much of the industry is state owned and operated. It does not seem to stop exploitation of people or the environment as you appear to have defined it. So, I would not conclude becasue a state does legal or not, that it is or is not exploitation. But I would argue that the moral aspect will be the defining criteria.

#142 (cont.),

“There are tens of millions of working poor in this country alone. Their labor goes to create wealth, even if they don’t become wealthy.”

You mean, they don’t individually have much to offer, and are unable to organise themselves, but if they pay a small portion to an organiser, collectively and with the efficiencies of scale they can all make a living. The organiser is the one with the rare skill, one desperately needed by many millions of people, and he offers this service in return for what it’s worth. They benefit. He benefits. Both sides profit from the transaction, and thus wealth is created.

If they could do what the organiser does, then they could do it themselves instead and undercut the boss. They’d take slightly less profit themselves, offer slightly more to the workforce, and take their business away. There’s nothing stopping you. Or if they could do it without being organised into an integrated team of specialists, then they could do that and do away with bosses altogether. They don’t individually get a lot, but then they don’t individually have much to give. If they’re working in a burger bar or a sweat shop, it’s because the alternatives are all worse.

Sometimes the reason for it is bad luck as you say, and there are depths below which people should not be pushed. I don’t say there’s no room in the system for a bit of humanity. But doing so has a cost, which we must never forget. Less is produced as a result, and so there is less to go round. In helping some, we harm many others.

“You don’t “sell yourself into slavery.” If you sell yourself, then you are receiving compensation. If you are a slave, you receive no compensation for your labor.”

You get the cancellation of your debts. Which given what they would do to you if you still owed them the money, is a bargain.

“I pay taxes for the benefits I receive. I have the freedom to decline this exchange.”

You pay a lot more in tax than you receive in benefit. And your nationality is not theirs to sell.

#142 (cont.),

“No one promised you a rose garden.”

Many people promise rose gardens – just support this policy, vote for this candidate, sign this form… most just don’t deliver. Of all such systems, capitalism has come the nearest to delivering one. It’s not perfect, but we’ve gone from agricultural labourers dying at 35 in cold dark mud huts to still being able to play Angry Birds on our iPhones at the age of 80. It’s pretty close to a rose garden, in my book.

But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There are people around now who don’t understand this goose that lays such shiny golden eggs, who don’t believe in it, and want to dismantle it, re-arrange it in the shape of their own ideas. They want to get without giving back, and if they can’t afford that they’ll borrow and borrow and promise that someone else will pay it back later. They want to take the wealth from the parts that are working and give it to the parts that are not. And then when it all goes wrong, anyone who has anything saved up will be expected to contribute that to dig them out of the mess. Which will, of course, only allow them to keep on doing it.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. Always has been.

So while things are tolerable at the moment, I’d like to keep it that way. Which is why I sometimes say deliberately provocative things to make the point.

#172

There are examples of wealth without creation even according to the description offered in #172. The easiest one is Tomaso the cat. Accordingly, the idea that you’re poor because you don’t create wealth does not seem to take into account slavery and sweat shops, unless one wants to argue with counterfactuals, e.g. they would be even poorer were they not creating any wealth, but the idea that we’re into an economical fantasy might then transpire too much.

The same kind of shift to metaphysical possibility can be observed with the response that if you don’t want to trade with a corporation, you just have to trade with another one. This might explain a counterfactual galore like:

If they were able to provide something people wanted and didn’t have enough of, they would be able to trade it for more. Either they have no skills or means to produce such things, or what they can provide nobody wants, or what they can provide is already available in abundance. Or perhaps they simply don’t want to.

Indeed, if they were not poor, they’d be rich. And if you don’t want to breath with your lungs, nothing prevents you from selling them to buy artificial ones.

NinV..”They want to take the wealth from the parts that are working and give it to the parts that are not. And then when it all goes wrong, anyone who has anything saved up will be expected to contribute that to dig them out of the mess. Which will, of course, only allow them to keep on doing it.” Perfect description of what just took place on Wall Street I would say…

#180,

Is that condescension I smell?

#181,

I’m not sure which event on Wall Street you’re referring to.

You also need to tell people how much each of those buckets contributes to society, to running the government, to paying their welfare, and to creating wealth.Sure, let’s work out how much wealth each bucket has, take off how much they contribute to the things you mention, work out how much they have left, and ask the question again.  

Here’s a hint…a whole whack ‘o dough was ponied up to bailout banks and investment houses..sort of like “when it all goes wrong  anybody with who has anything saved up will be expected to contribute that to dig them out of the mess…”

#186,

 Well I was kind of thinking of something above and beyond what was in my own immediate economic interest.

If only I was a libertarian, whereby the answer to the world’s problems would be, by happy coincidence, for me to do whatever is in my own economic self-interest. We could do away with all these difficult questions.

I give…to carry on would be like  arguing with my dog…so I yield the floor. I suggest you have a Holly Hobitt view of the system and we would have to back up so far to find common ground that it would take weeks of typing..may the force be with you.

NiV -

Many people promise rose gardens ““ just support this policy, vote for this candidate, sign this form”¦ most just don’t deliver.

I should have been more clear. What I meant by that expression is that no one promised you a perfect world. I have yet to hear anyone promise a perfect would. Are you saying that many people do so? Could you elaborate?

Of all such systems, capitalism has come the nearest to delivering one.

Why is that, and the rest of that post relevant? I was not discussing the relative merits of capitalism as compared to other governing systems.

There are people around now who don’t understand this goose that lays such golden eggs, who don’t believe in it, and want to dismantle it, re-arrange it in the shape of their own ideas.

Yes, there are people around on the left and the right who fit your description. Interestingly, it is people on the right who have more power amongst people who fit that description than people on the left; specifically, extremist libertarians. People on the left who fit that description are few and far between, and they have little political power.

They want to get without giving back, and if they can’t afford that they’ll borrow and borrow and promise that someone else will pay it back later.

How many people do you know who fit that description? I don’t know any. Would you mind describing them a bit – under what circumstances you met them, etc.?

They want to take the wealth from the parts that are working and give it to the parts that are not.

Well, I haven’t met any of “them,” but you can tell “them” for me that they are living in a falsely dichotomous world; they are creating a false division between “parts.” There is no such division. The system functions well and poorly as a whole – necessarily. There is a significant segment of the population on the left who would like to modify the system in ways that they believe will make the U.S. more economically equitable and to increase class mobility. Now you and I may disagree about the wisdom of their efforts in that regard, but your description is obviously meant to describe those efforts, and your description is grossly inaccurate.

So while things are tolerable at the moment, I’d like to keep it that way.

Well then, you’d better start talking to extremist libertarians, because there are quite a few of them with significant political power who are working very actively to significantly change “things.”Sorry for the tone of this post, and I’d like to engage you in serious discussion, but that post and the few before that were what I view to be over-the-top polemics that leave nothing to grasp onto. Nothing to debate in a meaningful way. I see gross distortions and demonizing of the sort that is a dime-a-dozen on the Internet. I suggest that we limit political discussion to more concrete issues that can actually be discussed.

Joshua -What racially discriminatory lending practices are you referring to?

Tom C-

Redlining. I know about it first hand. I happen to grow up in a neighborhood where it was taking place. There were some interesting controlled studies where racism in lending practices was proven.

I have no problem recognizing free-market capitalism as being a mighty force for creating wealth. My concern is with how it’s spread around and the seeming inability to allow for limits to how much is enough.

You mean, they don’t individually have much to offer, and are unable to organise themselves, but if they pay a small portion to an organiser,
collectively and with the efficiencies of scale they can all make a living.

Yes, that is called forming a union, but you appear hostile to that.

Everyone here is young enough to forget the tumbrils, which on route is the reason to share some of the wealth.

@ NiV

Don’t take this the wrong way, but for now and evermore, whenever I hear the word “sophist” I’ll think of you

er…. aides.

Joshua – Your hospice worker observations are typical and understandable.  If someone is not moved, on occasion by thoughts that the nursing aide is “worth more” than the banker they are heartless.  But, contrary to Michael Tobis, there are centuries of experience with what happens when you distort the market by arbitrarily lowering the bankers income and raising the hospice worker’ income.  The entire system of motivations/rewards that matches persons with a given aptitude and education level to a wealth creating job goes haywire, and poverty for all ensues.  That is always what happens in communist countries.  If you doubt this, find someone who lived through it and ask them.

Tom C-

One more bit in response.

If you “care” about the poor you should learn about how wealth is created and help poor people to take part in that. 

Just for your information — While I can’t possibly know how you intended that comment, when I read it, I can’t help but wonder if you are making an implication that I don’t care about the poor. It seems to me that you may be suggesting that my political orientation rests on ignoring what causes poverty. The main reason that I go there is that I have had people state in the past, directly, that my political orientation is based on deliberately ignoring “realities” about what causes poverty.

My tendency to react that way to your comment is exacerbated by inaccurate assumptions you have demonstrated with respect to my beliefs.

I would imagine that you have had similar experiences. Say where people made assumptions, based on your political orientation and previous mistaken assumptions about your beliefs, that you don’t care about poverty. I can understand why, if you have had those experiences, you would have resented such assumptions about your beliefs and what you do and don’t care about.

For all the talk of climate science being a watermelonist conspiracy, people who think we have a problem to solve seem to be more politically diverse than those who don’t — the latter having a very particular, endemically Anglospheric, social ideal.

afeman – In your opinion, what will it take to “solve this problem”?

Tom C – Doesn’t matter if you don’t recognize the existence of the problem.

161 Steve Mennie

But does this automatically mean that you should receive 3 or 4 hundred times as much”¦

Eventually someone will decide to compete against me , they will either make even more widgets per hour or make better widgets or offer a lower price. I would note that Fred Koch, father of the much maligned Koch Brothers made his money competing against the major oil companies. The major oil companies had a monopoly on refining.If you look thru the Forbes billionaires list there are quite a few David vs Goliath stories. Apple topped out IBM this year on the Forbes Fortune 500 list. IBM ranked 5th on the Fortune 500 list 40 years ago.Getting to the Fortune 500 list takes extraordinary talent and staying there takes extraordinary talent. The market decides the appropriate level of financial reward.

Tom C – Do you think there’s a problem to solve?

#192,

The answer to your questions is that I’m well aware of the sequence of events, but I left it out because for one thing it would make for a very long comment (I do actually try to keep it short), and more importantly, because it’s not relevant to the point.

#193,

“What I meant by that expression is that no one promised you a perfect world.”

What you meant was that because we can’t have a perfect world, we shouldn’t complain or try to repair its imperfections.

What I was saying was that capitalism isn’t perfect either, but it’s the nearest thing we’ve got, and that even if we never make it, it’s still worth pushing in the direction of perfection.

“Why is that, and the rest of that post relevant? I was not discussing the relative merits of capitalism as compared to other governing systems.”

Capitalism is what I’ve been talking about since #100.

“I’d like to engage you in serious discussion, but that post and the few before that were what I view to be over-the-top polemics that leave nothing to grasp onto.”

This conversation started with the claim “Of course it’s us. Us now against us later. Us in the rich countries against those of us stuck in the poor countries. Us against our grandchildren.” which I’d regard as an over-the-top polemic so far from reality that it couldn’t see it with a radio telescope. I know from experience that this sort of discussion never gets anywhere – the worldviews are mutually incomprehensible. I only really wanted to make it clear that the “it’s us against them” thing wasn’t agreed, but people always want to ask questions and argue…

“No. that’s not at all what I mean. I mean that they do work of real value, and they create wealth. And that doesn’t even address the extent to which “worth” in the sense that you are describing embeds an arbitrary attribution.”

If they did work of real value, they would get paid more for it. The attribution of worth isn’t arbitrary, it’s founded on what people are willing to pay for it. If you think their labour is worth more than they’re currently being paid, then hire them and get the benefit for yourself while helping them too.

“And please, do get back to the gist of my argument.”

I’m not attempting a complete and rigorous definition.

“In every workplace that I’ve ever toiled, I’ve observed largely incompetent people attain success, and highly competent people have difficulty becoming successful.”

Competent at what?

Everywhere I’ve worked, competent people were more successful, although quite often they were interested in different sorts of success. Not everyone wants to be rich.

“Not to say that the elements you describe aren’t in play, but you fail to account for any nuance or complexities in real world cause-and-effect.”

Do you really expect me to give a complete model of the world in a blog comment?

Marlowe,

Please bear in mind that sophists were the ultimate relativists: they could not care less about their arguments, as long as they won the debate for which they were hired.

I don’t believe this is the case for gaming theorists.

Tom C – Oh, I suspect it’s going to be a very BFD, in the elite parlance of our times.  But here’s my larger point: it’s irrelevant to getting the scope and extent of the problem, any more than you diagnose your tumor based on your taste in chemo. But a segment of the populace finds any treatment yet devised against their stated principles and so deem the problem imaginary.  In your case, how does what it takes to “solve the problem” as you quote reach back and alter the problem you’re trying to solve?<p>So you figure 20-30 years will do it.  Why not 50 or 60? 

NiV -

The answer to your questions is that I’m well aware of the sequence of
events, but I left it out because for one thing it would make for a very long comment (I do actually try to keep it short), and more importantly, because it’s not relevant to the point.

“It’s?” What do you mean by its? I can’t see the criterion you used to select the factors you mentioned and neglect the ones I mentioned in your goal towards brevity. Seems to me that if brevity was the criterion, they odds are that you would have selected some from column A and some from column B. You selected none from column B. What was your operative criterion?.

What you meant was that because we can’t have a perfect world, we shouldn’t complain or try to repair its imperfections.

I have to say that it is a little annoying for you to tell me what I meant. That isn’t what I meant. Not at all. In fact complaining, or repairing imperfections is very much my point of interest. My point is we are wasting our time if we reject a crucial system such as government functioning merely on the basis of some imperfections existing. This is one of my “schticks,” because IMO, what I typically see from libertarians is a binary mentality – on the order of: “Because I can identify how government intervention A had negative unintended consequences, therefore all government interventions have unintended consequences. To make that more  context specific – this is what my rose garden comment was in reference to:

We have elections. But all the candidates on offer have the same high-spending policies, so in what way do I have a choice?. 

There are a couple of ways to look at that: (1) None of the candidates meet my principles. For that reason, I choose not to vote; (2) There is one aspect where none of the candidates meet my principles but some are better than others – if not w/r/t high-spending policies, than in other areas. Therefore I choose to vote for candidate A; (3) I can’t find any way to determine significant differences between any of the candidates on important issues, therefore I’m going to lobby to get different candidates to run, run for office myself, lobby to get candidates to change their positions, or leave the country.

These are all choices. When you say “in what way do I have a choice,” it suggests to me a binary mentality =  “the candidates aren’t perfect therefore I have no choices.”

So, that is what I meant. As I said, it annoys me if you impose incorrect meanings on to what I say. If you aren’t clear as to my meaning, please ask.

What I was saying was that capitalism isn’t perfect either, but it’s the
nearest thing we’ve got, and that even if we never make it, it’s still worth pushing in the direction of perfection.

I agree. Which is why I was saying that when you veered into a discussion of the relative merits of capitalism, it didn’t seem germane to the convo you and I had going.

Me: “Why is that, and the rest of that post relevant? I was not
discussing the relative merits of capitalism as compared to other governing systems.”

You: Capitalism is what I’ve been talking about since #100.

Related to my comment above. Yes, we were talking about capitalism – but we weren’t talking about the merits of capitalism relative to other systems of government. Veering off into the demerits of other systems of government was not something I thought we were talking about.

This conversation started with the claim “Of course ….

This seems to be the root of the problem. That wasn’t what I was considering the beginning of my convo with you – which started at #111 if I’m not mistaken.

If they did work of real value, they would get paid more for it.

I’m not sure why we keep going around with this. This seems like simple logic. By your logic, since they get paid for their work, their work has real value. That is not negated by the question of whether they would get paid more if their work had more value. I would argue that you can’t actually judge the value of work on the basis of how much someone gets paid – as I outlined in my story about hospice aides; but that is a secondary question. John’s suggestion about defining terms is excellent, I think. What I’m focusing on here is a definition of terms. It seems to me that your logic is that if someone gets paid then their work has value. That would mean “real” value. I’m not following your logic here. 

I’m not attempting a complete and rigorous definition.

That doesn’t explain why you didn’t address the gist of my argument. You have skipped past this twice. I will repeat it again:

This statement is tantamount to saying that starving people who have no access to food are hungry because they haven’t eaten.
It seems  meaningless to me. But even more than being meaningless, it also seems to me to be notlogical and misleading.

 Not all wealthy people “create wealth.”  There are tens of millions of working poor in this country alone. Their labor goes to create wealth, even if they don’t become wealthy. Thus, the act of “creating wealth” is not something that distinguishes not being poor from being poor ““ as your statement implies. It seems that you are creating a binary construction that does not represent reality.

The reason I am pressing you on this is that it relates to a definition of terms. 

Everywhere I’ve worked, competent people were more successful, although
quite often they were interested in different sorts of success. Not everyone wants to be rich.

I’m not questioning that. To repeat, everywhere I have worked I have seen incompetent people be more successful than incompetent people. Maybe my language was unclear. I did not mean to say that all competent people are more successful than all incompetent people. I was saying that success is not an uncomplicated function of competence. 

Do you really expect me to give a complete model of the world in a blog comment?

No. Of course not. I’m asking you to deal more with the nuances that I’m asking you to address.

So doesn’t that mean the determination of the value I get in return for *my* taxes is subjective to me? And if I decide that they’re not worth it, can you argue otherwise?

Of course. That is what I was saying. You have no authority to say to me that I am paying more than what I get in return. It stands to reason that I wouldn’t have such authority either. But let’s be clear. I was never claiming that authority. You were. And I said that was being condescending. Do you disagree? It seems now that you would agree that me telling you that you pay too much in taxes would be condescending. In such a case, I would agree with you.

So how about this. Each of us should pay the amount of taxes they want, based on the value they ascribe to the return they get. You can pay lots, because you think it’s worthwhile, and I can pay a little amount, because I don’t. I’d go for that ““ how about you?

I would like that. It would be an interesting experiment. I have been involved in small-scale experiments along those lines that have worked quite well (for example, a restaurant were people paid what they felt the meal was worth). But for better or worse, that isn’t the system that we have. The system that we have, for better or for worse, is that the majority determines basic tax rates through a representative democracy. As I said before, the majority of Americans think that their taxes are fair. Those that don’t, have a variety of choices. One of those choices is to vent some steam by talking about how the system might realistically be improved. Let’s stick to that rather than making proposals for changes that we both know will never happen

(222) John Pittman -

I agree with you very much. Definition of terms in these discussions is crucial, and without them people absolutely become much more likely to talk past each other. Defining terms is a crucial step in arguing to support a thesis.  It is a very difficult process. I feel like a lot of what I am trying to do here is to define terms.

NiV -

One more point:

Libertarians don’t describe people who do dirty work for minimum pay as the “˜parasite class’.

Actually, that hasn’t been my experience. I have been in discussions with libertarians where not only did they refer to tens of millions of working poor as the “parasite class,” they also included under that descriptor tens of millions of seniors on Medicare and tens of millions of children who are born into poverty. The linking aspect of those tens of millions of people is that they rely (to one degree or another) on government assistance. I have, absolutely, seen broadly denigrating references to those who rely on government assistance as parasites. When I have called those libertarians on that language, they have most decidedly not backed down. To be clear, I am not saying that you would use such language or that you would necessarily  feel that way about people who rely on government assistance. I am noting, however, a crossover between some of your arguments and the arguments of the libertarians who use that term in the way that I described.

My point in bringing up that term is to talk, specifically, about an ideology that makes such a classification. You have differentiated your perspective from the one I have described. As such, could you tell me why as a libertarian? (I am assuming), you would not use that term for working poor, (or elderly poor on Medicare, or children born into poverty) – all of who rely to some extent on government assistance?

Joshua, why is it you make perfect sense when you’re talking about everything else?

Joshua – You wrote: “Actually, that hasn’t been my experience. I have been in discussions with libertarians where not only did they refer to tens of millions of working poor as the “parasite class,” they also included under that descriptor tens of millions of seniors on Medicare and tens of millions of children who are born into poverty.”

This does not pass the smell test and I don’t believe you. Why don’t you save us all a lot of trouble and go read an introductory textbook on economics.

I have the line ‘that’s always possible’ waiting in response in case you reply that perhaps I am a different reader on climate threads…

(238) Tom -

Thanks. The description of making perfect sense coming from you is of value to me.

I can’t answer your question unless you can refer to something specific that I said on a topic more closely related to climate change. I will acknowledge motivation when discussing those issues. But I’m not sure that it is different qualitatively than my motivation when discussing issues such as these. Maybe, with good faith in our exchange, we could delve into that a bit. I’m open. (at least in spirit)

The data show that it takes between 40 and 60 percent of GDP to cover the usual services of governments in civilized countries.  You can see this in various statistical indicies, but poor Nullus thinks it is being put upon.  Don;t let the door hit you on the way out.

Tom C -

The term parasite class is used by people of different political orientation. I’ve seen it used by some to describe white collar workers. I’ve seen it used by some to refer to unionized workers in the public sector. Here’s one usage – referring, broadly, to the people of NO and to people who, well, I’ll let the man speak for himself:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2008/06/19/boortz-again-referred-to-victims-of-hurricane-k/143803

“I think the answer’s pretty clear, is that up there in that part of the country, you find a great deal
of self-sufficiency. Down there in New Orleans, it was basically a
parasite class totally dependent on government for their existence.”

I would like to approach the libertarian standpoint from a different angle. I am not at all a libertarian–I am a progressive librul Democrat. But please understand I am criticizing a point of view, not any of the participants in this thread.

A state differs from a random group of people occupying the same territory primarily through a set of duties and obligations. You have to add more before it becomes a culture, sadly.

In a country that prizes freedom and individual liberty, a problem arises when hard fought issues have been settled in the past. People achieving adulthood and agency after this settlement are not really asked their opinion on it. It’s a done deal, because very few want to re-fight the battle every generation.

So Americans, for example, are assumed to be willing to live by (and with) the results of the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act, etc. When this doesn’t happen, as with Roe vs. Wade, it causes serious problems that persist far longer than anyone would desire.

Libertarians place their liberty at a premium. What I think they often forget is that non-libertarians do, too. The difference is that others are willing to sacrifice their personal liberty for the benefit of the state. I am willing to sacrifice some of my personal liberty so that the United States coheres better. It is not a sacrifice I take lightly. Nor do I insist that libertarians make that sacrifice and I don’t automatically disrespect them for the choice they have made.

One fight from a previous generation that I believe ended well was the fight to remove stigma from considerations of poverty, unemployment, etc. In the United States, poverty and unemployment are treated topically, as symptoms. We have differing mechanisms that are designed to address the underlying causes, but if someone is hungry, it is our stated goal to feed them. If they do not have a job, it is our stated intention to help them financially and to help them find employment. 

Our goal is not to shame them into higher performance. Our goal is not to set them apart as a subclass of untermenschen. 

Our performance towards these goals is not great–it’s not even good. But I think the goals are. And the goals call for sacrifice from the citizenry. These goals require us to pay more to the government, knowing that the government is inefficient, knowing that some of the recipients are not just unworthy but even criminal, and all that goes along with it.

But this is a fight that started 50 years ago and was more or less concluded with Clinton’s welfare reform act. I don’t want that fight re-staged. Libertarians who don’t wish to abide by the results of that struggle face choices. One of those choices is how active a participant they wish to be in the state–and the culture–that surrounds them.

Perhaps what bothers me most about libertarianism is their willingness to force the rest of their fellow citizens to relitigate issues we all had hoped were behind us.

So I say to libertarians everywhere–choose. I agree you have the right to put your liberty before the state, the culture and the people who live around you. But understand that the choice involves consequences. Both for you and the rest of us.

(228) Willard -

Even truth seeking is motivated, BBD.

I’ve been thinking about that. Here are some thoughts:

Motivated reasoning, as I understand the term, means that  your reasoning is driven to confirm an opinion. The end is, in effect, established before you start. That end could overlap with the “truth,” but it will certainly be congruent with your starting bias – be it to be “right,” to protect your social, cultural, political identity, etc.

Seeking truth is open-ended. You go where truth leads you.

Truth-seeking is only a theoretical construct, IMO. I doubt it exists in a pure form. But maybe we can incorporate it a smidgeon if we push towards self-awareness.

(247) Tom -

That is a very useful frame. It particular, it helps me to visualize the linkage of libertarianism with neo-confederate ideology and repeal of the Civil Rights Act. They are not accepting the outcome of previous litigation. I wonder if it isn’t so much the outcome of those battles that they object to, but that they don’t have the opportunity to be part of the fight, to choose sides. It goes along with a victim mentality, and it helps to frame the pleas of “I want my country back”; the country as it exists now, is not their country, and they are victims of “the government” (despite that the government comprises fellow citizens).

Our goal is not to shame them into higher performance. Our goal is not to set them apart as a subclass of untermenschen. 

And that is where I believe that libertarianism, in its extreme forms, runs off the rails. I have seen this in libertarians arguing that there is a genetic link to inter-generational poverty, or with the notion that people who rely on government assistance are parasites. I don’t know the  goal is to set people people receiving government aid apart as a subclass of untermenschen (it may be for some extremists libertarians), but the ideology, it seems even for many in the less extreme camp,  is grounded in a belief that an untermenschen exists.

Getting back more directly to the topic of Keith’s essay,Here’s a question for y’all:When “experts” become “opinion leaders” (aka, Sachs, Krugman), do they compromise their expertise?I mean that in two ways.  First, obviously, when a person becomes tied to an opinion, they may no longer be viewed as non-partisan in the debate.More importantly, though, when a person becomes an opinion leader, they often shift from technical work to political speaking and writing.  Does this shift – aside from the specific opinions they espouse – compromise their expertise?I expect that, to some extent, it does.  Writing and speaking takes time away from technical work.  It’s difficult enough to stay current even when one is engaged full time on tech work.And can the reverse be true as well?  Can technical experts be blind to political realities because of their lack of understanding?  I suspect so. 

#247 Tom

But this is a fight that started 50 years ago and was more or less
concluded with Clinton’s welfare reform act. I don’t want that fight
re-staged.

Sorry Tom, but the size and shape of the social safety net will always be debated because the level of sacrifice needed to maintain it continues to change. I.E. When Social Security was the debated the retirement age was set at ‘average expected life expectancy’.

In 1960 the number of social security recipients(including disability) was 14 million out of a population of  180 million.  Roughly 8% of the population. Last months figures put the number of social security recipients at 61 million out of a population of 311 million. About 20% of the population. Add in welfare and unemployment and the number of people receiving substantial government assistance is 25% of the population. I won’t even get into how many people receive smaller benefits like food stamps, or the 50+ million people on medicaid.

Something is broken when 25%+ of the population is defined as the least among us deserving of assistance.

Harry -

A couple of thoughts:

W/r/t the most recent increases in safety net spending, if you believe in safety net programs, it stands to reason that the % of GDP spent on safety net programs will increase in more difficult economic times.

The % of safety net benefits directed to the least affluent has declined significantly.

There is also the issue of how dramatic increase in healthcare cost compares to increases in the other various components of the social safety net spending. In other words, reducing the % of the population that gets SS retirement benefits at any given time will have a limited effect depending on the rate of increase in health care costs. While the % of GDP directed to SS benefits has increased over time, I would imagine that the increase in % of GDP directed towards healthcare benefits has been significantly greater?

Can we agree that the focus should be on trying to reduce the rate of increase in healthcare costs as the most logical target to prioritize? Wouldn’t that imply that focusing on the comparison of “producers” and people of “low value” is a bit of a misdirection?

(257) Me:

Sorry – polemic alert.

I haven’t seen anyone say that people were of “low value.” Only that (paraphrasing) some people are low value producers. My point is that focusing on the question of low value producers versus high value producers is a waste of  time in terms of meaningful outcome.

Apologies. Polemics are a waste of time also.

Punitive. No coherent plan. Punish. Sins. Environmentalists. Punish. Not serious.

I question the motivation.

Tom Fuller:
“These goals require us to pay more to the government, knowing that the government is inefficient, knowing that some of the recipients are not…”

Actually, the problem is that liberalism wants the stuff without the sacrifice. Oh, sure, they claim that some “rich” guy will sacrifice for it but anyone with access to a calculator knows that’s not true. So what they actually do is borrow from future generations to pay for today’s freebies.
The amount of government that we are actually willing to sacrifice to pay for is about a trillion $ less than what we’re getting.
That’s not, ahem, sustainable.

Joshua,

I answered your question.  As I stated I discern what they want through their actions, not their rhetoric.  Their policy proposals do not match their rhetoric.  Envy and class warfare dominate some people’s agenda, but not most people.  I am asserting that these extreme views have shown up in the policy proposals to the detriment of all, and the certain failure of the policy.

If you are looking for the alleged existence of people who are solely interesting in punishing people, I suggest you read the most recent posts on the *moderate* RC forum where in the comments they discuss the merits of a “Nuremberg Tribunal for Climate Saboteurs”.

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=12730#comment-244898 

You can’t make this stuff up.  It’s over the top, even for RC.  

PDA

Unless it includes some degree of acceptance that the case for low climate sensitivity doesn’t stack up while that for ~3C ECS does, then what’s the point?

And it won’t. Sorry for being negative, but we’ve all been around long enough to know that I’m only stating the obvious, not trying to poison a well.

> I wonder how long a list we could come up with if we tried.

Me too, so put that wondering into the bucket list.

#229,

“I can’t see the criterion you used to select the factors you mentioned and neglect the ones I mentioned in your goal towards brevity.”

Steve Mennie had taken my comment: “And then when it all goes wrong, anyone who has anything saved up will be expected to contribute that to dig them out of the mess.” and connected it to events on Wall Street. “a whole whack “˜o dough was ponied up to bailout banks and investment houses”.

My original point was that socialists use other people’s money to fund their grand schemes, make promises that other people will have to pay back on, and when it all goes wrong, it won’t be them that has to pay to fix it. Steve Mennie tried to turn the force of that round with a tu quoque – that bankers had made promises with other people’s money, made a mess, and got bailed out. My counterpoint was that it was actually a good example of what I had originally said: socialists had funded their egalitarian scheme with the banks’ money, and when it went wrong, used taxpayers’ money to try to fix it.

It’s true certain people in finance had taken advantage of the politician’s stupidity and made it worse, but that wasn’t the root cause of the disaster. And it’s not relevant to showing how it was an example of what I said.

You say I picked things from column A and not column B. (You missed what I said about what “A bunch of stupid and irresponsible people” did?) However, Steve Mennie picked from column B and none from A, but you didn’t pick him up on that. Why do you suppose that is? And why did you feel the need to point out that I had only given part of the story, when you didn’t feel that way about Steve?

“Yes, we were talking about capitalism ““ but we weren’t talking about the merits of capitalism relative to other systems of government.”

The distinction escapes me.

“By your logic, since they get paid for their work, their work has real value.”

Yes. I’m starting to get the impression we’re talking at cross purposes.

“I would argue that you can’t actually judge the value of work on the basis of how much someone gets paid”

That’s true. Wealth is any stuff people want that is difficult to obtain. If people want to help others, want to feel good about themselves, want poverty and suffering to be alleviated, then achieving that counts as wealth too. People are paid with more than money.

“It seems now that you would agree that me telling you that you pay too much in taxes would be condescending.”

Actually, I wouldn’t. I probably wouldn’t even notice. I might disagree, but I’d just regard it as an opinion like any other.

I didn’t really understand why you felt it condescending, but I accepted that you did. Presumably, then, you should think the same when people tell me what I mean or what I intend?

“As I said before, the majority of Americans think that their taxes are fair.”

I think the majority of Americans have very little understanding of the ultimate implications of their policies on taxes and spending. Neither did the Greeks.

#230,

Thanks for the defence – seriously – but I really don’t mind that sort of thing. If you’re going to talk with people who disagree with you you’re going to get insulted, sometimes violently. You won’t last long if you let yourself be bothered by it. Plus if people see they’re getting to you emotionally, they’ll just do it all the more. Don’t take it personally, and be tolerant.

I don’t know, it might help.

(270) TS -

 Look, I provided numerous examples to you,…

Let me remind you, again, of what you said (let me try some new bolding to help get the point across):

This is a very difficult concept for some to acknowledge, particularly those who are more driven by wanting to punish the successful rather than help the poor.  

I asked you to provide the criteria you use to make your assessment.  You haven’t done so. You have responded repeatedly without doing so. You provided evidence of some folks who want to punish people they believe deliberately distort important scientific information. Whether you agree with their assessment of the people they want to punish or not, it comes nowhere close to an example of what you stated.

Repeatedly asserting something does not make it so.I see no reason to bother responding to or even reading the rest of what you wrote unless you can deal with basic and obvious facts. I read the first part of the second sentence, and can’t get past your inaccuracy.

BTW – I do agree with the sentiment you expressed on the thread that you linked.

> Like I said, it is all a matter of trust.

Perhaps for you, Joshua, but I prefer quotes.

(271) NiV -I fully assumed everything you stated about your personal beliefs that you wrote in that post. What you say about most libertarians is not consistent with my experience. Most libertarians I’ve run into state that welfare in itself promotes a “culture of dependency,” and for that reason society would be better without “handouts” as a general principle. I don’t see the type of nuance you express in your statements of your own beliefs. If I did, then I would have much more sympathy with what I see as typical libertarian ideology. Here’s what I think – totally speculative: Most of those libertarians I’m speaking of would not actually want to take away any sort of “handouts,” but they argue in favor of doing so because their positions do not reflect their underlying values.

But at the same time there are a whole load of people on benefits who don’t deserve such sympathy, who exploit and take advantage of the system, and it is those that the epithet is generalising about….

Do you have some evidence that supports what I’ve bolded?

#247,

“Libertarians place their liberty at a premium. What I think they often forget is that non-libertarians do, too. [...] Nor do I insist that libertarians make that sacrifice and I don’t automatically disrespect them for the choice they have made.”

If you do it voluntarily, you’re not sacrificing any liberty.

What I think you’re talking about here is the concept of the social contract. Thomas Hobbes argued that people were naturally in a state of war, and to avoid this they voluntarily yielded their rights to an absolute monarch in exchange for peace. Locke argued against this asserting inalienable rights, which could not be given up to any government. Rousseau argued that people had to freely choose to abide by the social contract to be accepted as a part of society – that these were not alienated because the people retained sovereignty, delegating powers to government.

Bringing up Social Contract theory usually results in a lively debate amongst libertarians. I can’t generalise about libertarians on this, since there are several schools of thought, but the general thrust of many arguments is that a contract requires active consent, that the idea of the Social Contract isn’t an accurate description of the actual situation as it normally arises in most cases but a back-construction to legitimise government power after the fact, and that the only liberties you can legitimately give up to government are those implied by the Harm Principle. The government shouldn’t go beyond that, and you shouldn’t let them.

I know that most people will not be persuaded, and I’m more relaxed about that than the average libertarian, most of the time. People disagree – that’s what debate is for. This is just my own view.

We should bear in mind that social contract theory is an abstraction. There is no such thing as an actual social contract.

Imagine invisible handshakes.

#277,

“Do you have some evidence that supports what I’ve bolded?”

Personally, yes. I’ve lived in slums on rough council estates, and I’ve worked with welfare recipients. But it’s not something I can produce for you here.

This is where I used to live.

Heh. I’m from Macclesfield. Small world.

Investment in what makes a group of people something more than a group of people has rarely been wasteful in the past. Even Sparta raised their children at public expense.Caring for the elderly at public expense has often freed their children to continue being productive members of society rather than full time caregivers–but that’s not why it’s a good idea. It’s a good idea because we hope for such care in our old age. If we cannot hope for it we make very different decisions about our life’s future directions. Those decisions tend to detract from the overall well-being of society. But that’s not why we care for the elderly. I have yet to see an example of common decency that was not ultimately good for the society in which it occurred.

NiV -

I would guess that our life experiences with people on assistance isn’t all that different. I live in a neighborhood where the median family income is about $10,000 more than the threshold for poverty rates. My immediate area has a lot of nice, big old homes, but the surrounding area is one of the poorer neighborhoods in a city that has about a 25% poverty rate. About 1/2 mile from my house:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/42/87070570_8624662790_z.jpg?zz=1Yet, I don’t share your perspective. I think boatload would be smaller than yours. Go figure.

I hate burden of proof arguments – but you did make the statement. I don’t think you have a “burden of proof,” but I would like to see some data.

I’m not sure that saying

> Children are beneficial to a society.

makes sense.

The utilitarian framework imposes strong limits.

NiV -

Your ladies doing the dirty jobs are not the ones being complained about.

Reading through your posts again, all I can tell you is that your notion of the run of the mill libertarian – of the type I run into on a regular basis – is hopelessly naive. The contempt I run across for the “parasite class” is nothing similar to the ideology you describe. I have had libertarians tell me, with absolute certainty, that there is a genetic component to intergenerational poverty. Despite the existence of intergenerational poverty throughout history, they tell me with absolute certainty that “handouts” breeds a culture of dependency and that is what explains the cycle of poverty in the U.S.

Lack of access to education is considered basically irrelevant as a cause of poverty – and so public funding for education should be eliminated and education should be available on a fee-for-service basis. The Department of Education should be disbanded. The country was better off before the establishment of public education. Public funding for research, including medical research should be eliminated. State funded public health programs, sch as vaccination programs should be eliminated. Federal agencies like the NRA should be disbanded – no oversight of nuclear safety is necessary.

We don’t need public health inspections because all they do is actually create health hazards by the very existence of regulations; the belief is that the private sector will eliminate public health hazards as a function of the profit motivation. Public infrastructure spending should be eliminated because the private sector is better at doing things like building roads (despite that our roads were terrible before they were funded by the federal government). Even private/public partnerships should be eliminated.

The poverty in my city (Philadelphia) exists because it has been in the hands of Democrats who only want to tax, tax, tax as they “dupe” urban blacks into voting against their own best interests. Social Security should be eliminated. Progressive taxation should be eliminated and is unconstitutional. The Civil War was actually a “War of Northern Aggression.” Lincoln was a dictator.

I could go on with much more. I see this day after day in the comments section of a major newspaper. Hundreds of comments daily by a fairly large number of commenters. Go to the comments section of virtually any “conservative” website in this country and you will find slews of comments based on similar ideology.

As I said, I tend to think that many people who profess these beliefs are stating positions that don’t truly represent their underlying values. They are rallying around partisan polemics that coalesce around hatred of all things “liberal.” And there is little doubt that comments on blogs or newspaper websites or rightwing websites are a decided sub-section of the public. But these folks do exist and there is a lot of crossover with mainstream libertarians. The Republican Party has very deliberately reached out to extremist elements. Objective evaluations show the the Republican Party (and SCOTUS) may well be the most extremist in decades if not considerably longer. Look, for example, at the linkage between Republican politicians and groups like the John Birch society.

I disagree strongly with much of the ideology you have expressed in these comments, but your ideology is far more palatable then what I read from libertarian after libertarian in the blogosphere. The problem is that I don’t see a hard line of distinction between the underlying ideology of your beliefs and the positions they state. It seems to me that the lines that you draw are not ideologically grounded but based on moral considerations. If you have some ideological objection to people relying on “other people’s money” given “involuntarily,” how do you determine with some specificity who is a “parasite” and who is doing their best to earn as much as they can?

Your solution is an entirely unrealistic fantasized notion of a voluntary system. Sure, it’s a  nice idea. But it has never been created on a significant scale in the history of the planet. In contrast, what we see is a direct correlation between things like the existence of a welfare state and the elevation of a standard of living, poverty reduction, an educated populace, access to healthcare, etc. Where is your country where there is a good standard of living and where people don’t have to suffer the “unfairness” of paying taxes “involuntarily” to support other people’s children? It doesn’t exist. I has never existed in the history of the planet.

Actually NiV -

I guess I was wrong. I just discovered there is more diversity among American conservatives than I thought w/r/t taxes.

Lubbock County Judge Tom Head and Commissioner Mark Heinrich went into
great detail Monday night on FOX 34 News @ Nine about why it is necessary to raise the tax rate by 1.7 cents the next fiscal year

Judge Head said he and the county must be prepared for many contingencies, one that he particularly fears, is if President Obama is reelected.

“He’s going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN, and what is going to happen when that happens?,” Head asked. ”I’m thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe.
And we’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.

“Now what’s going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops. I don’t want ‘em in Lubbock County.
OK. So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say ‘you’re not coming in here’.

I have to hope that this is too far-fetched to be true? Maybe some kind of  mistake in reporting? http://www.myfoxlubbock.com/news/local/story/Lubbock-tom-head-tax-rates-president-obama/PeO4Q8GeGEiy_FpxheUnmA.cspx

I love Joshua’s personal anecdotes about libertarians he runs into. As a libertarian I would hazard that I’ve run into many more over the past 30+ years. None has ever held what Joshua purports to be commonly held beliefs. Now, imagine if Keith were to claim something about what enviromentalists believe. who would be clamoring for evidence, and who would find keith’s personal anecdotes about enviros he had talked to unconvincing?

KK way the hell back there somewhere, replying to Josh:”Input your comments here…I don’t know what you’re suggesting. I really don’t. Perhaps you should spell it out more clearly.”Oh my goodness, really?  OK,  let me help you out here:  If you’re OK with the current signal-to-noise on your blog, keep up your current schtick, which is basically ‘hall monitor’ (thanks mosh!) of the climate- and environnment-concerned.  If not, try a new schtick and see if that raises the S/N.  Signed,Not holding my breath

The Civil War was actually a “War of Northern Aggression.”

Where I am from, it is generally referred to as: “the recent unpleasantness”.

Joshua,

As Garry Kasparov and Ron Broberg said: trust but verify.

So please pay due diligence to the “parasite” meme and do a search on http://www.breibart.com.

Let’s see what’ll come out.

Then ask Moshpit if he knew Andrew Breibart.

you mean this Steve Mosher Willard:

Obamacare will then be used as Obama, Reid and Pelosi intended, as a vehicle to promote and perform abortions. 

It seems to me that our choice as Americans is simple: Either we euthanize ObamaCare before it is too late, or it winds up euthanizing us.  

the interested reader will note a curious pattern in Mosher’s arguments and the sources he chooses to use. Kind of like Sashka a while back.

The interested reader can find an updated CBO assessment of ‘ObamaCare’ here. Mosher, who of course isn’t an idealogue, might find that he’s wrong on this issue, as he has been on others in the past.Facts are such inconvenient things sometimes.

For some reason this post is getting flagged by the filter. I have to break it up into chunks to find the problem:Part I:Thanks for that comment, Willard. I’m not exactly sure I understand it – but as per usual, your pearls of enigma contain useful information. In fact, I’d call it rather spectacular.

I searched at Breitbart (your link didn’t work, btw) for “parasite.”

Here’s one return:

The Heritage index uses information on almost three dozen important federal programs on which Americans depend for cash income and other
support—including housing assistance, Medicaid,
Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance benefits, educational benefits, and farm-income supports-–but it is scarcely a comprehensive
measure, inasmuch as the total number of federal programs with dependents is gigantic at present. Of course, each such program has government employees and contractors who run it and hence depend on it to earn much, if not all, of their income. Government civilian and military retirees add millions more to the ranks.

The Heritage researchers found that in 1962, 21.7 million persons depended on the programs they included in their index for benefits. By
2009, the corresponding number of dependents had grown to 64.3 million. Adding dependents not included in the Heritage study might easily
increase the number to more than 100 million, or to more than a third of the entire population. Thus, the parasites verge ever closer to outnumbering their hosts.

BBD and NiV – I’m from Salford (very small world)

Well Willard, maybe starting with a textbook is not a great idea.  I would suggest, instead, “Eat the Rich” by P J ORourke which is a humorous examination of economic ideas, but is very solidly based on widely agreed-upon principles.  “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell is good, written informally, and does not rely on any math.  Regarding Joshua, maybe it’s his “broad and deep” anecdotal knowledge (recently on display regarding libertarians) that puts me off.  I don’t much like pretension.

For all the yapping about “consensus” it is odd that they don’t accept the truly overwhelming consensus of trained economists.  

Tom could you remind us what ‘the truly overwhelming consensus of trained economists’ is wrt to climate mitigation policy?

Joshua,

Conveying information via “pearls of enigma” is being done since the dawn of mankind.

Enigma can be fun.

Even without secret ingredients (hint: Kung Fu Panda) miracles can happen (hint: the Miracle Worker).

No, not the movie about Helen Keller.

This thread has lost its way, maybe we should discuss what constitutes a case of “legitimate” rape, ha ha.

Just to clarify, by economically viable I will provide an example of an global treaty that has the US paying a disproportionate amount of the cost has a zero, zilch, nada, chance of passing in the US Congress (see Kyoto).   Even a proportionate treaty has a very low chance when a compelling case can be made it will hurt the US economy.  Pretending this reality doesn’t exist it what makes the global treaty process a sham from day one.

#293 JoshuaSorry, but we had universal public education in the US before we had a US Department of Education. You are conflating a discussion as to whether the Federal Government is the appropriate place to mange public education with whether or not public education is a good thing.

As far as libertarians believing that poverty breeds poverty etc etc.

There is more then anecdotal evidence that the level of importance given to education at home is a strong indicator of educational outcome. I actually know a school principal in an ‘impoverished neighborhood’. She has to put out free food to get the parents to show up for parent teacher conferences. 

My dear elderly mother has a wall covered in Journalism Awards. She didn’t get them because she has a ‘quality education’ provided by the state. She only has a high school degree from an extremely small rural school district. She got them because my Grandmother played scrabble with her all the time when she was a child.

‘The State’ makes a mighty poor substitute for ‘good parenting’.

All you have to do to understand the ‘banking crisis’ is look at the debt levels as a ratio of GDP. Private debt in the US exceeded 150% of GDP in 1929 and peaked in 1931/2 above 200% of GDP. Private debt did not exceeded 150% of GDP again until 1986 and peaked out at around 300% of GDP in 2009. We went 22 years past the point of where alarm bells should have been ringing.

If you would like to discuss ‘predatory lending practices’ then student loans would be a really good place to start.

We loan students money with absolutely no evaluation as to whether or not the chosen  ‘career path’ of the student has any likelihood of resulting in enough income to repay the loan. In addition, student  loans are generally not dischargable in bankruptcy.

you mean this Steve Mosher Willard:

Obamacare will then be used as Obama, Reid and Pelosi intended, as a vehicle to promote and perform abortions.

It seems to me that our choice as Americans is simple: Either we euthanize ObamaCare before it is too late, or it winds up euthanizing us.

the interested reader will note a curious pattern in Mosher’s arguments and the sources he chooses to use. Kind of like Sashka a while back.

#################

Marlow.

Let’s see you now join an illustrious list of people and organizations who have confused me with Steven W Mosher. Lets see that list includes

1. Defense investigative services
2. Clowns at RC
3. Folks at the hoover institute.
4. several conservative talkshow hosts.

I wish he would stop using my name

If that’s the case Mosher, I’d have thought that you’d be more upset that he was using your bio, not just your name. The link is dead now, but when the issue first came up, it was identical to the one on amazon.If you scroll downthread, you’ll see that your BFF Tom Fuller thinks that you wrote for Breitbart:

Tom Fuller Says: June 28th, 2011 at 8:31 pmMarlow and Rust Never Sleeps, that is my friend and co-author. Sorry for my quick reaction. There is a fundamentalist out there with the same name as Steve who has published a lot of”¦. stuff, and on RealClimate my friend has been accused of writing it. I’m sorry for assuming that was the case here. I disagree with him on what he wrote. But I’ll bet he didn’t write the headline. And he’s still a good guy. (Hey wait”“I can disagree with someone and still assert he’s a good human? Is that legal?)

What the heck is going on?

Here is a clue. I never speak about abortion.
I am not catholic. Never have been, never will be.

Steven W Mosher is this guy. He only speaks about abortion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_W._Mosher

This is what he looks like:

http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/101006_6.htm

since I wrote one article for PJ media

http://pjmedia.com/blog/climategate-not-fraud-but-noble-cause-corruption/

I can well imagine the folks at that organization have messed up bios. Guess what, after I defended Jones against the charge of fraud, I’ve not been asked back to write anything.

Here is what I look like.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/the-final-straw/

You could of course check my linkedIn or facebook.
shit you can call me at home.

(#323) Harry -

Yes, you have a point about the importance of not conflating opposition to public funding of education and opposition to the department of education. I am quite sympathetic to concerns about an overly-centralized system for delivery or education to students. I have many criticisms along those lines myself.

That said, there are a lot of folks out their who outright oppose public funding for educating (other people’s) children, and there are a lot of folks out there who cynically exploit concerns about public education (and the Department of Education) for partisan political expediency.

Further, there are folks out there who exploit legitimate concerns about “government interference in the market” to lay cover for the advance of crony capitalism into public education (in other words, their own brand of government interference in the market). In my state that has become quite obvious where my governor is handing over public schools to private enterprises,  run by people who donated huge sums to his election campaigns, and who have a proven track record of failure.

On a related tangent more related to the theme of this blog – Corbett similarly exploits concerns about “government interference in the market” to systematically take away power from local constituencies w/r/t the advance of fracking, and to undermine those constituencies’ power to address legitimate concerns about the safety of fracking, at the behest of an industry that contributed hundreds of thousands to his campaign.

For me, the problem with libertarianism does not lie in theoretical discussions about the morality of taxation. For me the problem lies in the reality of how libertarian ideals are impact us all at the ground level.

So at this point all the nivs, tom c&ss and moshers can come up with
is the no true Scotsman argument, or in a musical version what Chuck Berry said.

The vile rodent says, “So at this point all the nivs, tom c&ss and moshers can come up with is the no true Scotsman argument, or in a musical version what Chuck Berry said.But you got nuthin.

For what its worth….and I can’t even remember who to point this out to…NiV I think but perhaps Harrywr2…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

> But you got nuthin.

I would not say that the behavior described in #334 is nuthin.

It’s not worth much.

OK, perhaps 20 millions.

But it’s not nuthin.

NiV, sadly, libertarians and the conservatives with whom they often find themselves allied typically oppose the mechanisms that would reduce the causes of poverty just as vehemently as they oppose the simple relief of it.Let’s get all those programs in place for preventing poverty and then we can let the oh-so-generous payment programs wither…

ME: “Now that was a categorical statement of fact. As such, I see it
as essentially a challenge to provide proof that it was an overgeneralization.”

YOU: It wasn’t intended as a challenge. It was intended as a contrary opinion,

But it was stated as a fact. I am saying that for me (whether intended or not – as differentiated from Tom C’s direct challenge, a differentiation I noted) the conflation of an opinion with fact made it into a challenge: A challenge to show that your statement of fact was inaccurate

and an attempt to explain an element of libertarian philosophy.

But you didn’t seem to be trying to do that. You stated a categorical fact that is inconsistent with easily available contrary evidence.

Of course, if you have reason to think my opinion is wrong you’re welcome to present it, but I wasn’t making any demands.

Never said you were; I think it is ridiculous to “demand” something on the Internet anyway, and I don’t consider you ridiculous.

 because it gives us an opportunity to correct misperceptions.

What misperceptions did you correct? Your misconception about the categorical nature of what libertarians believe? My sense is that you haven’t yet realized that misperception –  and it remains uncorrected. Did you read Eli’s #333?

But it does help if you look at it as an exchange of freely held opinions, rather than a joint hunt for the truth in economic and political philosophy with examination of evidence and references. Understanding
has to come before agreement.

Agreed.

 The Left (to the extent that I
understand the philosophy) often regard the two groups as identical. Libertarians don’t. And this is what caused the confusion.

I don’t know about often. I would guess (depending on a more detailed discussion to clarify a bit more), it does happen sometimes. But I do know that the claim that you make about (often) leftist belief in that regard is often overstated by libertarians or conservatives.

At any rate – that is kind of a waste of time to discuss, IMO. I certainly don’t conflate those two categories. What is more interesting to me is to discuss the theoretical construct that you use to differentiate those two categories of “deserving poor.”

You started off describing examples of the deserving poor, and then
said that libertarians had described them as a “˜parasite class’. The problem is that this is directly contrary to the core libertarian
philosophy.

Sez you. Again, I refer you to Eli’s comment. But even assuming that you have an absolute understanding of the “core” libertarian philosophy – as I keep stating I’m not focusing on some abstracted theory of philosophy, but how that philosophy becomes shaped by reality on the ground.

Now I can’t say that there aren’t many libertarians who are a bit fuzzy on the philosophy themselves, and people do tend to
overgeneralise in rhetoric, but the way you describe it doesn’t sound at all like the sort of thing a libertarian would say.

But I have shown you examples of libertarians saying that. You cannot say that 100 million Americans are parasites without including the groups that I’m speaking of. This is what I’m talking about w/r/t contextualizing theory. I am always interested in exploring the relationship between theory and practice. Now I have directed related questions to you a number of times – but let me try again.

If taxation, even sometimes, = “unfair” “handouts” to undeserving poor, what measures do you use, in concrete ways, to help the “deserving” poor appropriately? What metrics do you use to evaluate level of deserving? 

But then you clarified that what they had said was about people receiving government assistance, and you had just translated. This was the cause of the problem because in the libertarian mindset that translation isn’t valid.

No – I didn’t “translate.” As per the example I provided, the label of parasite was precisely used, by a scholar of libertarian philosophy, to describe 100 million Americans. That would necessarily include the groups I described. Hyperbolic? Probably. But reflective of a structural problem. One that results from the difficulty of translating theory to reality, not from my translation.

Now describing everyone on welfare as part of a “˜parasite class’ is a bit of an overgeneralisation and simplification, too, but it is at least plausible as something a libertarian being provocative might say. It’s also possible that it wasn’t intended to be as condemnatory as it
sounds ““ it’s not unusual for people to be forced into parasitism to survive, whereupon your sympathies would be with the people and against
the system forcing them into that situation.

I don’t understand this paragraph.

The libertarian view of the poor is quite different, and is not at all unsympathetic.

You keep falling into the same pattern. As such, I fear this discussion is reaching an end point. I keep pointing to the pattern and you keep repeating. There is no “The libertarian view.” There is your libertarian view and there are the libertarian views of others. Again, I point you to Eli’s #333.

Person A: All leftists want to destroy our system of government.

Person B: I don’t want to destroy our system of government.

Person A: You are not a leftist. “The” leftist wants to destroy our system of government.

The difference is that we look at the cause, rather than the consequence. The Left see that the poor have no money, and so solve the problem by giving them money they have taken from those who
earned it.

This is a false dichotomy. If only by virtue of the statement of what “The Left” see. But you completely ignore endless discussions among “The Left” and between “The Left” and people on the right about the “cause” of poverty. You also ignore much nuance in what “The Left” says about ways to deal with poverty. Noone on “The Left” that I have ever met sees “handouts” as a singular method to resolve poverty. No one that I know of sees it as a cure for poverty.

The libertarian would see that the poor have no sellable skills,

This is very ironic – as I gave you the example of hospice aides, and explained that they, in fact, have a very valuable skill that is in fact sellable. The reason that it doesn’t sell for more money is due to structural influences that corrupt the market. Ask virtually anyone who has relied on the help of a hospice aide, and they can tell you about how that aide either had valuable skills or lacked valuable skills, depending on the individual aide. Ask them what the skills the aide provided would be worth if the system itself – due to structural corruptions of the market – did not make the aides skills available at low cost  This is what you said.

It’s just particularly easy, requiring no great skills, and for which there is therefore a more than adequate supply.

None of that is true. And it certainly isn’t true in comparison to mutual fund managers who get paid well to produce no better return on your investment than if you bought an indexed fund. Good aides are very difficult to find. That isn’t changed by the fact that many aides are employed. Good mutual fund managers are also difficult to find. But many poor ones are employed. And they are paid well no matter that they have no great skills. The perception of what does or doesn’t requires great skills is inherently subjective.

Welfare perpetuates the problem.

Evidence? I get the belief, but where is the evidence? The fact that poverty exists concurrent with welfare does not imply that welfare perpetuates the problem. On the other hand, welfare is correlated in this country with a reduction of poverty rates and dramatic  economic growth over the long term. I’m not saying that there is a causal relationship, but saying that the relationship that you describe is inconsistent with the evidence that we have. Intergenerational poverty exists in countries with no welfare, and has throughout civilization.

There is no motivation on the part
of the recipient to solve it,

Not in my experience. I have never met anyone on welfare who has no motivation to “solve it.” No doubt, some such folks exist, but, again, the problem is the categorical nature of your language. Again, it reflects a theoretical construct with no direct relationship to reality.

and it reduces the overall productive capacity of society, meaning there is less to go around for everyone and more poverty to solve.

Nice as a theoretical construct. And I would say useful as a theoretical construct. The considerations you raise as an influence or a tendency are important.  The exists here the same problem, however, as I have been saying all along.

What libertarians want to see is the poor working their way out of poverty, or at least managing to support themselves with what skills they have.

The differentiation from “The Left” in this regard is spurious. No matter whether you disagree with the methodologies that “The Left” advocate for – that does not mean that you can accurately create such a differentiation between what you want and what “The Left” “wants. “  I would not make an assumption that you would not want to see the poor working their way out of poverty. You are mistaken if you think, even for one second, that I or most people on “The Left” wouldn’t share that goal.

Your inspiring story of people doing dirty underappreciated jobs for low pay is just that. What libertarians don’t want to see is
people trapped in dependency; unable to work, unable to develop the skills and experience they need.

Same criticism.

Poor people who take as little charity as they can out of pride, and
who strive to escape poverty through their own efforts, they earn the highest of praise. Those who see it as to their advantage to get as much out of the system for as little effort on their part as possible, who feel entitled, who feel bitter and resentful about those who were more successful and see their own poverty as the result of a conspiracy by the rich, who are ungrateful and envious, and who hate with a passion those whose forced charity funds the entire system that enables them to survive ““ they quite possibly would get called rude names.

I have no problem with any of that. Never said that I did. You are, my friend, tilting at windmills.

And given that the loudest advocates for the system do tend to have that
attitude, perhaps it’s not surprising that all recipients of welfare sometimes get tarred with the same brush?It’s a point of view. You’re not expected to necessarily agree.

I never said I considered it anything less than an opinion. I don’t agree with that opinion – but I am also noting how you express opinions as fact. In itself, that isn’t a problem for me. What I see problematic, however, is the connection between conflation of opinion with fact and the lack of exploration in the land of nexus between theory and reality.

And with that, my doctor has pronounced about 10 reincarnations of this horse dead.

I appreciate the dialog. But there are some structural problems here that seem insurmountable for now. I think that the nature of blog dialog inherently circumscribes the half-life of constructive give-and-take. Either you are not “hearing” me or I am not “hearing you,” ore more likely, some combination of both. I would hope that in a new venue we can come back to these or similar discussions somewhat more refreshed and somewhat less entrenched.