Are Engineers Natural Libertarians Or Technocrats?

We'll be whatever you want... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 08:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

... for a fee.

Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Defenestrar · 2012-01-03 08:28 · Score: 5, Funny

No. Engineers may work in paper mills, sewage plants, and might even design weapons for indiscriminate sale, but some things will always cross the line... properly commenting our own code, for example.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by gorzek · 2012-01-03 08:38 · Score: 1, Funny

That's called "job security"!
(For anyone who doesn't get it, I'm kidding. I hate it when people don't comment their code, especially when it's for that very reason.)

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by bgat · 2012-01-03 08:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting. If your code fails this test, no amount of commenting will improve the situation. Bad code is bad code, no matter how well-commented it is. (True, some code is truly difficult to comprehend and therefore requires comments, usually because what the code is doing is supremely complicated and difficult to comprehend itself. I'm not talking about that kind of code).
Now describing the design overall, that's another matter. But most of the designs I'm called in to fix are so bad that they are undocumentable.

--
b.g.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by gorzek · 2012-01-03 08:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I agree there. I will tend toward writing more verbose code for the sake of making it very clear and easy to follow. Unfortunately, I have worked with a lot of people who try to cram as much logic into as little space as possible, with worthless variable names and no comments, so while you can figure out what the code is doing, you have no idea why it's doing it.
For me, that's the real value of comments: they tell you what the developer intended, and from there it's much easier to determine whether it's doing what it should. I've seen plenty of cases where a comment says the code should be doing x, but it's actually doing y. Without any comments, I'm forced to go back to original requirements, and sometimes I don't even have those available (legacy systems suck sometimes.)

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Defenestrar · 2012-01-03 08:52 · Score: 2

Sorry, but when did you ever meet an engineer who was taught how to program like that? Most curriculum don't have any explicit programming requirements outside of the syntax you might need for numerical analysis (check ABET if you like, but I don't think it's required yet and probably won't ever be). Engineers are generally great at self teaching just enough to make things work.
What you're talking about is like bringing the communication with computers to an almost scientific level - I think there's a discipline for that, and I don't think that's their general stance on the commenting of code.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by hedwards · 2012-01-03 08:52 · Score: 1

Remind me not to hire you.
Yes, commenting isn't a replacement for properly formatted concise code, but if you're commenting on what you're doing in the code then you're not doing it correctly. Comments are supposed to deal with the why of what the code is doing and hopefully hint at whatever didn't work previously so that the next programmer can hopefully understand what's going on.
Admittedly, no matter how well the code is structured and commented it's still going to be a pain, but it should be possible in some reasonable period of time if you aren't there to explain.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by bgat · 2012-01-03 08:55 · Score: 2

Sorry, but when did you ever meet an engineer who was taught how to program like that?
Very rarely, but it sometimes happens. The rest of the time, I have to teach it. Which is why I tend to prefer developers who seem teachable, rather than developers with experience. "Experienced" developers are often the hardest to to help unlearn their old, unproductive ways due to their bias against anything different from those old, unproductive ways. Sad, but true.

--
b.g.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by bgat · 2012-01-03 08:57 · Score: 1

Remind me not to hire you.
If you genuinely don't want someone who can write clear code, then PLEASE DO NOT HIRE ME.
How about if I also agree not to work for you? Because I'm willing to go that extra mile. :)

--
b.g.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by bgat · 2012-01-03 09:05 · Score: 2

I will tend toward writing more verbose code for the sake of making it very clear and easy to follow.
Turns out, clear and easy-to-follow code also optimizes like gangbusters. So by helping your fellow developers, you are also helping your toolchain give you the best it can offer in terms of high-performing output.
Truly, the only upside to complicated and hard-to-understand code is job security. The kind we don't need. Ever.

For me, that's the real value of comments: they tell you what the developer intended, and from there it's much easier to determine whether it's doing what it should. I've seen plenty of cases where a comment says the code should be doing x, but it's actually doing y. Without any comments, I'm forced to go back to original requirements, and sometimes I don't even have those available (legacy systems suck sometimes.)
I'm not arguing with you on this point. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the developer intended, because the computer can't read the developer's mind--- it can only read the code. Even in legacy systems. Which means you always have to come back to understanding the code and ignoring the comments.
Ignoring the comments also protects you from being misled by them. Why expose yourself to a risk you don't need?

--
b.g.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by dakohli · 2012-01-03 09:11 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting. If your code fails this test, no amount of commenting will improve the situation. Bad code is bad code, no matter how well-commented it is. (True, some code is truly difficult to comprehend and therefore requires comments, usually because what the code is doing is supremely complicated and difficult to comprehend itself. I'm not talking about that kind of code).
Now describing the design overall, that's another matter. But most of the designs I'm called in to fix are so bad that they are undocumentable.
Then you should not do it for a living. Period.
It does not matter how elegant/clear your code is, eventually, someone else will have to maintain it.
Properly documenting your code ensures that it will have real longevity. Really, the only reason many (most) folks fail to document their code is laziness.
Now, This is often encouraged by the company. They want their code yesterday, not tomorrow. It costs money to place remarks in the source, as well as document the process so that the users can utilize the full functionality of the product.
We had a backup system whose documentation actually consisted of photocopies of the engineers personal notes! Not only did we have to interpret a lousy UI, but we also had to interpret the documentation that was provided. Yes it was cheaper, but in the long run it cost far more than if we had just purchased a proper solution.
So, in closing I can repeat that, laziness is the prime reason so much code goes unremarked/undocumented properly, regardless of the arguments to the contrary.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by gorzek · 2012-01-03 09:12 · Score: 3, Funny

Much of the code I work with is written in MUMPS.
Pity me.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by gorzek · 2012-01-03 09:14 · Score: 1

Like I said, I compare the code with the comments. Intentions matter. If the comments say the code does something that it doesn't actually do, it leads me to suspect a problem. I never take the comments at face value, but I do consider them important documentation of what the developer meant to do.
I hope I didn't give the impression that I rely on the comments to tell me what the code really does. As you said, that's foolish and simply asking for trouble.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by vlm · 2012-01-03 09:20 · Score: 2

I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting.
Your code might be self commenting. The problem is the bug might be at a higher system level, at a higher level that your code.
You need comments for that, unless your system is so simple a noob would figure the whole system out instantly, or your system/framework is magically self commenting at the system design level (I've never seen that!).
You need to comment why your little part of the system fits in right here. Not what your obvious little part of the system does.

True, some code is truly difficult to comprehend and therefore requires comments, usually because what the code is doing is supremely complicated and difficult to comprehend itself. I'm not talking about that kind of code
Example after/before a monstrosity of a perl regex, break that dude down little bit at a time. If it takes 50 lines to explain, well then it just does.
Some mistakenly demand you write 50 lines of code, but thats actually harder to debug, once you understand what its doing. Magically adding whitespace doesn't inherently make the problem simpler. If that was the case, then you could ace the SATs and ACTs by taking the "large print" versions instead of the regular versions.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by s73v3r · 2012-01-03 09:28 · Score: 1

I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting.
Most people who say this are usually guilty of writing code that is almost incomprehensible.
Even if you think your code is so clear that a retarded monkey could figure it out, you should still put some comments in there, particularly explaining the "Why" of what you're doing.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 09:30 · Score: 1

Does it have to be one or the other ?
I don't like being labeled,so I'm not going to call myself one or the other.
I believe in freedom, but also responsibility : you are free to do whatever you want, but you are responsible for your own actions.
As a system of government, democracy still makes the most sense, though i prefer direct democracy, where the people can directly influence policy through referendums.
However, there are some situations where direct democracy can't solve the problem.
For example : people living near an airport, complaining that planes fly over their houses. They all want the airport, but i guess the planes should fly over the other people's houses :-)
No politician wants to decide on this, because regardless of what you do, some group is going to be unhappy
In that case, i think the only thing you can do is way the pro's and contras , and decide on the most optimal solution. Some people will be unhappy, but it will still be the best solution.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by bgat · 2012-01-03 09:33 · Score: 1

Your entire response is schizophrenic. Look it up.
I do Linux kernel code and device drivers for a living. As a freelancer for over a decade. I assure you, laziness and time-to-market are NOT why I don't comment my code.
Related, many have noted the general lack of commenting in the Linux kernel source code. My explanation is that it's because such comments are viewed as noise by other kernel developers. Your explanation is that most Linux kernel developers are lazy. One of us is wrong.

--
b.g.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-01-03 09:38 · Score: 1

Well then, you haven't programmed anything complicated, have you? Nothing that you've had to look at five years later?
At a previous job, I wrote a decoder that took about 20 lines to implement. I added somewhere around 100 lines of comments to explain why it was doing what it was doing. What is was doing was obvious, at least to me when I programmed it, and for the first few months thereafter. Why it was copying arrays into backstep[i][j] if the error accumulator went over the threshold?
The comments were a complete story. If you didn't even know what the hell the decoder WAS, you'd be able to code one by the time you went through that code.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Anarke_Incarnate · 2012-01-03 09:45 · Score: 1

Mitt, stop posting to slashdot.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Dhalka226 · 2012-01-03 09:46 · Score: 1

I'd say I'm 50-50. If I had to try to explain it simply, I would say that I am much more likely to document why code is doing something (and increasingly so the less obvious that gets) than what it is doing. In most cases I expect the what to be evident from the code. The why may or may not be depending on the complexity of the task and system.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by johanatan · 2012-01-03 09:58 · Score: 1

When did your parent say to comment on what the code is doing? I read it as advocating the same as you.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-03 10:00 · Score: 4, Informative

The why matters a lot. Good comments should be things like /* I chose this algorithm because I expect the data to meet these criteria. */ When you come to the code ten years after this was written and see that, in fact, the data don't match those criteria at all, you can replace it with a different algorithm. Or you can find that the data still do and so the algorithm makes sense even though its worst-case performance in the general case is terrible.
The sanity check is also useful. If the comments say the code does one thing, yet the code does something else, you've identified a bug. It's a lot better to use a proper specification language for the project than rely on this, but it's also at least an order of magnitude more time consuming...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-03 10:04 · Score: 2

I use a simple metric for judging code quality: how much of it do I have to read to understand what a single line is doing and how far away from the line is the furthest line that I have to read? In good code, I can usually fit everything I need in one editor window. In bad code, I need half a dozen files open and the distance is thousands of lines.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by vux984 · 2012-01-03 10:13 · Score: 2

I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting.
Yeah, me too... but you still need comments to describe what block level elements are doing, or some explanation of why you are doing things.
word_to_anagram = "documenting"
def remove_trailing_whitespace(text): return text.rstrip()
word_list = [ remove_trailing_whitespace(line) for line in file("wordlist.txt") ]
for first_word in word_list: for second_word in word_list: if sorted(word_to_anagram) == sorted(first_word + second_word): print word_to_anagram, "=", first_word, "+", second_word
That little program won a contest in writing readable code. Its still a fair bit of effort to understand what its doing without knowing exactly what problem its trying to solve.
A couple lines of comments:
Generates all two word anagrams of the word "documenting" using a word list text file as the dictionary of possible words.
Goes a long way towards making this code more readable.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 10:19 · Score: 1

Your entire response is schizophrenic. Look it up.
You don't have any clue what schizophrenia is.

I do Linux kernel code and device drivers for a living. As a freelancer for over a decade. I assure you, laziness and time-to-market are NOT why I don't comment my code.
So you're lazy and don't want to admit it to yourself. A responsible freelancer would comment his code, knowing that others might have to maintain it.

Related, many have noted the general lack of commenting in the Linux kernel source code. My explanation is that it's because such comments are viewed as noise by other kernel developers. Your explanation is that most Linux kernel developers are lazy. One of us is wrong.
You are, in fact, defending laziness. You may not have noticed because you're too deep down the rabbit hole, but Linux kernel hacking is a relatively insular culture which has a lot of hazing rituals one must go through in order to become a major, productive contributor (none of them are formalized, but they're real). One of them is becoming so familiar with the expected structure of kernel code that comments begin to seem superfluous and it begins to seem trivial to write code in that distinctive style. To a great extent, this works because the vast majority of code in the kernel is device drivers, and all device drivers follow common patterns. As for the stuff which isn't a device driver, far fewer people are allowed to commit major changes to such code without tight supervision from one of the old gods, and the standards for conformance with expected coding style and so forth are much higher.
Having so much structure and culture is what allows the Linux kernel developers to be lazy about writing comments. In a very real sense, the "comments" are the accumulated weight of 20+ years of LKML posts by core people.
Your mistake is assuming that what works well for the Linux kernel must therefore work in all projects. You couldn't possibly be more wrong.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by EastCoastSurfer · 2012-01-03 10:19 · Score: 2

I agree with you. Comments should be reserved for when something is especially tricky or some non-obvious solution was picked for some other non-obvious reason. Code littered with comments simply explaining what the next line of code does is hard to read and harder to follow. Even worse is when there are required comment templates that make fitting more than 1/10 of a function on the screen impossible to do.
Finally, incorrect comments are worse than pretty much anything else. As soon as trivial comments are added that also adds another point of change for maintenance when code changes.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 10:23 · Score: 1

While I generally understand what you two are trying to say, you don't provide a downside to leaving comments on your ever-so-clearly written code. Probably because there isn't one.
Omitting code comments is plain lazy, period, and there's no excuse not to.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by hedwards · 2012-01-03 10:27 · Score: 1

lol, my point there was that while you are correct that commenting isn't a substitute for clear, concise code, the point of commenting on code isn't so people know what you did, it's so that they'll understand why you did it, and that's not really something you addressed at all in your post.
As for hiring, I was joking, I don't do hiring for anybody, perhaps an emoticon would have helped.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by gorzek · 2012-01-03 10:31 · Score: 2

I do comment my code. Sorry if I implied otherwise. My problem is with code that's sloppy, hard to follow, and uncommented. People often do this because they think it makes their jobs more secure.
Well, it doesn't. They eventually get laid off, and someone like me is brought in to figure out what the hell they did. Leaving out comments is just a dick thing to do.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by wickedskaman · 2012-01-03 10:34 · Score: 1

Moreover, sometimes the way you think is not the way a different programmer, who is just as capable, might solve the problem at first glance. A simple comment could save valuable time and effort in future support.

--
Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by blahplusplus · 2012-01-03 10:39 · Score: 1

"I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting."
This is idiocy, and it's based on a false understanding of how the human mind works. The enlightenment assumed that human reasoning was rational, literal, and easy, it's not.
http://bit.ly/dYaWUc
Code commenting, especially going beyond the trivial is damn necessary if you've ever worked on someone elses code on large projects.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by s73v3r · 2012-01-03 11:08 · Score: 1

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your code is not as clear as you claim it is.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by inviolet · 2012-01-03 11:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

While I generally understand what you two are trying to say, you don't provide a downside to leaving comments on your ever-so-clearly written code. Probably because there isn't one.
Omitting code comments is plain lazy, period, and there's no excuse not to.
Depends on your definition of 'omit'. At this point in my career, I find that I have finite energy for any given task / bug / refactoring crusade, and it is far better to spend that energy renaming things (for clarity), and preening the whitespace, than on writing comments that nobody reads because everyone knows that code comments are misleadingly outdated.
That said, I think we both agree with the GP post that comments are needed when the reader will need information about why the code does what it does. I presently do a lot of work bugfixing code that was cranked out by our company's low-priced Indian counterparts, and sometimes I would kill for even one sentence of explanation, with which I can proceed to fix up all the variable and function names.

--
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-03 12:41 · Score: 2

True, although not totally irrelevant to the question of government. If laws contained clear statements of intent in the comments then it would be much easier to judge whether they were working and either repeal or amend the ones that weren't...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by drsmithy · 2012-01-03 14:39 · Score: 1

I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting.
You seem to have misunderstood that the primary reason for commenting code is not to explain how the it works, but why it is there, what it is trying to achieve and how it interacts with any other bits of code.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Teancum · 2012-01-03 14:48 · Score: 1

I would agree... to a point. Much of the "self-documenting" also depends on the programming environment as well, specifically the programming language being used.
For myself, I find that my C/C++ software tends to be much harder to "self document" and takes much longer to get back into if I have put the software off for awhile (say a year or more) to work on other projects, and is much more difficulty to decypher in terms of understanding the code sufficiently to make meaningful bug fixes when it is other software. I don't want to get into holy wars over languages, so I'll leave this be and not note some of my favorite languages. It isn't as bad as Intercal or Malbolge, but then again those languages were deliberately designed to be obfuscated.
My current "favorite" language is Scratch, which sadly is too limited for real work and lacks a decent compiler to improve performance. Even that has documentation problems, however, as the multi-threaded nature of that programming language can do some weird things when you get some complex software going that makes Intercal look like a simple language. Python, Ruby, Object Pascal, and a few other languages are better than average, however, and IMHO much better than C++ for readability and self documenting.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Teancum · 2012-01-03 15:02 · Score: 2

I find that the real documentation of software is more along the lines of documenting software interfaces and APIs (when using linked modules) and even a short description of what the software is even supposed to do in the first place. Nothing is more frustrating than having a disk with a binary that nobody knows what precisely it really does.
Documentation can take a whole bunch of levels, and I'd agree that it is important.
Still, I ended up getting fired from a company because I dared take the step to actually organize the documentation for a whole software development team. Oh, the company executives were all grateful that I bothered to document my software in a clean manner and provide proper references to the software and even put the software components into the company-wide parts system (the company was mainly a hardware company.... putting software into the inventory chain had a unique set of problems). The gratitude was shown by simply showing me the door because I was then dispensable as any other developer could pick up from where I left off.
Only the real truth is that nobody at the company could figure out my inventory system and the documentation just got dumped on the heap with all of the other engineering notes from all of the rest of the stuff done by the company.
Mainly I'd like to point out that documentation is far more than just comments around snippets of code or as headers to functions. Design documents, development notes, meeting minutes (if taken at all), customer requests, contracts, bills of materials (if equipment is needed to use the software), and other aspects are all part of that documentation process.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Teancum · 2012-01-03 15:07 · Score: 1

The worst bugs I've encountered are compiler bugs. Yes, I've found a few, and it gets to be a real pain in the ass to find those bugs as well, because you go over your software time and time again and never really seeing just what is going on. There was one point that I even dropped into assembly to see what my software was doing op code by op code to make sure it was doing precisely what I wanted it to do, but still couldn't find the bug. I ended up optimizing the software along the way, but it didn't seem to help.
I updated the compiler and the bug went away. If you want to talk about frustrating, try explaining to a supervisor why you spent the past two months banging your head against the wall doing almost nothing else.... because that software was a critical piece for the operation of the business itself and had a multi-million dollar client demanding that it get fixed.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by rk · 2012-01-03 16:26 · Score: 1

Most of my comments are about my assumptions of the inputs and outputs of the data for exactly that reason (and having no assumptions is perhaps the largest assumption you can have!). What is perfectly reasonable code at the time may be unsuitable for the class of problems the program is expected to solve later.
I am tempted to violence when I see code like this:

i++; // increment i

Well, no kidding! I don't want a developer near the code that needs that kind of help.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by swillden · 2012-01-03 16:31 · Score: 1

The why matters a lot. Good comments should be things like /* I chose this algorithm because I expect the data to meet these criteria. */

Even better, replace the comment with code that tests for the criteria.
There are some cases where comments add value, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that they're few and far between (document-generating comments are an exception, but even they should avoid being redundant). Any time you feel the need to write an explanatory comment, step back and think hard about whether you can instead fix the code to make the comment unnecessary.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-03 16:51 · Score: 1

That's called "job security"!
No, that's called a half-assed attempt at it. Eventually, one of those mastodons who could unravel MLoCs of spaghetti code in Dartmouth BASIC before you were born will be summoned, and your lack of comments won't save you.
Nah. As an experienced software engineer, I do what is expected from me, and thoroughly comment my code. I also make sure that all variable and function names are clear and meaningful. In Lojban (to reduce the potential for misunderstanding, of course). ~
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by randyleepublic · 2012-01-03 17:01 · Score: 1

This got modded funny because even here people don't know what MUMPS is. MUMPS code is crap, but the underlying database technology is the bomb! Stupid Cache is the only commercial version and it is shitty too, but if anyone ever does a good version of MUMPS, that will put Oracle out of business in minutes.

--
Social Credit would solve everything...
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by dakohli · 2012-01-03 17:36 · Score: 1

I did look it up:

Schizophrenia (play /sktsfrni/ or /sktsfrini/) is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by poor emotional responsiveness.[1] It most commonly manifests itself as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction.
-Wikipedia
I get you don't agree with me. And I will consider that writing device drivers/kernel code may not require the same amount of documentation that an application might. Just because I am looking at this situation from a different perspective does not make it "Schizophrenic".
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by kdemetter · 2012-01-03 17:42 · Score: 1

I also agree that it's important to know why something was implemented in a way, but are comments really the best place for this information ?
I usually write a technical manual, which describes the 'why' if my code ( aside from a user manual, which describes how to use it ).

--
Slipping shoelaces ?
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by dakohli · 2012-01-03 17:45 · Score: 1

The gratitude was shown by simply showing me the door because I was then dispensable as any other developer could pick up from where I left off.
Only the real truth is that nobody at the company could figure out my inventory system and the documentation just got dumped on the heap with all of the other engineering notes from all of the rest of the stuff done by the company.
This is an example of short-sightedness of the company you worked for. It sends all of the wrong signals. Of course, the work you did, really didn't matter to them as they were willing to throw it on the "heap", right after they got rid of you. Not a company that I would want to work for, although I understand that a job in the current economic climate is worth more than no job. It would be nice to have a decent boss, but we can not be too choosey right now.

Mainly I'd like to point out that documentation is far more than just comments around snippets of code or as headers to functions. Design documents, development notes, meeting minutes (if taken at all), customer requests, contracts, bills of materials (if equipment is needed to use the software), and other aspects are all part of that documentation process.
I agree with you whole-hardheartedly!
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by BlueStrat · 2012-01-03 18:40 · Score: 1

True, although not totally irrelevant to the question of government. If laws contained clear statements of intent in the comments then it would be much easier to judge whether they were working and either repeal or amend the ones that weren't...
The root problem isn't the laws. Those are a symptom.
You must go deeper. To the underlying governmental/societal "operating system", the "source code" for which, in the US, could be thought of as being the US Constitution.
The root cause IMHO is that there have, for many decades, been unauthorized, undocumented, untested/un-debugged, code additions, modifications, work-arounds, bypasses, backdoors, rewrites, and deletions being made and inserted by various groups of rogue hackers to the core governmental/societal OS "production" system code, inserted covertly from outside the "official" project development/maintenance structure.
Unfortunately, until very recently, nobody has bothered to check error logs...as a matter of fact, quite to the contrary, many have, and continue with increasing force, to attempt to delete or rewrite portions for their own benefit or their flavor of ideological beliefs.
Seems to me it's far, far past time for a serious code audit and re-validation. It's also far past time to make some major personnel performance and security audits and replacements as well.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Hognoxious · 2012-01-03 20:27 · Score: 1

User manuals are different. But if documentation's in a separate document, it's more likely to get lost. And it's even less likely to get changed when the code is maintained than comments are.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Hognoxious · 2012-01-03 20:40 · Score: 1

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the developer intended, because the computer can't read the developer's mind--- it can only read the code.
I thought comments were meant to be read by humans? Though you might think otherwise if you've seen some of the ones I have...
Properly written comments are useful because they show the intent. For example, if I see:

// Get all debit entries select blah from foo where trans_type = '1' ...

I can immediately go "Aha! '3' is a reversal of a credit, so it's also a debit - maybe that's why the balance is wrong"

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Hognoxious · 2012-01-03 21:23 · Score: 1

Even better, replace the comment with code that tests for the criteria.
In other words, write overcomplicated code that ships late?
In any case, that's only one example of commenting "why". Many of them cannot be tested in code at all. I suspect you're another one whose code isn't as self-documenting as you think it is.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by BBadhedgehog · 2012-01-03 22:16 · Score: 1

Whilst I agree with you that, in general, comments that explain the intent are always to be welcomed, your example is not so good. You'd define a constant called REVERSAL_OF_CREDIT, set to 3 and possibly another one called DEBIT_ENTRY your SELECT becomes:
select blah from foo where trans_type = REVERSAL_OF_CREDIT
or even more clearly (as reversal of credit is a bit of a double negative)
select blah from foo where trans_type = DEBIT_ENTRY

--
Will you PLEASE F off with the Fing beta now?
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by inasity_rules · 2012-01-04 00:36 · Score: 1

My EE degree included everything from ladder logic to C++. And we were taught to make our programs as clear and concise as possible, but then, I come from a completely different world...

--
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Yogs · 2012-01-04 00:49 · Score: 2

I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting. If your code fails this test, no amount of commenting will improve the situation. Bad code is bad code, no matter how well-commented it is. (True, some code is truly difficult to comprehend and therefore requires comments, usually because what the code is doing is supremely complicated and difficult to comprehend itself. I'm not talking about that kind of code).
Now describing the design overall, that's another matter. But most of the designs I'm called in to fix are so bad that they are undocumentable.
In principle I agree and you should design and refactor as necessary to get your code as clear as possible. Some designs as you said, are so bad they're undocumentable anyway. (And actually, the relative ease of documenting code is the single best heuristic as to the maintainability of the design).
That said, even a nice design and code written "as clear as possible" is not good enough for the long haul.
This is irritating as hell because it seems so obvious right now... after all, you just wrote it and all the unspoken assumptions about what this is for, how it should or should not be used, and behavior in corner cases are known to you without a second thought.
Will they be when you or someone else has to come back to it months or years later? Of course not, that's what the comments are for.
There's a balance to be struck here, some comments are dumb... for instance, anything auto-generated or which just restates in imprecise language an adjacent conditional. That said, the amount of commentary your should write is always greater than your expectations.
If you haven't written comments along the way please, please get a code review now. Anything you've had to explain to your reviewer that's not already in a comment, put it in a comment. It's not perfect, but it's a start.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Teancum · 2012-01-04 01:36 · Score: 1

Part of the problem is that I worked for a small engineering company which was subsequently purchased by a multi-national conglomerate that in turn was not very well managed. I loved my local supervisors, but the problems started to come when many of the financial mistakes were dumped onto the division that I worked for (unjustifiably so I might add). That is the reason for the schizophrenic attitude toward documentation, as the goals of the company shifted over time.
The really sad thing about this particular company is that it had a multi-discipline engineering team that could literally build just about anything you could dream up, and a factory on site to even built it. I bet with just a little bit of imagination alone we could have built spacecraft that went to the Moon or Mars, and certainly built other monumental things that I know you have seen over the years. In the process of trying to "re-invent" the company rather than sticking to the core business of what it is we were doing (along with the games being played at the corporate headquarters half a continent away, and eventually on a completely different continent) the entire team was dismissed one by one on grounds like what happened to me, with eventually most of the engineering being "outsourced" to China, India, and other countries.
To me, it was the loss of potential that was simply thrown away, because the real creative drive of that company was thus completely lost. Not so much myself but my co-workers, many of whom were simply amazing in what they were able to accomplish.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by flosofl · 2012-01-04 01:37 · Score: 1

In other words, write overcomplicated code that ships late?
What takes longer? Actually spending to time to write code blocks in a an easy to understand format using descriptive variable names, or trying to unravel what for all that is unholy was this coder actually trying to do?

--
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by TeknoHog · 2012-01-04 02:57 · Score: 1

... for a fee.
Would you be my lady tonight?

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by AmiMoJo · 2012-01-04 03:48 · Score: 1

Turns out, clear and easy-to-follow code also optimizes like gangbusters.
Unfortunately that is often not the case in the embedded world where I work. I could give you specific examples of things which produce better assembly code when written a less readable way, but more generally we often end up having to limit the size of variables and the amount of memory used which results in things not always working in the most obvious way.
You can mitigate it a bit with good variable naming and the like but ultimately comments are the best way to save yourself and anyone else who comes along to maintain that bit of code in a few years. Having it all in design documents is good too but no substitute.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by dakohli · 2012-01-04 06:50 · Score: 1

This does seem to be a problem when executives lose sight of what is important. You can have a company that does a billion dollars in business every year, but because there is no "growth", it is supposedly not viable. That is when you start getting stupid business decisions made which are designed to maximize profit, not enable the company to continue to do what it is actually good at. I would not do well in the current business environment.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by hazah · 2012-01-05 07:44 · Score: 1

I'm curious, now, as it strikes me reading your comment, what other world object exists out there that defines its own purpose to you? It seems that this is all that its about. What you have on your lap isn't telling you what to do with it. It obviously would have been nice if the person you got the object from would have told you... be it documentation, word of mouth, comments or whatever, but the rub is, in real life, that's not exactly a given. Software or otherwise.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by datavirtue · 2012-01-05 08:10 · Score: 1

I don't want to know what you are doing, I can see that. I want to know why you are doing it.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by vux984 · 2012-01-05 09:33 · Score: 1

It was a contest in *readability*.
The judge spoke English and were not programmers.
Do you think your mom knows what "rstrip" does?
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by swillden · 2012-01-05 15:23 · Score: 1

Even better, replace the comment with code that tests for the criteria.
In other words, write overcomplicated code that ships late?
Why would it be overcomplicated? If it is, that just means you've failed in another way.
As to shipping late... that's a decision that needs to be made jointly by business and engineering. It's called "technical debt", and the sort of comment you mention is technical debt, even if it's less bad than the same code without the comment.

In any case, that's only one example of commenting "why". Many of them cannot be tested in code at all.
Those that can't, can't. But many can. The key is to pause and think hard about whether there's any way to make the comment unnecessary. Comments are not a good, they're a necessary evil.

I suspect you're another one whose code isn't as self-documenting as you think it is.
I'm definitely still learning the art of comment-free programming, so my code has many more comments in it than I'd like. I work with some seriously awesome engineers, though, and I'm learning quickly.
One gentleman in particular really amazes me. His functions read like narratives, without any need for comments, and he always seems to find the perfect way to structure the solution to minimize both the lines of code and the effort required to understand them. The core of his talent is a true gift for finding the perfect name to capture the meaning of a class, function or variable -- or perhaps it's being able to precisely express the meaning of the name in code, no more and no less.
Someday I hope to be like him. But he's been writing code for 20 years longer than I have, and is smarter than me, to boot. So I'll probably never reach that level. But it's certainly a goal worth striving for.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Keybounce · 2012-01-05 21:01 · Score: 1

Job security: Look at some of the stuff on DailyWTF.com.
Imagine code that is doing license checks that just assumes that if it's 2012, then the license is invalid.
Imagine code that has a bunch of delay loops in it -- for (long x=0; x1000000; x++) or the equivalent -- and if the coders can't do anything else that week, they speed up the program.
Proper comments? Next thing you'll be saying, it's not enough to reverse engineer what NTFS is doing, Microsoft should explain WHY A instead of B so that people can actually re-implement it properly instead of having to guess and getting complaints from chkdsk or a slower drive.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by Keybounce · 2012-01-05 21:13 · Score: 1

I'm curious, now, as it strikes me reading your comment, what other world object exists out there that defines its own purpose to you? ... What you have on your lap isn't telling you what to do with it.
I beg to differ. The cat in my lap tells me that I'm supposed to pet it and type one handed. It is defining its own purpose
Re:We'll be whatever you want... by jdaragon · 2012-01-10 10:36 · Score: 1

I've lived in both the technical domain (mainframe operating systems and *IX device drivers) and the business (anything that will turn a buck :-) as far as writing code is concerned, and in both development and support. You can get away without a lot of comment in a linux device driver because everyone who reads it *already knows* what you're trying to do. In arbitrary desktop application code this just isn't true. I'm not a specialist in geodesy (for example) , but I have to support a whole load of code which projects points in space to Cartesian coordinates. If I had a programmer who thought that it was a good idea to omit comments about intention from this sort of code base I'd be tempted to encourage them to find some other sort of job.

Re:Stalin by jedidiah · 2012-01-03 08:13 · Score: 1

Is this some new form of Godwin's Law?

Stalin was a gangster, probably something like a burglar.

It's the classic labor + criminal muscle sort of situation.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Why does everything have to fit a nice label? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

It seems that most people have a hard time when life isn't left down to 2 choices. No wonder we have such a hard time coming together on a common ground and working out our problems.

Re:Why does everything have to fit a nice label? by Relic+of+the+Future · 2012-01-03 08:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's not PEOPLE, it's GROUPS of people. And it's called Duverger's Law: single-member plurality elections tend toward two-party-dominated governments. If you want a broader selection of views, you need to get away from single-member districts and/or plurality elections. I recommend some form of proportional representation (any will do) and approval voting for elections that are necessarily single-winner (governor, president.)

--
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Re:Why does everything have to fit a nice label? by epyT-R · 2012-01-03 09:54 · Score: 1

the problem is that some of these positions really benefit from a unilateral position. when everything is designed by committee at all levels of government, you end up with even more compromise than you had before, which is not always a good thing.
we already have 'approval voting' for president except it's the approval board that actually elects him. the popular vote does nothing but tell the electoral college what the people want. it's a bit archaic and easily gamed by those with money.
Re:Why does everything have to fit a nice label? by elgeeko.com · 2012-01-03 10:09 · Score: 1

There are 10 kinds of people is this world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Re:Why does everything have to fit a nice label? by sdguero · 2012-01-03 11:10 · Score: 1

Yeah. Then our government will get things done!
Re:Why does everything have to fit a nice label? by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-03 21:32 · Score: 1

we already have 'approval voting' for president except it's the approval board that actually elects him. the popular vote does nothing but tell the electoral college what the people want. it's a bit archaic and easily gamed by those with money.
The phrase "approval voting" doesn't mean what you think it means. With approval voting you get to vote for multiple candidates (presumably as in "these are the candidates who, in my opinion, don't suck or, at least, don't suck so badly I wouldn't want them in that office"), and the one who gets the most votes wins.
The voting system in US presidential elections is good old-fashioned first-past-the-post for your local elector, followed by good-old-fashioned first-past-the-post in the Electoral College, but given that electors are pretty much always pledged to a particular candidate, the two in-theory separate elections are tied together to make a somewhat odd combination in which the population selects the president but not all votes count equally.
You could have an Electoral College-based system with approval voting for electors and/or approval voting in the Electoral College, or you could have a first-past-the-post system with direct election of the president, or you could have an approval-voting system with direct election of the president (and there are other systems that could be substituted for first-past-the-post or approval-voting). The Electoral College stuff is orthogonal to first-past-the-post vs. approval voting vs. ....
Re:Why does everything have to fit a nice label? by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 00:11 · Score: 1

And if you're unlucky you'll end up in Israel or Belgium.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

historically yes, but varies by Trepidity · 2012-01-03 08:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

China's government is probably the most engineer-dominated government in the world, in contrast to the lawyer-dominated Western governments, and it has definite technocratic tendencies. I'd say a lot of western engineers who otherwise dislike the government (e.g. its position on free speech) do admire some of its technocratic infrastructure achievements, like its rapid deployment of high-speed rail.

More generally it's kind of the natural outcome of a certain engineering mindset which looks for optimized supply chains, economies of scale, evidence/data-based decision making, etc. There's an alternate, more messy/decentralized engineering mindset though, perhaps better labeled "hacker mindset" than "engineering mindset", which is more about DIY, free-form experimentation, etc., and less technocratic in its orientation (though not necessarily libertarian in the American sense either; plenty are more lefty-anarchist leaning).

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Re:historically yes, but varies by vlm · 2012-01-03 08:24 · Score: 2

More generally it's kind of the natural outcome of a certain engineering mindset which looks for optimized supply chains, economies of scale, evidence/data-based decision making, etc. There's an alternate, more messy/decentralized engineering mindset though, perhaps better labeled "hacker mindset" than "engineering mindset", which is more about DIY, free-form experimentation, etc., and less technocratic in its orientation (though not necessarily libertarian in the American sense either; plenty are more lefty-anarchist leaning).
That seems like a very complicated answer. How bout "a hacker is an engineer with a really small budget". By occams razor my short and simple answer is much more likely to be correct. All your other postulated behaviors seem to flow from a simple lack of $ or in some cases, time.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:historically yes, but varies by PCM2 · 2012-01-03 09:01 · Score: 1

I seriously question the extent to which all of these "engineers" in the Chinese leadership have really devoted their lives to engineering. Engineering public policy, yes. But actually designing and building things? I wonder.
The official bio of pretty much all of the current Chinese leadership is that each came from a poor family, studied hard in high school, went to university, graduated with a degree in engineering that just so happens to coincide with a major government project (e.g. Hu Jintao worked on a major hydroelectric dam), and went on to great success and rose to the top through hard work and perseverance. In other words, each "pulled himself up by his bootstraps" in true Western, rugged individualist fashion.
Really? It's a great story to feed the Western media, but do we honestly think that's how it works in China? There seems to be some wires getting crossed here between what we know about China and what we in the West like to believe about individual success.
Say instead that "engineering" is a euphemism for "Party studies," and I think you have something closer to the truth.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:historically yes, but varies by jd · 2012-01-03 09:13 · Score: 1

That must be because you can provably extrapolate from a single corrupt local official to every person in every discipline across an entire nation. Wow, the brains required to do that are... ...amazing! You must have neurologists beating at the door, wanting to scan a brain such as yours, and now there's a 13T MRI scanner that'll take people, they might even find it!

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:historically yes, but varies by TubeSteak · 2012-01-03 10:03 · Score: 1

I'd say a lot of western engineers who otherwise dislike the government (e.g. its position on free speech) do admire some of its technocratic infrastructure achievements, like its rapid deployment of high-speed rail.
The United States used to be more than capable of rapidly building enormous amounts of infrastructure.
The problem is that (1) for decades the political parties did not want to spend money on improvements and
(2) one of the political parties is at an ideological dead end with regards to raising taxes to pay for anything.
China's ability to set national priorities and to execute them should be a model for any government, regardless of its democratic, republican, or authoritarian nature.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:historically yes, but varies by HungWeiLo · 2012-01-03 10:32 · Score: 1

Do you know any Asian families? You're either "allowed" to be a doctor or engineer. Anything else is an utter failure. (Yes, stereotypes/generalizations blah blah but most of that fire is definitely not smoke). So it's not inconceivable that the Party honchos have engineering degrees. Whether that attests to their true engineering abilities is of course another topic - though these guys come from schools like Peking U, Tsinghua, and Fudan - and they're pretty darn selective and high ranked internationally so they're probably not completely useless.
Besides engineering and medicine, law and MBAs are starting to be an "acceptable" and fashionable degrees to get in Asia, and even more so amongst the diaspora in the West. The skew towards medicine and engineering is even worse in India, I hear.

--
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Re:historically yes, but varies by khallow · 2012-01-03 14:06 · Score: 1

It's the breaking of a rhetorical rule of thumb. If you give an example in support of your argument, then the example should support your argument, not undermine it. Recall the original quote:

I'd say a lot of western engineers who otherwise dislike the government (e.g. its position on free speech) do admire some of its technocratic infrastructure achievements, like its rapid deployment of high-speed rail.
While China does apparently have several effective deployments of high speed rail, it's most notable case has severe engineering problems with it, that yes, have killed people. Frankly, I doubt real engineers fawn over China as much as this poster thinks, precisely, because the big engineering projects, for example, national-scale high speed rail, Three Gorges Dam, or the Chinese space program, have serious engineering problems with them.

I wager instead that the people who really fawn over Chinese engineering projects are the sort of people who to turn a phrase know the value of everything and the cost of nothing. They "know" high speed rail is good, so they envy Chinese power to implement high speed rail while being simultaneously unable to see the costs of the implementation. Real engineers have to do more than just build poorly thought-out stuff quickly. They have to take responsibility for when things fail (and for a real engineering project, sooner or later failures will occur).
Re:historically yes, but varies by jirikivaari · 2012-01-03 14:36 · Score: 1

Honestly, China's PPP-adjusted GDP per capita $7500 a litte above El Salvador. Scandinavia has something around 30-40k GDP per capita and little to none high-speed rail. Its a fiscal stimulus for jobs, and has probably quite little value outside it. Maybe in 30 years. I see it kind of funny to see this left-wing meme being repeated.
Re:historically yes, but varies by JimCanuck · 2012-01-03 15:13 · Score: 1

All of them were selected in the early to mid 1980's because they were successful at their Engineering and Science postings. They were chosen because of their education and experience first and foremost. It was a reversal of Mao's policies to promote the "hard working farmer" over the educated and technically inclined by Dingxiao Ping.
In the end it worked a hell of a lot better then a government run by uneducated farmers. Just don't tell communists and the 99% that shit gets done with educated people over the "common person".
Re:historically yes, but varies by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 00:57 · Score: 1

Just don't tell communists
The idiocy - it is strong in this one.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:historically yes, but varies by jd · 2012-01-04 12:30 · Score: 1

One accident, pinpointed by investigation to corrupt officials and not to the technology. Ergo, your claim is bullshit.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:historically yes, but varies by khallow · 2012-01-04 17:23 · Score: 1

One accident, pinpointed by investigation to corrupt officials and not to the technology. Ergo, your claim is bullshit.
Excuse me, do you have a point to make here? Corruption is but one failure mode for Chinese engineering. And the corruption of the national high speed rail affects the entire system, including the technology. It's not just limited to one accident.
Re:historically yes, but varies by JimCanuck · 2012-01-04 18:52 · Score: 1

China has not been communist since Mao died. Only the Western world still believes otherwise.
Re:historically yes, but varies by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 20:41 · Score: 1

Who said China was communist?
The Communist party however, is.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:historically yes, but varies by jd · 2012-01-05 08:18 · Score: 1

The technology is fine. The design is perfectly good and can be implemented with as close to absolute safety as any mechanical system can. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Chinese high-speed train system. Although I have little trust in the Chinese system of governance, there is no rational reason to believe that the different varieties of governmental failure present there will all be problematic. Given the impressive safety record, I would say that it's quite reasonable to believe that the combination of flaws that would make the high-speed rail system dangerous are actually quite rare in China.
Your rabid right-wing insistence that anyone different to you has to be wrong and cannot possibly be your equal is grating. Plenty of people with views very different to yours are indeed your intellectual superiors. Given the stupefying ignorance you exhibit, there are probably stone-age tribes in New Guinea with a more enlightened view of technology and society. If you want to restart John McCarthy's witch-hunt, go ahead.
America isn't "supreme", other countries can - and already have - far surpassed it. It is people like you, blinkered, arrogant, contemptuous of anyone not you, who have ensured that those nations that had been a century or two behind are now decades ahead. The British made the same mistake in the days of the Empire - rotting rather than building, whilst those in their dominion built rather than rotted. The reason Britain has become one of the most backward nations in Europe - Turkey has now passed it on more than a few metrics - is that their fascism and nationalism, like yours, ensures nothing but the total destruction of the holder of those beliefs and the nation they are within.
Do you know WHY Australia had the world's first working scramjet, despite the US developing most of the science for it 3 decades ago? And why Australia will be the first nation with hypersonic passenger aircraft, not America, despite NASA having had the technical plans drawn up since 1998? The world doesn't slow down because right-wing fascists like you want to be the leaders. If you don't like the way the world drives, get off the road... ...and my damn lawn!

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:historically yes, but varies by khallow · 2012-01-05 09:03 · Score: 1

Your rabid right-wing insistence that anyone different to you has to be wrong and cannot possibly be your equal is grating. Plenty of people with views very different to yours are indeed your intellectual superiors. Given the stupefying ignorance you exhibit, there are probably stone-age tribes in New Guinea with a more enlightened view of technology and society. If you want to restart John McCarthy's witch-hunt, go ahead.
Evidence, as if we ever needed it, that one doesn't even need to have a glimmer of understanding of a problem in order to throw out a bunch of verbiage.

I dissed the sacred High Speed Rail, therefore I must be lower than stone-aged tribes.

the design is perfectly good and can be implemented with as close to absolute safety as any mechanical system can.
Engineering is not just about the design, but also about the implementation. This is the point I made back a few posts, that engineers don't have a reason to be enamored with China. The designs may be pretty and the money great, but the implementations are often irresponsible and incompetent, violating basic engineering principles.

Do you know WHY Australia had the world's first working scramjet, despite the US developing most of the science for it 3 decades ago?
Because it had a sounding rocket range where one could be tested cheaply and with low bureaucracy. And because someone was more interested in producing results rather than throwing money at "Science" and hoping some of it stuck. In other words, the scramjet fundamentally got built because someone built a scramjet not spent money on hypersonic research.

Don't get too enthusiastic about Australia's space-related prospects. They signed the Moon Treaty after all.

The world doesn't slow down because right-wing fascists like you want to be the leaders.
The world slows down when the spenders of money are disconnected from the consequences of spending that money and ignore opportunity cost. This sort of thinking goes right to the core of my complaint a few posts back. I'm a "right-wing" fascist because I point out that real engineers wouldn't be impressed by most Chinese engineering projects. I'm supposed to be a backwards, "get off my lawn" kind of guy even though I know how Australia got the first scramjet instead of the US.

And I'm supposed to be left behind by the part of the world that builds big, poorly thought-out projects rationalized by excuses that cannot yet be articulated.
Re:historically yes, but varies by jd · 2012-01-05 10:18 · Score: 1

You're not "supposed to be", you are. Blue sky research is the reason the Australians won the scramjet race. You are indeed stone-age -- nothing since then was "practical" at the time of invention, only much much later. The Neandertals had a large brain and lived in an incredibly diverse set of environments, they were not "out-evolved" by humans. They died because they were conservatives, they failed to invent even when they could. They stuck to what was practical, what had a use right there and then. You would drag us back into such an era, and then blame us for your error. Your stupidity and complete incapacity to understand the nature of science and technology beggars the belief. Or it would do, if so many other great civilizations in the past equally dropped experimentation and creativity in favour of the happy delusion of conservative thinking... ...and became extinct in the process.
Yours is a path of death.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:historically yes, but varies by khallow · 2012-01-05 11:55 · Score: 1

Blue sky research is the reason the Australians won the scramjet race.
Building something useful, like a working scramjet, is the antithesis of "blue sky" research. Again, they won the race because they built a scramjet, not because they did "blue sky" research. To the contrary, the US sunk a lot of money into blue sky hypersonic research without coming up with a scramjet.

They died because they were conservatives, they failed to invent even when they could. They stuck to what was practical, what had a use right there and then.
How did that differ from the humans of the time? My take is that the humans of that time were just as practical, just as conservative, but they were better at what made the neanderthals good, namely, ability to communicate, intelligence, etc.

Your stupidity and complete incapacity to understand the nature of science and technology beggars the belief.
Says who? I consider my practical-oriented science strategy better than the "blue sky" approach, that is, we'll spend a bunch of money on a vague concept and hope, this time, that we don't look like complete idiots.

Yours is a path of death.
I gather you've never actually done research or development. Most such people I've known have been able to come up with a short description (what is known in job hunting as the "elevator speech") describing why their activities are interesting and useful. If you can't do that, then you probably aren't doing R&D. I've also had to glean through dozens of papers for a few that actually have scientific content.

I've seen NASA research that was done in the 50s and left virtually untouched to the presence day, like a toy lost by a giant toddler. Or the US military pay three orders of magnitude more for construction of a high altitude airship system than my non-profit group spent.

As to your scramjet example, it is laughable. The US probably spent orders of magnitude more money on hypersonic "blue sky" research over a forty year period than the Woomera tests in Australia cost. But they didn't get a scramjet out of it. One can't explain decades long incompetence with a "right-wing" conspiracy.
Re:historically yes, but varies by jd · 2012-01-05 12:22 · Score: 1

My resume includes work at NASA, CERN, the ANU and the Universities of Manchester and UMIST. I've more academia than you could shake one of your pointy sticks at. Oh, I've done research alright. Real, "we haven't the faintest idea what the results will be, but that's the point of it" research. Your understanding of the field seems to be what Fox News has told you to think.
You? Practical? That's a laugh. There's nothing practical about stagnant swamp talk.
By around 1.8 - 2.0 million years ago, humans already had fire, art, complex language, symbolism, advanced stone technology, music and ritualism. Far from being conservative, humans were highly experimental. It got them killed a lot, but it also got them further, faster. Humans took a lot more risks, nearly going extinct a few times for their troubles, but ended up the only surviving hominid and one of only a tiny number of surviving Great Apes as a result of incredibly novel thinking and rapid adaptation.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:historically yes, but varies by khallow · 2012-01-05 12:55 · Score: 1

My resume includes work at NASA, CERN, the ANU and the Universities of Manchester and UMIST. I've more academia than you could shake one of your pointy sticks at. Oh, I've done research alright. Real, "we haven't the faintest idea what the results will be, but that's the point of it" research. Your understanding of the field seems to be what Fox News has told you to think.
Amazing that you can know so little about research despite all that alleged experience.

By around 1.8 - 2.0 million years ago, humans already had fire, art, complex language, symbolism, advanced stone technology, music and ritualism. Far from being conservative, humans were highly experimental. It got them killed a lot, but it also got them further, faster. Humans took a lot more risks, nearly going extinct a few times for their troubles, but ended up the only surviving hominid and one of only a tiny number of surviving Great Apes as a result of incredibly novel thinking and rapid adaptation.
If this were a job resume, I'd be asking "What did your 'highly experimental' ass do in the almost two million year period between invention of fire and virtually everything else?" To the contrary, I think this huge period of time with almost no development indicates that there wasn't a huge desire to experiment. Instead, it shows a remarkably precise passing on of physical knowledge. You know, a conservative trait.

But I think that observation is irrelevant. We're not looking at conservative versus liberal, but at accountable and useful versus unaccountable and value-neutral. As I see it, the latter can never be a rational viewpoint because it ignores the primary purpose of such pursuits to make things better for us and to understand our world better.
Re:historically yes, but varies by khallow · 2012-01-05 23:09 · Score: 1

I can rewrite my arguments in a simpler form. There's two overlapping arguments that I feel need rebutting. First, the claim that China has large publicly funded engineering projects that would or should make engineers envious. Second, the much weaker claim that science that doesn't have near future payback (or for that matter any sort of payback in a human lifetime) is somehow a good use of public funds.

The first is rebutted by noting two important violations of engineering procedure. The designs may be wonderful (something I think there's considerable contrary evidence for), but they are implemented in a way that generates inordinate risk for those subject to the engineering projects, such as riders of the high speed rail or people downstream from the Three Gorges Dam.

Second, the projects often have at best a poor economic justification. One would think that a high speed rail project in a hugely populous country like China would have high demand for the service. That only happens, if the price of the tickets are much lower than the cost per passenger. In other words, the cost of operation for the system is too high. A proper engineering study would have discovered that.

Now, since the trains in question have to travel even slower than planned, the demand for these trains is reduced even further. This is typical of poorly planned engineering projects and a good indication that the particular project was not as well designed as claimed earlier in this thread.

As to scientific research, you refer to "blue sky research". I must admit to being puzzled by your shift from something that is has utility and hence, can be defended to the indefensible. "Blue sky research" is simply research that doesn't have immediate commercial value. How long a time scale "immediate" is depends on taste, I suppose. I usually use the scale of a century. You'll get a lot more blue sky research if you define immediate as next quarter.

Citing the Australian scramjet experiments as "blue sky", means that "immediate" is probably under 10 years for you. That means a vast amount of US research is "blue sky". In particular, the US has spent huge amount of blue sky research into scramjets and the study of hypersonic phenomena, far more than the Australian project in question. So by the logic of your prior writings, the US should have beaten Australia to developing a working scramjet engine.

This is the first criticism, that your example is hideously bad and doesn't show what you intend it to show. My interpretation of why the example fails is that lightweight scientific research is far more effective for the money spent than large scientific projects without a focused goal.

Your claim is that merely spending more on "blue sky" somehow means more and better science. Instead, the lesson of this example is that there is huge variation of several orders of magnitude in the effectiveness (say dollars spent for similar outcomes) of scientific research between the best and worst. I would go as far as to say the widespread lack of understanding of this nuance is the primary cause of failure in publicly funded research.

Second, I find the disregard for accountability and responsibility when spending public funds to be reprehensible. If Australia or China wants you to burn their money on unproductive blue sky research, then I don't mind. That gives an advantage to the US. Or a private sugar daddy or your own money.

This is not a conservative or liberal issue, it is an economic one. The US has limited resources. It should not be spending that money on unproductive things, be they greatly inefficient research or poorly run entitlement programs.

Moving on, there's just the self-defeating nature of pursuing research that has no payback over long periods of time. If you're doing research that has no practical application in a century, hypothetically, then why not doing something useful in a fifty year timeframe and revisit the subject in 50 years?

Ther
Re:historically yes, but varies by jd · 2012-01-06 09:42 · Score: 1

No, it is a political issue. The opposite of cold is not purple. Conservativatism is not the opposite of liberalism. I will not waste any further time on that until you learn what political terms mean.
As far as US "blue sky" - no. The US research for scramjets was for military jet development. It had a specific purpose, a specific end-goal, specific targets and a concrete objective. That was not "blue sky". It was a failure.
Research in which you already know the result is not research. That is school homework. Research is in pushing boundaries and finding out what you did NOT know before.
95% of science and 100% of the arts are unquantifiable in advance, they can only be quantified in retrospect. You know nothing of the true cost until it is done, and the gross cost is a meaningless figure. You want the net cost. The net cost must include ALL costs NOT payed as a result of the activity.
Thus, for a train service, it is NOT enough to simply figure out the cost of moving a train from A to B with X passengers paying Y. You must ALSO factor in the deaths/injury per mile (since emergency services aren't free), cost of maintenance (how reliable is the car vs the train, what's the damage to the road vs the track, etc), heath cost due to pollution (cars fill up with nitric acid fumes, which will damage lungs, whereas electric trains have power stations generally well away from populated areas, so you've the medical costs there to consider), mean and variance of arrival times (cars are more likely to form traffic jams, time is money, so the cost to a passenger of travel is dependent on travel time), etc.
Your equation ignores ALL of these variables. Why? Because you want easy jibes, quick calculations, skewed analysis. Public transport SHOULD have tickets that make a slight loss for the transport in pure isolation, because that is how you MINIMIZE the net cost. See SIMPLEX for optimization. There's better out there, but start with something that isn't naive.
This country does indeed have limited funds. Competing with other nations where those other nations are already superior to us is a DRAIN on our resources. India, China and Japan are brilliant mass-producers -- far more than the US ever was. Let them. ALWAYS play to YOUR strengths, NEVER to your opponents. (Book of Five Rings, Art of War, and just about any other standard practices manual ever written). The strength of Britain and America is unquestionably that we have the greatest minds in research, invention and innovation anywhere in the world. That is the Anglo-American strength. We're pioneers, we live on the edge, we just don't function anywhere else. If we did, Detroit would have pwned the Japanese car market, but even after Japan lost most of their manufacturing capacity and power supply, they're still in better shape.
America and Britain aren't capable of functioning when "playing it safe". We never have. The most alive people in both nations are the ones who took enormous gambles. Some won, some lost - that's what gambling's about. Why the hell are we spending trillions on defense projects that are then scrapped? They weren't blue-sky, they could have been completed, the designs all worked, but it was precisely those qualities that made them obsolete before they even hit the production line. Throw those trillions into REAL research and maybe 25% will deliver. 25% is better than 0%. 5% is better than 0%. ANY percent at all is better than what we're currently getting in the way of return. So, you see, I don't give a shit what the percent is because so long as the percent is better than the bugger all we're getting for our money now, we've made a net gain.
So, no, the US has no advantage. It is slipping because it's too goal-oriented, too obsessed with yesterday's stuff. Russia nearly beat the US to the moon - and would have done had their top designer not died of brain cancer. Why? Werner von Braun certainly knew about staying on the cutting edge. It's because conservative minds did not. They wouldn't give him the m

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:historically yes, but varies by khallow · 2012-01-07 05:23 · Score: 1

No, it is a political issue. The opposite of cold is not purple. Conservativatism is not the opposite of liberalism. I will not waste any further time on that until you learn what political terms mean.
An irrelevant observation since I don't even imply that conservatism is the opposite of liberalism.

As far as US "blue sky" - no. The US research for scramjets was for military jet development. It had a specific purpose, a specific end-goal, specific targets and a concrete objective. That was not "blue sky". It was a failure.
I disagree. The Australian research had a specific target and concrete goal: to build a scramjet. That is why it succeeded.

Thus, for a train service, it is NOT enough to simply figure out the cost of moving a train from A to B with X passengers paying Y. You must ALSO factor in the deaths/injury per mile (since emergency services aren't free), cost of maintenance (how reliable is the car vs the train, what's the damage to the road vs the track, etc), heath cost due to pollution (cars fill up with nitric acid fumes, which will damage lungs, whereas electric trains have power stations generally well away from populated areas, so you've the medical costs there to consider), mean and variance of arrival times (cars are more likely to form traffic jams, time is money, so the cost to a passenger of travel is dependent on travel time), etc.

Your equation ignores ALL of these variables. Why? Because you want easy jibes, quick calculations, skewed analysis. Public transport SHOULD have tickets that make a slight loss for the transport in pure isolation, because that is how you MINIMIZE the net cost. See SIMPLEX for optimization. There's better out there, but start with something that isn't naive.
There's a simpler explanation: a) most of these variables are irrelevant, and b) I am abstracting, reducing what I consider in order to reduce the complexity of the model. Addressing your points, deaths/injury per mile is not significant enough for automobiles to change behavior, so I don't see the relevance of a lower number for trains. Cost of maintenance is already included in the price of the ticket. The health consequences of pollution seem relevant until you realize that Chinese society doesn't have that as a priority. There would be far more gain for the price from environmental regulation than running a high speed train.

And traffic jams from autos is already factored into the potential buyers' decisions. As traffic jams get worse, more people buy tickets.

This country does indeed have limited funds. Competing with other nations where those other nations are already superior to us is a DRAIN on our resources. India, China and Japan are brilliant mass-producers -- far more than the US ever was. Let them. ALWAYS play to YOUR strengths, NEVER to your opponents. (Book of Five Rings, Art of War, and just about any other standard practices manual ever written). The strength of Britain and America is unquestionably that we have the greatest minds in research, invention and innovation anywhere in the world. That is the Anglo-American strength. We're pioneers, we live on the edge, we just don't function anywhere else. If we did, Detroit would have pwned the Japanese car market, but even after Japan lost most of their manufacturing capacity and power supply, they're still in better shape.
Fine talk until you realize that a lot of government research projects effective pay researchers not to do useful research. For example, the recent loan guarantees made to a number of renewable energy businesses to develop new technologies. End result was a vast squandering of public funds which paid plenty of scientists and engineers to do this stuff rather than something useful.

America and Britain aren't capable of functioning when "playing it safe". We never have. The most alive people in both nations are the ones who took enormo
Re:historically yes, but varies by jd · 2012-01-09 08:33 · Score: 1

Look, your complete lack of comprehension of my posts is getting stale. Admit that you're too stupid to comprehend either the history of science or the practice of it and move on.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

A good software engineer can create either by elrous0 · 2012-01-03 08:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Once you understand the basics of politics, learning a new ideology is trivial really.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:A good software engineer can create either by mooingyak · 2012-01-03 08:43 · Score: 1

And to think my mod points have all expired...

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Re:A good software engineer can create either by jd · 2012-01-03 09:18 · Score: 2

Why would you want to? With the underlying structure as defective and damaged as it is, it's like learning a new procedural programming language for a computer with a burned-out main memory.
Besides, I rather like Harold McMillain's claim that ideology is SUPPOSED to be transient.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:Libertarians? by sanman2 · 2012-01-03 08:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Since when is Silicon Valley the heart of engineering?? Maybe if you're an electrical or computer engineer. Engineering has been around a lot longer than Silicon Valley or the 1980s. Why not also pretend San Francisco is the heart of engineering?

Libertarians are more likely to be self-starters and doers, which is more consistent with the engineering mentality.

Scientists, on the other hand, are more likely to be welfare-staters, because their science funding and grantsmanship culture is ever more dependent on the state.

Re:Libertarians? by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-03 08:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

You assume that libertarians do not also hate corporations. Since corporations only exist due to special protections granted to them by the government, many (most?) libertarians (myself included) do not consider them to be actors in, nor an accurate representation of, a true free market.

Some may consider that a small nitpick, but I personally find it to be an important one. When I engage people in discussions about free market principles, I make sure to let people know that I am just as disgusted with our corporately-owned government as the next guy.

Pragmatism can be dangerous by XxtraLarGe · 2012-01-03 08:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Decisions based merely on results, divorced from ethics and morality can bring disastrous results. Think how quickly we could advance medicine if we started experimenting on humans unchecked, or how "safe" we could be if we lived in a police state. I put safe in quotes because we might be safe from terrorists and other boogeymen, but we wouldn't be safe from the police state.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.

Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by rrohbeck · 2012-01-03 08:21 · Score: 1

So you'd rather do Bible-based politics?

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by Relic+of+the+Future · 2012-01-03 08:25 · Score: 2

Add a term to you results-scoring algorithm to account for the ethics and morality you wish to promote. (Minus points for prisoners, but plus points for lowering crime rates; minus points for human experiments, but plus points for increased health.) Problem solved! Now, just to iron out the details...

--
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by MightyYar · 2012-01-03 08:28 · Score: 1

Decisions based merely on results, divorced from ethics and morality can bring disastrous results. Think how quickly we could advance medicine if we started experimenting on humans unchecked, or how "safe" we could be if we lived in a police state.
Both of your examples are red herrings, IMHO. Any pragmatic person would not look at issues so narrowly. You won't advance medicine by experimenting on unwilling participants if you are also considering the effect this would have on personal liberties - and you won't implement a police state because you know from studying history that the power of the state will be abused.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by MozeeToby · 2012-01-03 08:31 · Score: 2

Pragmatism does not have to be divorced from ethics. In fact, all you have to do is append: "while maintaining human rights and abiding the constitution" to your platform. Personally, I think "do whatever empirically (or theoretically if experimental evidence is absent) works best, as best we can, regularly review the results and add them to our decision making body of evidence, all while not trampling human rights" is a great party platform; much better than blinding shouting "smaller government" or "universal healthcare" or "reduce the debt". And do note that I'm not saying a pragmatic party would or would not do those things, just that they would have to show sound, logical reasons for their decisions.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by vlm · 2012-01-03 08:32 · Score: 2

Decisions based merely on results, divorced from ethics and morality can bring disastrous results.
That never happens. Circular reasoning or bizarre redefinition of the word "results". The immoral decision was made without taking all results into account, in which case it was a very poor decision
1) If you take all conditions and results into account
2) select the best decision based on step #1
3) step #2 is wrong because you failed in step #1 to account for some pretty obvious conditions.
4) soft science says step #3 is +1 insightful, hard science says you failed miserably back in step #1 not in step #2, and once you fix step #1 you'll optimistically fix step #2 and never reach step #3, so its a zen "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a +1 insightful post" type of non-rational thinking.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by XxtraLarGe · 2012-01-03 08:34 · Score: 1

So you'd rather do Bible-based politics?
I'm a Christian but I don't support a theocracy by any stretch of the imagination, and neither should any Christian. In fact, if you look at the New Testament, Jesus doesn't really say much at all about government (Matthew 22:21 being a notable exception), and the Apostles wrote almost entirely about how the Christian Church was to govern itself, not the rest of the world.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by Defenestrar · 2012-01-03 08:44 · Score: 1

Decisions based merely on results, divorced from ethics and morality can bring disastrous results....
Good thing we engineers have to go through ethics courses. Otherwise we might just give in to those natural impulses to design a bridge that won't fall down until the most fun moment. Do you suppose that's the problem with the way other disciplines influence the world? Do political scientists, business students, or economists have to take an ethics course?
Of course, to be completely honest, I think an appropriately pragmatic engineer would be competent enough to recognize the possible perturbations arising from outside the designed system which may impact its metastable state, thus working in sufficient safeguards (with a % safety over-design) to prevent things like your police state or extreme variable medical trials due to their historical instability.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by Hatta · 2012-01-03 08:44 · Score: 1

how "safe" we could be if we lived in a police state. I put safe in quotes because we might be safe from terrorists and other boogeymen, but we wouldn't be safe from the police state.
If you're not counting harm done by the state in your cost-benefit analysis, then you're not being pragmatic.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by XxtraLarGe · 2012-01-03 08:45 · Score: 1

Both of your examples are red herrings, IMHO. Any pragmatic person would not look at issues so narrowly.
And yet throughout history we have numerous examples of both. Medical experiments by Germany, Japan & U.S. during WW2, not to mention experiments done in the Sino-Soviet bloc since. Police States have also abounded throughout history.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by XxtraLarGe · 2012-01-03 08:48 · Score: 1

If you're not counting harm done by the state in your cost-benefit analysis, then you're not being pragmatic.
Police states seldom ever consider harm done by themselves as harm.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-03 08:53 · Score: 1

"throughout history" is a weasel word (or phrase, more accurately). Nearly the entire population of the world would agree these experiments are abhorrent and should not have taken place, and certainly nothing like that should be done again.
Besides, the point is not about whether bad things have been done. The point instead is that someone who is results-oriented would not automatically approve of these things. Most certainly, they would not be so narrow minded as to ignore the effect on the experimental subject as part of the "results".
Part of the effect of infecting someone with syphilis just to study its course, when we knew at the time that it causes significant permanent damage, results in a lot of damage done to the population. That is part of the result, and would lead a pragmatic person to dismiss the idea.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by Hatta · 2012-01-03 08:57 · Score: 1

Yes, but that's not being pragmatic, so it's not a good argument against pragmatism.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-03 08:58 · Score: 1

Personally, I think "do whatever empirically (or theoretically if experimental evidence is absent) works best, as best we can, regularly review the results and add them to our decision making body of evidence, all while not trampling human rights" is a great party platform;
I completely agree, but you know as well as I that it would only be a matter of time before some pretentious, self-rightous dillhole started screaming about how your advancement of humanity is 'trampling their human rights,' even when said dillhole is in no way involved or affected by the outcome.

Stem cell research and abortion provide two perfect examples of the circumstances I'm referring to.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-03 09:06 · Score: 1

âZ"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by divisionbyzero · 2012-01-03 09:07 · Score: 1

Decisions based merely on results, divorced from ethics and morality can bring disastrous results. Think how quickly we could advance medicine if we started experimenting on humans unchecked, or how "safe" we could be if we lived in a police state. I put safe in quotes because we might be safe from terrorists and other boogeymen, but we wouldn't be safe from the police state.
That's true when you only consider one-dimension but most results have implications for many dimensions. As long as your criteria for success are sufficiently diverse then you aren't likely to have these kinds of problems. For example, we might be able to deploy high speed light rail everywhere we want to in five years, if cost were not an issue. The additional dimensions may be ethical or moral but need not be.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by glodime · 2012-01-03 09:41 · Score: 1

Since when are prisons safe?
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-03 09:50 · Score: 1

Since when are prisons safe?
That's easy - just go into solitary confinement. Even inside the prison walls you can trade freedom for safety.
But seriously, Eisenhower was before the War on Drugs. The level of criminal gang networks has skyrocketed since that time, making prisons ever more dangerous.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by Hatta · 2012-01-03 09:58 · Score: 1

Can't decide on anything if you don't define your terms first.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by LateArthurDent · 2012-01-03 11:16 · Score: 1

Decisions based merely on results, divorced from ethics and morality can bring disastrous results. Think how quickly we could advance medicine if we started experimenting on humans unchecked, or how "safe" we could be if we lived in a police state.
You can frame that question in terms of ethics and morality, but you can also frame it in terms of results only. Is this hypothetical government's goal to quickly advance medicine? Then experimenting on humans unchecked fulfills that goal. Is this government's goal to ensure that individuals are protected? If so, experimenting on them without regard to safety is counter-productive.
Is your government's goal to keep everyone safe at all costs? Then a police-state achieves that goal. Is your government's goal to protect individual freedoms? Then that route is counter-productive once again.
If you define the goal based on people's values, and then act entirely pragmatically to achieve those values, then pragmatism is clearly not dangerous. The problem, as always, is to agree on what those values are. Good luck with that.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by Raenex · 2012-01-03 13:43 · Score: 1

Stem cell research and abortion provide two perfect examples of the circumstances I'm referring to.
Those are good examples where reasonable people could disagree on what is the right thing to do.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by gmhowell · 2012-01-03 14:06 · Score: 1

Watch a few episodes of "Locked Up". Solitary confinement ain't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by aXis100 · 2012-01-03 14:31 · Score: 1

Engineers != Sociopaths
Lacking in social skills is one thing, lacking morals and ethics is something completely different.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by steelfood · 2012-01-03 16:17 · Score: 1

Actually, we do human expermentation all the time. Such medication takes the shape of herbs and natural remedies. In fact, many of the pills by big pharma out there are derived from a natural remedy base that is presented in concentrated doses and/or synthetically manufactured.
It's not the experimenting or the experiments; it's what you're experimenting with. It's the dosage, concentration, and frequency that needs regulation. The large increases from natural levels that go into mice, rats, and even primates is not safe. The small increases that happen by eating more oranges for extra vitamin C is.
A good test engineer knows not to crank the volume up to 11 and start blasting right away. Things break like that. A good engineer has already determined the known limits and bounds of the system, and slowly pushes the system past those limits and bounds.
But that requires patience, which companies have less and less of these days.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by captjc · 2012-01-03 17:29 · Score: 1

If dangerous human experimentation would cost 100 lives, but save 10,000 patients, should we do it?
Rational person says no; sociopath says yes.

--
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-03 21:35 · Score: 1

you forgot to include the u.s.a in the list of countries who conducted unethical medical experiments on its own unwitting citizens, as well as criminals, and citizens of sovereign foreign states, but I'm sure that was just an accident.
You forgot to note the "U.S." in "Medical experiments by Germany, Japan & U.S. during WW2", but I'm sure that was just an accident. (And, yes, there were such experiments in the US before and after WW2 as well.)
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-04 00:48 · Score: 1

Watch a few episodes of "Locked Up". Solitary confinement ain't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.
I haven't seen it - are people being killed in solitary?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by yurtinus · 2012-01-04 09:47 · Score: 1

'cause of course the Bible is the only source of ethics available these days...

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by hazah · 2012-01-05 07:55 · Score: 1

This does not speak about pragmatism. This speaks more to some darker aspects of human nature that has nothing to do with pragmatism. A pragmatist would also have enough insight to at least consider the consequence of their own actions. Not the case.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by tqk · 2012-01-05 11:08 · Score: 1

Any pragmatic person would not look at issues so narrowly.
I defy anyone to make sense of the word "pragmatic." Go ahead, pull out your dictionaries; search the web. That is the greyest, most meaningless, most vanilla, most easily mangled word in the English language. Anyone can use it to support their argument, and it never means what they think it means.
I prefer specificity. Pragmatic is so unspecific, it's an empty concept which means whatever the speaker means. It's a mere placeholder; an empty string.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by MightyYar · 2012-01-05 12:03 · Score: 1

I think "pragmatic" in this case has just means the polar opposite of ideological.
Which is a silly definition, IMHO. A "pragmatic" person just uses a different methodology to pursue their ideology. To give an example in terms of today's politics, a Republican congress member might think that taxes are too high and spending is out of control, but he still might be willing to budge slightly on taxes if it meant really dramatic spending cuts. He's pragmatic, but still ideological. Another republican with similar ideals might be willing to do absolutely nothing at all - blocking all tax increases, even if it means that ultimately taxes automatically go up anyway. This is not pragmatic at all.
And of course you have people all over the spectrum.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Pragmatism can be dangerous by gmhowell · 2012-01-07 18:01 · Score: 1

Watch a few episodes of "Locked Up". Solitary confinement ain't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.
I haven't seen it - are people being killed in solitary?
Yes, they are. Solitary confinement like that in Papillion does not for the most part exist in the US. Most prisons feature some sort of segregated housing that does not feature one inmate in a dank cell. Conditions vary from state to state and prison to prison, but it's not a given that you can get yourself into the safety of traditional solitary.
I also have a co-worker who is a former prison guard. If someone wants to get to you even if there is traditional solitary, it is far from impossible.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

It's not knowledge, it's priorities and access by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2012-01-03 08:18 · Score: 1

Adams has pledged if elected to delegate most of his decisions to people who know more than him, and flip-flop on any issue where new evidence causes him to modify his position

The problem with that is that there are millions of people who know more about X than any individual decision maker. The main issue is prioritizing what you want done, and that's where it all turns political.

He's actually a comic strip writer... by russotto · 2012-01-03 08:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

...so taking what he says 100% seriously is probably a mistake. Even if Dilbert does often appear to be a thinly-veiled documentary.

Re:He's actually a comic strip writer... by vlm · 2012-01-03 08:37 · Score: 1

...so taking what he says 100% seriously is probably a mistake. Even if Dilbert does often appear to be a thinly-veiled documentary.
Kind of like if we elect an actor, we'll probably get a guy who merely acts like a president (not saying that would be all that bad of an approach...)

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:He's actually a comic strip writer... by Hatta · 2012-01-03 08:47 · Score: 1

He's a comic book writer, and he's still got a better feel on what the problems are with this country and what kinds of things need to be done to fix them than any "serious" candidate. The joke isn't Scott Adams running for president. The joke is everyone else running for president.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:He's actually a comic strip writer... by GreatBunzinni · 2012-01-03 08:51 · Score: 2

So, what kind of profession should he have in order for him to be taken seriously? A doctor? An accountant? A street sweeper? A politician?
Forget that, I am missing the big picture here. I, instead, should have started by asking what you do for a living. It's important to know that to be able to tell if anyone should take your comment seriously or not. Because that's what matters the most... ...or, you know, we should simply understand that ad hominem attacks are stupid, and do absolutely nothing to refute a message.

--
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Re:He's actually a comic strip writer... by vlm · 2012-01-03 09:25 · Score: 1

I think you missed my extremely subtle attempt at sarcasm. And I'm old enough to remember the insistence that electing an actor would lead to utter and total apocalypse, yet it wasn't quite that bad, hence the "not all that bad of an approach" deal.
You can turn it around from acting to engineering, my mom was horrified at my suggestion that an engineer would make a great president... she was old enough to remember Carter and associated the horrific economic conditions with the pres himself, however little direct relationship there was, but I was too young to remember Carter's election (which probably pinpoints my age to within a couple years)

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:He's actually a comic strip writer... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 10:05 · Score: 1

In my first grade straw poll, I wanted to vote for Ford- because that was the name on my toy tractor. That pinpoints me EXACTLY.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Vote for me! by stevegee58 · 2012-01-03 08:19 · Score: 5, Funny

I promise, that if elected, to suspend the Constitution and become a benevolent despot to straighten everything out.
I further promise to leave voluntarily after a 10 year term and restore the Constitution. I swear.

Re:Vote for me! by jtseng · 2012-01-04 04:33 · Score: 1

That's what Obama essentially said in his Signing Statements attached to the NDAA. He said he'd promise not to exercise the powers given to the Executive, but who says whoever else won't be so benevolent???

--
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found

Pick Two by Relic+of+the+Future · 2012-01-03 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Engineers are the same in politics as they are elsewhere. They'll fix any well-defined problem, but the solution can only meet two of three criteria: fast, cheap, and high-quality. But voters (like customers) will want all three, and won't define the problem well.

--
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.

Re:Pick Two by russotto · 2012-01-03 08:27 · Score: 1

Engineers are the same in politics as they are elsewhere. They'll fix any well-defined problem, but the solution can only meet two of three criteria: fast, cheap, and high-quality. But voters (like customers) will want all three, and won't define the problem well.
So we'll give them what they ask for, but not what they want. Unless we're Dogbert, in which case we'll give them what we want to give them and tell 'em that's what they want.
Re:Pick Two by Lifyre · 2012-01-03 08:36 · Score: 4, Funny

You know thinking about Politicians in terms of Dogbert explains so much...

--
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
Re:Pick Two by Bob9113 · 2012-01-03 09:53 · Score: 1

They'll fix any well-defined problem, but the solution can only meet two of three criteria: fast, cheap, and high-quality. But voters (like customers) will want all three, and won't define the problem well.
And politicians, like the charlatan with all the certifications and no grasp of how to build a cost effective system, will promise all three and win the [project lead / election].

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Pick Two by MartinSchou · 2012-01-03 10:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

As far as I can tell, voters do not know what they want, because they do not think things through. Or rather, they know what they want, but they are unwilling to pay for it.
If asked, voters would prefer not paying any taxes at all while being given everything they want.
Most people, no matter where they live and their tax percentage, will say that they pay too much tax. Need to cut back on spending.
Sure. Where? Reducing waste only goes so far, and at some point, you simply can't avoid it. No matter how much you want to, you can't run a pub and expect your glassware or furniture to last forever. Just because you pick a new pub owner, the patrons will still be clumsy and accidents happen.
Cutting one expenditure will almost always result in expenses elsewhere. Cut back on socialized medicine, and you'll pay for it elsewhere, either in an unhealthy workforce (lower taxable income due to sick days or sub-par performance), at the back door, when the people who can't pay for their own treatment take up much more expensive hospital beds - or at the ethics and morals door by simply letting people without money die.
Education is often mentioned. Too expensive. Alright. Cut education and you end up with a less educated workforce. Great short term solution, horrible long term, as that will reduce the number of high paid jobs and thus your taxable income.
Military, surely. Depends on the country. It'd be difficult for Puerto Rico to cut back on their military spending, as it's entirely dependent on the US for that. And cutting back on military spending will result in job losses elsewhere, as you will either move soldiers from the military to the general work populace (aka unemployment), lose jobs at military contractors (as they no longer get as many orders) or both. Plus, if your military is too small, your geopolitical region too unstable, this could result in losing your country and thus your taxable income. Belgium could probably remove its military entirely without military risk - South Korea, not so much.
Roads? Needed for transporting goods. Cut down on road maintenance and you end up with bad conditions not only for goods transport, but also for your workforce to get to and from work. Similar issues with railroads and public transport.
Electrical infrastructure? Critical for the economy.
Internet infrastructure? Critical for the economy, but rarely regulated in the same way.
Water and sanitation? See socialized medicine.
Elder care? Moral and ethical issues with simply letting poor people suffer and die.
One of the reasons politics, everywhere, is so messed up, is that voters have been spoonfed and accepted this notion, that everything can be cooked down to a 20-second sound-bite. It cannot.
Let me give you an example:
This is the Danish budget for 2012: http://www.oes-cs.dk/bevillingslove/ffl12t0.pdf. It's 562 pages. That's for a country with just under 6 million people, a nominal GDP of about 300 billion dollars and a 2012 budget of about 120 billion dollars.
562 pages. Not that bad. Except that there are three additional documents to add to these 562 pages. First one is 1,024 pages. Second one is 929 pages. Third one is a meager 678 pages. That's a total of 3,193 pages.
All to be summed up in a 20-second sound-bite.
So we end up with these ludicrous discussions about minutia. Minutia that very often only covers 1% of 1% of anything. Sure, the numbers may sound big, but in the whole, they're tiny.
All designed to make us think that we and our opinions matter.
If cars were designed the way we run politics, they'd be pretty much guaranteed to explode and kill the occupants the moment they were turned on.
Re:Pick Two by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 01:10 · Score: 1

Damned. Almost best ever post on /. and no mod points.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:Libertarians? by obarthelemy · 2012-01-03 08:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think there's some confusion between conservative, dogmatic, libertarian, and objectivist. And others...
Because conservatism (of the hysterical kind) is so dominant, anything non-conservative is deemed libertarian, even when it is something else.

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.

What a stupid question. by rrohbeck · 2012-01-03 08:20 · Score: 2

I prefer "Rational."

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it

Re:What a stupid question. by rrohbeck · 2012-01-03 08:38 · Score: 1

Rational, as in "Bible-based"?

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:What a stupid question. by ThosLives · 2012-01-03 08:54 · Score: 1

Rational, as in "Bible-based"?
After some consideration, I'm pretty sure that sentiment is empty: both rational and irrational actions can claim to be "based" on any given scriptural text.
I would argue that this can only be because of irrational text itself (in case the action does align with the text) or an irrational claim (the action does not really align with the text, despite the claim that it does).
More often than not, the latter case is true - for Christianity or any other belief system.

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Re:What a stupid question. by Toonol · 2012-01-03 10:34 · Score: 1

"It's against my better judgement, but..."

The fact that that statement is so commonly used says something terrible about mankind.

Perspective by vlm · 2012-01-03 08:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Its all in the perspective:

1) La de da, I'm building a bridge. My favorite welder on his days off likes to stick tab A into slot B of a member of the same sex. I understand the meaning of an independent variable and file this as such; don't much care. I guess that makes me an engineer-libertarian.

2) La de da, I'm a building a bridge. I sweat over a keyboard for 850 hours of computer simulation to prove that bolt #374904 must be a size 10-24 NC because if some idiot installs a 8-32 NC or smaller the bridge will collapse when loaded with precisely 17 pickup trucks plus one housefly. Cheap businessman wants to install a smaller 8-32 bolt because live and let live, man, my right to tell him what to do ends at the tip of his screwdriver, or some psuedo-libertarian stuff like that. No, F you businessman, I'm going full on technocrat control freak on you and 10-24 NC bolts are getting installed there or its off to the camps with you.

Want to run a country instead of building a bridge? Sounds to me like it don't much matter if tab A gets inserted into slot B no matter what sex A or B is, or what hole they're using, as long as they're both consenting adults blah blah. That's the libertarian answer. The control freak comes out when you say no, you are not F-ing setting up a concentration camp for brown people, because unlike two dudes in a closet, that does destroy a country.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 08:35 · Score: 1

Just to put some spin on the second point...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center
Same some money by bolting the joints instead of welding them!
Too bad in increased the chance of failure due to expected wind loading to 1 in 16....
So some of the ..... retentiveness is due to details actually mattering at times....
Re:Perspective by m3000 · 2012-01-03 08:59 · Score: 3, Funny

It's a good thing business have never scammed anyone or gone after short term gains instead of long term stability then.
With upstanding businesses like Enron and WorldCom looking out for their reputations, I'm confident we'll never need any sort of regulations either!
Re:Perspective by medv4380 · 2012-01-03 09:18 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if I follow your logic in connecting Sexual Orientation Opinion to Libertarians is completely correct. Sure some may and probably do subscribe to that opinion but so do the bluest democrats. From how Libertarians typically represent their view they present an Organized View of implementing a dismantalling of the government that would lead to exactly what Anarchists(as a political line of thought) want to do. Doing away with the banking system, and just about all forms of government services good or bad is what they like to represent themselves as in regards to Libertarians.
Re:Perspective by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-03 09:26 · Score: 1

2) La de da, I'm a building a bridge. I sweat over a keyboard for 850 hours of computer simulation to prove that bolt #374904 must be a size 10-24 NC because if some idiot installs a 8-32 NC or smaller the bridge will collapse when loaded with precisely 17 pickup trucks plus one housefly. Cheap businessman wants to install a smaller 8-32 bolt because live and let live, man, my right to tell him what to do ends at the tip of his screwdriver, or some psuedo-libertarian stuff like that. No, F you businessman, I'm going full on technocrat control freak on you and 10-24 NC bolts are getting installed there or its off to the camps with you.
Whoops! You missed something on #2. If you're a libertarian, then that bridge is your capital investment, in which case, you have a vested interest in making sure your reputation allows you to build future bridges, hence you care about the bolt selection. That's not technocrat. That's self-preservation right there in basic free market terms!
Not to mention, to a libertarian, the businessman supplanting the engineer's plans places the onus of responsibility on the businessman for any potential failures caused by the use of substandard fasteners, as well as the failure of interconnected systems.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Perspective by vlm · 2012-01-03 09:29 · Score: 1

If you're a libertarian, then that bridge is your capital investment
Your education and P.E. license is your capital investment. You still need P.E. Licensing boards even in a libertarian paradise because there is no free market in engineers, only engineers can figure out if another engineer is an idiot (well, most of the time) and the numbers are too small to be considered a commodity. Just like there is no free market in health care, or policing, or fire depts.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Perspective by oneiros27 · 2012-01-03 09:33 · Score: 1

850 hours of simulation?
You know, there are handbooks where you can just look up the bolt pattern, and it'll give you multipliers to use based on the strength of the individual bolts. So, you just need a couple of hours of lab work testing to make sure the bolts are within spec, a few minutes to look up the right table to use, and you're done. Or you can just use STAAD.
Of course, you also need to know what the required live loads are for that bridge, but you can get that from the building codes. And if you doesn't design to the required loads, you can lose your license. (yes, unlike software development, engineers are licensed)
(disclaimer : I have an ABET-accredited bachelor's in civil engineering, but I went into software development, and never got my license)

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Re:Perspective by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 10:09 · Score: 1

Members of the same sex don't have a slot B, only a slot C, and sticking tab A into slot C is a damn good way to die young, now that we know about germs and stuff.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Perspective by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-03 21:47 · Score: 1

Members of the same sex don't have a slot B, only a slot C, and sticking tab A into slot C is a damn good way to die young, now that we know about germs and stuff.
Members of the same sex as the welder in question, described as a "he", have slots C and D, as well as hands etc.. And people have been known to die young as a result of germs and stuff picked up from sticking tab A into slot B. (And those with tab A and those with slot B have been known to use the latter's slots C and D and to use hands on tab A and in slot B, but I digress....)
Re:Perspective by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 01:15 · Score: 1

Sounds to me like it don't much matter if tab A gets inserted into slot B no matter what sex A or B is, or what hole they're using, as long as they're both consenting adults blah blah. That's the libertarian answer. The control freak comes out when you say no, you are not F-ing setting up a concentration camp for brown people, because unlike two dudes in a closet, that does destroy a country.
So we should just ignore the fact that Ron Paul, darling of libertarians, is a racist homophobe?

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Perspective by Disfnord · 2012-01-04 06:54 · Score: 1

Yeah, because there's no germs in slot B...

Nice to know that your profession by Hentes · 2012-01-03 08:20 · Score: 1

predestines you to a political viewpoint.

Re:Nice to know that your profession by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 08:26 · Score: 1

Ever meet a Republican social worker?
Re:Nice to know that your profession by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 10:18 · Score: 1

Yes, actually. Quite a nice lady in fact. http://ourpeacefulplace.org/ . Not only does she go out twice a day handing out donations to the homeless and connecting them with social services in the community, she's also pro-life. And not just pro-life- 35 years ago she was raped on the street and has not only a daughter from that rape, but two grandchildren. AND- get this- she's still working on the street, most mornings and nights alone. THAT takes commitment.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by jedidiah · 2012-01-03 08:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

No. We think they should have applied themselves while in school and gotten themselves a half decent trade or profession. Also we think that they would do well to escape from the general anti-intellectual attitude in the US especially when it comes to math.

Not understanding numbers is as harmful as not being able to read.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

When did an open mind become political death? by SoTerrified · 2012-01-03 08:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

" and flip-flop on any issue where new evidence causes him to modify his position"

If there's one aspect of the political system that mystifies me, it's this. One of the very definitions of intelligence is the ability to take information and make conclusions. Obviously new information can lead to new conclusions. Yet in politics, even a hint of a politician displaying intelligence by changing his stance after new information and it's the political kiss of death. So instead we get politicians who will stick to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So why are we pushing so hard to support political figures who don't demonstrate intelligence and tossing aside the ones that do?

Re:When did an open mind become political death? by Hentes · 2012-01-03 08:33 · Score: 2

Most politicians change their "views" (or at least what they communicate) every other year, they just pretend that they have always believed what they do today.
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by Yetihehe · 2012-01-03 08:36 · Score: 1

Because those more consenting politicians can't get anything done, because those who stick to their beliefs are willing to fight as hard as they can.

--
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-01-03 08:39 · Score: 2

Senator Claude Pepper was once accused of "Celibacy before marriage, and being addicted to monogamy ever since"

The flip flop is a great thing to accuse a politician of, because you get to use the truth, and put in the mind of the voter that the candidate was wrong. Just like a salesperson will get you to agree to some trivialities just to get you to say "Yes", getting the voter to associate being wrong with a specific politician sets up a line of thinking in the voter's mind. "If he was wrong on that, he must be fallible, and if fallible, then he will fail at a future decision." Once you can get the voter thinking like this, then it's easy to get the voter to imagine all sorts of ways the candidate will screw up if elected.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by selven · 2012-01-03 08:46 · Score: 2

Because flip-flopping in practice tends to be motivated by what's popular, not new knowledge.
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by jeffmeden · 2012-01-03 08:47 · Score: 2

" and flip-flop on any issue where new evidence causes him to modify his position"
If there's one aspect of the political system that mystifies me, it's this. One of the very definitions of intelligence is the ability to take information and make conclusions. Obviously new information can lead to new conclusions. Yet in politics, even a hint of a politician displaying intelligence by changing his stance after new information and it's the political kiss of death. So instead we get politicians who will stick to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So why are we pushing so hard to support political figures who don't demonstrate intelligence and tossing aside the ones that do?
Because "flip flopper" has a nice ring to it, and in politics it is always easier to change someone's opinion with doubt than to change someone's mind back, no matter how relevant the evidence is to the contrary. Hell, all you have to do is trip over a sound byte enough to make it *sound* like you are a flip-flopper, and next thing you know you are unelectable...
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by Ichijo · 2012-01-03 08:48 · Score: 1

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by znrt · 2012-01-03 08:48 · Score: 1

"So instead we get politicians who will stick to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. "
you got that utterly wrong. what you hold for their beliefs are just the blunt lies they made up to justify that or that. they stick to them because the very usefullness of these lies depends on them being held up against any odds (and on the media spreading them enough while silencing any contrary evidence). but those lies eventually get amortized, aren't useful anymore and get silently dropped or just forgotten ... and replaced by fresh ones.
if you'd paid attention to any politician long time enough, what would strike you is that *all* of them deny themselves, and even abhor from ideas they themselves have championed, pretty often

"So why are we pushing so hard to support political figures who don't demonstrate intelligence and tossing aside the ones that do? "
they do display intelligence. it's just their intelligence doesn't play in your favor, but in theirs.
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by vlm · 2012-01-03 08:49 · Score: 1

Yet in politics, even a hint of a politician displaying intelligence by changing his stance after new information and it's the political kiss of death.
Simple / obvious / occams razor answer: We live in a theocracy. Not a christian one, or at least not a true christian one anyway.

One of the very definitions of intelligence is the ability to take information and make conclusions. Obviously new information can lead to new conclusions.
Yeah try that next time you're at church, let us know how that turns out, how the reaction of the true believers matches your observations of politics.
The other analytical problem is you're assuming historical stance changes have been due to careful and reasoned economic analysis, but historical stance changes have actually been 99% due to corruption and back room scam deals, and everyone knows it, and there's no reason not to punish corruption, and flip floppers are almost certainly corrupt, so fry them.
The final analysis is we live in a republic but are brainwashed to think its a democracy, so a flip flopper screws up that illusion; from a democracy viewpoint its like the flipper faked the direct democracy voting results, making everyone angry. Nothing makes people angrier than forcing them to remove their illusions.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by vlm · 2012-01-03 08:51 · Score: 1

Senator Claude Pepper was once accused of "Celibacy before marriage, and being addicted to monogamy ever since"

You sure about that? It's a much funnier quote if you swap those two, the tired old trope of not getting any after marriage.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by hercubus · 2012-01-03 08:53 · Score: 1

... in politics, even a hint of a politician displaying intelligence by changing his stance after new information and it's the political kiss of death...
It seems to me that no one cares about a flip-flop if the issue is technical. If some pol flip-flops over which agency should oversee Big Tobacco, who cares?
I would submit that people only care about flips and flops when the issue is moral and or ideological. Romney is despised because he flip-flopped abortion (moral) and healthcare (ideological). Plus he's a MoMo
And since we live in a country where the majority view nearly everything as ideological, a pol changing a position on almost anything is going to piss somebody off
Now if that's a reasonable explanation of why flip-flopping matters, can we move on to why everything has to be so ideological? As in "No, lowering tax rates really doesn't increase tax revenue - where the fuck is your head at, Newt?" Holding on to the lies that the Sainted Ronald of Reagan mumbled oh so many years ago just has to be ideological since it is so clearly not rational

--
-- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by Kohath · 2012-01-03 09:18 · Score: 2

Because a flip-flop from a politician usually means "I was lying before". Other times, it means "I'm lying now". Once in a while, it can be genuine. We play the odds.
Also "overwhelming evidence" is not fact. Someone can be innocent of a crime even if there appears to be "overwhelming evidence" of guilt. Often, "overwhelming evidence" means little more than "this is my opinion and there are some people who agree". Sometimes it doesn't even mean that much. Fabricating "overwhelming evidence" is trending up recently as opportunities to leverage government power over people have become more lucrative.
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by divisionbyzero · 2012-01-03 09:19 · Score: 1

" and flip-flop on any issue where new evidence causes him to modify his position"
If there's one aspect of the political system that mystifies me, it's this. One of the very definitions of intelligence is the ability to take information and make conclusions. Obviously new information can lead to new conclusions. Yet in politics, even a hint of a politician displaying intelligence by changing his stance after new information and it's the political kiss of death. So instead we get politicians who will stick to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So why are we pushing so hard to support political figures who don't demonstrate intelligence and tossing aside the ones that do?
Because in the United States many people believe that good leadership comes from good character rather than intelligence. If you change behavior then what you did previously was wrong and if it was wrong then you don't have good character. Why do people fall back on good character? Because they don't know enough about the issues to know who is right. It's the same reason people fall back on ideology. It's easier to have an a priori litmus test than to figure out enough about how the world works in order to make rational decisions. That's not to say that they are all lazy or stupid. Both political parties work hard at making sure the criteria we use to elect people to office is something they can easily control and manipulate. In fact most of their policies and propaganda are designed for one purpose, maintaining power.
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-03 09:19 · Score: 1

So instead we get politicians who will stick to their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
There are politicians who will say one thing to one crowd, and then say the opposite thing to another crowd. All they care about is votes.
So, as a defense mechanism, people have taken to labeling politicians who say different things as 'flip-floppers' because they usually are just doing the nasty politician thing. They go too far and then demand life-long consistency.
They seem to be OK with a guy like Ron Paul saying that he changed his view on the death penalty in the 80's after learning about its racist implementation and wrongful executions. I guess if it's not seen as a recreational sport, they're OK with it, once in a while.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by lpfarris · 2012-01-03 09:28 · Score: 1

1) There is "open mind" meaning "stick your finger in the wind". 2) There is "open mind" meaning "review all the available evidence, consult experts on all sides of a question, and come to a rational conclusion" 3) There is "keeping your promises". There has been plenty of evidence for (1) in US politics, very little evidence of (2), and (3) is what gets you reelected.
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by bky1701 · 2012-01-03 09:54 · Score: 2

In every other sphere, changing your views is a sign of intelligence. In politics, changing your views usually means pandering to a different base. It's worth pointing out that in almost every case, the new views subscribe to a party line and are less original than their first set of views.

--
Great Intellect...
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by electron+sponge · 2012-01-03 12:22 · Score: 1

Senator Claude Pepper was once accused of "Celibacy before marriage, and being addicted to monogamy ever since"
It's a hilarious story, but it never happened.
Re:When did an open mind become political death? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-01-04 04:53 · Score: 1

According to the wiki article, George Smathers didn't say that. Ok, Smathers didn't say it.

According to "FDR" by Jean Edward Smith, it was J. Mark Wilcox who made this accusation in 1938, long before Smathers didn't say it in 1950. Still, the accusation was made by rumor, so tracking it down is nearly impossible.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)

Re:China too.... by newcastlejon · 2012-01-03 08:24 · Score: 2

Economics is not a science!

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.

Re:Libertarians? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 08:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Obama is right of center and only mildly more authoritarian than libertarian.

My career does not define me and my views by msobkow · 2012-01-03 08:26 · Score: 1

The suggestion that my career determines my political and social viewpoints is absolutely asinine.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:My career does not define me and my views by msobkow · 2012-01-03 08:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Over the years of arguments, people have tried to pigeon hole and label me a Conservative, a Liberal, an NDP supporter, a Libertarian, a Socialist, a Communist, and pretty much every other label you can think of.
Anyone who tries to simplify my stance with a buzzword is trying to appease their own desire to label me so they can dismiss my arguments out of hand as "he's just a XXX". Labeling stances and assuming that support of a party means blind support of their theoretical ideologies is an insult to any citizen who actually THINKS about social issues and politics.
The idea of taking that a step further and assuming that my career choice pre-labels me as having some particular viewpoint is so far out to lunch it's unreal.
What the hell was the article writer smoking? I want some!

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:My career does not define me and my views by icebrain · 2012-01-03 09:17 · Score: 1

I, too, have been labeled a member of (insert opposing group here) in many different situations. It gets annoying when the chain becomes:
You support position X
-Party A supports position X as well.
-Party A also supports position Y.
-Therefore, I assume you also support position Y, and will therefore identify you as a member of Party A.
It's really bad when the chain becomes:
-You support position X.
-Party A supports position X as well.
-Party A also supports position Z.
-(Random whackjob) supports position Z, as well as generally deplorable and completely unacceptable Position N.
-Party A and (random whackjob) both support Z, so Party A must be made of (random whackjobs) and by implication support generally deplorable and completely unacceptable Position N.
-Therefore, not only must you be a member of Party A (since you both support Position X), you must also therefore be a (random whackjob) who supports generally deplorable and completely unacceptable Position N.
-Since you are assumed without evidence to be a (random whackjob) who supports generally deplorable and completely unacceptable Position N, all other statements you make are considered invalid.

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Re:My career does not define me and my views by msobkow · 2012-01-03 09:32 · Score: 1

Exactly. The labels are a bigot's tool for dismissing the arguments made by an individual.
I see calling someone as Socialist as reprehensible as calling them a Nigger. It's not meant to understand, but to insult and denigrate.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:My career does not define me and my views by Toonol · 2012-01-03 10:49 · Score: 1

if your ideology determines your career (which is more reasonable), the net effect is about the same.
Re:My career does not define me and my views by blahplusplus · 2012-01-03 10:52 · Score: 1

"is an insult to any citizen who actually THINKS about social issues and politics."
The vast majority of humanity doesn't have the intelligence to think about social issues and politics, also EVERYONE should see the following video. Our minds do not work like the enlightenment thought they did, the idea that 'we can think our way to right conclusions given the evidence' is scientifically false, we are much worse at reasoning then the enlightenment was aware of.
http://bit.ly/dYaWUc
Re:My career does not define me and my views by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-04 01:03 · Score: 1

Not as assinine as you think. There are two reasons that your career is likely to tell others something about your politics. The first is that people tend to choose careers because of the way they approach problems. The way that a person approaches problems has a significant impact on what that person's politics are. The second is that people's politics are influenced by those they work with (people are likely to gradually alter their politics to be more inline with those they work with--this is a two-way street), since the majority of people in a given profession are likely to be predisposed to a certain political philosophy those who are not are influenced in that direction.
So, it is a valid assumption that a person of a particular profession will hold similar political views to others of that profession. There are three mistakes people make with this assumption. The first is that they reach a conclusion about the political views common in a particular profession based on either a too small sample set or on an atypical sample set (say, IT professionals who work for a social services agency, where the IT professionals are surrounded day in and day out by people whose approach to problems is different than their own, and thus their political tendencies are different than the typical IT professional). The second is the failure to recognize that the type of organization one chooses to work at is as significant a factor in judging what someone's likely political opinion is as is their specific profession. The third is the failure to recognize evidence that suggests that a particular individual holds political opinions atypical for their career (likely caused by strong influences from outside of their chosen career, although other factors are possible).

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:My career does not define me and my views by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 01:27 · Score: 1

I am a socialist. The only thing that's wrong with calling (for example) Obama a socialist is that it's an insult to socialists and socialism.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:My career does not define me and my views by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-04 07:01 · Score: 1

I see calling someone as Socialist as reprehensible as calling them a Nigger. It's not meant to understand, but to insult and denigrate.
At least in the U.S., that would be because "Socialist" has been used rather a lot lately to insult and denigrate. Perhaps enough of that has bled north that you view it that way as well. :-) I suspect that in a lot of countries "Socialist" would not be used to insult and denigrate the person being designated as a "Socialist", especially in the countries where there's a significant political party called the "Socialist Party".

Re:Libertarians? by XxtraLarGe · 2012-01-03 08:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well said. Libertarians would be the first to end corporate welfare, as well as corporate "personhood".

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.

Re:Stalin by Cyberax · 2012-01-03 08:29 · Score: 1

Actually, no.

He has been educated in a seminary and before the October Revolution mostly lived as a bank robber.

Re:Libertarians? by sunderland56 · 2012-01-03 08:29 · Score: 1

I don't think either Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman were libertarians, and I'm pretty sure they both liked large corporations.

and another thing by OrangeTide · 2012-01-03 08:31 · Score: 2

they also have difficulty seeing when someone should be openly mocked for painting broad stereotypes.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire

Re:Libertarians? by Nadaka · 2012-01-03 08:31 · Score: 1

Obama isn't left at all.

Libertarians have more in common with liberals than Obama does. Its just that they also have more that is diametrically opposite as well.

Engineers definitely like control by petes_PoV · 2012-01-03 08:34 · Score: 1

After all, that's what engineering is about: taking a situation (or problem) and finding a way to bend it to do your will. They are also conservative (with a small "c") and tend to be risk-averse: not wishing to release a product until it works perfectly.

Unless they are properly managed (and who would manage the american president? The chinese? The bankers? The mob? <choose one or suggest another>) they/we also tend to design overly complex solutions. Given that lawyers have more to gain from finding loopholes, exceptions and workarounds than a lawmaker has from preventing them, laws made by engineers would be ineffective - if they ever got to the state of perfection where they got passed into law. As a consequence, I reckon that a country run by engineers left to their own devices, would soon become a dictatorship - although none of the engineers would ever wish to create one, it would just happen.

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons

Re:Engineers definitely like control by HornWumpus · 2012-01-03 10:02 · Score: 1

Perfection is impossible. Every engineer knows that.
Good enough is all we can aspire to.
Lawyers have consistently written lousy laws that benefit only lawyers.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Engineers definitely like control by msobkow · 2012-01-03 10:48 · Score: 1

they/we also tend to design overly complex solutions
I'd say rather than people with an engineering or programming mentality aren't comfortable with proposing a solution that doesn't cover all the requirements. The subsequent complexity of solution is a function of the complexity of requirements.
Politics, social isuses, and the legal system are far from simple, so anyone who thinks there are simple "just do this" solutions to the world's problems is being hopelessly idealistic and simplistic.
Yet at the same time, sometimes a brilliantly elegant solution will come to mind that results in everyone else slapping their forehead and saying "Damn! Why didn't I think of that?"

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:Libertarians? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 08:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Corporate welfare, yes. Corporate "personhood" no. Many libertarians believe individuals retain their rights when they join groups, but they also object to the lack of responsibility.

Party politics are a bad idea by msobkow · 2012-01-03 08:37 · Score: 1

Because of the pigeon holing aspect, I completely disagree with the whole concept of party-based politics.

I'd like to see parties abolished completely. I want to vote DIRECTLY for the Prime Minister without the baggage of party ideology. I want to vote DIRECTLY for my Member of Parliament without worrying about whether they're going to blindly follow party dogma or represent ME in Parliament as they're supposed to.

Party politics on both sides of the border have produced nations where we are subjected to surges of ideology instead of real dialogue of the issues and useful progress as a society on those issues.

And talk about a way to neuter the lobbyists if they have to lobby every single politician individually instead of making a big party donation!

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:Party politics are a bad idea by NicBenjamin · 2012-01-03 09:04 · Score: 1

That was actually the idea in the US from the beginning.
The problem with actually implementing it in a free country is that there's nothing stopping an organized group from supporting certain candidates. Which means that if you have a Riding where the Evangelicals organize the hell out of themselves, but there a half-dozen candidates splitting the anti-Evangelical vote the Evangelicals win with 30%. You end up with all the drawbacks of a party-system, because the Unions organized their slate (NDP/Labor/Whatever), the Evangelicals organized theirs (probably a subsection of the Tories), big business managed to appoint a couple guys (another section of the Tories), etc. but it's all basically secret because everyone is officially non-partisan. There's no way to find out what the newly elected MP from Chatahoochee MB thinks without asking him.
Note that you haven't really reduced lobbyist influence, either. One of the ways lobbyists are kept in check is by Party Organizations who can tell them to go jump. Individual MPs don't necessarily have the strength to do that, particularly if they were elected with 25% of the vote. You've merely ensured that instead of making one cash donation that anyone can keep track of the lobbyists make 308 separate donations in every Riding.
BTW this is actually the major problem with getting a non-Islamist government in Egypt. During Mubarak's reign only one party was allowed. Now all the non-Islamists are creating their own technocratic/libertarian/Socialist/Monarchist/etc. parties. OTOH the major Islamic institution only made one. With 40% of the vote it will dominate everything because there simply isn't another real party. If the system was totally non-partisan it would be even worse, because the Brotherhood would still act like a political party, but it's candidates would be treated legally as guys who won 40%-25%.
Re:Party politics are a bad idea by msobkow · 2012-01-03 09:26 · Score: 1

There's no way to find out what the newly elected MP from Chatahoochee MB thinks without asking him.
So with a party system you don't think you should ask your candidate what they think before the election?

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:Party politics are a bad idea by NicBenjamin · 2012-01-03 10:53 · Score: 1

That's your candidate. But 307 of 308 Canadians people don't live in Chatahoochee MB.
But if you actually care about the issues you're gonna want to be able to find out roughly where all candidates in all 308 ridings think without talking to them, and that's not practical for ordinary people. Let's assume there're two candidates a riding, and the question is something that's obvious on the candidates website. 716*5 minutes is almost 60 hours. And that's assuming that a) it's trivial to figure out the top two non-partisan candidates in every riding and b) the issue in question is something they'd all put on their front page. This is just not something a citizen's group can realistically do. OTOH most organized interest groups have employees whose entire job is to do that sort of thing, or can acquire volunteers.
To show you how this works in action take the example of the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, right across from my hometown of Detroit. Nobody who has ever dealt with the Bridge Company likes them. They are delusional. They have a government-granted monopoly, which they use to do things like illegally seize land they don't own, sell "permits" that make it easy for people to break pollution regulations, and generally act like assholes. It's so bad capitalist tool Forbes magazine profiled their owner (Matty Moroun), using the headline "the Troll Under the Bridge." Canada's current political leadership is tired of their antics, so Moroun's great desire to double-down on his monopoly by building a second bridge right by their current one is thwarted.
Under a non-partisan system here's what happens:
Moroun's opponents have no money, and no organization outside of Windsor. They elect three guys from around Windsor who will reliably oppose Moroun. Moroun has dozens of people, who can be quite convincing Snake Oil Salesman. Special interest Moroun can hire the best Snake Oil Salesman in Canada to make his pitch ("I'm not a Monopolist, I'm a Capitalist, prove you love business by allowing mine to expand") to every single MP candidate in the other 305 Ridings. He probably weasels his way into the good graces of 155 winners, gets downtown Windsor bulldozed at Canadian Taxpayer expense, and proceeds to milk his monopoly for a few more Billion$. Also at Canadian Taxpayer expense, because you guys pay half the tolls.
OTOH in the current system what happens is the candidate says some sweet nothings to Moroun's guy, gets on the phone to someone whose dealt with Moroun before, and quickly realizes that he is to be avoided at all costs.

Engineers are Naturally Nothing by NicBenjamin · 2012-01-03 08:37 · Score: 1

Very few people actually switch political positions due to applying the intellectual tools of their job to reality. The exceptions tend to be people whose original political positions say something that flat-out contradicts what they have to believe to get their jobs done. Thus it's easy to find Conservative Christian kids who had to become less Conservative when they took a job that proved Evolution happens. But in general that's just not how the human mind works. You form your political opinions in your late teens, early 20s, and they don't change just because you get a job.

OTOH I doubt you'll find any techno-Libertarian or techno-Techncrat who switched from one to the other due to conducting an engineering study. There are probably plenty who switched because something happened outside of work that brought home either a) the value of government, or b) the drawbacks of it.

Engineers probably skew Libertarian, because the people who go into engineering school tend to be geeks and Libertarianism has an undeniable geek chic. But those folks didn't read Atlas Shrugged in their last Semester of College, they did it in the 11th Grade. They probably also skew technocratic, because the college-educated professional demographic tends to skew technocratic, and almost all of them are college-educated professionals.

Re:Not an engineer by Jeremy+Erwin · 2012-01-03 08:37 · Score: 2

Adams is closer to the Pointy Haired Boss than he ever was to Dilbert, or Wally. Perhaps he's sympathetic to the engineering perspective, but his bachelors was in economics, and he has a MBA.

Re:Libertarians? by HellYeahAutomaton · 2012-01-03 08:38 · Score: 1

In a true free market, I would be able to put rat poison in a can labeled NUTRITIOUS FOOD and sell it.

... and in a true free market after your arbiters and their arbiters got together, privately hired thugs would come by and dispose of you for your aggressive deception in the market.

there's a lot more to it than engineering by GabrielF · 2012-01-03 08:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

My grandfather was an aerospace engineer and a lifelong New Deal Democrat. He grew up poor in the depression, worked in the tobacco fields when he was about 13, put himself through college by selling blood, etc. He understood that government had helped him and a lot of people of his generation to become middle class.

On the other hand I know a lot of engineers who grew up under Soviet communism and are super right-wing. They had a very bad experience with government persecution and they tend to view all government activity through the lens of restricting their rights.

Re:there's a lot more to it than engineering by Tancred · 2012-01-03 14:03 · Score: 1

Thanks for that.
I'd like to point out that your grandfather formed his political ideas out of what worked (for himself and for the country). The old Soviet engineers you describe formed theirs as a reaction to an extreme that didn't work and took up the other extreme.

Re:Stalin by mirix · 2012-01-03 08:38 · Score: 1

Nope, no degrees. studied at a seminary off and on until he was 20 or so, iirc.

Pretty wild how a peasant can take a country of mostly peasants and turn it into an industrial superpower in 20 years, with little education no less.

--
Sent from my PDP-11

Re:Libertarians? by Rude+Turnip · 2012-01-03 08:40 · Score: 2

Ending limited liability, too? You just killed the next Apple or Google and every other small start-up that starts in someone's garage or home office. The potential pool of people willing to start a business gets reduced to only those who are already well-heeled financially.

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!

Re:Libertarians? by el3mentary · 2012-01-03 08:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Obama is right of center

Only if center is the Communist party.

By most of the worlds standards Obama is indeed right of centre, there are few if any American politicians who aren't. Ask anyone with a basic knowledge of Politics, from Europe, South America or Asia, hell even Canada and they'll give you the same answer. A lot of us also think your medical system is a complete disgrace.

--
I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by Culture20 · 2012-01-03 08:41 · Score: 1

Not understanding numbers is as harmful as not being able to read.

I've got five reasons why I am able to read:
1) I have read blood
2) I have read sports car
5) I have read fruit punch

Counterargument?

Scott Adams is not an engineer. by LoLobey · 2012-01-03 08:41 · Score: 1

Scott Adams is not an engineer, he just writes a comic about one. If I remember correctly he's trained as an economist, but once worked with engineers.

--
We have nothing to fear but fear itself! And Spiders!

Re:Libertarians? by joss · 2012-01-03 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

> Many libertarians believe individuals retain their rights when they join groups

Weasel words alert. Nobody is claiming you should loose your individual rights when you join a corporation, its just that you shouldn't gain additional rights by virtue of controlling an organisation.

--
http://rareformnewmedia.com/

Re:What a strawman argument by Lifyre · 2012-01-03 08:42 · Score: 1

Actually we're agnostic. It really doesn't matter if bombs explode because that's what happens when you make them a certain way or if God said that bombs explode when made a certain way... The bombs still explode and we still get our oil.

--
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"

Scott Adams Is A Douche by TheNinjaroach · 2012-01-03 08:42 · Score: 1

I think Dilbert's pretty funny and all, but Scott Adams is a pretentious douche. The proof is in his reddit comment history. Yeah, wow.

--
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..

Re:Scott Adams Is A Douche by vlm · 2012-01-03 09:02 · Score: 1

I think Dilbert's pretty funny and all, but Scott Adams is a pretentious douche. The proof is in his reddit comment history. Yeah, wow.
Can I have 2 minutes of my life back? Your comment above and your link appear tenuously connected in that they do in fact refer to SA but they otherwise appear to be almost completely orthogonal with not relationship at all.
Aside from the complete lack of connection, I'm totally not getting the hostility toward SA's reddit quote in your link. Lets try a real world example here. I'm familiar with the Ebers-Moll simplified model of bipolar transistor emitter current. You aren't? Oh no problemo, I'm sure you're entitled to your opinion about amplifier biasing design. Um, you can feel good about your opinions all you want, but thats not gonna work out real well if you try to actually make a microwave RF amp.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Scott Adams Is A Douche by TheNinjaroach · 2012-01-03 09:11 · Score: 1

I'm not sure you understand what I linked to. The user "plannedchaos" is Scott Adams, pretending to be someone else, while furiously defending his own ego.

This line really kills me: "And he's a certified genius. Just sayin'."

--
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Re:Scott Adams Is A Douche by LoLobey · 2012-01-03 09:14 · Score: 1

Seems pretty coherent to me even if he is talking via a sock puppet. Perhaps you have the comprehension of a douche?

--
We have nothing to fear but fear itself! And Spiders!
Re:Scott Adams Is A Douche by vlm · 2012-01-03 09:34 · Score: 1

Yes thats the part that makes it hilarious.
It would not be 1/100th as funny if his nym was "joe6pack" or "vlm", doing a little intentional Planned Chaos with that as his name is a hilarious metajoke.
Plus his initial statement that he's defending is true to the point of absurdity, making the whole thing even funnier.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Libertarians? by the+computer+guy+nex · 2012-01-03 08:43 · Score: 1

"Some may consider that a small nitpick"

Some? Try most. A conservative approach to government is limited and unobtrusive - just enough and no more. An extremely conservative approach would be anarchy - no government control at all. This represents your 'true free market.'

I don't know of anyone who advocates your definition of a 'true free market.' We need a a set of regulations in order to ensure fair competition and fair rights for workers.

Re:Libertarians? by selven · 2012-01-03 08:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

> Since corporations only exist due to special protections granted to them by the government, many (most?) libertarians (myself included) do not consider them to be actors in, nor an accurate representation of, a true free market.

I don't think it's quite that simple. In an unhampered free market it is possible that people will voluntarily choose to organize themselves into groups that function according to similar rules as those that what we now call "corporations" do now. There will be no limited liability (with regard to lawsuits; limited liability with regard to debts can still exist as part of the loan contract, so conservatives' fears that without limited liability there will be no business at all are quite unfounded), so people will be punished for fraud and environmental damage more, and things will be better in that regard, but the format of the large business as a whole could still exist. And there's nothing wrong with that - it's never as simple as "rich people are evil"; look at the so-called "robber baron" era of the 19th century - some rich people got their way through powerful friends and corruption and government-assisted cartelization, while others played fairly on the market and used their fortunes to set up institutions that continue to serve the public good even now (see: Nobel prizes, American non-profit universities, etc). It's exactly the same way even now.

Re:Libertarians? by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-03 08:45 · Score: 1

Libertarians are split on whether prevention of both force and fraud are valid functions of government, or only force, but I think the former constitutes the larger segment of libertarian opinion.

Regardless, in a free market situation I would probably only buy food that had been given a stamp of approval by a trusted third-party (like FDA approval, except without all the regulatory-capture and rampant corruption).

False dichotomy by GreatBunzinni · 2012-01-03 08:45 · Score: 2

The article is poorly thought out, as it is based on a false dichotomy between so called "libertarians" and "technocrats". While a libertarian advocates the idea that free will should be the founding rule of a society, which brings us concepts such as the state doing absolutely nothing to affect society, technocracy represents a system of government which is ruled by technical experts. This means that, unless this hypothetical state is a anarchist utopia, the state requires leadership, and if a state requires leadership then that leadership can very well be exerted by technical experts. Hence, you can have a libertarian technocrats, and libertarian states run by a technocratic government.

--
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.

Re:False dichotomy by Pope · 2012-01-03 09:23 · Score: 1

The article is poorly thought out, as it is based on a false dichotomy
Oh, so a typical Scott Adams blog post.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

Re:Libertarians? by gstoddart · 2012-01-03 08:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well said. Libertarians would be the first to end corporate welfare, as well as corporate "personhood".

And then the unicorns and fairies come in and make the world a perfect place?

I'm afraid I simply don't believe that any more than I believe that tax cuts for the rich makes all of our lives better. All it does is give tax cuts to the rich.

Libertarians have a fantasy model of how economics works, which has absolutely no bearing on reality. The free market doesn't solve problems, human nature means it basically devolves to brute force. There is no spoon.

Not suggesting Communism works either ... but having two polar opposite views doesn't make either of them right. The Libertarian Utopia is a falsehood, just like the Communist Utopia.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Libertarians? by cervesaebraciator · 2012-01-03 08:46 · Score: 1

I second that. What is more, one can criticize large corporations on precisely the same grounds that libertarian (or at least Austrian) economists criticize centrally planned economies. One of the most salient points made by von Hayek and von Mises from the 1920s on was the impossibility central planners would face in calculating supply and demand without pricing signals. I think they were quite right on these points.

Yet this same argument could be applied to large corporations which act internally like the heavily bureaucratized and centrally planned states the Austrians despised. The Austrians had faith, however, that competition would be sufficient to control the size of firms. This has not proven to be the case--though, this has as much to do with our political system as anything else. Large corporations are protected from their peculiar drawbacks in our system. It is not a free market and competition in any positive sense cannot occur where, e.g., a few corporations have huge portfolios of so-called intellectual property which, while cross licencing among themselves, allow them to prevent the growth of smaller competitors.

Why is this on Slashdot? by Tokolosh · 2012-01-03 08:46 · Score: 1

This site is for computer programmers and systems analysts, not engineers.

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by HornWumpus · 2012-01-03 10:06 · Score: 1

I guess I'll just be going then.
Seriously, WTF? 'News for Nerds' doesn't seem as narrowly constructed as you make it out to be.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by AchilleTalon · 2012-01-03 10:34 · Score: 1

Don't bother, he's a nerd.

--
Achille Talon
Hop!

Obvious by AchilleTalon · 2012-01-03 08:46 · Score: 1

It is pretty obvious most engineers in the IT field are prone to control-freak technocracy. That's the very nature of the IT to control everything as tight as possible.

--
Achille Talon
Hop!

Re:Libertarians? by NouberNou · 2012-01-03 08:47 · Score: 1

Because thats EXACTLY what the world should be like!

Re:Libertarians? by MrEricSir · 2012-01-03 08:47 · Score: 1

Vigalante justice is a libertarian principle now?

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."

Re:Libertarians? by uncqual · 2012-01-03 08:48 · Score: 1

The essence of a corporation doesn't require "special protections granted to them by the government" beyond the extent that any entity (individual or collective) relies on laws enacted and enforced by US/state/local governments (such as civil courts and bankruptcy laws).

It is true that corporations engage in regulatory capture and rent seeking due to the intrusiveness of the current system of governance in the US. However, this is simply exploiting opportunity and if the opportunity did not exist, the corporate model would still be viable.

On the other hand, government in the US interferes with large business entities (most of which are corporations) regularly via mechanisms such as anti-trust laws, regulation about publicly traded companies (such as Sarbanes–Oxley), minimum wage laws, and "consumer protection" laws (such as the Credit CARD Act of 2009). All of these limit the ability of providers of services/capital to freely negotiate with consumers of services/capital.

I lean strongly libertarian, but do see that some regulations are necessary and appropriate - such as limited anti-trust laws, reasonable patent and copyright laws, and laws requiring full disclosure to consumers (although, not laws that actually require shaping the transactions in some way -- full disclosure is enough). I certainly don't see corporations as a bad thing. Corporations provide a way for business entities to be created when, individually, no one person has enough capital to create and grow the business to the point where advanced development can be funded and economy of scale can be realized. As well, corporations can exist independent of the lifespan of a person (and the heirs) to continue to support existing product lines and expand and innovate -- which benefits everyone.

--
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.

Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

We are all dictators inside and that's the exact reason why government power must be limited in a way that satisfies libertarian principles - no one person or a group of people can be trusted when given power over others, that's why individual liberties and private property are paramount and government power must immediately be considered intrinsically evil by the very design and it must be treated as such. Only with the understanding that government is evil by design and will destroy everything it touches, we will come to a balance (if we want to), of keeping the government at its smallest and individual liberties at maximum.

Any time that the balance of power shifts from individual liberties towards growth of government power, it must immediately be suspect, be considered evil and be opposed by all.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Dictators by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-03 09:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

We are all dictators inside and that's the exact reason why government power must be limited in a way that satisfies libertarian principles
I'm endlessly amused by this sentence, as it so beautifully sums up everything that's wrong with libertarians. On the one hand, they understand that people are the problem with government: anyone at the top of a power pyramid will be sorely tempted to abuse that power for personal reasons. Many more will actually abuse that power, even if it is well-intentioned. At the same time, they utterly fail to see that when the government is removed from society, the government power structure will be replaced with any of the other power structures that predate the invention of any formal government: personal connections, money, raw strength, military might, etc. Remove government, and you'll find your life governed by those other power structures.
Just like Karl Marx, they correctly identify today's issue with society. Just like Karl Marx, they utterly fail at incorporating human nature into their solution.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 09:27 · Score: 2

you are amused because you don't understand the words you are reading and are building a nice flammable straw-man.

they utterly fail to see that when the government is removed from society, the government power structure will be replaced with any of the other power structures

- this is a lie or a misunderstanding, I don't know which is, but I said specifically multiple times in many comments over the years, as is patently obvious, that there is power vacuum and it will be filled by some form of government.
Government is intrinsically evil because it wants to fill in that void, that power vacuum, which means a force is created to overpower individuals.
That's why we must put the law above the government, that's what Constitution is all about - law above the government, and that's what is either amusing or sad, looking at comments like yours and seeing complete misunderstanding of what is being discussed.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-03 09:50 · Score: 1

That's why we must put the law above the government, that's what Constitution is all about

I'm endlessly amused by the fact that you're repeating the same mistake as in your earlier statement. Fortunately for you, you're not alone in that. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, you're not alone in that.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Dictators by evilviper · 2012-01-03 10:03 · Score: 1

individual liberties and private property are paramount and ... government is evil by design and will destroy everything it touches
Makes perfect sense. Libertarians want the government to focus on destroying liberties & property rights.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 10:06 · Score: 1

that's a funny and nonsensical comment.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 10:09 · Score: 1

they utterly fail to see that when the government is removed from society, the government power structure will be replaced with any of the other power structures
I am endlessly amused by your inability to admit a mistake and refute your statement when it's proven to be wrong by a simple example.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-03 10:34 · Score: 1

I see that you still think that quoting yourself is somehow the sign of a well-supported position.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 10:40 · Score: 1

Yes, all other forms of power are irrelevant when compared to government power, because unlike all other forms of power, the government power is enforced by the law, courts, all of the police and military power, and government power is considered to be lawful by itself.
If Google hired private police/military and decided to protect itself against IRS trying to impose taxes, then people would assume that Google was some form of a gangster organization while the government was in the right by default.
When the FBI agents attacked ranch at Mount Carmel back in 1993, most of the population assumed that the government was doing something lawful and the individuals at the ranch were wrong and had to be restrained, put in prison in front of government judges.
After 50 day standoff, 76 people were killed, including more than 20 children and two pregnant women.
By the way that was the event that inspired Timothy McVeigh.
--
Yes, government power is the most dangerous power, the most intrusive, the most evil because it is assumed to be LAWFUL.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 10:49 · Score: 1

Yes, quoting myself to prove your point wrong makes perfect sense. I showed that your sentence was immediately false or a lie.
By the way, you are very easily amused, do you know that?

I'm endlessly amused by this sentence, as it so beautifully sums up everything that's wrong with libertarians.
- that was your first sentence in response to my comment. Of-course it's amusing that you are amused by something that is a completely consistent position.
What were you amused by? Well, you said it, you were amused by my sentence:

We are all dictators inside and that's the exact reason why government power must be limited in a way that satisfies libertarian principles
(I quoted myself again, amusing, isn't it?)
The really amusing part here is that you are amused by something that is perfectly consistent and rational.
Statement A: "we are all dictators inside"
Statement B: "maximizing individual liberties is desirable"
Statement C: "government power must be limited to satisfy libertarian principles".
So how is it inconsistent for a rational person to understand that if A is true and if B is true, then C follows?
You are amused by the most mundane things.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by SoftwareArtist · 2012-01-03 10:51 · Score: 1

Ummm... right. Government is evil by design and keeping government at its smallest will keep individual liberties at maximum. That's why countries with weak or non-functional governments all are fantastic places for individual liberties. Like Somalia. Or Afghanistan. I'm sure you'd just love living in one of those, if you care a lot about your individual liberties. And that's why, almost without exception, countries with comparatively good records on individual rights have strong central governments that spend a lot of time and energy protecting your rights.
Sorry if those facts don't match your world view, but facts are facts. How many countries can you name with minimal governments and strong individual rights?

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 11:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your misleading comparisons are just false equivalences.
A weak government is NOT a "non-functional" government. A weak government is a government that cannot go above the law that is set for it to follow.
A strong government does not create a good society and a functioning economy. North Korea and USSR and Cuba have/had "strong" governments. So what?
You are confusing the 2 issues: strong government and a strong nation.
Nation is NOT a government.
Government is NOT a nation.
Strong nation is a nation of laws, nation that protects individual liberties, maximizes individual freedoms and does so without stealing the power from people to give to a small minority of politicians/dictators/power brokers.
Strong nation is a nation that allows free people to make choices with regard to their economics, money, food, sex, marriage, drugs, whatever.
Strong nation is not a nation that uses huge military to bully the world.
Strong government can bully the world by subjugating the individual liberties and freedoms of its people. It also can put people into concentration camps. It can start wars without asking the people either to pay for them or whether the people even want to start the wars.
Somalia today is a product of a long history of difficult situations, including a communist government that was eventually disposed of. The government was disposed of because of how 'strong' it was with its people.
USSR eventually fell apart and North Korea will eventually too, because 'strong' governments make for weak nations as 'strong' government destroys individual liberties and eventually people stop being scared of their 'strong' government, especially when the strength of government obliterates the economy so bad, that people go hungry.
Strong government is not a synonym with a 'good' system.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by SoftwareArtist · 2012-01-03 11:45 · Score: 1

So, by your definition, name some strong nations that don't have strong governments.
I'd suggest (and it appears to me that overwhelming evidence shows) that a strong government is an essential prerequisite to get a strong nation. Without a strong government, the rule of law is not respected and individual liberties are not protected. Please present counter examples.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 11:52 · Score: 1

USA before it got itself a 'strong' government was a strong nation once the Civil war ended.
Then, about 40 years after USA system got cracked, and it got itself a 'strong' (growing) government.
Under a 'weak' government, USA became the most prosperous, inventive, innovative, creditor nation.
With this 'strong' government it has now, it's falling apart economically and societally (obviously one follows the other).
China on the other hand is a good example of this working in reverse, where a 'strong' government destroyed a nation so bad, that it had to turn to capitalism away from communism, and the government is getting weaker by the minute, as people are becoming freer with more economic activity going, this tune plays both ways.
However in case of USA - this was a completely unique experiment specifically because this was not a natural progression for a nation, it started nearly from scratch instead of going through the same motions as every other country on the planet, all of which resulted out of dictatorship and despotism.
Actual libertarian principles and free market economy takes work, which includes removing the former despot based government one way or another, be it via starting a new country or some form of natural progression from a "stronger" to a "weaker" government, because the system allowed the individuals to become stronger if only economically at first.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by SoftwareArtist · 2012-01-03 13:22 · Score: 1

Your idea of history is so wrong on so many points, I hardly know where to begin.
First, the US was not a libertarian country prior to 1905 (that's 40 years after the end of the Civil War). It had public schools, public libraries, and a government run postal service. It had publicly maintained roads. It had public police and fire services. And so on, and so on. All of these services were financed by compulsory taxes. The government was much smaller than today, but it was not even vaguely libertarian.
Second, you seem to believe that the US at the start of the 20th century was a bastion of individual liberty compared to its current degraded state. That could hardly be less true. If you were black and lived in the South, the whole concept of "civil rights" barely existed. It was better in the north, but not that much better. Many towns openly banned blacks, Jews, and other "undesirable" people from living there. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states. So was homosexuality. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. was both legal and openly practiced. We've come a very long way in the last century, and until you take a good look at how things used to be, it's hard to realize just how much.
Third, you seem to believe that America started to decline economically as soon as its government started to grow, and was in decline throughout the 20th century. You could hardly be more exactly opposite to the truth if you tried. In fact, the second half of the 20th century was a time of economic growth unparalleled in US history, almost unparalleled in world history.
You still haven't offered a shred of evidence to support your claim that minimum government equals maximum liberty. Please cite some examples of countries with minimal government and strong individual liberty, because I don't believe they exist.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Re:Dictators by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-03 18:06 · Score: 1

Aw, how cute. You broke down your statement into logical parts, and still can't figure out where it all falls apart. Ayn Rand would be proud.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Dictators by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-03 18:13 · Score: 1

Of COURSE they don't exist yet. People haven't reached the enlightened state yet through which they will be able to fully take advantage of the conditions presented by such an economic and governmental system. In the meantime, we'll progress in small steps by progressively removing government workers from the public sphere and increasing the freedom of the Marxists... I mean, Markets.
Wait, I think I heard that story before.... it didn't work out so well then either.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Dictators by Ixpath · 2012-01-03 19:05 · Score: 1

Just like Karl Marx, they utterly fail at incorporating human nature into their solution.
I realize this is something everyone says, but Marx mostly just talked about a vague "direction of history" where people would more and more get paid an amount equal to the value of their labor, most of the actual solutions Marx proposed are now pretty non-controversial. Just look at critique of the Gotha program where he suggests:
1) Establishing a central bank (no longer controversial, except among the wackier libertarians).
2) Unemployment insurance (ditto).
3) Worker ownership of the means of production...
Ok, (3) sounds controversial because when you hear it you immediately see images of Soviet collective farms, however the company I work for has "worker ownership of the means of production" -- they are called "options" and everyone gets em (Marx said nothing about equal distribution of ownership). All of these things were controversial in the middle of the 19th century and no longer are -- and I don't think most people consider these ideas to fail (more than any other) to account for the reality of human nature.
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 21:03 · Score: 1

You can't admit when you are being wrong or lying, this is not a surprise.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 21:18 · Score: 1

First, the US was not a libertarian country prior to 1905
- I am roughly talking about 1870 to 1913, not exact round numbers.
The US government was a weak government compared to what it is today, and that's all it counts - relative strength of government. Being 'libertarian' is a ruse. What has changed over the last 100 years?
Federal reserve was established and IRS started collecting income taxes (and then corporate and then payroll taxes), which allowed monetization of government debt, which took reins off government spending and thus government growth, and since government could then spend money proportionate to earnings of people as opposed to proportionate to spending of people, and it got the ability to monetize debt (print currency), it started adding departments and government projects.
US government was extremely "weak" prior to that moment.
US government is extremely "strong" now.
All of the various ways that US government interferes with free market and distorts businesses, creates monopolies and prevents free commerce:
Fed, IRS, departments of agriculture, education, energy, commerce, FDA, EPA, HLS, TSA, FBI, CIA, etc.
All of the various ways that destroys sovereignty of the nation and by extension destroy sovereignty of individuals:
UN, NATO, NAFTA, WTO, etc.
All of the various ways in which moral hazards are established by government "insurance" (it's not insurance if it has no assets and only prints/borrows to cover claims). FDIC, SS, Medicare, education loans, HUD, FHA, Freddie/Fannie, etc.
All of the above departments and so called 'insurances' are the various ways in which government spat on personal liberties, but of-course it added more interesting stuff in the latest years: Patriot Act (establishing concentration camps and indefinite wars), now NDAA with indefinite detention provisions not just for funny looking foreigners, but also US citizens.
You'll have SOPA, PIPA, etc.etc.
Of-course the complete default on honest money and thus the beginning of the end of the economy happened in 1971.
-
The US government was not 'libertarian', but it was a 'weak' government before 1913, which means that the individuals were strong, the nation was strong, it built the largest middle class and lifted all boats by individuals participating in mostly free market.
Now US government is 'strong' and this means the individuals are 'weak', they are scared, they are groped, they are left without means to existence outside of the government indoctrinated system, their individual rights are no longer protected and instead the laws are either modified to ignore and deny the rights or the laws are ignored altogether (the Constitution) so whatever government does passes for a law.
That's your strong government at work and that's what made your nation weak.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by Any+Web+Loco · 2012-01-03 23:46 · Score: 1

Oh for mod points! Thanks for pointing this out - Marx is very much understood and your post is a helpful reminder of that.
Re:Dictators by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 01:52 · Score: 1

You didn't answer the post you were replying to - just a load of unsupported assertions.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-04 03:09 · Score: 1

Nonsense.
There is power of the market and there is power of the government, a 'strong' government means government that can overpower individuals in ways that individuals are not authorizing the government to do so.
Government power has legitimacy under the law that no corporation or individual has to impede on liberties of individuals, and that's the only power that matters.
An individual can kill you, but it does not mean that the individual who kills you can walk around freely and be left alone and have others assume that the killing was legitimate.
Same with a company - if a company kills you somehow, it doesn't give legitimacy to the killing.
When GOVERNMENT kills you (like Obama killing the US citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his son and others), there is legitimacy unfortunately.
Obama isn't going to JAIL for killing Anwar al-Awlaki and his family members. Obama continues to be in office and there is no court that he will have to attend because he killed people, even though he killed them despite the individual liberties that people have. This is a subversion of power by government and it's deemed 'legitimate' and the perpetrators are not being tried for murder.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-04 03:10 · Score: 2

Of-course I replied with an example of a country that had 'weak' government and 'strong' individual liberties, that country became the stronger economic power over the time that it had the weak government and strong individual liberties.
The country was USA.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-04 03:32 · Score: 1

I guess I should have been more specific. Specifically, I was referring to the ideas he laid out with Engels in the Communist Manifesto. There, unfortunately, his "direction of history" goes off the deep end and into some really far out stuff. Heck, even hippies had a hard time getting those ideas to work.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Dictators by Ixpath · 2012-01-04 05:35 · Score: 1

The Communist Manifesto was a pamphlet advertising his group -- not an intellectual tract -- and if you closely follow it, it really says very little. Just imagine a political ad that tries to simultaneously appeal to every major ideological group opposed to the current regime. In the Manifesto's case it tries to appeal to everyone from (classical) liberal to anarchist to christian communist -- a creature that was more common in the 19th century than today.
Re:Dictators by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 06:38 · Score: 1

The post you were replying to said:

Second, you seem to believe that the US at the start of the 20th century was a bastion of individual liberty compared to its current degraded state. That could hardly be less true. If you were black and lived in the South, the whole concept of "civil rights" barely existed. It was better in the north, but not that much better. Many towns openly banned blacks, Jews, and other "undesirable" people from living there. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states. So was homosexuality. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. was both legal and openly practiced. We've come a very long way in the last century, and until you take a good look at how things used to be, it's hard to realize just how much.
You didn't address this point, merely claiming, with no evidence, that the USA before 1913 was freer than it is today.
As SoftwareArtist pointed out this is debateable - Women, Blacks, Jews, people of Irish or Chinese origin and homosexuals might have a different idea of how "free" things were then.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-04 06:58 · Score: 2

You didn't address this point, merely claiming, with no evidence, that the USA before 1913 was freer than it is today.
- so when I mentioned all of the ways, in which government is now "stronger" against the individual than it was prior to that time, you were asleep?

Fed, IRS, departments of agriculture, education, energy, commerce, FDA, EPA, HLS, TSA, FBI, CIA, etc. ....
UN, NATO, NAFTA, WTO, etc. ....
. FDIC, SS, Medicare, education loans, HUD, FHA, Freddie/Fannie, etc.
Patriot Act (establishing concentration camps and indefinite wars), now NDAA with indefinite detention provisions not just for funny looking foreigners, but also US citizens. ....
You'll have SOPA, PIPA, etc.etc. ....
Of-course the complete default on honest money and thus the beginning of the end of the economy happened in 1971.
As to "Women, Blacks, Jews, Irish, Chinese, homosexuals" - sure, government was against those people, and it was obviously a BAD agreement, a bad compromise on the part of the States that ratified the Constitution that said for example that Blacks were not fully a person.
However it was the improving economy, the raising of all boats by the increase in overall wealth of the economy due to the free market and due to the 'weak' government of the time, that in fact allowed improvements in all of those areas. 1870 to 1913 was the time of weak government and strong individual freedom, which created the strongest economy in the world and this allowed the people who were oppressed by the government previously to that time to rise up.
This is the exact similar situation that is happening in Russia right now, with the latest protest of 120,000 people coming out on the streets to protest against Putin and United Russia party rigging the elections, and as opposed to other types of protest in Russia, this one was different in a very important way:
The people who came out to protest this time were closer to middle class and their grievances with the current Russian government cannot be simply dismissed with a monetary hand out.
These were not POOR people who are protesting, these were well off people, rich enough that government cannot buy them, they were buying coffee for the military and special forces that were stacked against them on the streets, they weren't listening to any of the propaganda of competing parties that were shouting into megaphones on the streets during the protest, they just came out with a strong message against the GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION.
So that's the exact thing that happened in USA - with the incredible rise of the economy in 19 century, early 20 century, the people were already not exactly poor, majority could afford good food and medical treatment, etc., and they were protesting for their FREEDOMS.
And you, right now, are completely misunderstanding that freedoms make nations strong, not 'strong' government and weak people, but strong people and governments that cannot take away the freedoms.
Every country today is suffering, and every country that is suffering has a very 'strong' government, there are no countries with governments that are 'weak' enough for people to be strong and not to suffer in the hands of their governments. But some countries are moving in the right direction, and this includes China and hopefully Russia but USA is moving in the exact opposite and wrong direction.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by SoftwareArtist · 2012-01-04 07:23 · Score: 1

You keep trying to change the subject. You asserted that "keeping government at its smallest" will keep individual liberties at their maximum. That's not a philosophical question. It's a concrete assertion about facts, that can be tested by looking for real world evidence. Just look at countries around the world. If your claim is true, we should find that countries with small governments have strong individual liberties. And that isn't what we find at all. We actually find that countries with small governments tend to have very weak support for individual liberties. I cited two examples: Somalia and Afghanistan. Somalia probably comes closer than any other country on earth to having no government at all. And it's a terrible place for individual liberties.
I asked you (three times now!) to cite counter examples of countries with little government and lots of individual liberties. The only thing you've come up with is a fantasy version of post Civil War America that never existed. In reality, post Civil War America had much less individual liberty than America, or most other western nations, do today.
Please present some real examples of real countries that exist in the real world today that have minimal government and maximal individual liberty. Please do not talk about countries with big governments and weak liberty. No one here has questioned that governments can be abusive, and there are plenty of governments in the world that are. But that's a completely different matter. You asserted that government is inherently evil, and the way to protect liberty is to minimize the government. I believe that government can be either good or bad, and a powerful central government is absolutely essential to protect liberty. If you don't agree with that, then prove it's wrong by giving examples of countries that maintain strong liberty without relying on the government to protect it.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Re:Dictators by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 08:45 · Score: 1

As to "Women, Blacks, Jews, Irish, Chinese, homosexuals" - sure, government was against those people, and it was obviously a BAD agreement, a bad compromise on the part of the States that ratified the Constitution that said for example that Blacks were not fully a person.
However it was the improving economy, the raising of all boats by the increase in overall wealth of the economy due to the free market and due to the 'weak' government of the time, that in fact allowed improvements in all of those areas. 1870 to 1913 was the time of weak government and strong individual freedom, which created the strongest economy in the world and this allowed the people who were oppressed by the government previously to that time to rise up.
And how do you explain the simple fact that such people began to win thir freedom, often helped by Federal government action, in the 1960's, rather than your mythic dream time?
You seem to be wedded to the idea of argument by assertion. Your claim is that "weak government" produces wealth and freedom. When anyone produces counter examples you repeat yourself, providing no more factual information.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-04 10:06 · Score: 1

And how do you explain the simple fact that such people began to win thir freedom, often helped by Federal government action, in the 1960's, rather than your mythic dream time?
- I explain it by your lack of knowledge.
Women's suffrage movement started exactly at the time of greatest freedom from government specifically because women were able to participate in an economy, which they could not do under previous conditions that were changed by the free market capitalism. Almost no woman of child bearing age prior to industrialization would have any resources or freedoms to argue for her rights.
Don't forget - the main issues that women (as an example) were solving were their issue of freedom AGAINST GOVERNMENT. Because in case of suffrage, women weren't allowed into the political process because they did not represent a powerful enough ECONOMIC force.
Only when women became a powerful enough economic force due to the fact that the free market capitalism gave them the ability to stop having multiple children to sustain agricultural lives of large farming families, and when enough capital was in play that allowed the market to come up with labor saving devices, like washing machines, refrigerators, safer food (all thanks to market working towards more sales, which drives up competition and innovation in all those areas), did women actually become more economically independent and capable of participating in the political process to gain power.
You see, you don't understand that all of the issues you are talking about are proving my point precisely.
Every issue you are talking about is about INDIVIDUALS getting POWER away from established GOVERNMENT.
Slavery actually mostly ended by the beginning of 19th century in USA. Segregation was a SOCIETAL problem, but slavery was a GOVERNMENT problem.
The government was too strong and it took power away from some individuals and turned them to slaves.
Today the system is similar somewhat in the sense, that people are forced to pay taxes on their earnings - income, corporate, payroll, and that's a form of slavery. You aren't really taken care of by your 'masters', but you are forced to work for them half of your time regardless of what you do. If you don't do it, you'll end up in jail and with various fines above you too. That's a form of slavery, it's just a more uniformly distributed form of slavery, where your skin color doesn't matter much.
You are referring to 1960s and the desegregation movement, which was again, mostly government created but was also a cultural problem (societal).
But cultural problems are only solved with time as generations pass and something that was acceptable generations ago becomes unacceptable later (mostly, because it's bad business).
The so called 'Civil Rights Act of 1964' is not actually a 'Rights' Act where it concerns private property and private individuals. It's a good act where it concerns the government desegregation, but where it forced private people and businesses into a different pattern of behavior based on government becoming STRONGER - handing out punishment for not following the new rules, people lost rights, didn't gain them.
That part of the "Rights Act" became actually an "Entitlement and Obligations Act", with some people getting entitlements and some getting obligations enforced by a 'stronger' government.
You are still confused on what it means for a government to be "strong". A "strong" government means destruction of your rights.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-04 10:26 · Score: 2

I cited two examples: Somalia and Afghanistan. Somalia probably comes closer than any other country on earth to having no government at all. And it's a terrible place for individual liberties.
- actually you don't understand Somalia and Afghanistan. Part of Somalia has some form of central government, the rest of it has various local governments and they have their own court systems as well. Afghanistan is a tribal system with very strong Islam based government, it's just not the kind of government that you are used to.
That does not make either of them examples of free market capitalist government, which USA was prior to 1913, which is my example and it's the best example because it was a country that was established Constitutionally that way and it didn't have a history or tyranny within the American continent (though the people still came to USA from tyrannies all around the world).
All of the government structures that are not built the way USA was built are built upon previous tyrannies and tyrannies do not relent power.
USA would have ended up exactly like UK from the start if it wasn't for a misunderstanding, by the way, the misunderstanding was that in UK the voting block consisted of land owners and this anachronism was also brought to USA.
However the huge difference between UK and USA was not precisely intended - over 50% of USA population actually owned land by the time the Constitution was signed. So USA became much more democratic simply because half of the population could vote.
The politicians were still buying votes with various promises at the time, but politicians were not all powerful, with enormous reach over every aspect of trade, they couldn't pass laws that affected all of the States, people had their own laws in their States and in their localities and there was no monopolization of power.
There was no EPA, FDA, FDIC, FED, FHA, HUD, Dep't of education, commerce, agriculture, energy, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Patriot Act, TSA, HLS, the taxes that people paid at the time were laughable, on the order of 3-4% of their SPENDING, not of their income.
The gov't was small and insignificant, but it was not a non-functional government as you are mistakenly repeating.
Your statement:

In reality, post Civil War America had much less individual liberty than America, or most other western nations, do today.
- is pure nonsense. USA didn't have the central government with any sort of power of any other nation exactly because of the system that was built, that didn't provide for a 'strong' federal government.
A 'strong' federal government would not have been possible, because the States would not have ratified the Constitution with a 'strong' federal government, that could tell States how to conduct their business. That power came much later and all of these agencies and departments, the ability to tax DISPROPORTIONATELY (the awful 16th amendment), things like PROHIBITION of alcohol on the federal level (the 18th amendment), Federal reserve that monetized the government debt allowing it to grow uncontrollably by creating inflation and causing the depression of 1921 and then of 1929 and then of 1971 and the current one.
All of the things that destroy personal liberties make for a strong government. TSA, EPA, FDA, FAA, FCC, FDIC, FED, IRS, HUD, FHA, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, all forms of departments (education, energy, commerce, agriculture, etc.), all the quasi government institutions like Freddie/Fannie (and now the banking system and even GM and GE, etc.), the constant wars.
It's all due to a 'strong' government and 'weak' individual liberties, which cause economic destruction and at the end destruction of the nation.
I am sure you still don't get it, but I have reached the point in this thread where it makes no sense to continue.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by SoftwareArtist · 2012-01-04 12:19 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is that you can't cite a single country in the entire world that currently has a minimal government but strong individual liberties? Not a single one? Doesn't that say something to you? Take a step back and try, even for just a moment, to consider the possibility that your theory might be flawed. According to your theory, countries with small governments should universally have strong individual liberties. Yet out of nearly 200 countries in the world, you can't find a single one that actually supports that prediction. In science, you propose theories, make predictions based on them, and then look at evidence to see whether it matches your predictions. If it doesn't, that means your theory isn't a good description of the real world. It's time to discard or modify your theory and try again.

In reality, post Civil War America had much less individual liberty than America, or most other western nations, do today.
- is pure nonsense. USA didn't have the central government with any sort of power of any other nation exactly because of the system that was built, that didn't provide for a 'strong' federal government.
That's a very... curious response. Here's what I said earlier about individual liberty in post Civil War America:

If you were black and lived in the South, the whole concept of "civil rights" barely existed. It was better in the north, but not that much better. Many towns openly banned blacks, Jews, and other "undesirable" people from living there. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states. So was homosexuality. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. was both legal and openly practiced. We've come a very long way in the last century, and until you take a good look at how things used to be, it's hard to realize just how much.
Notice that I gave lots of concrete examples of ways in which individual liberty was severely restricted back then - much more so than today. And your response? My claim is nonsense, because the US didn't have a strong central government. And what does that have to do with it? Well, nothing at all, except that your theory says that a country without a strong central government must have strong individual liberty. You didn't actually respond to any of the ways I brought up in which it didn't. You didn't argue that blacks, Jews, immigrants, homosexuals, etc. had their liberty severely restricted. You just said that, according to your theory, that can't be true, and therefore my claim is nonsense.

I am sure you still don't get it, but I have reached the point in this thread where it makes no sense to continue.
Of course. I don't get it. :) I'm clearly too stupid or stubborn or something to accept that your theories are obviously right, despite the complete lack of evidence to support them. If it makes you feel better to tell yourself that, go ahead. Just don't pretend you actually are basing your theories on evidence.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-04 12:21 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is that you can't cite a single country in the entire world that currently has a minimal government but strong individual liberties? Not a single one?
- sure, USA used to be it. China is moving in that direction.

Doesn't that say something to you?

- yes, governments have too much power and people are letting themselves to be used as cattle.
The rest of your comment I didn't read.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 18:23 · Score: 1

And how do you explain the simple fact that such people began to win thir freedom, often helped by Federal government action, in the 1960's, rather than your mythic dream time?
- I explain it by your lack of knowledge.
Oh, don't worry, I identified your brand of insanity a few posts ago.

The so called 'Civil Rights Act of 1964' is not actually a 'Rights' Act where it concerns private property and private individuals. It's a good act where it concerns the government desegregation, but where it forced private people and businesses into a different pattern of behavior based on government becoming STRONGER - handing out punishment for not following the new rules, people lost rights, didn't gain them.
Yup. I see exactly what you are.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-04 23:56 · Score: 1

Oh, don't worry, I identified your brand of insanity a few posts ago.
- and I correctly identify your lack of knowledge. Women's suffrage movement was in the second half of 19th century, not in 1960s.
Slavery in USA mostly ended by the beginning of 19th century.

Yup. I see exactly what you are.
- what is it? You can't argue on issues you come up with nonsense?
That's fine, but don't expect me to argue with you on issues then.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Dictators by hazah · 2012-01-05 09:09 · Score: 1

Main things getting lost in translation for me is that most these concepts are going the way of the dodo (and good riddance!). What does it mean to be a 'strong nation' in this day and age? We're at the point in which we mostly see the bullshit (naive of me, I know, but why not hope?). That I'm Canadian has no baring on how I see your rights, and I'm willing to bet that neither do you in return when it comes to me. Ultimately all of this ends up feeding my sarcasm pallet as I observe grown men and women discussing and overcoming problems that at best can be described as childish temper tantrums over what should be a non-issues for anyone with any reasoning power, but I digress.
Re:Dictators by roman_mir · 2012-01-06 05:52 · Score: 1

Which part is not clear, the difference between what a government is and what a nation is? Is it the point that a 'strong' government makes for weak individual liberties?

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:I'm wired as an engineer... by russotto · 2012-01-03 08:48 · Score: 4, Funny

... but also as an economic socialist and a social conservative. Can I find libertarian in there somewhere?

An economic socialist and a social conservative? So you'll take all our money and refuse to let us have porn or drugs? Ugh.

Re:Libertarians? by PCM2 · 2012-01-03 08:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Scientists, on the other hand, are more likely to be welfare-staters, because their science funding and grantsmanship culture is ever more dependent on the state.

This doesn't follow at all. You might as well say prison inmates will always vote for big government, for the same reason.

In my own experience, political thought in all professions runs the gamut, depending more upon an individual's upbringing, values, and experience than anything else. The idea that engineers or scientists went into a certain field because of some hard-wired biological characteristic that also controls their emotions, morals, and values just sounds like a modern-day spin on phrenology to me.

But since I might as well use this comment to throw out an inflammatory opinion of my own, scientists are more likely to be left-leaning because they're intelligent.

--
Breakfast served all day!

Not sure I'd want an engineer/politician by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-01-03 08:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm assuming that the implication is that engineers can solve our problems with process. Lots of social problems might seem like the solutions can be obviously derived with logic, but we're human beings and we do a lot of things that aren't driven by logic. Having children isn't logical; it's expensive, a time drain, and ultimately a financial loss. Practically any form of entertainment we engage in isn't logical (besides intercourse), since we're probably wasting time and resources best spent elsewhere. Hell, even our diets aren't logical. We should all be eating nutrition bars carefully concocted to provide us with the optimal calories and nutrients to keep us functioning (regardless of taste).

I had the enlightening experience of dating a social worker who explained how often the layman's "logical" and simplistic solutions to all kinds of domestic issues were either ineffective or could be downright detrimental. When you understand that, you can start to envision how the "obvious" solution to social ailment X would fail in practice (otherwise it would have been tried already).

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Re:Not sure I'd want an engineer/politician by chgros · 2012-01-03 14:34 · Score: 1

> besides intercourse
What makes this one more logical than any other, especially since you claim that having children is illogical? I'm curious.
Also, you seem to assume that being logical means maximizing productivity. Personally, my goal in life is not to be the most productive. Entertainment is actually closer to it.
Re:Not sure I'd want an engineer/politician by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-01-03 14:44 · Score: 1

I meant in the pleasure sense, not reproductive. You're not spending money (usually) to have sex, so it's essentially free entertainment and it doesn't take up much time.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:Not sure I'd want an engineer/politician by hazah · 2012-01-05 09:11 · Score: 1

You contradict yourself, badly. I guess that is interesting to some. Though still, the whole thing makes no sense.

Engineers tend to be technocrats by scamper_22 · 2012-01-03 08:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

Engineers often like to think of themselves as libertarians.

But I've met enough that when you even begin to scratch the surface, they tend to be very technocratic... believing there must be a better way to organize something if only *they* could be trusted to run something.

This is more and more true in places with a higher emphasis on academia.

Academics suffer from what I like to call systems thinking. Having spent enough time there, they almost always try and solve every problem by modelling and then playing with it numerically.

This results in the idea that we should trust in such models above and beyond people's choices. To use an engineers mentality, they tend to like centralized big computers instead of distributed systems :P Kinda odd isn't it.

There is nothing 'scientific' about it. Science can't tell you what values or policies you should follow, but they tend to like to frame it that way.

I personally credit this kind of systems thinking for the recent financial collapse. At no point in history has there been so much sophistication and modelling in the financial system. Yet of course people are still in the system for their own self-interest, their own biases, still gaming it, models were incorrect or imperfect. And of course who gets to be in charge and make decisions based on the models...

When Greenspan made his point about the 'market failing' it was a classic systems thinking mistake.

The banks have a vested interest to enhance share holder value, so they would be in the best position to regulate themselves... as their institution's purpose is to enhance share holder value... which means keeping the bank in good shape.

It's like saying car drivers have a natural interest to prevent accidents. Therefore, they should be allowed to regular themselves.

I won't get into saying whether we need more/better/less regulation. But I will say this. We as a society have decided we like to have stable banking. The government backs and insures banks. It then has a duty to regulate them. Just like your car insurance company regulates you by charging you more for more risk, denying you coverage if you're too risky...

I see the same thing all the time on so many policies.
When it comes to education policy or health policy, many think we can generate expert panels on all of these to deliver excellent healthcare and education.
Meanwhile, the centralization of power that comes with unions and medical associations and payment and politics and facing parents with different beliefs and facing people who are facing death or illness... basically anything human is something they choose to ignore.

Which is very common for technocrats... and hence engineers. Just like the Euro. These big systems designed by technocrats and engineers and scientists will eventually fail because they're ignorant for anything related to humanity.

It's like they try and solve a complex equation... but they ignore the biggest variable... humanity.

Since you asked.. by formfeed · 2012-01-03 08:50 · Score: 1

They might be libertarian or liberal or easy-going or whatever in areas they have no expertise in, but for sure unbearable technocrats (u) in areas where they feel they're experts (x) and that their opinion is more accurate (a) than that of the general public and that the solution to the problem will be a technological one (t) not a political one based on consensus.

This will be even more so the case with engineers, that are complete gits (g) who equivocate technologically possible and desirable.

We therefor propose:
u=(x*e^at)/sqrt(1-g^2)

Re:Ah, the bible. by RobertLTux · 2012-01-03 08:50 · Score: 1

Hence the Great Problem these days. Even if you go to the Boondock Saints type overview there are Things That Should Not Be Done and they are all straight out of The Bible.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:Libertarians? by Sique · 2012-01-03 08:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

So in a truly free market, the one makes the rules who is able to hire the most and the evilst thugs?

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Re:Libertarians? by shadowrat · 2012-01-03 08:51 · Score: 1

You would run out of customers really fast. You'd be unable to afford operation costs and go out of business. The free market works again!

Re:Libertarians? by artor3 · 2012-01-03 08:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

Philosophy is of little importance when the policies libertarians support would have the opposite effect. Libertarians are always pushing for smaller government and fewer regulations, which would have the effect of making large, wealthy businesses even more powerful.

Re:Libertarians? by Sique · 2012-01-03 08:51 · Score: 1

And who tells you then that the third party isn't a fraud either?

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Re:Libertarians? by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-03 08:52 · Score: 2

This represents your 'true free market.

My definition of a "true free market" is one free of violence or the threat of violence. And while I'm sympathetic to the "voluntaryist" strain of libertarians, I'm personally not convinced that complete anarchy can give us the "most free" market under that definition, so I still consider myself a minarchist.

We need a a set of regulations in order to ensure fair competition and fair rights for workers.

The key here is the word "fair", and I'm sure we don't see eye to eye on what that word means.

Right & Left Libertarians by Comboman · 2012-01-03 08:52 · Score: 2

While it's currently fashionable for Neo-cons to call themselves libertarians, the philosophy of Libertarianism actually covers everything from far-left anarchists to far-right objectivists.

--
Support Right To Repair Legislation.

Re:Right & Left Libertarians by asylumx · 2012-01-03 09:00 · Score: 2

Mod parent up please! If liberal & conservative are left and right, authoritarian and libertarian are up and down.
Re:Right & Left Libertarians by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-03 09:55 · Score: 1

Mod parent up please! If liberal & conservative are left and right, authoritarian and libertarian are up and down.
OK, then I'm orthogonal to the US political universe. Where the hell do I go now?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Right & Left Libertarians by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 04:24 · Score: 1

Mod parent up please! If liberal & conservative are left and right, authoritarian and libertarian are up and down.
You can make your political model have as many axes as you like, a loony's still a loony, and anyone who thinks the words "Rand" and "liberty" can be put into a sentence without the words "complete opposite of" is loonier still.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Right & Left Libertarians by tqk · 2012-01-05 05:07 · Score: 1

If liberal & conservative are left and right, authoritarian and libertarian are down and up.

Call me a pedant. I'll be up in the top right hand corner.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by HellYeahAutomaton · 2012-01-03 08:52 · Score: 1

http://freedomireland.com/video/law-without-government-part-two-conflict-resolution-in-a-free?xg_source=activity

Not mutually exclusive by dkleinsc · 2012-01-03 08:53 · Score: 1

Libertarians don't demand control over anyone else's affairs, but they do seek to get as close to complete control over their own affairs as reasonably possible. So it could easily be that engineers by nature want to control their own personal universe, and thus are libertarians when not in power and technocrats when in power.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:Libertarians? by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-03 08:54 · Score: 1

A fair point. Not all corporations are objectively "evil", any more so than all rich people are objectively "evil".

But it's extremely hard to figure out which are which under the current system.

Re:Libertarians? by hedwards · 2012-01-03 08:55 · Score: 1

And yet they're generally first in line to remove the regulatory bodies that are there to prevent and reduce corporate abuse. Those regulatory bodies are the only thing standing between us and a market that slips the rest of the way into monopoly control over every economic activity.

Re:Libertarians? by Sique · 2012-01-03 08:55 · Score: 2

... said the man who has no clue what the communist ideology is.

Barack Obama is as communist as Rush Limbaugh is a faithful and honest christian.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 08:56 · Score: 1

Not really. Such a move is naturally accompanied by a drastic reduction in regulation, with red tape being the largest impediment to most new businesses.

Further, most companies in the US are not incorporated, but are sole proprietorships. Something like 90%, as I recall.

I don't think "left" means what you think it means by RingDev · 2012-01-03 08:56 · Score: 1

Silicon Valley is known to lean left--Google's Marissa Mayer had Obama as an invited guest at her home for a fundraiser, for crying out loud.

And how does that indicate a "left" leaning political ideology?

-Rick

--
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs

Re:Libertarians? by Rolgar · 2012-01-03 08:56 · Score: 1

Makes sense. A large group of people (bureaucrats or corporate employees) working at the whims of somebody with power/immune to the rules (politicians, shareholders) with enough money they don't really feel like they need to play by the rules.

I agree. I may like a little more law and order than the fans at a Ron Paul campaign rally, but we've gone so far beyond reasonable that getting back to where the libertarians want to go wouldn't be a bad idea. Once you get there (eliminating Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, the Dept. of Education), the states or counties can step in and fill the void and come to more reasonable solutions to the concerns each of those programs or departments was created to fix than the federal boondoggle we now have.

See, I don't have a problem helping with the social safety net, I have a problem with the current retirees getting something even if they don't need it, and getting it in a way that is hurting the rest of us.

For instance, instead of getting a check for social security, I'd rather (when I can't work any more) have a room, meals and medical care provided at a senior's home without having to worry about the money situation. Let the county pay for a campus with 1 room apartments or assisted living facilities, a cafeteria and a medical staff. Those that don't need it can make do on their own and know that it's there if they ever need it. If you want to live in your house, donate it to the county, and they can hold it while you continue to live in it. When you die, the county can let other people live in it or sell it to pay for other people's expenses. And I bet all of this could be done for a fraction of what we pay for social security. Some areas might turn this over to religious groups, but I would not allow a for profit company take it over.

Big organizations do not breed solutions. There are very few big companies that I am truly fond of, and even those I'd rather see broken down into dozens of competitors in order to see more competition.

Re:Libertarians? by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-03 08:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Who tells you that the FDA isn't a fraud?

Re:Libertarians? by hedwards · 2012-01-03 08:57 · Score: 1

Well, what do you expect would happen after law enforcement, regulatory agencies and the military are dissolved?

Yes that's a bit extreme and I doubt very much that most libertarians genuinely believe that to be desirable, but it is the logical conclusion to anti-government rhetoric.

Re:Libertarians? by repapetilto · 2012-01-03 08:57 · Score: 1

As is the small government with strong military utopia. Ditto on the big government that ends poverty utopia.

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by maple_shaft · 2012-01-03 08:57 · Score: 1

No. We think they should have applied themselves while in school and gotten themselves a half decent trade or profession. Also we think that they would do well to escape from the general anti-intellectual attitude in the US especially when it comes to math.

Not understanding numbers is as harmful as not being able to read.

Just think, if all the poor and disadvantaged had followed that gem of advice then the job market would be so flooded with engineers that you would be lucky to be making $10/hr writing software.

Modern technological innovations and efficiency are such that it is not necessary for a vast majority of the people to work for a booming and functioning economy. Look at the millions of starving educated Indians for an example of what I am talking about.

Re:What a strawman argument by mooingyak · 2012-01-03 08:57 · Score: 2

It's not a completely absurd concept. You'll have variation in any group, but it's not unreasonable to wonder if people in profession X tend to have a set of views described as Y. You'll never have 100% correlation, but if research suggests that, say, dog catchers tend to be pro-life, then it's silly to just ignore it. It doesn't mean that any given dog catcher has to hold that view, but when something trends like that there's usually a reason.

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.

Re:Libertarians? by Tekfactory · 2012-01-03 08:59 · Score: 1

Any of us can start a business, form a corporation, but personhood ends (should end) when you have limited liability and unlimited speech.

You shouldn't be simulatneously louder than everbody else, and less likely to get punched in the nose for being obnoxious.

That's how you get trolls on the internet.

The problem now is far worse than the proverbial people voting against their own interests, or people voting for whomever promises the most free stuff, there are usually enough sane voters to balance those out. Now it's corporate-persons voting for their own interests above the greater good, and no billionaires out there to balance them out.

Lawrence Lessig has a book on how to fix this, get a copy now.

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 09:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

Interesting, so you claim that the only model that has ever worked doesn't work. Note the every economy that has ever industrialized did so under a libertarian economic policy. That same economic policy is what turned the serfs and rural farmers of each nation into middle class citizens. Too bad we abandoned that policy, for a mixed market, which has proved to be a very slippery slope heading straight for fascism. Now, as we approach the terminal descent into that economic system, we see that the middle class is disappearing, along with all of our freedoms in ALL spheres, not just economic.

Re:Libertarians? by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-03 09:00 · Score: 2

Libertarians such as myself argue that the regulations themselves are what makes large, wealthy businesses even larger and more wealthy.

If you know that corporations control the government, and the government controls you, then what good is it to give the government more power? You already know who's going to be wielding it, after all.

Re:Libertarians? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 09:00 · Score: 1

Libertarians are more likely to believe they are self-starters and/or doers. There, fixed that for you.

Whether the money comes from the government or a company, it's only money. This fixation that the only good reason to throw money at some idea because there's some perceivable short-term financial benefit from it is...well... short-sighted and stupid.

Re:Libertarians? by postbigbang · 2012-01-03 09:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

And a lot of that tape prevents fraud, tax cheats, skirting labor laws, and your screwy idea from polluting the environment, excluding people by race color creed and national origin (and perhaps a few more characteristics, depending on juridiction).

Fie on the weasel words of "red tape" as an impediment to business. If you wanna be a scofflaw, head to the third world, where it's wild and wooly and quite profitable-- but with vasts amount of bribery, decay, pollution, and exclusion.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 09:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Assault and attempted murder aren't allowed under a free market, moron.

Re:Stalin by Sique · 2012-01-03 09:01 · Score: 1

Actually, Russia had an industry before. The Putilov Company in St. Peterburg was founded in 1789, and it was one of the largest canon foundries and machine construction plants of the pre-WWI world.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

I'd like to point out option C by squidflakes · 2012-01-03 09:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

It could be that Scott Adams is just a dickhead who's coasting along on the singular achievement of pointing out what everyone already knows, but doing it with a dog wearing glasses.

Umm... perhaps PP didn't mean to say THAT? by denzacar · 2012-01-03 09:02 · Score: 1

That seems like a very complicated answer. How bout "a hacker is an engineer with a really small budget".

Cause basically, it is wrong.

Hacker is a mindset.
Usually one coming from a natural propensity towards tinkering and technology.

Engineer is a vocation.
And while an underlying propensity towards tinkering and technology MAY be present, one is an engineer first and foremost due to training and education.

Take away engineer's budget and he/she won't drop his/her mindset or the accumulated knowledge about best practices on solving the problem and go back to tinkering until they blindly stumble on the solution.
Give hacker the same education and neither will he/she.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Re:Umm... perhaps PP didn't mean to say THAT? by vlm · 2012-01-03 09:13 · Score: 1

one is an engineer first and foremost due to training and education.
LOL the flaw in your analysis is thats how you identify the engineers that totally suck at engineering. Simply find an engineer lacking a

underlying propensity towards tinkering and technology
and you've found an engineer who sucks at engineering, at least 99% of the time.
lets take it to a different probably less personal analogy. "A teacher may or may not like kids, but they're a teacher because they got a teaching license". Now run with all kinds of logic chopping based on the idea that teachers hate kids therefore blah blah, ignoring the fact that most don't hate kids, and the ones that hate kids are the ones that suck at their job.
Also tinkering as a pejorative is wrong, it merely equals a low rate of return on your labor. Trust an engineer who's been around the block a bit, unless you're doing something really boring, a lot of engineering involves what boils down to tinkering, once you've done the best you can with the best tools and design techniques you can get. Hackers don't have the boss hovering over them telling them not to waste money tinkering, that's all. The ratio of predictable work to unpredictable work changes a lot from engineer work to home hacker but its merely a change in quantity, not quality. At work economic forces stop me from squeezing the last dB of gain out of the companies VHF amp, at home nothing can stop me from getting the absolute most power and best IMD and SNR out of my ham radio gear. That's the only difference...

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 09:02 · Score: 1

The market. There are many different ratings agencies, all at each other's throats. If one becomes corrupt, the others will find out, and EVERYONE will know. They want that market share.

Re:Libertarians? by repapetilto · 2012-01-03 09:02 · Score: 2

This is an important point. Implementing any single once of these "libertarian ideas" on its own may result in an even worse situation than what we get using the current patchwork. Changing everything at once would be very difficult and likely lead to a period of chaos. Changing things gradually means they never get done. So what can be done?

Re:What a strawman argument by msobkow · 2012-01-03 09:02 · Score: 1

Your desire to pigeon hole society and the views of the individual does not make it rational or reasonable.

I see labelling someone a "Libertarian" (for example) as no more viable than assuming the personality of someone just because they're Black, Hispanic, etc.

The labels themselves are bigotry, regardless of whether they're based on race, creed, or profession.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:Libertarians? by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-03 09:05 · Score: 1

Those regulatory bodies are the ones that prop up monopolies at every opportunity.

Consider a law that mandates a million dollars of testing for every new line of child toy. Seems like a great blow against the evil toy companies at first glance, but the first group in line to push for that law are the major toy companies, because while they can afford it, it will no doubt drive all smaller competition out of the market. And don't forget, they also have the resources to skimp on that testing anyway and either hide it or pay lawyers to tie up lawsuits on the subject indefinitely. Win-win for the monopolies.

The more power we give the government in the market, hoping it will benefit us, the more the corporations who run the government will use those powers for their benefit.

Bin Laden, Atta, Ahmadinejad by stevegee58 · 2012-01-03 09:06 · Score: 1

Funny how engineers seem to make good terrorists and despots.

Re:What a strawman argument by getSalled · 2012-01-03 09:07 · Score: 1

Ironically there are two straw men here. Scott Adams is the straw man of engineers being libertarians and from TFA, the Dilbert comic strip is Adams' straw man.

Re:China too.... by jd · 2012-01-03 09:08 · Score: 1

*sigh* Alan Turing, so yes it is.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:China too.... by jd · 2012-01-03 09:09 · Score: 1

*sigh* John Nash, so yes it is.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:Libertarians? by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-03 09:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm convinced that the foundation for almost every problem facing the world today can be traced back to the one-two punch of central banking and intellectual property law. To the extent that we scale those back or eliminate them, I believe almost every sector of the economy can be improved.

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by PCM2 · 2012-01-03 09:11 · Score: 1

Not understanding numbers is as harmful as not being able to read.

True, but only up to a point. The difference between "being able to read" and reading at the graduate school level is pretty vast. Just like your average person doesn't need to have the capacity to read Milton and Proust to get by, your average person won't really benefit from learning math much further than first-year algebra (or maybe geometry, if they want to be a carpenter). Call that anti-intellectualism if you want, but it's the truth. Likewise, I'm sure many musicians will say I'm missing out if I never learn to play an instrument, but I probably never will, and the actual harm that will cause me is pretty tough to quantify.

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 09:12 · Score: 1

Not really. One can certainly have a market free from government intervention (ie a free market) in the presence of a government (which principally provides military protection and may optionally provide other services in a non-monopolistic manner). We had that very thing in this country from the end of Reconstruction until 1913, and in the North for some time before that (which allowed the industrialization that wound up winning them the war).

Note that I am an anarcho-capitalist. I think that government can be shrunk to the point that it disappears, but I recognize that it doesn't have to for free markets to work. Unlike Communism and other idiotic forms of economic control, you don't have to have a perfect implementation to get a positive result. It just works, and pulls everyone out of poverty as capital accumulates. It isn't magic, and the process isn't instant, but it does start immediately, and you see very positive results quite quickly. Just look at China, gone from an insular hermit state teeming with subsistence farmers to an economic superpower in less than a generation after liberalizing their markets alone (maintaining their big government intrusion in many other facets of life). And they didn't even get CLOSE to the ideal. Hell, they spend 20% of their GDP on their government. During the time period I described, the US government spent between 2 and 5% of GDP. Today, we spend more than 40% of GDP on government.

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 09:13 · Score: 2

Note that the organizational type you describe exists--it's called a partnership, and it is the second most common form of business in the US.

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 09:16 · Score: 1

Eh? If they can't do it, they go out of business, and those that CAN do it get their shot at it, generally using the same set of capital.

IP doesn't exist in a free market. You have to use trade secrets for such things, which is already the most popular means of keeping other companies from piggybacking off of your research.

China's engineers aren't America's... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 09:17 · Score: 1

The Chinese educational system turns out many times more engineers than the US, and many fewer law students. Also, because of the volume and sharply varying quality of the educational institutions, what a qualifies as an engineer varies wildly: some are every bit as highly trained and competent American or European engineers, others are no more technically skilled than someone with an equivalent liberal arts or communications degree who took a couple extra math classes.

This is partly as a legacy of Communism, I think, although in India and Japan it seems to be the same situation. The official ideology valued the technical professions over the the humanities, making engineering the default degree for anyone looking to advance in government, but any visitor to China would note the problems local and national governments have building and maintaining their infrastructure: the tendency is to go for big projects with big flaws (like high speed rail) and poorly-thought-out long term effects, like water treatment plants rendered ineffective by bad pipes.

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 09:19 · Score: 1

Actually, it is granted special protections. The only difference between a corporation and a partnership (with multiple partners) is that if a corporation goes bankrupt due to a lawsuit, the plaintiffs just lose out. The government prevents the plaintiffs from suing the shareholders. If they are suing a partnership, they are actually suing the individual owners, and as such, they will either be fully compensated for the damages they suffered, or all the "shareholders" will go bankrupt as well, providing a strong incentive for people to refrain from violating the rights of others.

Re:Libertarians? by repapetilto · 2012-01-03 09:20 · Score: 1

You realize Americans pay around twice as much for most brand name drugs, right? We are subsidizing your "medical system."

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-03 09:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

A lot of us also think your medical system is a complete disgrace.

Feel free not to use any of the advances we develop, on principle.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:What a strawman argument by mooingyak · 2012-01-03 09:22 · Score: 1

I have no desire to pigeon hole anything.

I'm also not assuming anything about a given person because they're a 'whatever-label-you-want-to-pick'. I think I was actually fairly explicit about that.

But the questions raised by a demonstrable correlation can be interesting. Let's take the one from the article, that engineers tend to be libertarians. Assuming for the moment that it's accurate (if 'libertarian' bothers you, try 'male' or 'nose pickers' or 'tea aficionados' or whatever makes you happy), it brings a few questions to mind:

1. Is there something about the libertarian mindset that finds engineering attractive?
2. Inversely, is there something about libertarianism that attracts engineers?
3. Is there something else that just happens to be common to both engineers and libertarians?

Those are just the obvious ones. You can wonder what makes these groups align without denying the individuality of any member of the group, and without making blanket assumptions about what characteristics a member of the group must have.

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.

Re:Libertarians? by LeanSystems · 2012-01-03 09:23 · Score: 1

His assertion is more spot on than your counter. Science (research) has always been pretty heavilty dependent on "grants" and "welfare". Same with artist. It's pretty recent that science was something used by business men (at least I think). However saying this causes scientist to be welfare-statist, may be true that they do it to keep funding coming their way, but they may not really feel it is correct.

Prison inmates are held agains their will and demonstrably do not come out being welfare-statst. They often are anarchist.

Re:Libertarians? by MrHanky · 2012-01-03 09:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Libertarians are more likely to be intellectually immature internet addicts with far too high an opinion of themselves.

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-03 09:25 · Score: 1

Libertarians have a fantasy model of how economics works, which has absolutely no bearing on reality

Are you even familiar with organic (Austrian) economics? Are you aware of the predictive value it has?

Or, do you suggest that the government, following the industrial (Keynesian) economic model really did predict the crash and then let it happen without telling anybody it was coming?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Libertarians? by christianT · 2012-01-03 09:25 · Score: 1

Victims got family, and families hire thugs.

Re:Libertarians? by pnewhook · 2012-01-03 09:27 · Score: 1

Libertarian is far closer to Democrat than the current mindset of the Republicans. You just have to look to personal rights and freedoms issues such as gay marriage a pro-choice to see that,

--
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.

Re:Libertarians? by hipp5 · 2012-01-03 09:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not our fault you've allowed pharm companies to rape you up the ass.

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by repapetilto · 2012-01-03 09:28 · Score: 1

Um, you figure it out using context just like when listening. The different spellings are just convenient.

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-03 09:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nobody is claiming you should loose your individual rights when you join a corporation, its just that you shouldn't gain additional rights by virtue of controlling an organisation.

He's talking about responsibility, not gaining extra rights.

People who go to work for a corporation shouldn't become immune to the bad acts they commit there. In theory they do retain some responsibility, but in practice they really don't.

Show me the Wall Street tycoons who went to prison for the 2008 crash or the people at Sony who went to jail for their little rootkit adventure. Maybe the corporation pays some big fine, but the individuals usually get off scot-free.

So they have incentive to misbehave.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by tmosley · 2012-01-03 09:29 · Score: 1

Yes, the liberals have so much empathy that they paved the road to hell with their good intentions. As if you can mandate a minimum wage, no matter what the work, and the money will just spring up from nothing to pay it, rather than replacing entry level positions that required no previous training with automations. There was a time when a dishwasher could work his way up to become a CEO in this country, but that is no longer the case. Now we have a class of academic-taught "businessmen" who have wreaked havoc on our country in the name of immediate profits, which has resulted in the looting of the metaphorical and often LITERAL seed corn.

Re:Libertarians? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 09:29 · Score: 1

Ever try to start up a business?

There really isn't that much red-tape involved. There's a lot more from banks and non-government institutions than from the government.

Re:What a strawman argument by msobkow · 2012-01-03 09:30 · Score: 1

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Some statistics don't tell you anything useful. Knowing that some percentage of programmers tend to espouse a particular ideology doesn't tell you what their thoughts on the issues are. Knowing that some percentage of the population fits a pigeon-hole doesn't mean they don't have fundamental rights.

Now your points about why a particular segment of the population favours a viewpoint is a much more useful application of the statistics, because it means those interested in the numbers are trying to understand what the mean.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-03 09:30 · Score: 1

Don't forget the direct election of Senators, the income tax, and the inability of States to withdraw their consent.

I'm with you on the other two.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Ah, the bible. by tmosley · 2012-01-03 09:31 · Score: 1

Just because they are in the bible doesn't make it not true. The pertinent laws are far older than the bible, and are endemic among all humans, if not all sentient beings. That is, don't kill, don't steal, don't commit fraud.

Re:Libertarians? by operagost · 2012-01-03 09:33 · Score: 1

The straw man you're creating is the economic version of anarchy. Just as we can't expect to murder people without being punished, we can't get away with committing fraud in a free market.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-03 09:33 · Score: 1

So what can be done?

Each facet of government represents, at its core, a fundamental need of society.
Usually the government solutions spiral out of control, but that doesn't mean there wasn't originally a need there.

So, identify these needs, and build non-violent replacements for each of them. When they're all complete, government will be merely an expensive alternate implementation.

I do hope this letter arrives safely at your home by Spring. The postal system is such a wonderful modern convenience.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Libertarians? by roman_mir · 2012-01-03 09:34 · Score: 1, Troll

Scientists may believe that their funding comes from the state, but in reality their funding comes out of economic activity that is provided by the businesses, and all of the science as well as all of the education is a response to the conditions set by the market.

Government funding of science is secondary to the market, and it always has other real purposes that the politicians are actually interested in, namely spending, stealing money, war spending, some large pork project spending, etc.

Government sponsored science is not an issue in itself, because it's a tiny fraction of what government spends otherwise, but eventually with the government growing, it destroys the real economy and then the funding really stops, because government only has what it can take away from the producers in the economy. Government doesn't have anything, it only has what it steals from people.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Libertarians? by icebraining · 2012-01-03 09:34 · Score: 1

Assuming they can afford thugs, or more importantly, more thugs than the company who sold them the poison. Fat chance.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Re:Libertarians? by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-03 09:34 · Score: 1

The market. There are many different ratings agencies, all at each other's throats. If one becomes corrupt, the others will find out, and EVERYONE will know. They want that market share.

And exactly who pays for the ratings agencies? Me? Do I subscribe to "Mother Jones' Great Foods" and then dump them for "Mr. Smiley's Honest Nutrition" after Jones let some melamine-tainted milk through and my kidneys are shot? How, exactly, is that supposed to work in the real world.

We have bad regulatory capture currently in a government that is supposed to represent the general populations' interests.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:China too.... by HornWumpus · 2012-01-03 09:35 · Score: 1

As pointed out uptread, no he wasn't.

Buy his modern twin, Hugo Chavez is an engineer.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Libertarians? by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-03 09:36 · Score: 2

You'd then go to jail for assault and/or murder. At a minimum, you would be fined for making false claims. Of course, the free market would let you sell that food, you'd just have to face the consequences for doing so. The not-free market also lets you sell that food, the difference is that instead of those charges, you'd just get slapped with a small fine for "adulteration of a foodstuff". Murder (at least attempted murder) better describes the activity, but the non-free market doesn't seem to care much for that term.

Not all Libertarians (in fact, I'd say very few) are opposed to the idea of the government still existing to enforce a very basic set of laws.

Fantastic. I'm really happy with the idea of spending much of my life litigating a bunch of profit loving morons that are planning on getting away with as much as is humanly possible. You seem to have more faith in the legal system than I do.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Libertarians? by operagost · 2012-01-03 09:37 · Score: 1

An appeal to popularity is not a logical argument.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Don't mind Opendemocracy by Ateocinico · 2012-01-03 09:38 · Score: 1

This is not their first article accusing engineers of having an authoritarian mind set. They have a typical humanistic hatred for people in the areas of science and technology, for they feel that engineers and scientists limit the possibilities of imposing an utopian system on society. Also in the past they used to support Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. That gives you an idea of what means libertarian to Opendemocracy. And worst of all, their jargon is typically of a humanities faculties (puck).

Re:Libertarians? by gstoddart · 2012-01-03 09:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Interesting, so you claim that the only model that has ever worked doesn't work.

No, I assert that as it's defined today Libertarianism is a complete farce, and simply doesn't take modern realities into account.

From wiki:

According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

If funding the government was voluntary, nobody would do it. But, then pretty much every Libertarian goes on to more or less equate having laws in a society is a repressive form of violence. Help, help, I'm being repressed ... I'm not allowed to speed, zomg, my rights are being taken away.

I've read the books, and for a while I drank the kool-aid ... scrapping all forms of government regulation and expecting the unicorns and fairies of the free market to come up with optimal solutions is utter horseshit.

As most people describe it, Libertarianism is anarchism with an expectation that people will cooperate because it serves their "enlightened self interest" ... in reality, it will just devolve to the rule of might, and pretty much the assumption that everyone else should be left to fend for themselves as long as there's a minimal government around to keep them from taking your stuff.

It works out well for the privileged, and those in power ... the rest can pretty much go fuck themselves.

But, you'll say something lame like "people would still be free to help out others, they'd just be relieved of the burden of being forced (at gun point from the state violence that enforces the rules) to contribute to society overall; they'd do it if they wanted". Yeah, right.

I lost faith in the notion that the free-market "solves" anything other than profit a long time ago. It doesn't educate people, it doesn't offer to lift them up, and it sure as hell doesn't give them a better lot in life ... it just opens you up for a different kind of serfdom. One in which your employer is free to cut your wages, and you're free to go elsewhere.

It's a system of government designed to enforce property rights for some people, while leaving the rest to figure out how to get property and the other essentials of life on their own.

A quote from Ebenezer Scrooge pretty much sums it up ...

'Are there no prisons?"
'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge.
'Are they still in operation?'
'Both very busy, sir.'
'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-03 09:39 · Score: 1

So in a truly free market, the one makes the rules who is able to hire the most and the evilst thugs?

Free markets don't forbid police forces. Are you fantasizing about nuclear war between GE and Time-Warner?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Libertarians? by repapetilto · 2012-01-03 09:41 · Score: 1

Interesting that both of those concepts are based on a similar principle:

1) "If you don't constantly inflate the money supply, people won't invest or spend"
2) "If you don't grant monopolies, people won't invent"

Um... don't people invest in something because someone has a good idea, and buy things because they want them. In the same vein, people invent things because they have a good idea and want to improve their own lives, as well as those of the people around them. What went on for the 99% of human history before IP and central banking?

Re:Libertarians? by DragonWriter · 2012-01-03 09:42 · Score: 1

Since corporations only exist due to special protections granted to them by the government

This somewhat understates the case. "Corporations" are direct creatures of government through law by which special privileges are granted to selected individuals, not independently-created entities that are merely encouraged by being given special privileges by government.

Re:Libertarians? by scamper_22 · 2012-01-03 09:43 · Score: 1

I'm always really perplexed by people's perception that something has to be either a corporation or run by the government. That certainly wasn't the historical case when things like education or healthcare where more privately run. They typically operated as non-profits by the community.

Japan enforces this somewhat by mandating that all hospitals be run by doctors.

Even in the United States, there is this perception that healthcare is run by corporation who only seek profit. It's simply not the case. Many of the big healthcare groups are non-profits. As are many insurance companies. Though people quickly find out that non-profit or mutual insurance companies aren't really that much cheaper... and profit is not the problem even in insurance.

The barrier to entry in most things is not really that high... most of the time the barriers are created by government. If we liberated education, do people really think corporations would dominate it when anyone with a room could start a school?

Corporation are by in large a result of government action... both in their origin and their success.

You'd see a lot more non-profits, guilds, community own infrastructure... if we had more liberty.

Re:Libertarians? by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-03 09:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, but how do you enforce the lack of fraud? Who defines fraud? Who polices it? Prosecutes it? Carries out the sentence? Verifies that the sentence is being carried out? Who informs others that said sentence has been carried out correctly?

And now you're right back in big government mode. And if you say free market, I've got some nice land to sell you in Somalia.

Libertarianism is to reality as Communism is to reality.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

Re:Libertarians? by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-03 09:44 · Score: 1

Nice that you bring up China. A great example of How You Don't Want to Do It.

China has gone from an "insular hermit state teeming with subsistence farmers to an economic superpower" by having a small minority of the population (those connected to the Chinese Communist Party) run rampant over pretty much everybody else. With concomitant degradation in their environment and a really doubtful chance at long term (ie, generational) survival.

I think people will look at the current Chinese experiment as being pretty much a major fuck up. It doesn't really have legs unless they change a whole lot of things.

OTOH, the US could change course by moving away from it's recent oligarchic kleptocracy and evening out the social structure a bit. That and effectively dealing with some major environmental problems that nobody really wants to fess up to.

No systems are perfect, or even particularly good. But to tout the current Chinese economic expansion as something to be emulated is pretty damned weird.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Libertarians? by PCM2 · 2012-01-03 09:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Prison inmates are held agains their will and demonstrably do not come out being welfare-statst.

Say instead that anyone in the military will obviously be welfare-statist, then, because all of the military's funding also comes from the government.

My point is that I highly doubt that anyone who's had to write a grant has done so while thinking, "glory, glory to the blessed state, praise that your scraps may fall unto my unworthy plate." If they could get funded another way without compromising the integrity of their research, they would.

Also, the claim that government funding for scientific research evidence of a "welfare state" is facile. Just for starters, who would you rather have split the atom first? Nazi Germany? There are valid purposes for government, and just as military defense is one of them, so is scientific research with the aim of the betterment of society. Being in favor of science in no way predisposes you to socialism.

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:Libertarians? by MindlessAutomata · 2012-01-03 09:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Like Occupy Wall St. supporters, right?

Re:Libertarians? by repapetilto · 2012-01-03 09:47 · Score: 1

Good point.

Don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 09:47 · Score: 2, Informative

The evil socialist countries of Germany, France, Switzerland and the United Kingdom will happily take up the slack.

The USA isn't the only country in the world with world class pharmaceutical giants.

Re:Don't worry... by overunderunderdone · 2012-01-03 11:33 · Score: 1

But it is the only country in the world where German, French, British and Swiss drug companies profit on their R&D. Developing drugs is very, very expensive but manufacturing is very, very cheap. Which means that once the R&D has been paid for (and to be fair... richly profited from) in the the USA the drug companies can also make also make a nice profit on the side by churning out the cheap manufactured product to those places either too poor or too regulated to pay for the initial R&D.
Should the USA ever adopt a less "disgraceful" model that forces the price of pharmaceuticals down to what is paid in the rest of the world, prices in the rest of the world would have to rise and we'd all be paying something somewhere half way between the current USA and World price for drugs. Yes, getting rid of the rich profit margins would account for some of the discrepancy, but not anywhere near all of it.
So if your in Canada or Europe (or just about anywhere else) stop being so eager to change the USA medical system... you'll kill the goose laying cheap pharmaceuticals
Re:Don't worry... by drsmithy · 2012-01-03 14:52 · Score: 2

But it is the only country in the world where German, French, British and Swiss drug companies profit on their R&D.
Then why haven't they all packed up and moved to the USA to only sell their products there, if every other country is (somehow) forcing them to sell their products at a loss ?

Re:Libertarians? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 09:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

scientists are more likely to be liberal because they work at ivory tower universities and government, which are wholly liberal institutions. They can spend other people's money without guilt because they feel they are working for the greater good.

engineers are more likely to be conservative because they work for private corporations with bottom lines that require real and correct results. they know that good intentions don't hold bridges up or make generators turn.

Re:Libertarians? by Toonol · 2012-01-03 09:49 · Score: 2

This doesn't follow at all. You might as well say prison inmates will always vote for big government, for the same reason.

They do tend to vote for big government. They're statistically more likely to be Democrat. That's why the dems favor giving ex-cons voting rights while reps typically oppose it.

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by operagost · 2012-01-03 09:49 · Score: 1

While I'm not claiming that the math skills of American students in public schools are up to par, everyone has their own pet curriculum and yours is math. In California, for example, apparently they find it important to focus specifically on the contributions of homosexuals in their base curriculum instead of simply teaching about all the great contributors to the world without regard to their sexual orientation. I mean, I'm sure that they won't be including any homosexual dictators or other malefactors in their course, so the result will be inherently biased. Time that could have been spent teaching about truly great scientists, mathematicians, and engineers will be spent teaching about marginal contributors because of their romantic persuasions.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

I am a Technocract by bky1701 · 2012-01-03 09:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Technocracy means doing things that make sense, without attention to ideology (or necessarily, public opinion). This is certainly something the US is in serious need of. One only need to consider SOPA and the myriad of other failed bills intended to "fix" the country to see why engineers would want to include reason and proof in the process for once, over outcry and dollars.

However, I'd not say I lean libertarian at all. Corporations are currently the largest source of corruption and the largest threat to personal rights in the western world. Right now, there are a number of corporations with far more power over you than the government. So I am dismayed at the common libertarian diatribes that everything will be alright, if we just get rid of government. What fills the hole left by government?

I would say I lean much more towards European socialism. I don't believe in survival or the fittest or deep class structures. If inheritance and embezzlement are the two biggest sources of wealth in the country, then the country is in the wrong and needs to be repaired. Further, there are many times when something just does not belong in private hands. Corporations naturally are greedy and corrupting influences, and are nowhere near as efficient as the libertarian types like to think; government can be corrupted, but is not inherently anything negative.

My primary concern is that given my definition of Technocracy above, it has the potential to become all sorts of bad things. Which is why I think anyone who actually goes out to claim they are a Technocrat needs to ultimately follow a few rules:

1. The goal of society is to provide the greatest average good for its members.
2. Communication should always be free. Censorship is always wrong.
3. Nothing should be restricted on emotional or religious basis.

If even half of politicians followed those three rules, we'd be living in a far better world today. It is time we start forcing them to do so.

--
Great Intellect...

Re:I am a Technocract by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 10:26 · Score: 2

I resemble this remark, except I replace #3 with informed on a rational religious basis, ie, I'm a Chestertonian Distributist with a hint of Marxist (in that I believe that capitalism should have a starting line of minimum private property allowed, not necessarily dictate outcomes, but should have a maximum amount of private property allowed equal to the assets of the nation - (minimum private property allowed * population-1), and I believe that should be so because of the Christian Concept of Human Dignity.
Of course, if you get more than one guy with the ambition to want more than the minimum, the maximum allowable ownership starts going down significantly, but that's due to good free market competition, not technocratic governmental fiat.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:I am a Technocract by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 10:28 · Score: 1

Damn- I mismatched my parenthesis. Same error that plagues me in my career.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:I am a Technocract by TheSync · 2012-01-03 12:02 · Score: 1

"Corporations are currently the largest source of corruption and the largest threat to personal rights in the western world."
And governments are the largest source of corruption and largest threat to personal rights in the non-western (i.e. poor) world, keeping them poor.
Re:I am a Technocract by bky1701 · 2012-01-03 13:19 · Score: 1

So they were poor before or after their current government? You seem to imply that third world countries would automatically be rich, if not for their corrupt government (does that translate to "does not like the US" by any chance?). Not that I would defend their corruption; quite the opposite, it needs fixed, although I think the issue is the same in both the west and non-west: the tyranny of the wealthy minority. We hide it behind corporations, they do not. We are wealthier on average... because we are wealthier in general. The problem is essentially the same, you just don't notice it because you're confused by the larger number of tyrants compared to small, poor countries, and because you are currently being treated well by western society. That can change in an instant, though.

--
Great Intellect...
Re:I am a Technocract by TheSync · 2012-01-04 09:46 · Score: 1

You seem to imply that third world countries would automatically be rich, if not for their corrupt government
Yes. Poverty in the modern era is due to lack of development is caused by government. Corruption is one factor, over-regulation of economy is another. See Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for example. 10 is very clean, 0 is very corrupt. US=7.1. Canada=8.7. Sudan=1.6. DR Congo=2.0. Greece=3.4.
An indication of over-regulation is the amount of the economy forced by regulation into the illegal informal sector. US=8.8%, Canada=16.4%. Tanzania=58.3%. Greece=28.6%.
As a coherent experiment in near equal beginnings and very different governmental results, at the end of the Korean war, both North Korea and South Korea were incredibly poor countries (although the North had more mineral wealth and industrial capacity). Today, South Korea is a country living at "western" levels, and North Korea is one of the poorest countries with highest levels of malnutrition and death due to starvation in the world.

Libertarianism... by LittlePud · 2012-01-03 09:52 · Score: 2

Disclaimer: I classify myself as a libertarian and I'm an engineer by training so take this with a (very large) grain of salt. Maybe engineers tend to be libertarian because when you apply a systems analysis approach to what is wrong with government/the system/the world it just turns out that the rational common sense "solutions" all end up falling under the libertarian umbrella. How probable (or improbable) can it be that so many (supposedly/hopefully) smart and rational people can all be wrong?

Re:Libertarianism... by Tancred · 2012-01-03 14:39 · Score: 1

I don't know what your libertarian stances are, but in my experience, the rational common sense solutions don't often fall under the libertarian umbrella. If you're up for a debate, perhaps you'd like to pick a topic and explain your common sense solution. The last such debate I engaged in was regarding the environment, and my opponent didn't really put up much of a libertarian argument. However, I can think of a couple topics that I might agree with you heartily.
Re:Libertarianism... by hazah · 2012-01-05 09:18 · Score: 1

Their not. What's missing is the grain of salt, as usual.

Re:Libertarians? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 09:53 · Score: 1

I'm all for getting rid of limited liability. It bugs the heck out of me that right now, liberty seems to be more about "I want to do what I want and I don't want anybody to tell me that it is wrong" than "I want to do what is right and get the government out of my way".

It is, in fact, what leans my distributism more towards technocratic marxism than to libertarianism. Because a bunch of people being allowed, by privilege of owning a lot, to do whatever the hell they want without consequences is a bad thing indeed- despite the existence of other groups with the same amount of money doing good.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Libertarians? by operagost · 2012-01-03 09:54 · Score: 1

You have a strangely binary view of society.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Re:Libertarians? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 09:54 · Score: 1

Hell, even WITH pricing signals, supply and demand is impossible to calculate, because price isn't anywhere close to enough information.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Libertarians? by desdinova+216 · 2012-01-03 09:55 · Score: 1

I think what the AC was meaning by the lack of Responsibility in groups/corporations is that there's no penalty for corporate misbehavior.

Re:Stalin by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-03 09:56 · Score: 1

Actually, no.

He has been educated in a seminary and before the October Revolution mostly lived as a bank robber.

Oh, so that would make him a Republican presidential candidate if he were alive today.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Libertarians? by MrHanky · 2012-01-03 09:56 · Score: 1

No, I think most of that lot aren't internet addicts.

Re:Libertarians? by Toonol · 2012-01-03 09:58 · Score: 1

Fraud, theft, and murder are violations of rights, which the government is responsible for protecting. (Well, some fraud.) It's a straw-man attack to pretend libertarians don't want the government to protect rights; they overwhelmingly do.

If you have to misrepresent libertarianism in order to criticize it...

Now, the weakness in libertarianism is in figuring out how a government that does behave in an ethical and limited fashion (protecting human rights from being infringed by other humans) is funded. That's harder.

Re:Libertarians? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 10:00 · Score: 1

And worse yet, when you limit government to being small, it doesn't have enough force left to prevent EITHER force or fraud.

It's hard to buy tanks based on bake sales.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Libertarians? by Toonol · 2012-01-03 10:01 · Score: 1

You're writing as if there is no difference between anarchism and libertarianism. They are different words for a reason. You can attack anarchism all you want, but you're not making legitimate criticisms of libertarianism when you do so.

Re:Libertarians? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 10:02 · Score: 2

September 2008 proved to me that anarcho-Captialism not only doesn't work, but that when you remove all effective regulation from any given market people go ape-shit crazy.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Bollocks by damburger · 2012-01-03 10:03 · Score: 1

Perhaps the notion is only a US perspective, because I don't know anybody with right-wing libertarian beliefs in anything that could be described as an engineering, or science career here in the UK.

Libertarianism here is largely seen as a form of mental illness. In fact we don't tend to use the term (in the way you do) much at all. We do have people like that; Paul Staines, Dan Hannan, etc. but as I said they are considered to be pretty well insane by those who know of them.

To be honest, the notion of engineers being 'libertarian' sounds like a way of trying to promote libertarianism by associating it with a career type that has a lot of geek-cred. Its an attempt to make an irrational ideology seem rational by association.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?

Re:Bollocks by hazah · 2012-01-05 09:20 · Score: 1

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the diffs?

Re:Libertarians? by IICV · 2012-01-03 10:03 · Score: 1

... so people will be punished for fraud and environmental damage more...

Wait wait wait - we're talking about a libertarian economy here, right? By what mechanism will this "punishment" be allocated? Will that be the sole responsibility of the government? If so, what resources will the government have to investigate and enforce those punishments? If it's going to be some sort of "invisible hand" mechanism, where do you find support for the theory that it will actually, you know, work?

As far as I can tell, Libertarianism would lead to corporations running the world even more thoroughly than they do now; the idea seems to be to create a power vacuum and then pretend nothing will fill it.

Re:Libertarians? by hedwards · 2012-01-03 10:04 · Score: 1

And yet I regularly see self described libertarians suggesting that we do just what I said.

Now, you can argue that they aren't true libertarians, but then you're dealing with the no real scotsman problem.

Re:Libertarians? by lightknight · 2012-01-03 10:05 · Score: 1

By all means, point to another ideology whose constituents you would consider mature in comparison.

--
I am John Hurt.

Re:Libertarians? by gstoddart · 2012-01-03 10:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Familiar with both, don't put faith in either. One claims it has a better way of describing what is happening than the other, they're both ideologies, but not facts.

Nice false dichotomy there, though. You're giving me two options of your own choice (both of which support your position), and asserting that either I must believe in one wrong one or another. My point is that I don't.

I believe the government are idiots, that the system is corrupt, and most things which claim to describe how it all works is, by definition, woefully incomplete and likely to be filled with its own biases about how it all works. In some cases, those can be very dangerous as people blindly believe their system is infallible. You know, beliefs like the notion that everyone is acting with full and complete information, that people aren't gaming the system, that an unregulated economy will end up with results any different than melamine in baby formula.

If my choice comes down to this:

These are the Free Banking and anarcho-capitalist movements. Although they have competing views of monetary policy, they share a fundamental view of most economic philosophy.

then my answer is "neither". As a matter of fact, I'll go one step further and say that if the choice is free banking or anarcho capitalism, well, that's what got us into the recent financial mess, and that neither works. I think the whole thing is flawed.

And, really, all you're saying is that by disagreeing with Ron Paul I'm disagreeing with the principles of Libertarian economics ... which I've already quite explicitly said. I think in general economists know far less than they're willing to admit. They just think they've wrapped it up in some grand unifying theory that appeals to them, and then they wrap themselves up in it like it's religion. And then it's all dogma from there.

Hell, Alan Greenspan used to suggest that people should borrow all of the equity they have in their home, because it was basically free money. That alone forces me to conclude he was an advocate of something which didn't work. Hell, he eventually even admitted that "something" was wrong about his view of economics, he's just not sure of what.

I'm simply no longer willing to believe the people who claim to know how to run the economy ... they're clearly unqualified. And, for the record, I don't claim to have a better solution ... but I can tell the ones that are failing horribly.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Libertarians? by hedwards · 2012-01-03 10:05 · Score: 1

Which is obviously better than removing the regulatory authority completely and hoping that things will work out. You're right that there's an undo influence on the regulatory bodies, but at the end of the day there's more pull than just one company or another.

Forgot Chavez. by HornWumpus · 2012-01-03 10:09 · Score: 1

Well on his way. Only cancer can save Venezuela.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Libertarians? by Rockoon · 2012-01-03 10:09 · Score: 3, Informative

And a lot of that tape prevents fraud, tax cheats, skirting labor laws, and your screwy idea from polluting the environment

You realize that you are replying to a strand which specifically mentioned the removal of limited liability, right?

I suspect that you didnt even consider it a possibility that the real problem with corporations is that their members are not generally treated on a legal level as individuals responsible for their corporate actions.

...excluding people by race color creed and national origin (and perhaps a few more characteristics, depending on juridiction).

Ah yes, the ol' legislate morality bullshit. If in one breath we complain about the dangers of corporate influences on the centralized government and thus the people, then how is it OK that in another we champion special-interest influences on the centralized government and thus the people?

The problem with both corporations and government is the centralization of the very things that shouldnt be centralized. We have corporate welfare on the grandest scale ever, while the government strips us of our rights at the fastest pace ever. You lost your 4th amendment rights just shy of a decade ago, and last month you just lost your 6th amendment rights.

--
"His name was James Damore."

Re:Libertarians? by Dripdry · 2012-01-03 10:10 · Score: 1

Since when is Obama considered left-leaning?
Hell, I'd be more apt to say that Marisa Mayer just doesn't know any political history (or didn't pay any attention to the Obama's voting record) about what liberal really is and is as easily caught up in emotional fervor/political grandstanding as the rest of us.

Personally? I'm more apt to say Silicon Valley/engineers (or anyone) can't really be put in such an easy little box and that this headline is a bunch of false dichotomy hooey.

The engineers I know are pot-smoking parents who've rebuilt planes and plane engines in their spare time and design incredibly cool, useful things for society, but who turn around and shame the hell out of anyone who "doesn't really want to work". They're super liberal when it comes to themselves, but ultra-conservative when it comes to other people. It's sort of hilarious, and scary.

--
-

Re:China too.... by Toonol · 2012-01-03 10:10 · Score: 3, Informative

It is. It's just a difficult science, with little ability to test. Similar to psychology, anthropology, or string physics.

Re:Libertarians? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 10:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, you are subsidizing Big Pharma's profits. Their systems are quite functional, even the research aspects.

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 10:13 · Score: 2

You miss the point. There are no more tax cheats BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MORE TAXES. There are no more labor laws, because we have unions to stand up for worker's rights. Courts still exist in a libertarian system to punish fraud, and fraud is much better brought to light by investigative journalism and consumer advocate organizations. Also, nice conflation of free market economic with the Jim Crow bullshit social policies. Go fuck yourself on that one. Libertarianism is individualism, which is the OPPOSITE of racism. Hell, the words themselves are opposites.

Also, hilarious that you are defending the current system, with all the damage, environmental and otherwise, that it has caused.

Re:Libertarians? by Dripdry · 2012-01-03 10:14 · Score: 1

Off Topic:
As someone who has an employment interest in corporate tax structure, I find lacking in these conversations that a) human greed is natural (it's ok to want stuff for yourself), BUT coupled with b) a U.S. tax structure that intentionally fosters most of the problems seen today with corporations.

May I subscribe to your newsletter, sir?

--
-

Re:Libertarians? by BoberFett · 2012-01-03 10:14 · Score: 1

And the FDA routinely allows drugs onto the market that have nasty side effects. What's your point?

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 10:15 · Score: 1

The income tax is comorbid with the central bank, FYI. We didn't have an income tax until the Fed was created.

Re:Libertarians? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 10:15 · Score: 1

No. You progressives already stole our old word for yourselves. Liberal used to mean freedom-loving. Now it means socialism. You're not pulling the same trick twice. Libertarianism is the polar opposite of socialism. It is a logical impossibility for them to be related.

Re:Libertarians? by ThorGod · 2012-01-03 10:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Scientists, on the other hand, are more likely to be welfare-staters, because their science funding and grantsmanship culture is ever more dependent on the state.

So many things wrong with this idea.

1.) Academic findings benefit all humanity, since they are publicly available. (Read that a couple times.)
2.) I would venture that most scientists are employed outside of academia. (I.E. they're producers..) (Unless you're defining a scientist as someone in a science field that never applies science. That's a rather arbitrary distinction since all applied subjects rely on theoretical constructs, and rife for counter examples.)
3.) There's a fundamental question that your statement begs at. That fundamental question threatens the nature of our civilization. 'Pure' science subjects (theoretical physics, theoretical chemistry, pure math, and so on) are probably best funded by a government. Ideally, they would be conducted in a vacuum outside of the economy (maybe then all results would be trustable). But, short of that, broad reaching government funding probably works best. Even number theory has its applications, and I doubt any developments would be made in number theory without government funding.
4.) Contrast professor pay with industry pay sometime. Be careful to include years of experience, as professor positions require constant research into new areas. A tenured professor probably has dozens of published articles and roughly a decade worth of work experience. In short, they're experts at the top of their fields. In industry, they would be paid at the top end.

--
PS: I don't reply to ACs.

Re:Libertarians? by tmosley · 2012-01-03 10:17 · Score: 1

Are you kidding? Try starting a winery. Took me a fucking YEAR. Ran out of money before I could finish, and had to get a day job, which I loved so much that I never bothered to finish.

Re:Libertarians? by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-03 10:18 · Score: 1

Even by US standards he's still right of center. I'd like to know about all of this leftist stuff he's allegedly doing. Were the conservatives calling Clinton a commie? 'Cuz Obama's further right than Clinton.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Libertarians? by ThorGod · 2012-01-03 10:20 · Score: 2

who would you rather have split the atom first? Nazi Germany?

I would have preferred Bell Labs to patent the first nuclear weapon. Then we'd have one company for all countries to 'license' their nuclear weapons from.

What could possibly go wrong?

--
PS: I don't reply to ACs.

Re:Libertarians? by BoberFett · 2012-01-03 10:21 · Score: 1

I make that point to people all the time but somehow it just flies right over their head. They complain about how corporations take advantage of us, and that those same corporations run the government, and to them the only answer is giving more money and power to the government. It boggles the mind.

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-03 10:24 · Score: 1

You could raise minimum wage quite a bit before robots would be cheaper. Look at the XKCD money graph, you'll see where the money is...

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Libertarians? by CAIMLAS · 2012-01-03 10:25 · Score: 1

It all depends on how you define "Center" now, doesn't it?

The defining difference between "Left" and "Right" in America (or at least, was about 10 years ago) is that the further Left you get the more the government wants to control peoples' lives at the Federal level, with the opposite being (again, stereotypically) true for Right.

Left/Right is yet another defining methodology used by governments to move state control away from the people. As you may notice, if you move center field, so does the definition of what Left or Right of that line is. It's positively Orwellian.

In terms of "What the Goverment takes from us and wants to control", Obama is very far left, much more so than your average (say) UK Leftist. He signed in laws allowing himself to involuntarily and indefinitely detain any American he choses just the other day, for instance. What he wants to give us is only what he needs to take more from us, though it initially seems like quite a bit more.

Leftism in the US basically takes the pre-WWII approach of Socialism and Marxism as a broader whole (Germany, Russia). It's much different than the Socialism which developed in Europe.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers

Re:Libertarians? by Artraze · 2012-01-03 10:25 · Score: 1

I would be fascinated to see the justification behind this. Seriously. Because what I see is:
*) Stimulus, Cash-For-Clunkers
*) Healthcare
*) Patriot Act extension, continued wiretapping, NSLs, etc
*) Detaining/Executing citizens without trial if declared
*) Extended unemployment

Looking over his tenure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama) the only thing that I noticed that would be considered libertarian (i.e. not increasing the government's economic or social influence) is extending the Bush tax cuts. The SPEECH Act too, I suppose. Other than that it's mostly just more regulations and spending programs. Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't count, as that is strictly internal, nor does the stem cell policy as that actually increases the government's role in the economy (it was always a funding, not freedom, issue).

I understand that those aren't all entirely his plans, but that doesn't really change the fact that no major legislation he has pushed or passed reduced the power of government. Regardless of what he says (which simply doesn't matter) he's still captaining a fairly strongly authoritarian ship

P.S. Curious that the PATRIOT Act extension is never mentioned on those wiki pages...

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by Toonol · 2012-01-03 10:26 · Score: 1

Don't forget statistics and probability. Both of those would benefit everybody, everyday; it would make them better citizens. Being able to pick apart statistics quoted to you by the media is an invaluable skill, far more generally useful than being able to factor an equation.

Re:Libertarians? by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-03 10:26 · Score: 1

The communist utopia isn't a falsehood. It's just that humans aren't going to be allowed in...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

I'm a Whatworksian by istartedi · 2012-01-03 10:27 · Score: 1

Having the government dictate the type of sandwich you can serve on a flight doesn't make sense. From that PoV, I'd be moving toward libertarian which is exactly what we did. OTOH, getting rid of the EPA and letting individuals and corporations duke it out in civil court over issues of destruction of private property doesn't make sense either. From that PoV, I'm a damned awful statist technocrat who wants to rule you with an iron fist (noted with sarcasm).

Look. We've got a body of code called law (in fact, law is called "code" by lawyers) and some of it's bloat, some of it works fine, and some of it crashes our lives on a routine basis. We need to keep the parts that work, with an understanding of why they were put there. We need to get rid of the parts that crash, or were put there at the request of Hal from marketing because he got a free lunch from somebody.

In short and to reiterate, I'm in favor of what works. "Whatworksian".

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

Re:Libertarians? by bhcompy · 2012-01-03 10:31 · Score: 1

70% of small businesses are sole proprietorships, not LLCs. There is no limited liability in a sole proprietorship. The next Google or Apple would happen because the guy working in his garage doesn't create an LLC, they create sole proprietorships and partnerships(and occasionally limited partnerships where the investor is protected). You know, kind of like Jobs, Woz, and Wayne(Apple was established as a partnership before incorporating).

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by BoberFett · 2012-01-03 10:31 · Score: 1

Understanding numbers would go a long way to people understanding how they were getting shafted by their bank, or that gambling really is a losing proposition. How many smart people gamble? I'm not talking about playing poker with friends, I'm talking about lottery tickets and scratch-offs. The poor spend billions per year on that instead of investing their money. And then they complain that they never get ahead because the man is keeping them down. /facepalm

Re:Libertarians? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 10:42 · Score: 1

you do realize that the United States has had IP law from the beginning? Ben Franklin was teh first director of the US patent office. Patents and copyrights are created through the body of the constitution(as opposed to the amendments which can happen later). That means that the success of the united state has happened with IP law in effect the WHOLE TIME.

That said I believe that IP law has certainly expanded rights beyond what is reasonable, business method patents, the expanding penumbra of trademark protection preventing the use of similar marks, the rolling term limit on copyrights, etc.

Basically I think that IP law has expanded the rights too much, not that they are bad alltogether.

Re:Libertarians? by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-03 10:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, that's because a number of the views that are qualified as libertarian here are indeed nothing but anarcho-capitalism. They're not even true anarchy, they actually manage to be worse than that.

The main problem with those views is that they start with the premise that government is bad by definition. It isn't - it's a tool we invented to organize our social tendencies. As a result, libertarians who claim that the government is bad by definition fall into the trap that there is never a level where there is too little government. You could always cut back more. Furthermore, they vastly underestimate how much even the basic services they are ok with would cost: DoD, DoJ and State Department.

I'd love to get on board the Libertarian bandwagon - in theory, it should be the ideal place for me: socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Unfortunately, Ayn Rand and her followers have managed to corrupt that term to a degree that it has nothing to do with its classical definition. The reason I bring up Somalia is because it is one of the few places that truly has a weak central government. Even Afghanistan has a stronger central government than they do.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by blahplusplus · 2012-01-03 10:47 · Score: 1

"Not understanding numbers is as harmful as not being able to read."

Except human mathematical ability is not understood much at all, and genetics has a lot to due with whether one is capable / interested in math or not, things you struggle with you usually get negative emotional feedback and it's usually really stressful, having to struggle and experience stress naturally leads to kids checking out of math. You should all see the following:

The enlightenment was wrong about human reason:
http://bit.ly/dYaWUc

Daniel Tammet - Savant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbASOcqc1Ss

Re:Libertarians? by jmorris42 · 2012-01-03 10:47 · Score: 1

> As most people describe it, Libertarianism is anarchism with an expectation that people will cooperate because it serves their "enlightened self interest" ...

Yea, I think you have the crux of the problem. Libertarianism is an incomplete philosophy. We know that in general the more individual liberty you have and the less government the better things are, but we lack the details of how to go much beyond the original American Republic in that direction. Sorta the problem in physics, we pretty much know all the forces unify into one Answer but damed if we can figure out how that works.

You can tell we have a big hole left to fill in by asking a dozen hard core Libertarians what their ideal world would look like... then poking at the obvious (to anyone else) holes and watch em start backing and filling details they hadn't thought of. In an hour every one turns into something they themselves will admit is now a nightmare scenario. Most end up with corporations doing most of the things governments are otherwise tasked with and with zero accountability.

Hopefully we get another great thinker who can complete Rand's original work.

--
Democrat delenda est

Re:Libertarians? by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-03 10:47 · Score: 1

Not sure what you're referring to, but I suspect it is my quip about Somalia. That's not a binary view of society, that's merely pointing out that reducing government past a certain point leads to the situation that is present in Somalia. I haven't seen anyone propose a solution that would gut the government to Somali levels, while preserving even a 2nd-world level lifestyle. Well, at least a solution that doesn't involve the free market just magically solving everything according to:
1) Free Market
2) ???
3) Profit

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

Re:Libertarians? by jmorris42 · 2012-01-03 10:52 · Score: 1

How the government is funded is no problem to libertarian thought. Haven't met many who object to taxes in principle, because we realize the government, like everything else, has to be paid for. We just think there should be a lot less government to have to pay for. We don't approve of income transfers by the government but if we are to have the rule of law we must have police, courts, etc. and those things are not free. We don't like the income tax because of the invasive and progressive nature of it. The country got along just fine without it for a long time, even managed to finance a few wars and such.

--
Democrat delenda est

The Powers That Be are happy with the status quo by Colin+Smith · 2012-01-03 10:56 · Score: 1

It's nice and convenient for them, they only have to fund two parties & they have it in the bag.

--
Deleted

Re:Libertarians? by SoftwareArtist · 2012-01-03 10:58 · Score: 1

More precisely, I'd say he's slightly left of center on economic issues, slightly right of center on foreign policy and military, and about as exactly in the middle as you can get on social issues. But he's not very far from the center on much of anything.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."

Re:I'm wired as an engineer... by Toonol · 2012-01-03 10:59 · Score: 1

but also as an economic socialist and a social conservative.

Wow. I've never seen anybody so bluntly admit that :)

Anyway, no, you won't find any libertarianism in that. It's the diametric opposite. Libertarians like freedom.

Re:Libertarians? by trout007 · 2012-01-03 10:59 · Score: 2

Here is what currently happens in the US. By paying a small fee a corporation and all of its owners or shareholders are granted infinite liability insurance on their personal assets. That is at the crux of the problem with corporations as designed now.That is how many people can get rich while bankrupting a company. Imagine this. You start a company get business loans (usually with government backing) transfer that money to yourself in personal income. You can keep racking up debt while transferring wealth to your person assets. Then fold the business while protecting your "own" assets.

What's the solution? When I built a pool I bought an umbrella policy. The policy should cover my personal liability in case of accident by negligence if someone gets hurt by my fault. The same should apply with corporations. All owners and shareholders should either be personally liable for the company debts or they would have to buy liability insurance on the free market.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Re:Libertarians? by jmorris42 · 2012-01-03 11:00 · Score: 1

> And exactly who pays for the ratings agencies?

Whatever ends up working out in the marketplace. UL is paid for by the insurance industry since it turns out they had the most to lose by faulty electrical appliances burning crap to the ground. Consumer Reports and such are paid for by their subscribers. Other logo programs like the Good Housekeeping Seal are more murky as the producers have to pay for the right to display the logo but Good Housekeeping won't just let anyone with a checkbook use it. Remember when a Computer Shopper Magazine Best Buy award was important?

If the heavy hand of the government relaxed we would see a lot more of that sort of thing. Probably best if it happened over a period of time to allow adjustment.

--
Democrat delenda est

Re:Libertarians? by repapetilto · 2012-01-03 11:02 · Score: 1

Whats the difference? Seriously, what do you mean?

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-03 11:03 · Score: 2

an unregulated economy will end up with results any different than melamine in baby formula

Very few people argue for an unregulated economy. Some argue for government regulation, some argue for market regulation. I sure wouldn't buy baby formula that wasn't certified as safe by a reputable third-party - why would you?

if the choice is free banking [wikipedia.org] or anarcho capitalism [wikipedia.org], well, that's what got us into the recent financial mess

You've got to be kidding - hundreds of thousands of regulations that stifle competition and concentrate banking in the hands of lawyered mega-corporations, and you describe that as either a free market or anarchocapitalist?

The government regulatory cost in the US exceeds the total income tax cost by over 30%. It's perhaps the highest in the world, yet SARBOX was going to protect us from another Enron and all it probably did was contribute to the second Great Depression.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Libertarians? by PCM2 · 2012-01-03 11:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

scientists are more likely to be liberal because they work at ivory tower universities and government, which are wholly liberal institutions. They can spend other people's money without guilt because they feel they are working for the greater good.

engineers are more likely to be conservative because they work for private corporations with bottom lines that require real and correct results. they know that good intentions don't hold bridges up or make generators turn.

So do private corporations build bridges, now? Or hydroelectric dams? Or nuclear reactors? Does Boeing build new fighter planes at the whim of private investors? Would the electrification of the United States have happened without public investment? Are any of these things done without the approval (and funding) of the government? The claim that engineers are somehow lily-white when compared to the black-hearted, thieving scientists is at best self-serving, at worst laughable.

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:Libertarians? by trout007 · 2012-01-03 11:09 · Score: 1

Almost ever law and regulation in the banking industry is designed to transfer wealth from you to the banks.

Fractional Reserve Banking allows banks to create money from nothing and lend it out with interest.
Fiat Currency allows the Federal Reserve to manipulate the money supply at will. And when they create money who do they give it to? Their member banks of course.
FDIC laws prevents bank runs which were a great way to keep bankers in check.

In 1960 you could buy a gallon of gas for about 1 silver dime which was 1/10 of an ounce of 90% silver which was worth $0.10.
In 2012 you can buy a gallon of gas for that same dime which is now worth about $3.

How is that paper money doing?

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Re:Libertarians? by JesseMcDonald · 2012-01-03 11:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wait wait wait - we're talking about a libertarian economy here, right? By what mechanism will this "punishment" be allocated? Will that be the sole responsibility of the government?

No, you don't need a government to punish someone who harms you. You have the right to do that yourself. Practically speaking, most would choose to establish their claim through arbitration before turning to direct action, and would probably hire out the actual enforcement rather than doing it themselves, but so long as you're truly in the right, and willing to accept the full responsibility for your actions, there is nothing wrong with seeking restitution and even retribution on your own. The courts don't grant you the right to respond; they just help to publicly establish your grievance and spread out the responsibility for the decision.

Most cases would probably be resolved peaceably. For one thing, many disputes are already handled via private arbitration, as it's more cost-effective than turning to the government courts, so the system has plenty of precedent. Unless they're showing plain partiality to your opponent, bypassing or ignoring the arbiters is a great way to ensure that no one will feel safe doing business with you, even if there was no further enforcement. However, the right to pursue restitution and retribution privately remains should someone actually choose to flaunt the ruling.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat

Re:Libertarians? by jmorris42 · 2012-01-03 11:18 · Score: 1

No, it is you guys who are doing the buggering. You folks are free riders on our R&D investments paid for by the American public.

Personally I think we should pass a bill putting out a call for Pharma companies to relocate to the US and simply close their foreign branches so your socialized systems can't dictate prices to them. Let your socialized medical systems pay market rates (which would be lower for us with you guys paying more than you currently do) to import your drugs from the US. And announce that at the first threat to just ignore the patents and produce locally it will be a seen as a full declaration of a trade war. Do that for a decade and see if the lesson sinks in.

--
Democrat delenda est

Re:Libertarians? by trout007 · 2012-01-03 11:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think engineers know how hard it is to build any complicated system. Whether it's code, circuit, or machine. I think they know how foolish it would be to try to centrally plan a country of 300 million people.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Re:Stalin by jmorris42 · 2012-01-03 11:24 · Score: 1

> Pretty wild how a peasant can take a country of mostly peasants and turn it into an industrial superpower in 20 years, with little education no less.

Eh? Even at the max the Soviet Union was a third world country with fusion bombs. Some parts, Russia itself might could have been declared 2nd World if one were being very generous on the grading. These days more third world than second. Lots of propaganda of the time regarding their industrial and military might was eagerly passed on by their fifth column in the Western media but we now know they were a basket case.

--
Democrat delenda est

Slashdot tells us by Curunir_wolf · 2012-01-03 11:26 · Score: 1

Well judging by the bulk of comments (and moderation) here on /., I think it's pretty clear that as a group they sure as hell aren't libertarians.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Re:Slashdot tells us by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-03 22:43 · Score: 1

Well judging by the bulk of comments (and moderation) here on /., I think it's pretty clear that as a group they sure as hell aren't libertarians.
Judging by the bulk of comments here on /. (and not just in this thread), I think it's pretty clear that as a group Slashdot commenters sure as hell aren't anything in particular. (And I don't know what percentage are "engineers", for any of a number of definitions of "engineer".) There are a significant number of pro-libertarian comments on many threads, but I've not done enough of a study to conclude that a majority or even plurality are pro-libertarian.

Re:Libertarians? by Sentrion · 2012-01-03 11:26 · Score: 1

Somehow I don't think a truly effective purely libertarian system can form unless you start with a clean slate. If significant numbers of libertarians were to migrate to some unpopulated part of the world (or possibly a home outside of this world), and if they could exist unfettered by existing nation states as we know them, then we might see the result. Alternatively, a libertarian society might possibly emerge from the ashes of a destructive event, such as a massive tsunami that washes away much of the public and private property (real and personal) of a large region.

Interference from existing nation states is a major hurdle, as attempts at building small libertarian colonies in international waters have been thwarted in the past. Though I have to admit that this argument may apply to other economic systems, including communism and socialism. If the USSR had not been so ravaged during WWII, or if they did not have to match the West in a nuclear arms race, including a wild goose chase to the moon and back, perhaps their model of communism would have been more effective. Of course success relies on the goals. Economic prosperity via the free market is one of the goals of Libertarianism, while sustainable production to meet the needs of the masses is one of the goals of communism. Freedom is one of the highest virtues of Libertarianism, while equality is typically more important to a communist. In the end, the people in a pure and effective communist state might not enjoy much economic prosperity, but they would have the security of knowing their needs would be met. In the Libertarian system most people would likely enjoy a greater sense of independence and attain a higher standard of living, but the fate of those less fortunate would highly depend on how charitable their more fortunate comrades are feeling from one day to another.

TL; DR by Beorytis · 2012-01-03 11:29 · Score: 1

Did TFA actually mention some kind of psychological or sociological research about the relative frequency of libertarian vs. technocratic tendencies in engineers? From what I saw, I'm guessing not.

Re:Libertarians? by Sentrion · 2012-01-03 11:34 · Score: 1

The corporation was invented to bring prosperity directly to the Crown of England, and many other European countries, such as the Netherlands. When politicians constantly bend the rules so they can be enriched by private corporations then you will always see corruption. This can clearly be seen when studying the history of the East India Company.

When businesses are no longer treated with special "person-hood" and when governments no longer make laws to benefit their corporate creations, then you might have a chance to see what the free market can do.

Re:An engineer's administration by Sentrion · 2012-01-03 11:36 · Score: 1

What do you mean? Herbert Hoover was an engineer, and he was a great... Oh, wait, never mind.

Socialist to Libertarian by TheSync · 2012-01-03 12:10 · Score: 1

I remember thinking as a teenager that technocratic socialism made perfect sense. Of course we could engineer a solution to make sure that everyone enjoyed life and had plenty.

Only after a brief stint with Democratic party politics did I realize how naive this was. Complex networks of governments and economies are impossible to control centrally. They must be organized to solve problems with self-organization.

The price signal is the most important self-organizing feature of the world. Only with free prices can thousands of people who don't know each other figure out how to mine the ore, refine the metal, design things, make the parts, assemble them, market and sell things, resell things, modify things, all in a network of increasing value to humanity.

There are certainly zones of central authority (sometimes at the level of an industry, a business, but often only within a department of a business). But they are just nodes in the network of the economy.

I'll note that a price of zero is still a price, and we know that is often a good price for some software. And of course if you use GPL software, you are paying a non-zero price in terms of opportunity cost of what you might do with that software.

Re:Libertarians? by postbigbang · 2012-01-03 12:10 · Score: 1

Your rigidity in belief doesn't help you consider the differences between concepts like partnerships, limited liability organizations, coops, and so forth.

To those that believe that there is morality legislated, I say instead, that there's inclusion mandated, so that the majority race and religion capitalists don't continue their evil ways.

As regards Amendments #4 & 6, I don't believe that 4 is gone, and the recent legislation affecting #6 is untested and otherwise unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.

Re:Libertarians? by postbigbang · 2012-01-03 12:15 · Score: 1

I'm not championing the current system. Instead, I defended the tape needed to start a business. In my non-Libertarian world, there is inclusion, not exclusion. Individualism is fine, so long as it isn't a continuing extension of Calvinism. There is a place where civilization mandates interdependency, otherwise, there is no civilization.

With regard to the current system, I'm not a fan of it. Abuse at many levels has made it untenable. Yet my response, if you'll re-read it, has to do with the rubric that businesses don't get started because of red tape. There are reasons for that tape, and good ones. The hoops that one has to jump through are in place not to increase governmental paperwork, but to insure that the rules that are others have to abide by aren't skirted.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.

Re:Libertarians? by gmhowell · 2012-01-03 12:37 · Score: 1

No, I think most of that lot aren't internet addicts.

right... They were shitting in porta potties but had generators and chargers for free for people to keep their iPhones and netbooks hooked to the web.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:Libertarians? by repapetilto · 2012-01-03 12:37 · Score: 1

There is natural selection going on here. Societies can only be judged in the context of their neighbors. For example, perhaps the USSR would have been able to win out in the end if they had been competing with modern western civilization rather than that of the 20th century. The robustness of a culture to different types of competition is part of what gives it value. I would assume that the simpler plan is more robust and therefore less likely to fail on average, even if specific implementations of it fail due to unique circumstances. Obviously, there are many factors at play here which makes it difficult (if not impossible) to use historical evidence in judging which idea has the most merit. I have yet to see an example of an anarchist society that was not consumed by its statist neighbors and religion appears to be very robust (although that may be changing due to increased education and information about the world around us).

Hi by florescent_beige · 2012-01-03 12:41 · Score: 1

May I interrupt the "engineers are this or that" war to ask one thing? Could we get a definition of the word "engineer" for the purposes of hostilities?

Most places I know (with the exception of the province of Quebec) allow all characters no matter how unbalanced to call themselves engineers. So I guess we need to control for the population of sociopaths who call themselves engineers because calling themselves doctors would be illegal. And for the companies who call some guy named Charlie wielding a toilet plunger an engineer because... oh jeez that's depressing.

Also, I'd love to see citations when someone makes a "these people are like that"-type statement.

Thank you.

--
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller

Re:Libertarians? by JDAustin · 2012-01-03 12:41 · Score: 1

But GE would win no matter as they have the capability to make the bombs while TW can just show pictures of them...

Re:Libertarians? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 12:57 · Score: 1

Since when does government funding NOT compromise the integrity of the research? Some lines get funded, others not, usually at the agenda of a grant-deciding bureaucrat. The grant system is certainly a form of welfare- and a biased form of welfare at that.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:China too.... by jd · 2012-01-03 13:26 · Score: 1

John Nash showed that economics can be modeled mathematically, that it follows certain rules, that the implementation of the economy doesn't alter those rules, and it doesn't have to be a financial economy. ANY strategy that is self-modifying according to very specific conditions WILL translate into Game Theory and from there ALL mathematical rules will apply to the translation. However, just as there is a transform in one direction, there is a transform in the opposite direction. Thus, economics et al are merely examples of experimental mathematics. And anything that is repeatable, deterministic and experimental in the physical world is a science.

And that is why it is a science.

Computers cannot act outside the constraints of the Turing Machine. Even a Quantum Computer is nothing more than a massively parallel Turing Machine - you can do not one operation more and not one operation less. It, too, then is experimental mathematics. There is not a computer built today - or one that will ever be built - that can do even one operation more than the seven fundamental operations. I had this argument with the AI lecturer, who argued that Neural Networks weren't Turing Machines. Until I showed, mathematically, that not only were they Turing Machines, but they were actually a very tiny subset.

The "theories" in CS, for the most part, are not theories at all and should not be considered as such. What would be an example of a true theory? Well, a simple one is that Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is Turing-Complete. If this is true, then there exists no algorithm OR computer that supports "unrestricted comprehension, or any other problem that ZFC can't handle. If ZFC is indeed Turing Complete, then everything that ZFC cannot support cannot be programmed.

Another example of a theory -- anything that cannot be done algorithmically by a computer but can be done herustically by one, cannot be done in real-life except herusticallly, and vice versa. The logic doesn't change, even when the physical constraints do.

There is nothing the doctor can do for me. I am stuck in a world of idiots who believes their box is the One True Box. (Even Maru doesn't think that.) I can do nothing for the world. I can do nothing to even broaden the horizons of even single individuals (there have been rare exceptions in the past, but those will forever be in the past - I could never do the same today). I am increasingly too frustrated with the unimaginative and the ultra-conservative around me to even do much for myself. Last time I tried, the storage place I was using burned down destroying a few tens of thousands of dollars of books and developer boards. Insurance wouldn't pay and there's not a chance in hell of replacing all that. This is intensely frustrating. To produce a physical demonstration of some of my physically implementable ideas, beyond mere Heath Robinson implementations, needs cash but the crowd-source firms universally reject anything I put forward with helpful feedback along the lines of "bugger off", only marginally politer. And I really do mean marginally.

Here's a fun one for you. I took part in Edward de Bono's full correspondence course on lateral thinking. The feedback mostly said why I was wrong, how my solutions couldn't work. Even when I sent in photographic proof (this was pre-photoshop, so photos meant something) I was still told that what I was doing was wrong and impossible. With no explanation of *why* it was wrong or impossible, just that it was.

So, yeah, I've become incredibly grumpy and cynical in my old age. In all probability, 40-50% of my ideas likely wouldn't have worked, but with a but more than a "bugger off", I might have actually learned from the experience. The remainder got identical feedback, so I can't tell you from that what category anything fell in. All I can tell you is that

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:Libertarians? by riverat1 · 2012-01-03 13:31 · Score: 1

The problem with your disdain of scientists is that all of our modern technology is an outgrowth of scientific research. Engineering after all is just applied science. Science, especially the leading edge science, doesn't always have a clear ending leading to benefits. Often you can't tell until you have gained the knowledge. It's kind of like a photographer might take several hundred photographs to get 10 that are worth keeping but in the end it's worth it.

Re:Libertarians? by repapetilto · 2012-01-03 13:36 · Score: 1

That's pretty speculative, I will look into it. You have a good source (on patents + steam engine)?

Re:Libertarians? by Rude+Turnip · 2012-01-03 13:43 · Score: 1

An LLC and a limited partnership are functionally the same thing in most cases. Anyone whose business is growing and needs outside financial resources (ie, debt, venture capital, additional stock) to grow, has the business in some form of legal entity.

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!

Re:Libertarians? by repapetilto · 2012-01-03 14:01 · Score: 1

To those that believe that there is morality legislated, I say instead, that there's inclusion mandated, so that the majority race and religion capitalists don't continue their evil ways.

So you do want to legislate morality. Just call it what it is. What do you think that power will be used for if the "majority race and religion capitalists" gain control of the government?

Also, with regards to the red tape, I thought this was interesting (plot of corruption vs economic freedom): http://i43.tinypic.com/2my582p.png

Engineers tend to be conservative by bulletman · 2012-01-03 14:08 · Score: 1

My impression of hardware engineers (at least where I work) is that they tend to be more politically conservative and more likely to stay married. Those that tend to be libertarian also seem to be social conservatives. I also get the impression that software engineers are more progressive or libertarian. No idea how common this is.

Re:Engineers tend to be conservative by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-03 22:38 · Score: 1

My impression of hardware engineers (at least where I work) is that they tend to be more politically conservative and more likely to stay married. Those that tend to be libertarian also seem to be social conservatives.
"Social conservatives" in what sense? If they support, for example, drug laws, or sodomy laws, or laws against pornography, there's no way I'm going to consider them "libertarian".

I also get the impression that software engineers are more progressive or libertarian. No idea how common this is.
In which case perhaps the title of your post should have been "Hardware engineers tend to be conservative".

Re:Libertarians? by IICV · 2012-01-03 14:18 · Score: 1

No, you don't need a government to punish someone who harms you. You have the right to do that yourself. Practically speaking, most would choose to establish their claim through arbitration before turning to direct action, and would probably hire out the actual enforcement rather than doing it themselves, but so long as you're truly in the right, and willing to accept the full responsibility for your actions, there is nothing wrong with seeking restitution and even retribution on your own.

So how exactly does this help when (for example) I go to a restaurant and my kid dies from eating tainted food? No amount of private arbitration will bring someone back from the dead; you have to take preventative measures in the first place, which would definitely not happen if the only system of redress was private arbitration.

Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-03 14:30 · Score: 1

I'm having a hard time figuring how rational and religious isn't a contradiction. Perhaps you could clarify?

Some religions do clearly have a concept of human dignity, but that's defined much differently from religion to religion and within any particular religion. It seems to me that the end goals are what we call morality and rationality comes into it as we try to determine how to get there.

Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 16:04 · Score: 1

I'm having a hard time figuring how rational and religious isn't a contradiction. Perhaps you could clarify?

I could, but Pope Benedict XVI put it much better than I can in his infamous University of Regansburg speech. Too bad his counter example was Islam and not very well understood- that speech caused the deaths of several priests and nuns throughout the Middle East and pretty much proved his point that Islam is not a rational religion.

Some religions do clearly have a concept of human dignity, but that's defined much differently from religion to religion and within any particular religion. It seems to me that the end goals are what we call morality and rationality comes into it as we try to determine how to get there.

A few religions actually do the reverse- start with a clear concept of what human dignity is, then try very hard to serve that human dignity. Universal morality and a single reality is required for that- concepts that are currently not in vogue with philosophers, but which are nonetheless required if we're going to approach problems rationally. If, for instance, the gravitational constant is different from person to person, it's pretty hard to have a universal science, let alone a universal morality.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-03 16:14 · Score: 1

2nd Reply- for my definition of the Christian Concept of Human Dignity, I can think of no better work than GK Chesterton's "What is Wrong with the World and How To Fix It". Chesterton is definitely an example of rational religion- and if you like what you read at this link, I would challenge you to follow it up with Orthodoxy- for a man should not argue against a concept such as rational religion without first studying the concept.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-03 18:13 · Score: 1

[Pope Benedict XVI's] speech caused the deaths of several priests and nuns
That's nothing compared to the effects of his stance on condom use (i.e. that it's worse than AIDS).

A few religions actually do the reverse- start with a clear concept of what human dignity is, then try very hard to serve that human dignity.
I think this might just be a difference in terms - having a clear concept of human dignity sounds like morality to me.

Universal morality and a single reality is required for that- concepts that are currently not in vogue with philosophers, but which are nonetheless required if we're going to approach problems rationally. If, for instance, the gravitational constant is different from person to person, it's pretty hard to have a universal science, let alone a universal morality.
I think here we differ. Universal morality would be nice, but I think it's not likely to happen as long as there are at least 2 people left to differ. But we can each strive for our moral goals rationally.
From Benedict's speech:
by its very nature this method [science] excludes the question of God
No. He takes that stance to avoid questioning of his god, but over and over throughout the centuries science has eroded his case. I'm not sure what else from his speech you might find relevant here. I didn't read it all, but read several sections and skimmed the rest looking for relevant passages.
I'm happy to reply to your points, and even read some more, though I'd prefer if you could pick out some key points you'd like a response to to save some time and avoid confusion. My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority).
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-03 18:50 · Score: 1

I don't see the relevance to rationality and religion. I read some passages and skimmed several others. I see him arguing the case for his morality. I no doubt agree with much of it, but found several things quite misogynistic. I think the Catholic faith has been standing in the way of equal rights for women, which in my mind is the rational stance. Do you disagree? Were there other parts that you wanted me to focus on in some way?
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-04 04:56 · Score: 1

I don't agree that "equality for women" is a rational stance. I believe it to be an emotional one that denies that each gender brings something of equal value to the table- but different. Thus modern feminism is more about an attempt to turn women into men, rather than actually celebrating the unique aspects that women can bring to any given discussion or decision. I'm all for giving women an equal voice- but I'm not for say, destroying motherhood in favor of having large numbers of female CEOs working 80 hour workweeks.
Chesterton's relevance isn't in rationality and religion, however; but the other half of what drives me- the dignity of man (and woman)- what you term mysogynism in him is more chivalry. And as I read somewhere recently- not all women like chivalry, just those who are actually worth dying for. What works for humans isn't denial of our essential nature- yet that's what modernism has done, denied both men and women their essential natures.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-04 05:25 · Score: 1

That's nothing compared to the effects of his stance on condom use (i.e. that it's worse than AIDS).

Objectively, it IS worse than AIDS. But of course, most researchers who claim that condom use prevents AIDS, are not objective on the subject.

I think this might just be a difference in terms - having a clear concept of human dignity sounds like morality to me.

What is wrong with morality and insisting that for a given species, there might be one way to live that is in keeping with the DNA of that species?

I think here we differ. Universal morality would be nice, but I think it's not likely to happen as long as there are at least 2 people left to differ.

If there is only one species and one reality, why would anybody differ?

No. He takes that stance to avoid questioning of his god, but over and over throughout the centuries science has eroded his case.

Depends on your definition of God. Science is limited, in Catholic theology, to the visible world- that which can be measured. God is limited to the invisible world, that which cannot be measured. The two data sets do not intersect, at all.

I'm not sure what else from his speech you might find relevant here. I didn't read it all, but read several sections and skimmed the rest looking for relevant passages.

You need to read it all. Skimming doesn't help in reading Benedict any more than skimming helps in reading Chesterton- nor does doing so with a closed mind.

I'm happy to reply to your points, and even read some more, though I'd prefer if you could pick out some key points you'd like a response to to save some time and avoid confusion. My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority).

Ah, there's an excellent point that I'd like to discuss- the idea that evidence can exist without an authority- for that is an irrational definition of rationality to begin with.

There are only 5 types of evidence in this world. From the least reliable to the most reliable, they are:
-Eyewitness evidence
-Replicated eyewitness evidence
-Personally Replicated eyewitness evidence
-Mechanically Replicated eyewitness evidence
-Personal Experience

For even the most reliable of evidence- you must have faith in an authority- the authority of your own senses and your own brain. Without that authority, there is no personal experience. Even Mechanically Replicated eyewitness evidence- requires the authority of the brain interpreting the data coming out of the machine.

Go up one level, and you've got two authorities- the person doing the replicating, which is yourself, and the person who told you about the experiment to begin with.

Go up one more level, and you've reached the end of what science can tell us, for unless *two people* can replicate the same experiment *within the error of measurement of the apparatus*, there's no way to know which experiment is correct, which theory is correct.This requires two people to tell us what is true and reality, two authorities.

Which leaves us with a myriad of phenomena that exists for only ONE person- and that is the realm of philosophy and theology. And here, authority is even more important, for it separates rational religion from irrational religion. Rational religions have an authority to bring together all the data, and separate what is true from what is false. Irrational religions have no authority- it's all true, even if it isn't true for the person next to you, even if it requires you to kill the person next to you.

So you see, I reject your definition of rationality for the precise reason that you reject the concept of an authority to give us one reality. For without th

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-04 06:08 · Score: 1

That's nothing compared to the effects of his stance on condom use (i.e. that it's worse than AIDS).
Objectively, it IS worse than AIDS.
Evidence? (You must have some in order to validly say "objectively" here.)

What is wrong with morality and insisting that for a given species, there might be one way to live that is in keeping with the DNA of that species?
What if there is more than one way to live that is in keeping with the DNA of that species?

Which leaves us with a myriad of phenomena that exists for only ONE person- and that is the realm of philosophy and theology. And here, authority is even more important, for it separates rational religion from irrational religion. Rational religions have an authority to bring together all the data, and separate what is true from what is false.
And the reason why we should accept any particular religion's authority is?

So you see, I reject your definition of rationality for the precise reason that you reject the concept of an authority to give us one reality. For without that authority; there is no guarantee that because the sun came up this morning that the sun will come up tomorrow morning
Yes, indeed, there's no such guarantee. Tomorrow morning the Sun will probably still have fuel to burn, but, eventually, there's a good reason to believe it'll run out.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-04 08:31 · Score: 1

"Evidence? (You must have some in order to validly say "objectively" here.)"
3% failure rate, plus it prevents human life from being born in the first place. Better a short life full of disease and woe, than no life at all (1>0). Also, I'd point out the example of Uganda- since embracing monogamy, their AIDS rate has dropped immensely without use of condoms.
"What if there is more than one way to live that is in keeping with the DNA of that species?"
You'd need extraordinary proof for that statement, since there's only one species.
"Yes, indeed, there's no such guarantee. Tomorrow morning the Sun will probably still have fuel to burn, but, eventually, there's a good reason to believe it'll run out."
But the point is, you take that based on authoritative knowledge, that is philosophically no different than religious faith at all. All evidence requires faith in the authority presenting the evidence.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-04 10:03 · Score: 1

Objectively, it IS worse than AIDS. But of course, most researchers who claim that condom use prevents AIDS, are not objective on the subject.
Are you seriously arguing that condoms don't help prevent the transmission of HIV? If so, even many of your church's authority figures disagree: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/hivaids/bishopssupportcondoms.asp

What is wrong with morality and insisting that for a given species, there might be one way to live that is in keeping with the DNA of that species?
I think you meant one best way to live. And that's a judgment call, and we as a species don't agree on that best way to live.

If there is only one species and one reality, why would anybody differ?
My point was that we do differ. As for why, people have different experiences, so they develop their view of morality differently. The roots of and evolution of morality in societies is an interesting topic too.

Depends on your definition of God. Science is limited, in Catholic theology, to the visible world- that which can be measured. God is limited to the invisible world, that which cannot be measured. The two data sets do not intersect, at all.
This sounds like Gould's non-overlapping magesteria argument. But of course religions do claim overlapping - that their gods do intervene in the physical world. So we at times have evidence in the physical world to evaluate creation myths and other claims in holy books, the effects of intercessory prayer, miracles, visitations and prophecies.

You need to read it all. Skimming doesn't help in reading Benedict any more than skimming helps in reading Chesterton- nor does doing so with a closed mind.
No. If you want to debate me, you have to make your own points or direct me to some specific point someone else has made. I'm not just going to read your books with no idea what points you're trying to make with them.

Ah, there's an excellent point that I'd like to discuss- the idea that evidence can exist without an authority- for that is an irrational definition of rationality to begin with.
I'm using the word authority to mean a person (or god), a thinking entity. Our senses and memories are more fundamental than any authority. You use your senses to hear and read the dictates of your religious teachers and books. I have some level of trust in my senses (as all of us do) but don't add on faith in authority figures like you do.

I'm pretty sure that you do NOT believe what you said, however, it's just that you never thought about the implications of having no authority.
I do believe what I've written, and I have thought this through quite extensively. Nothing is absolutely certain. So, if you like, you could term my tentative trust in my senses as faith. I prefer calling it a working assumption, as my senses can sometimes be fooled (e.g. by optical illusions). Everyone has these senses and builds on top of them, and adding on unquestioning belief in some authority figure on top of that is unnecessary and dangerous.
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-04 10:43 · Score: 1

I'm all for giving women an equal voice- but I'm not for say, destroying motherhood in favor of having large numbers of female CEOs working 80 hour workweeks.
So you're not as extreme as Chesterton. You think women should be allowed to vote. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you think women should be allowed to get an education as well. Have you encountered someone that wants all women to work 80 hours per week? Do you want to limit the number of hours a woman may work? Feminists want to give each woman the choice.

what you term mysogynism in him is more chivalry
So Chesterton wanted to deny women the vote and education out of kindness? Would you find the same sort of condescending argument convincing if given by a mid-1800's slaveholder regarding his slaves?
Re:Rational Religious? by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-04 10:44 · Score: 1

Evidence? (You must have some in order to validly say "objectively" here.)
3% failure rate,
How does "3% failure rate" count as "worse than AIDS"?

plus it prevents human life from being born in the first place.
It prevents human life from being conceived in the first place. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Better a short life full of disease and woe, than no life at all
So does choosing not to have sex. How far must people go to maximize the number of babies conceived?
And having more children can also reduce the resources available to your own or other people's children; shortening other people's lives, adding disease and woe to their lives, seems more than a bit selfish to me.

Also, I'd point out the example of Uganda- since embracing monogamy, their AIDS rate has dropped immensely without use of condoms.

(1>0).
If you're looking at a single individual, maybe that applies.
Unless you treat the material quality of life as irrelevant (as "Better a short life full of disease and woe, than no life at all" suggests you do), you then don't have 1 vs. 0, you have a number from, say, 0 to 1, and, if you look at humanity as a whole, you have the sum of all those numbers - and if you have finite resources to support human life, that puts an upper bound on that sum, so you then have to decide whether "more lives" or "better lives" is more important. When it comes to the abstract notion of hypothetical lives, I put "better lives" on top; better that fewer people are conceived and have better lives than that more people are conceived and have worse lives. Perhaps the sum of all qualities of life is the same in both cases, but, hey, it's now a two-variable problem, and I'm choosing to maximize "average quality of life" rather than "number of lives", given that I don't actually have to kill anybody to do that.

I'd point out the example of Uganda- since embracing monogamy, their AIDS rate has dropped immensely without use of condoms.
Well, AVERT's page on Uganda says

It is likely that the number of new HIV infections in Uganda peaked in the late 1980s, and then fell sharply until the mid 1990s. This is generally thought to have been the result of behaviour changes such as increased abstinence and monogamy, a rise in the average age of first sex, a reduction in the average number of sexual partners and more frequent use of condoms.
which isn't quite the same as "their AIDS rate has dropped immensely without use of condoms".

What if there is more than one way to live that is in keeping with the DNA of that species?"
You'd need extraordinary proof for that statement, since there's only one species.
...with only one allele of every gene, right?
Oops, sorry, no, there are multiple alleles, and some of them may result in different preferences and behaviors, so there's nothing at all extraordinary about different members of a species having different ways of living, each of which is in keeping with the individual's DNA.
Perhaps there's only one way of organizing a society so that those members can all have a way of living that's in keeping with their DNA, but if you have multiple populations with separate societies, and those populations have different frequencies of the alleles in question, perhaps one society's way will differ from another society's way.

Yes, indeed, there's no such guarantee. Tomorrow morning the Sun will probably still have fuel to burn, but, eventually, there's a good reason to believe it'll run out.
But the point is, you take that based o
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-04 11:19 · Score: 1

What you were rejecting in that line of argument was "My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority)." I read that as not necessarily rejecting some level of faith; I read it as arguing that religion doesn't require careful consideration of evidence. Perhaps you read it as arguing both that rationality requires no faith and that religion requires no careful consideration of evidence. Now, I'm more interested in the original poster's idea of what it meant than in either of our readings.
Faith is a slippery term. If we define faith simply as an unsupported belief, then yes, my working assumption that my senses can perceive reality is faith. I freely admit that the evidence for the assumption is filtered through the senses we're assuming. I sometimes use the term working assumption instead of faith for my trust in sensory input in an attempt to be clear that it's 1) more foundational - that nobody gets by without it - and 2) that it's subject to reinterpretation from further evidence (i.e. more sensory input). The faith that I argue against is belief unsupported by physical or logical evidence, typically coming from an authority figure.
P.S. Good response above, hitting some points I would have made it you hadn't.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-04 11:29 · Score: 1

Are you seriously arguing that condoms don't help prevent the transmission of HIV?

Worse- I suggest that it encourages AIDS transmission by creating a false sense of security.

If so, even many of your church's authority figures disagree: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/hivaids/bishopssupportcondoms.asp [catholicsforchoice.org]
I would point out that Catholics for Choice is an irrational sect that is not based on objective evidence at all- and in fact, is not in communion with Rome on a large number of items, ranging from women's ordination to abortion. They're about as Catholic as Planned Parenthood- and equally guilty of eugenics.

I think you meant one best way to live. And that's a judgment call, and we as a species don't agree on that best way to live

No, I meant what I said- one way to live that is in keeping with the dictates of our DNA. And that's objective based- not irrationally "agree" based.

My point was that we do differ.

But we differ only for irrational reasons, like subjective experience.

As for why, people have different experiences, so they develop their view of morality differently.

Nobody needs to develop their own morality anymore. We've had two million years worth of experimentation into the one morality that works, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

The roots of and evolution of morality in societies is an interesting topic too.

Yes. So why throw it out?

This sounds like Gould's non-overlapping magesteria argument. But of course religions do claim overlapping - that their gods do intervene in the physical world.

Catholicism doesn't. God doesn't need to intervene. His input into the physical world is not intervening, but rather, was a part of the plan from the beginning.

So we at times have evidence in the physical world to evaluate creation myths

Why would you evaluate a moral soul based creation myth that is just an allegory by physical evidence that isn't?

and other claims in holy books

All other claims in holy books are just subjective experience from history. About the only thing that can be checked physically is that the places and people in the stories once existed, through archaeology. And from that standpoint, almost all Holy Books are equal.

the effects of intercessory prayer

which can be explained with quantum physics

miracles

Also known as fortunate coincidences; there are no miracles, just physical laws and parts of God's plan we don't understand yet.

visitations and prophecies.

I don't see anything weird about either visitations or prophecies; there is definitely a dimension beyond that which we can measure, but once you grant that dimension exists, the math becomes drop dead simple, even Einstienian- by the 11th dimension, time is just a point.

No. If you want to debate me, you have to make your own points or direct me to some specific point someone else has made. I'm not just going to read your books with no idea what points you're trying to make with them.

Did it ever occur to you that the point I'm trying to make is more complex than a one sentence sound bite, and that's why I pointed you at the book or speech to begin with?

I'm using the word authority to mean a person (or god), a thinking entity.

So am I. Without a person, a god, a thinking entity, evidence doesn't exist. At all.

Our senses and memories are more fundamental than any authori

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-04 11:39 · Score: 1

So you're not as extreme as Chesterton. You think women should be allowed to vote.

Well, I'm with Chesterton that voting is largely useless for both women and men. To the average person, voting is like taking a test on a bunch of stuff that they've never studied and that will never affect their life at all.

And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you think women should be allowed to get an education as well.

How else is a mother to teach her children, if she's not educated herself?

Have you encountered someone that wants all women to work 80 hours per week?

Yes, I have. In fact, they'd like to get to the point where everybody, men and women, are working 80 hours a week for $2/day. But that's an entirely different problem than feminism- that's a problem with capitalism.

Do you want to limit the number of hours a woman may work? Feminists want to give each woman the choice.

No they don't- they want to re-structure society so that no family CAN make the choice, so that it requires *both* parents working outside of the home with no time for the children to survive. And in the last 40 years, they've largely succeeded.

So Chesterton wanted to deny women the vote and education out of kindness?

Chesterton would deny everybody the vote out of kindness- it's a waste of time asking people questions about stuff they will never understand. Education? His WIFE was as educated as he was, more in many ways.

Would you find the same sort of condescending argument convincing if given by a mid-1800's slaveholder regarding his slaves?

I'd suggest that he was wasting an excellent opportunity to double his investment, as an educated slave is worth twice as much as an uneducated one. Just as I suggest that the sweatshop owner is treating his employees worse than the intelligent slave owner treats his slaves, because he has failed to provide them with food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and basic medical care that every smart slave owner provides to protect his investment in the slave. I see neither argument as "condescending" because I consider the slave owner and the slave to be as equal as the husband and the wife.

And, objectively, they ARE equal- different and separate, but equal. The attempt to pit one against the other, is the irrational part.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-04 11:52 · Score: 1

How does "3% failure rate" count as "worse than AIDS"?

It gives a false sense of security that actually increases the overall AIDS transmission rate by encouraging people to make bad decisions.

It prevents human life from being conceived in the first place. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Only if you're Stalin and trying to cut down on the number of people your communist paradise has to feed.

So does choosing not to have sex. How far must people go to maximize the number of babies conceived?

No further than simple reasonable monogamous morality creates. After all, in my Uganda example- in the same timeframe, by giving up polygamy, the average number of children per family fell from 8 to 3- AND they prevented AIDS.

If you're looking at a single individual, maybe that applies.

When considering HUMAN DIGNITY- only the single individual applies. Just about everything else reduces human beings to mere numbers.

Unless you treat the material quality of life as irrelevant (as "Better a short life full of disease and woe, than no life at all" suggests you do)

Worse than that- I treat that sort of misguided materialism as downright irrational and emotion based.

you then don't have 1 vs. 0, you have a number from, say, 0 to 1, and, if you look at humanity as a whole, you have the sum of all those numbers - and if you have finite resources to support human life,

Which we don't. We'll never even reach 1/10th the carrying capacity of our resources.

that puts an upper bound on that sum, so you then have to decide whether "more lives" or "better lives" is more important. When it comes to the abstract notion of hypothetical lives, I put "better lives" on top; better that fewer people are conceived and have better lives than that more people are conceived and have worse lives. Perhaps the sum of all qualities of life is the same in both cases, but, hey, it's now a two-variable problem, and I'm choosing to maximize "average quality of life" rather than "number of lives", given that I don't actually have to kill anybody to do that.

That's because you are not rational, and are basing your argument on a set of data that has already been disproven.

Yup. And if I lose my faith in one of those authorities, e.g. because (to pick an extreme example) somebody finds that their work is fraudulent, I may well end up believing something else.

But you don't. For instance, the idea of finite resources has been proven to be fraudulent, yet you base your whole philosophy of materialism over humanity upon it.

What you were rejecting in that line of argument was "My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority)." I read that as not necessarily rejecting some level of faith; I read it as arguing that religion doesn't require careful consideration of evidence.

Already disproven in this thread by Pope Benedict's separation of rational and irrational religions- rational religions ALWAYS require careful consideration of the evidence and rethinking of assumptions based on the full sum of available evidence (that is, rational religion differs from science only in a lack of belief in reductionism).

Perhaps you read it as arguing both that rationality requires no faith and that religion requires no careful consideration of evidence. Now, I'm more interested in the original poster's idea of what it meant than in either of our readings.

Me to, so on to the next post. Yes, for what it is worth- rational religion requires *faith in authority* to give us *evidence to think about*, with only rejections of ways of life that do not perpetuate the species.
From that standpoint, materialism itself is irrelevant and irrational.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-04 11:55 · Score: 1

But since even your senses are indeed an authority figure, it's irrational to deny other authority figures the right to present evidence, unless you're going to build a civilization of one little hermitage, for all else outside of your sight is false. Heck, at that level, you can't even claim that the back wall of your hermitage is the same color it was yesterday- because somebody could have come along and painted it in the mean time.
I hold that in such a chaotic universe as you present- where only what you see with your own eyes is true and everything else is false- the very idea of the scientific method is impossible, and thus, your definition of evidence is in and of itself irrational.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-04 12:22 · Score: 1

How does "3% failure rate" count as "worse than AIDS"?
It gives a false sense of security that actually increases the overall AIDS transmission rate by encouraging people to make bad decisions.
Evidence?

It prevents human life from being conceived in the first place. That's not a bug, that's a feature.
Only if you're Stalin and trying to cut down on the number of people your communist paradise has to feed.
Or if you're a parent and want to divide the finite resources (including time!) you have amongst fewer children.

So does choosing not to have sex. How far must people go to maximize the number of babies conceived?
No further than simple reasonable monogamous morality creates.
OK, so what do you think about abstinence? :-)

Unless you treat the material quality of life as irrelevant (as "Better a short life full of disease and woe, than no life at all" suggests you do)
Worse than that- I treat that sort of misguided materialism as downright irrational and emotion based.
And I treat a belief that the quality of life doesn't matter as downright irrational and emotion-based - you, like I, are, after all, apes, and are subject to irrational and emotional behavior. In this case, as far as I'm concerned, it's your behavior that's irrational. Perhaps we just start from different premises? The conclusions reason leads to depend on the premises chosen.

you then don't have 1 vs. 0, you have a number from, say, 0 to 1, and, if you look at humanity as a whole, you have the sum of all those numbers - and if you have finite resources to support human life,
Which we don't. We'll never even reach 1/10th the carrying capacity of our resources.
Evidence?

that puts an upper bound on that sum, so you then have to decide whether "more lives" or "better lives" is more important. When it comes to the abstract notion of hypothetical lives, I put "better lives" on top; better that fewer people are conceived and have better lives than that more people are conceived and have worse lives. Perhaps the sum of all qualities of life is the same in both cases, but, hey, it's now a two-variable problem, and I'm choosing to maximize "average quality of life" rather than "number of lives", given that I don't actually have to kill anybody to do that.
That's because you are not rational, and are basing your argument on a set of data that has already been disproven.
Evidence?

Yup. And if I lose my faith in one of those authorities, e.g. because (to pick an extreme example) somebody finds that their work is fraudulent, I may well end up believing something else.
But you don't. For instance, the idea of finite resources has been proven to be fraudulent, yet you base your whole philosophy of materialism over humanity upon it.
Evidence?

What you were rejecting in that line of argument was "My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority)." I read that as not necessarily rejecting some level of faith; I read it as arguing that religion doesn't require careful consideration of evidence.
Already disproven in this thread by Pope Benedict's separation of rational and irrational religions- rational religions ALWAYS require careful consideration of the evidence and rethinking of assumptions based on the full sum of available evidence (that is, rational religion differs from science only in a lack of belief in reductionism).
Well, I was citing the person to whom you'
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-04 13:28 · Score: 1

voting is largely useless for both women and men
So you're either anti-democracy or just think (as I do) that democracy could function better with some changes (e.g. by controls on buying of elections). If you're against democracy itself, what's your preferred form of government. If you want changes, what changes?

How else is a mother to teach her children, if she's not educated herself?
It sounds like you're disagreeing with Chesterton on a second point here (the only two I brought up, oddly). I encourage you to disagree more with your authority figures.

Yes, I have. In fact, they'd like to get to the point where everybody, men and women, are working 80 hours a week for $2/day.
Who is that? And do you think that sentiment is prevalent or is it a straw man you found easy to knock down?

they want to re-structure society so that no family CAN make the choice
Why don't you point to the feminists that take that stance? The feminists I know and read are quite opposed to that.

the sweatshop owner is treating his employees worse than the intelligent slave owner treats his slaves
Your defense of slavery is appalling. The rest of the world has mostly agreed that slavery is counter to "human dignity". Your authoritarian worldview may give you the idea of a benevolent dictator or slaveholder, but I contend that democracy has been the best antidote for the conditions you rightly decry.
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-04 13:40 · Score: 1

But since even your senses are indeed an authority figure, it's irrational to deny other authority figures the right to present evidence
I've done no such thing. My senses are not a thinking entity (the definition you agreed to for authority figure), and I don't deny evidence presented by others.
But you keep missing this point. What authority figures are you submitting to that aren't filtered through your senses? You listen to your priest or pope with your sense of hearing. You read your bible with your sight. I haven't seen you put the slightest dent in my contention that our senses are foundational.

only what you see with your own eyes is true and everything else is false
Who are you arguing with? Another straw man.
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-04 14:18 · Score: 1

Worse- I suggest that it encourages AIDS transmission by creating a false sense of security.
Your ideology is showing. Try Guy's link or this one showing that condom use reduced the spread of AIDS in Uganda (http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm). To support your own position, please show how condom use results in more sexual activity, and how much more activity it is that overwhelms the 97% success rate you stated for condoms.

Catholics for Choice is an irrational sect
You didn't address the quotes from your pope, archbishops and cardinals and instead attacked the site their quotes are on.

one way to live that is in keeping with the dictates of our DNA
What does that mean, if you're not after the best way to live? There are currently 7 billion ways to live and counting.

Nobody needs to develop their own morality anymore.
We could all submit to your authority, but we stubbornly develop our own morality. Even most catholics do, as most disagree in some way with their church.

So why throw it out?
Who threw it out?

His input into the physical world is not intervening
Catholic dogma doesn't agree with a non-interventionist god. You were citing the pope, but maybe that's not actually your authority figure.

creation myth that is just an allegory
It's encouraging that you're not a biblical literalist. It's also encouraging that the church has finally come around on heliocentrism and evolution. But they're still stuck on the 7 day creation and the Ark and so on.

almost all Holy Books are equal
Sounds like special pleading for your own holy book. What if, through archeology, we could find that other gods pre-dating christianity had many of the same stories told about them. Is that evidence you're willing to consider, and are you open to questioning the founding of your belief system?

the effects of intercessory prayer
The ineffectiveness of intercessory prayer doesn't need any kind of physics to be explained. If, on the other hand, it was somehow shown that it does work and there's a quantum physics explanation for it, that's another step toward god's obsolescence.

there are no miracles
Good for you, going against the church dogma.

I don't see anything weird about either visitations or prophecies
My point was that we can see if prophecies come true and if not, learn not to trust the prophet. The guy that predicted the end of the world on 2 separate dates last year is not to be trusted if he predicts the end of the world this year again. When Pat Robertson said god told him who will win the Republican primary this year, but that he's not supposed to talk about it, most people laugh and assume he's a con man.

the point I'm trying to make is more complex than a one sentence
Well, maybe you should get your thoughts in order and write a book. You've written dozens or hundreds of sentences and I'm not sure I understand what points you're trying to make.

[I'm using the word authority to mean a person (or god), a thinking entity.] So am I.
I was talking about submitting to someone else, trusting their word on something more than your own senses and experience. And again, trusting someone else's ideas is filtered through your senses and experience.

You are not perfect, your senses aren't perfect.
I often make the same point. See above when I specifically mention optical illusions.

And by not doing so, you are limited to the 5th level of evidence- personal experience. You can't trust anybody else at all.
No. I believe things in proportion
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-04 14:49 · Score: 1

What you were rejecting in that line of argument was "My point is that rationality requires careful consideration of evidence and that religion requires only faith (i.e. belief based solely on some authority)." I read that as not necessarily rejecting some level of faith; I read it as arguing that religion doesn't require careful consideration of evidence.
Already disproven in this thread by Pope Benedict's separation of rational and irrational religions- rational religions ALWAYS require careful consideration of the evidence and rethinking of assumptions based on the full sum of available evidence (that is, rational religion differs from science only in a lack of belief in reductionism).
Well, I was citing the person to whom you're responding, so I'll let him respond to that one.
Thanks, I'll respond. The pope's writing was an illogical mess, but mostly seemed to be based on the nonoverlapping magisteria idea, which I addressed. And Marxist Hacker 42 refuses to tell us his own interpretation of the address he linked to. I've already given some examples of how science has eroded the dogma of the church (heliocentrism and evolution), but there are others they've come around on (slavery). So he does have a point that the church is evolving. But they're way behind the curve on other things (e.g. homosexuality and, for that matter, heterosexuality). And they're caught in a conundrum - adapt with societies and give up on the idea of ever having had absolute truth, or sticking with their outdated ideas and driving away their flock.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-05 04:49 · Score: 1

I've done no such thing. My senses are not a thinking entity (the definition you agreed to for authority figure), and I don't deny evidence presented by others.

If you accept evidence presented by others, then you take that evidence on the authority of the others, thus you accept authority figures.

But you keep missing this point. What authority figures are you submitting to that aren't filtered through your senses? You listen to your priest or pope with your sense of hearing. You read your bible with your sight. I haven't seen you put the slightest dent in my contention that our senses are foundational.

They are foundational- but they are NOT alone.

Who are you arguing with? Another straw man.

I'm arguing with a paradox:

1. You claimed you accept NO authority other than your own senses.

2. You claimed you accept evidence presented by others on their authority.

Either 1 is true or 2 is true, but both cannot be true. Therefore, based on this last post, 1 was a lie, you accept authority figures just as much as any rational person does.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-05 04:58 · Score: 1

So you're either anti-democracy or just think (as I do) that democracy could function better with some changes (e.g. by controls on buying of elections). If you're against democracy itself, what's your preferred form of government. If you want changes, what changes?

Technocratic dictatorship with a strong church for morality, is my preferred as it has been for most rational people for 3000 years now.

It sounds like you're disagreeing with Chesterton on a second point here (the only two I brought up, oddly). I encourage you to disagree more with your authority figures.

Chesterton just says that women need *different* education from men- something we used to accept in the United States. Home Economics classes were common in my high school, were they in yours?

Who is that?

The business leaders who shut down factories in the United States and send jobs where the standard of living is cheaper.And do you think that sentiment is prevalent or is it a straw man you found easy to knock down?

Half of humanity lives on an income of $2/day, so yes, I think the sentiment that labor should be as close to free as possible is quite prevalent. In addition, a decade ago that was $1/day- but they didn't get a raise, the value of a dollar fell by half.

Why don't you point to the feminists that take that stance? The feminists I know and read are quite opposed to that.

Every feminist I know says that "Motherhood isn't fulfilling enough, women need to be in control of the workplace as well". This has been the center of the feminist mantra for 100 years. What feminists are you listening to?

Your defense of slavery is appalling. The rest of the world has mostly agreed that slavery is counter to "human dignity". Your authoritarian worldview may give you the idea of a benevolent dictator or slaveholder, but I contend that democracy has been the best antidote for the conditions you rightly decry.

Only at the expense of creating criminality and a worse world. Liberty is just the right to harm your neighbor without punishment.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-05 09:23 · Score: 1

Technocratic dictatorship with a strong church for morality, is my preferred as it has been for most rational people for 3000 years now.
Well, at least you're honest about being a radical - a double dictatorship. I was going to point out how most people don't want dictators, but you left yourself an easy out - that only people that agree with you are rational.

Chesterton just says that women need *different* education from men- something we used to accept in the United States. Home Economics classes were common in my high school, were they in yours?
So you want to force girls to prepare for their life in the home and not have the options the boys have. That's what we call misogyny. What else do you have slated for women, out of kindness? Do they get to drive? Do they need to wear burkas?

The business leaders who shut down factories in the United States and send jobs where the standard of living is cheaper.
Those are a few people. There are many more people in the US that don't like that so much.

I think the sentiment that labor should be as close to free as possible is quite prevalent.
Well, if you mean prevalent in the sense of powerful, then we agree. But it's mostly only those profiting off that system that agree with it. The masses don't, and that's what I meant.

Every feminist I know says that "Motherhood isn't fulfilling enough, women need to be in control of the workplace as well". This has been the center of the feminist mantra for 100 years. What feminists are you listening to?
You're confusing a personal sentiment (i.e. Motherhood isn't fulfilling enough for me) with the societal goals of equality of opportunity (i.e. having the choice to work, to raise kids, etc). But even apart from that, you're ducking the question. What feminists want to require "*both* parents working outside of the home with no time for the children"? I think you're mixing up your feminists with your evil capitalist robber barons.

Liberty is just the right to harm your neighbor without punishment.
If you submit to a dictator, as you prefer, you're giving him/her/it the right to harm you and your neighbor without punishment. The exercise of liberty does not always harm others. In a rational society, when someone's freedom and someone's well-being conflict, we decide as a society how to weigh each one depending on the circumstances. If you fear being at the mercy of society in these decisions, you should be doubly afraid of the whims of an individual. You rightly decry the oppression of business leaders, yet comically want to invest even more power in a single individual.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-05 09:53 · Score: 1

So you want to force girls to prepare for their life in the home and not have the options the boys have.

Or, conversely, I want women and men to live up to the highest calling any human being can have- parenthood. The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world. There is a reason why, in monarchies, the Queen Mother actually had more power than the King.

That's what we call misogyny. What else do you have slated for women, out of kindness? Do they get to drive? Do they need to wear burkas?

They get to be MOTHERS- with all the duties that contains. And they should be paid what they are worth for that job- more than any CEO of a mere corporation, for the family is more important than any corporation.

Those are a few people. There are many more people in the US that don't like that so much.

And yet you'd force women out of the house and into the business world, destroying families in the process, so that the supply of workers goes up while demand stays constant, thus lowering wages.

Well, if you mean prevalent in the sense of powerful, then we agree. But it's mostly only those profiting off that system that agree with it. The masses don't, and that's what I meant.

And yet feminism itself argues FOR more workers, and thus a lower wage.

You're confusing a personal sentiment (i.e. Motherhood isn't fulfilling enough for me)

If it was a personal sentiment, then they wouldn't be putting down women who don't work.

with the societal goals of equality of opportunity

Until men can give birth, any attempt at equality of opportunity is just an attempt to deny nature.

(i.e. having the choice to work, to raise kids, etc).

Men don't have a choice there. So true equality of opportunity is a *lack* of such choice.

But even apart from that, you're ducking the question. What feminists want to require "*both* parents working outside of the home with no time for the children"?

That's what equality of opportunity DOES. By increasing the number of people in the workforce, wages are depressed, which in turn creates the economic conditions that require both parents to work. Cause and effect.

I think you're mixing up your feminists with your evil capitalist robber barons.

The Robber Barons take advantage of the increase in supply of labor, they don't cause the increase in supply of labor.

If you submit to a dictator, as you prefer, you're giving him/her/it the right to harm you and your neighbor without punishment.

Unless, of course, the dictator also has to submit in return, thus the need for a strong church to balance out the technocrat.

The exercise of liberty does not always harm others.

But when it doesn't, it's called morality, and that's what moral relativists say we can't have because of liberty.

In a rational society, when someone's freedom and someone's well-being conflict, we decide as a society how to weigh each one depending on the circumstances.If you have no single authority, then obviously the freedom will ALWAYS outweigh the mere well-being- or as you put it, those who trade liberty for security end up with neither. Freedom is almost always license, except when constrained by duty- and duty is impossible without rational authority.

If you fear being at the mercy of society in these decisions, you should be doubly afraid of the whims of an individual. You rightly decry the oppression of business leaders, yet comically want to invest even more power in a single individual.

What I fear is random chaos in these decisions, because from where I sit, humans aren't very rational by nature.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Tancred · 2012-01-05 11:22 · Score: 1

I want women and men to live up to the highest calling any human being can have- parenthood.
You want to be our dictator, but we don't want you.

They get to be MOTHERS- with all the duties that contains.
Under your regime, you'd force them to be mothers, with all the duties that contains.

And yet you'd force women out of the house and into the business world
No, I'd give them the choice. You're the one arguing to force them to stay out of the business world.

destroying families in the process
Many families are quite happy having the choice to work or not have children.

so that the supply of workers goes up while demand stays constant, thus lowering wages.
And have you declined to work so as not to lower wages? Or is that just for others?

And yet feminism itself argues FOR more workers, and thus a lower wage.
Yes, the feminist idea that women should be allowed to work lowers wages. But the feminists I know are also good lefties that argue for checks on narrow business interests, like unions, a minimum wage, regulations, fairer taxation and so on.

If it was a personal sentiment, then they wouldn't be putting down women who don't work.
That's a baseless argument until you give examples of feminists who want all women to work and not have children.

Until men can give birth, any attempt at equality of opportunity is just an attempt to deny nature.
You're getting really confused if you thought I was arguing for men giving birth.

(i.e. having the choice to work, to raise kids, etc).
Men don't have a choice there. So true equality of opportunity is a *lack* of such choice.
This might be a shock to you, but some men do choose not to work, to raise kids, etc.

By increasing the number of people in the workforce, wages are depressed, which in turn creates the economic conditions that require both parents to work.
So many things wrong with that. First, there are other ways to keep wages up. Second, you ignore the case where a woman works and a man doesn't (no increase in the workforce compared to your ideal). Third, you ignore that not all adults are or want to be parents. Fourth, your regime of forced procreation increases the number of people in the workforce.

The Robber Barons take advantage of the increase in supply of labor, they don't cause the increase in supply of labor.
Agreed. Unless they're also pushing for forced procreation.

Unless, of course, the dictator also has to submit in return, thus the need for a strong church to balance out the technocrat.
So your dictator has a dictator. And that helps how? Now you've given the church the right to harm you and your neighbor without punishment.

The exercise of liberty does not always harm others.
But when it doesn't, it's called morality, and that's what moral relativists say we can't have because of liberty.
What's that supposed to mean? That we can't exercise liberty, even if it harms no one?

those who trade liberty for security end up with neither
You want to trade your liberty for a dictator who tells you what to do. If you give up your liberty and don't even expect security, why do it?

What I fear is random chaos in these decisions, because from where I sit, humans aren't very rational by nature.
You're afraid of irrational humans, as a group, governing themselves. But you're not afraid of a single irrational human governing us. Real consistent.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-06 06:56 · Score: 1

You want to be our dictator, but we don't want you.

No, I want the rational implications of the biology of our species to be our dictator, because it's downright stupid to deny that parenthood is the entire reason for life. Life begets life- in all species- and thus the purpose of life is reproduction.

Under your regime, you'd force them to be mothers, with all the duties that contains.

Just as I'd have men be fathers- just as nature has always intended. Part of the definition of life is an organism that replicates. In bisexual species such as humans, that means parenthood. Anything less, add choice into the mixture, and you run the risk of extinction.

No, I'd give them the choice. You're the one arguing to force them to stay out of the business world.

Choice doesn't exist. Free will is an illusion created by our ignorance. A useful illusion, but still and illusion.

Many families are quite happy having the choice to work or not have children.

A family without children isn't a family, it's two people lying to each other.

And have you declined to work so as not to lower wages? Or is that just for others?

I have often declined to work for companies that were overstaffed to begin with, and that's the same reason I'm no longer a civil servant.

Yes, the feminist idea that women should be allowed to work lowers wages. But the feminists I know are also good lefties that argue for checks on narrow business interests, like unions, a minimum wage, regulations, fairer taxation and so on.

All of which are also denials of choice, correct?

That's a baseless argument until you give examples of feminists who want all women to work and not have children.

Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin claimed that all sex is rape back in the 1970s. Planned Parenthood today is trying to get pregnancy itself defined as a disease so that abortion, rather than birth, will be the cost-saving solution to pregnancy under the Affordable Health Care Act. It seems quite obvious that feminism for the past 30 years has been anti-motherhood and anti-child.

You're getting really confused if you thought I was arguing for men giving birth.

You were arguing for absolute equality between the sexes. And that *includes* the right to give birth. Once again, you have failed to understand the logical conclusions of your irrational beliefs.

This might be a shock to you, but some men do choose not to work, to raise kids, etc.

And in doing so, they shirk their responsibility as a FATHER, and are no better than a deadbeat dad.

So many things wrong with that. First, there are other ways to keep wages up.

The law of supply and demand is absolute, any country that tries to circumvent it by a minimum wage just reduces the number of jobs available.

Second, you ignore the case where a woman works and a man doesn't (no increase in the workforce compared to your ideal).

Who breastfeeds the infant?

Third, you ignore that not all adults are or want to be parents.

As I showed before, this is incompatible with the definition of life, as well as the continuation of the species, and thus, is at best, a non-surviving mutation that will cause extinction of those who practice it.

Agreed. Unless they're also pushing for forced procreation.

Which, of course, they should be, shouldn't they?

So your dictator has a dictator. And that helps how? Now you've given the church the right to harm you and your neighbor without punishment.

Transparency. The nice thing about religions

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-06 06:58 · Score: 1

Damn- I broke the rules. Missed a closing italics tag. still, the arguments work- thanks to some unintentional indents.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Rational Religious? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-06 07:24 · Score: 1

Thank you for, in my research, Introducing me to feminists with a radically different point of view

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Libertarians? by drsmithy · 2012-01-03 14:48 · Score: 1

Personally I think we should pass a bill putting out a call for Pharma companies to relocate to the US and simply close their foreign branches so your socialized systems can't dictate prices to them.

Can you perhaps point to the existing law(s) forcing "Pharma companies" to currently sell their products in those socialist hellholes ?

Re:Libertarians? by drsmithy · 2012-01-03 14:50 · Score: 1

Feel free not to use any of the advances we develop, on principle.

Do you not use "advances" developed outside of the USA, on "principle" ?

Re:Libertarians? by dbIII · 2012-01-03 14:56 · Score: 2

Libertarians are more likely to be self-starters and doers

They may think they are self-starters while not actually being so, just like some also seem to think that they can take the name of George Washington in vain while pushing the agenda of King Goerge III. The philosopy is a mass of naive contradictions - anarchists for aristocracy - and it's a bit of an insult to imply that most engineers think that way.
I don't know about you guys but the code of ethics I signed up for when I was registered as a professional engineer has as the first clause:

"Members shall place their responsibility for the welfare, health and safety of the community before their responsibility to sectional or private interests, or to other members".

That sounds like the definition of the exact opposite of Libertarianism to me.

Re:Libertarians? by kaizokuace · 2012-01-03 15:01 · Score: 1

I would rather say that scientists are intelligent and don't lean left or right but take things on a case by case basis. Liberal != smarter. It just means you are on the other side of the argument from the idiots. If you are intelligent you wouldn't be wasting your time arguing against idiots.

--
Balderdash!

Re:Libertarians? by bhcompy · 2012-01-03 15:08 · Score: 1

Except the managing partner(s) do not have limited liability.

Re:I'm wired as an engineer... by macraig · 2012-01-03 15:33 · Score: 1

Freedom to do what, exactly, that is diametrically opposed? Thwart the Common Good for the sake of self, no doubt? How ethical of them!

Yep: libertarians like freedom and hate ethics. Ethics constrain their freedom, and we can't be havin' that, now can we?

Re:Libertarians? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-03 16:07 · Score: 1

Libertarians are more likely to be self-starters and doers, which is more consistent with the engineering mentality.

Scientists, on the other hand, are more likely to be welfare-staters, because their science funding and grantsmanship culture is ever more dependent on the state.

Biased? One could also make the argument that engineers lean right/conservative because they work on existing frameworks and scientist lean left/liberal because they are always looking for new frameworks. Old ideas vs new ideas.

Or it's probably more complicated.

Re:Libertarians? by BasilBrush · 2012-01-03 16:09 · Score: 1

Cocoa programmers know how to delegate.

Re:Libertarians? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-03 16:53 · Score: 1

That's all well and good, but how do you explain then that vast majority of software companies are strongly left-leaning? (Apple, MS, Google...)

Re:Libertarians? by rtb61 · 2012-01-03 17:00 · Score: 1

Inherently libertarians are narcissistic, they greater you freedom the less those around you have. It is the nature of delusional government, my freedom first, the government of the individual, the toddler. Logical no group can exist with everyone pursuing their own freedom first and attempting government, the group effort, to pursue it.

Libertarians are more likely to be conmen, with motto's like buyer beware, when selling fair price is the maximum I extort, when buying fair price is the least I can force, all property ownership starts from me and any dead ancestors who left it to me no matter how far back, there is a sucker born every minute, it isn't lying when it benefits me and you are only free to do what doesn't impinge upon my freedom including the right to own your ass.

Engineers end up being technocrats because following well founded theories will produce the results you are after. Ignoring well founded theories purely upon the basis of 'Id' the 'I' first in everything, will either succeed of fail pretty much at the same rate as "self-starters and doers" in business, what's that about 1 success for every 1o failures, which wouldn't be bad if it wasn't for the trail of bad debts those 9 libertarians thinkers leave behind that the 1 left doesn't want to pay for.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen

Re:Libertarians? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-03 17:00 · Score: 2

Austrian economics is not science, since it doesn't use scientific method to obtain its results (they pretty much admit it themselves). Given the unwavering belief in "invisible hand" and "self-regulating free markets" that is essentially dogma for Austrians, I dare say that it has all hallmarks of religion.

Keynesian economics is far from perfect, but at least it's science, and it's a solid basis for further improvement on our predictive ability.

Re:Libertarians? by randyleepublic · 2012-01-03 17:03 · Score: 1

Social Credit is the ultimate expression of the sentiments you express. Have a look at the links my sig points you to. It is fascinating stuff.

--
Social Credit would solve everything...

Re:Libertarians? by Teancum · 2012-01-03 17:05 · Score: 1

I know photographers who will do more than take hundreds of photos for just 10 that are good. Some of them will literally sit for weeks or even months in the most uncomfortable situations. This particularly famous image is one that the photographer went into a war zone for and through all of the effort only came out with this one photograph (with a whole backstory on even that photo).

Re:Libertarians? by Teancum · 2012-01-03 17:12 · Score: 1

The problem is the presumption that the one and only purpose of a corporation is "to maximize profits and increase shareholder equity". Such a statement is commonly found in corporate charters of most for-profit corporations, but I assert that mission statement is not legally required to be in any corporate charter, and that bona fide companies can and do exist which have other purposes for their existance.

What I find sad is that few of those companies with alternative charters which spell out those other purposes are rarely found, or worse yet the corporate charters of those businesses which have alternate purposes are frequently changed to have the "maximize profits" clause put into the charter.

A famous example of a company which most definitely has an alternate charter is Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, which has a significant social activism component in its charter. Even though it is only a subsidiary of a conglomerate at the moment, that social activism component is most definitely still there. "Newman's Own" brand is another very good example. I wish I could use Google as still another example, but their "do no evil" is mixed with the maximize profits motive.

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by captjc · 2012-01-03 17:17 · Score: 1

Not everyone can be an engineer or scientist. Most people here know that. However, there is no reason that most people can't even try to apply themselves with some sort of "intellectual" pursuit or trade. Many of the people I knew in school, who weren't the few in the "i'm going to college to be a lawyer, doctor, scientist, or engineer," clique were either of the mindset that they were going to be rich and famous as a singer, actor, or a sports star or just truly didn't care about anything. The number of girls whose plan in life was to get knocked up and become a stay at home mom was astoundingly high for this day and age.

The problem is not that we want people to all be coders and scientists, but to bring this culture out of this lazy anti-intellectual funk it is in. People seem to have this mantra of "learning is hard" and just want a super high-paying 40hr/week job that requires no work at all. Unfortunately, unless you are born a trust-fund baby, it doesn't exist.

--
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Not all engineers are libertarians by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-03 17:17 · Score: 2

However, there is definitely a trend that many libertarians are engineers (or, more broadly speaking, someone with formal or informal education in "hard" sciences and not humanities).

I think the reason why libertarianism is appealing to software engineers in particular is that we often tend to think in terms of "clean code" and "minimalism is beautiful" - simply put, use the simplest, clearest data structures and algorithms that will do the job. This mode of thinking generally produces good results, but occasionally goes beyond the minimum that's actually necessary for good results - it evolves into minimalism for minimalism's sake, justified at the heart purely by aesthetics, and superficially by mental gymnastics explaining how you "don't really need all that bloat". For a typical example, remember the usual discussion of the merits of IDEs on Slashdot - invariably, a bunch of people will come up and proudly proclaim that all you need to code is Vim. If you start inquiring further, you'll get told that any feature that is present in your-IDE-of-choice but not in Vim is not needed anyway, and that you're an incapable idiot for even thinking about it.

Libertarianism is similar, in that the crux of its argument is that things will be working just as well or better if we get rid of as many regulations as possible, since we "don't need them anyway". If you start pointing out specific examples of how things will be worse for many people if such deregulation is actually implemented in full, libertarians will explain to you that you're wrong to think of the differences as "worse", and they are actually "better" in some higher moral or philosophical way.

Re:Not all engineers are libertarians by hazah · 2012-01-05 09:25 · Score: 1

If you start inquiring further, you'll get told that any feature that is present in your-IDE-of-choice but not in Vim is not needed anyway, and that you're an incapable idiot for even thinking about it.
Now that's a bit harsh. Usually that's not what the situation is. Often times, the old timers simply have modified their OS to be their IDE, and end up scoffing at the suggestion that one needs yet another tool to do what they are ALREADY DOING WITHOUT THAT SPECIAL TOOL. That is, they, not so casually, tell you that you're ignorant of their ways and they know it.

Altruism by NewYork · 2012-01-03 17:54 · Score: 1

I believe true Engineers are Altruists.

--
Casteism

Re:Libertarians? by Rockoon · 2012-01-03 18:54 · Score: 1

What do you think that power will be used for if the "majority race and religion capitalists" gain control of the government?

A big pet peeve of mine is that in the few places where homosexuals can get married, nobody bothers to address the real problem. The real problem is that married people have extra rights and privileges that unmarried people cannot have. Hell they even get tax breaks. Letting homosexuals in on it doesnt make it right either. The absurdity of this false dichotomy just doesnt occur to people pushing a morality

--
"His name was James Damore."

Re:Libertarians? by azgard · 2012-01-03 19:34 · Score: 1

Simple (in ideal world): FDA is employed and controlled by the citizens, so it cannot be paid by the producers it can control. So it's not operating on a free market basis - if it would, then it could sell its services to anyone, and would come into conflict of interest.

Re:Libertarians? by Sique · 2012-01-03 19:59 · Score: 1

No, I am fantasizing about a "truly free market" world pretty similar to the Middle Age Europe, with lots of little chiefdoms and large kingdoms, palatinates and prince-bishops, with a completely splittered landscape of coin systems and units, contracts and rivalry, agreements, cross-marriages, alliances and feuds, big Reichstags where all participants declare their common interests, while already bringing their troups into position for the next war.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Re:Libertarians? by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-03 20:23 · Score: 1

Not really. Such a move is naturally accompanied by a drastic reduction in regulation, with red tape being the largest impediment to most new businesses.

"Limited liability" covers more than just liability to suits by regulatory bodies or plaintiffs citing regulations in their suits. I might be less likely to want to invest in a small start-up if it means that if the startup goes bankrupt, and the creditors can't satisfy their claims from the assets of the startup, I might lose not only my investment but part of whatever else gets awarded to the creditors.

Further, most companies in the US are not incorporated, but are sole proprietorships. Something like 90%, as I recall.

Is a sole proprietorship a "company" or just a "business"? The entry in Black's Law Dictionary for "company" says a "company" is "A society or association of persons, in considerable number, interested in a common object, and uniting themselves for the prosecution of some’commercial or industrial undertaking, or other legitimate business.", so a sole proprietorship wouldn't be a "company".

As for the number, Table 744, "Number of Tax Returns, Receipts, and Net Income by Type of Business: 1990 to 2008" of the 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States (I guess that's "2012" as in "put out in 2012", as it's a bit hard to get useful statistics about 2012 as a whole by January 4, 2012) has, for 2008, 22,614,000 tax receipts from non-farm proprietorships, 3,146,000 receipts from partnerships, and 5,847,000 receipts from corporations (the numbers are given in thousands of returns, and are "estimates based on sample of unaudited tax returns", so no silly-ass comments about the ",000" in the numbers, please), so it's more like 72%

In any case, I suspect your local dry-cleaner shop didn't buy its dry-cleaning equipment from a sole proprietorship, so, whilst most businesses might be sole proprietorships, most businesses any of us either deal with directly or are dealt with by other businesses with which we deal (ad whatever the translation for "transitive closure" to Latin is) might well be limited-liability entities of some sort.

Perhaps in a world with no limited-liability entities there would still be the equivalents of Apple and Google and of all the other entities that built the equipment that they use and the infrastructure that they use and so on, but I would not be tempted to assume that.

Re:Stalin by FormOfActionBanana · 2012-01-03 20:30 · Score: 1

So is Angela Merkel.

--
Take off every 'sig' !!

Re:Libertarians? by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-03 20:33 · Score: 1

I suspect that you didnt even consider it a possibility that the real problem with corporations is that their members are not generally treated on a legal level as individuals responsible for their corporate actions.

Is that, in fact, the case? For example, this article from Ice Miller LLP says

Federal and state courts are using the "responsible corporate officer" doctrine to impose civil liability on corporate officers for their acts performed on behalf of the corporation that lead to the violation of certain environmental laws. Recently, the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana judicially imposed greater corporate responsibility by holding an individual associated with a corporation personally liable under the "responsible corporate officer" doctrine for the corporation's violations of the Indiana Environmental Management Act. Although the Court interpreted the language in the Indiana Environmental Management Act, there is language in the opinion that may be used to support the argument that the Court's reasoning may be applied to other types of civil or criminal violations.

Re:Libertarians? by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-03 20:39 · Score: 1

Except the managing partner(s) do not have limited liability.

But the other investors do. That's one thing that the "L" in "LLC" and the "limited" in "limited partnership" indicates. That's the "where the investor is protected" bit you mentioned earlier; as the person to whom you're replying says, "Anyone whose business is growing and needs outside financial resources (ie, debt, venture capital, additional stock) to grow, has the business in some form of legal entity." - I'm not going to be particularly eager to invest in a company if doing so renders me potentially liable for all the debts of the company.

Re:Libertarians? by mvdwege · 2012-01-03 20:43 · Score: 2

You're begging the question. Are these companies left-leaning?

In all three cases, I see an organisation out for profit for itself, at least sometimes, and in my opinion often, at the expense of others. For example, I could hardly call Apple's use of near-slave labour in China a left standpoint.

Google's willingness to let its technology be used by any authoritarian government to gather information on its citizens is hardly left-leaning either; and in case you want to point to the Stalinist regimes of the Cold War, these were run-of-the-mill authoritarian regimes, hardly what any sane Socialist would call 'left'.

So, I'd like to see some proofs that these companies actually promote left values, like increasing the control of the lowly workers over the actual production, instead of a strictly hierarchical structure where wealth and power flows up to the Gates, Ballmers, Jobs and Brins.

The hierarchy may be benevolent, and therefore not actively hostile to left-leaning employees. This, however, does not make them left-leaning themselves. As poisoned as the US political climate is, English is not unique to the United States, and English words like 'Socialism' and 'Left' still have meanings beyond 'Bad' and 'Evil'.

Mart

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?

Re:Libertarians? by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-03 20:48 · Score: 1

Note the every economy that has ever industrialized did so under a libertarian economic policy.

Indeed? Presumably you mean either that Russia never industrialized or did the bulk of its industrialization pre-1917 (assuming Tsarist polic was economically libertarian) or post-1980's (or that Vlad Ulyanov and Joe Dzhugashvili were libertarian in their economic policies, but I doubt you mean that).

On the less extreme side, I'm a bit skeptical that, say, Germany and France industrialized under such a policy.

Re:Libertarians? by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-03 21:05 · Score: 1

And the FDA routinely allows drugs onto the market that have nasty side effects. What's your point?

The point is probably that neither government regulation nor private third-party ratings magically avoid Bad Things Happening, at which point the best thing to do is probably to investigate which of the two appears to have a better record of avoiding Bad Things in practice and the costs of both. (No, I'm not saying which of the two such an investigation would find better.)

Re:Libertarians? by Elky+Elk · 2012-01-03 21:21 · Score: 1

Maybe our evil socialist governments are better at negotiating than your glorious private healthcare.

Re:Libertarians? by bryonak · 2012-01-03 21:51 · Score: 1

Somehow I cannot connect this to the reality I live in. If people really behaved like you assume in this posting, communism would work flawlessly.
Basically, what you're proposing is exactly the cartel system we currently have in Mexico, minus that little bit of government influence that is left.
They are handling disputes via "private arbitration" just fine, and those who see it as their "right" to pursue restitution and retribution at their own measure are doing it as well. Not that I'd ever want to live there...
Or can you show me a counterexample?

Re:Libertarians? by serviscope_minor · 2012-01-03 22:20 · Score: 1

You miss the point. There are no more tax cheats BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MORE TAXES.

No taxes. Sounds very nice to me, except...

Courts still exist in a libertarian system to punish fraud,...

Who pays for those courts? Also, what about courts to lock up murderers and violent criminals and other people intent on forcibly removing the freedom of others (e.g. slave traders)? Who pays for the court and enforcement?

Libertarianism is individualism, which is the OPPOSITE of racism.

No. They're orthogonal, independent concepts, and utterly unrelated. One can be a racist libertarian if one wishes.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Re:Libertarians? by spiralx · 2012-01-03 22:59 · Score: 1

I'm not sure you realise 6 out of the 10 largest pharma companies aren't US companies.

Re:Libertarians? by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-03 23:02 · Score: 1

You imply then that right-leaning people aren't intelligent? Hilarious to say the least. I'll throw my opinion in there too for that matter. Scientists are more likely to be right-leaning because they think with their brain, not their heart, as left-leaning people tend to.

You put opinion above observation (yes, there is data that shows that scientists tend to be left-leaning) which shows that you are probably not a scientist. It would also tend to indicate that you are right wing.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:Libertarians? by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-03 23:12 · Score: 1

Alternatively, a libertarian society might possibly emerge from the ashes of a destructive event, such as a massive tsunami that washes away much of the public and private property (real and personal) of a large region.

Somalia?

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:Libertarians? by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-03 23:18 · Score: 1

That same economic policy is what turned the serfs and rural farmers of each nation into middle class citizens.

WTF?

No, turned serfs and rural farmers into the urban proletariat.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:Libertarians? by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-03 23:20 · Score: 1

Rand wasn't a libertarian.

Libertarians aren't Objectivists.

Rand wasn't a great thinker - her insanity doesn't need "completion".

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:Libertarians? by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-03 23:25 · Score: 1

No, I am fantasizing about a "truly free market" world pretty similar to the Middle Age Europe, with lots of little chiefdoms and large kingdoms, palatinates and prince-bishops, with a completely splittered landscape of coin systems and units, contracts and rivalry, agreements, cross-marriages, alliances and feuds, big Reichstags where all participants declare their common interests, while already bringing their troups into position for the next war.

What a lot of words just to say Mogadishu.

Easier to spell I suppose.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:Libertarians? by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-03 23:30 · Score: 1

Who stops them.

Oh, "men with guns".

Who pays for the men with guns?

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

simplicity is a vector of caprice by epine · 2012-01-03 23:39 · Score: 1

We are all dictators inside

I read the other spat that ensued from this sentence. I'm in the camp that this is a dubious beginning. You could at least add the asterisk "by the time we are angry enough to pay attention". Here's a physics question for you: is symmetry breaking dictatorial? Is the uniform chirality of life on earth dictatorial? Are we all better off driving on whichever side of the road suits us on any given day? Pretty quickly you arrive at Rawl's concept of the original position: whichever symmetry-breaking decision is made must intrinsically favour one side or the other, but the process by which the decision is reached need not. Allegations of unfairness succumb to circular argument. Success in life is a proxy for good decision making, so we choose successful decision makers (whenever the process is overt). Wealth is a common proxy for success, but also for corrupt influence. Ergo we are all dictators inside. Here's something else to square with your rabid reductionism of human nature: a fair decision is the one which leaves both sides equally unhappy. I really see the story here as having more to do with how the human mind conceptualizes blame. I guess the solution to attribution bias is to delegate all decisions to an invisible hand. What can't be accounted is functionally blameless.

the exact reason

I often have this very sentiment myself when pouring over the TLA+ proof system.

government power must be limited

We're a long ways from fascism, in case you haven't noticed. What you really mean is that government must shrink until we can drown it in the bathtub, it's radioactive ashes ground to a powder, and exploded into the upper atmosphere, never to trouble us again.

in a way that satisfies libertarian principles

Brought to you by the anti-theorem that all virtuous principles are orthogonal in practice.

Arrow's impossibility theorem

The problem with high-dander moral clarity is that it overspecifies the system, returning you to the original political conundrum about which point of self-evident common sense is first to be voted off the island.

I didn't spend 100 hours of my life listening to Russ Roberts in a state of conflicted agreement/disagreement out of a sense that the grand answer could be distilled to a business card slogan, but if you read enough Dilbert amazing things can happen:

Simplicity is a vector of caprice.

Re:Libertarians? by selven · 2012-01-03 23:53 · Score: 1

Because a bunch of people being allowed, by privilege of owning a lot, to do whatever the hell they want without consequences is a bad thing indeed- despite the existence of other groups with the same amount of money doing good.

You can prevent people from doing a lot of bad in two ways. First, you can prevent people from doing a lot period. Second, though, you can prevent people from doing bad no matter what the scale. Liberty is not about doing whatever you want without consequences, it's about doing whatever you want that does not infringe on the rights of others. Some rich people will do good (eg. by setting up charities), others will act neutrally (eg. by leaving their money as inheritance to children who waste it all and contribute nothing themselves), but those that use their money to do harm are criminals no matter what political system you subscribe to.

Re:Libertarians? by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-03 23:54 · Score: 1

Personally I think we should pass a bill putting out a call for Pharma companies to relocate to the US and simply close their foreign branches

Foreign branches?

6 of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies are European.

Why the fuck would they re-locate to the US?

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

I dunno, find a real engineer and ask them by EmagGeek · 2012-01-03 23:56 · Score: 1

There aren't many real engineers out there anymore, and certainly very very few under the age of about 50. The new generation are not engineers, but rather process-followers that play connect the dots.

The new way they teach engineering in college today is that, for any given problem, if you put this set of data into this process, you will get a reasonable result. This new engineering paradigm is the reason the consumer has become the beta tester - because all engineers do is blindly follow the process, then worry about the details later.

In 1984, I bought a Tandy 1000 computer. It came with DOS, and Deskmate. And, guess what. It worked. I never had to upgrade the firmware. I never had to upgrade to a new version of software. This is because that computer was truly engineered. It wasn't "slap this set of chips together and ship it."

PC hardware today requires constant firmware hacks (I won't say upgrades), and each new hack fixes a known issue, and creates several other unknown issues. A case in point here is OCZ SSDs. They're pitiful. There is a new "urgent" firmware release about every week for them. The motherboard in my PC is on firmware J (10th!).

As far as the political leanings of engineers, they're just like everyone else. There are democrats, republicans, libertarians, and kooky fringe lunatics. The job does not predispose anyone to a particular political belief system.

Re:Stalin by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-03 23:59 · Score: 1

Stalin was an engineer

No he wasn't. He was a seminary student.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:China too.... by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 00:05 · Score: 1

*sigh* John Nash, so yes it is.

Interestingly Nash was insane(*) when he did his most important work.

Which may tell us something about Game Theory or Economics.

((*) Or so he claims).

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:Stalin by Eunuchswear · 2012-01-04 00:10 · Score: 1

Uh, the USSR was the 2nd world by definition. That's what 2nd world meant.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:Stalin by dunkelfalke · 2012-01-04 00:13 · Score: 1

Well, first of all, USSR was second world by the very definition of that term. Second, the Soviet Union was a country with a well developed industry, certainly not bleeding edge, but in the seventies it was only a decade behind USA or Germany. Some of the union republics weren't as developed, though, that's true.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-04 00:46 · Score: 1

Keynesian economics is far from perfect, but at least it's science, and it's a solid basis for further improvement on our predictive ability.

It claims to be a science, but it has no predictive value. So, it's at least wrong, even if it's methodological.

Austrian economics does make testable predictions, though clearly running experiments on an economy isn't possible.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-04 00:46 · Score: 1

Do you not use "advances" developed outside of the USA, on "principle" ?

No, I don't have a problem with other people organizing themselves however they wish.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-04 00:50 · Score: 1

No, I am fantasizing about a "truly free market" world pretty similar to the Middle Age Europe

Middle Ages Europe was basically defined by mercantilism - the propping up of certain corporations by State power. Those corporations ran amok with a good chunk of the world.

That's about as far from a free market as one can possibly get.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Aspergers Cases who Lack Empathy by maple_shaft · 2012-01-04 01:30 · Score: 1

I am all for people applying themselves, and I somewhat agree that we have become increasingly anti-intellectual. Intellectuals question the status quo and introduce disruptive innovation. The status quo benefits the true holders of power. True holders of power wish to protect the status quo, as this protects them, thus the true holders of power must logically be anti-intellectual.

People are people, a few will be exceptional, a sizable number super productive and industrious, some do just what it takes to get by, a good number are not predisposed to ever being productive and are perfectly content being dependent on others their entire lives. Some are just criminals and sociopaths and actively make society worse. Most people are naturally not inclined to being intellectual, so I think the premise that things are getting worse maybe a matter of perception that important decision makers and what is portrayed in media is increasingly anti-intellectual as there is a significant number of power brokers who wish anti-intellectuals to retain power in this country. It is in their best interest after all as anti-intellectuals are not forward thinking and are constantly resistant of progress and change. They don't understand progress and change, their minds are closed, and what people don't understand scares them.

Some people through all of best intentions will be leeches in life. Even if forcing them to retain some form of employment it will be menial, error prone, and with no passion or interest. One of my problems with the Libertarian ideology is that in a truly free market society these natural leeches have no place in society and might as well die in the street. It conveniently ignores and devalues an important and natural type of human personality, and thus Libertarianism is at odds with natural humanity. A free market society does nothing for these people, just casts them aside and supresses them, controls them and will create civil unrest.

Re:I'm wired as an engineer... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-01-04 01:57 · Score: 1

It sounds like the grandparent may be all for state sponsored firearms though.

--
Time to offend someone

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 02:04 · Score: 1

Your classic Silicon Valley type would be Steve Jobs or Larry Ekkison, whose basic philosophy is "as I am extraordinarily clever, rich and successful I should be able to do anything I want without interference from the little people". Sounds Randian/libertarian to me.

Inviting Obama to dinner is hardly proof that you're a revolutionary socialist, and besides most people here seem to love Apple and Google so they certainly don't vehemently hate ALL corporations.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by tbannist · 2012-01-04 02:09 · Score: 1

There's a problem with that. The political right has been pushing away intelligent people. Right wing talk radio, for example, thrives on one-sided and biased arguments and often uses blatant misrepresentation to score political points. Intelligent people who can spot the deceptions will be inevitably be turned off this behaviour (unless they are also extremely biased). The Republicans have developed a strong anti-science bias because the science indicates that some of their policy objectives are unreasonable and/or unwise. Rather than changing the policies to match what science informs us is true, the Republican party has frequently chosen to ignore or attack scientists for daring to oppose them.

Scientists used to generally lean right as did university professors. It was Richard Nixon and the Vietnam war that started their slow shift to the left, out of the Republican party and into the Democratic party. Or perhaps more succinctly, Scientists tend to be more liberal because "reality has a well-known liberal bias".

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Left??? by RingDev · 2012-01-04 02:11 · Score: 1

Silicon Valley is known to lean left--Google's Marissa Mayer had Obama as an invited guest at her home for a fundraiser, for crying out loud.

You say that as if you think Obama is some sort of left leaning political figure. I can see where you would get that impression, but it's pretty far from accurate. The left only likes him because he isn't as far right as the GOP.

-Rick

--
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 02:18 · Score: 2

That's why the dems favor giving ex-cons voting rights while reps typically oppose it.

Or could it just be that the "dems" are morally correct in this case? As a non-US citizen can I just ask why the fuck should ex-convicts not have the right to vote?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 02:21 · Score: 1

Government doesn't have anything, it only has what it steals from people.

Businesses don't have anything, they only have what they steal from people.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by kaizokuace · 2012-01-04 02:26 · Score: 1

Then I suppose I should clarify what I think of what is currently thought of as 'left' as the current left wing attitude isn't at all liberal but more moderate. So you could suppose that current democratic party is kinda what republican party used to be and the current republican party is a pile of fuck tards. But that's just my opinion.

--
Balderdash!

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 02:28 · Score: 1

You are sadly misinformed. Corporations arose because people making money wanted to be able to make it more easily and with less risk, not because "the government" thought they would be a spiffing idea. The people in power at the time set in law a system that benefitted the rich at the expense of the poor.

Limited liability was the free market response to the realities of capitalism. If I want to get people to invest in my brilliant business idea, it's much easier if their liability is limited to what they put in, rather than risking their house and entire fortune if my idea backfires and I get sued.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by pnewhook · 2012-01-04 02:34 · Score: 1

No, you republicans use the word socialism as a fear word, much like red and commie was used in the 60s. Democrats and Republican policies are nothing like socialism, and clearly you do not know the meaning of the word. I stand by my original statement and would go further to say that Republican policies are inherently anti-freedom. But clearly you are not interested in the truth as you posted as AC.

--
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 02:40 · Score: 1

There are no more labor laws, because we have unions to stand up for worker's rights.

You're having a laugh. With no government protection, employers would ignore or simply wipe out any organised union opposition. But, of course, you already know this and are being disingenuous.

Either that, or you're an idiot.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by tbannist · 2012-01-04 02:48 · Score: 1

No, running out of customers would be part of the business plan. Next week, we'd be selling something different under a different name and making new claims about the benefits of our new product. You act like this has never been done before.

The fraudsters will simply change names and products whenever their reputation starts to catch up to them. They routinely "go out of business" while they hatch the next scam, it's not a problem because they know it's going to happen and because they're selling nearly worthless products that are mostly profit it never hurts their bottom line, though it may drive honest competitors out of business.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:Libertarians? by tbannist · 2012-01-04 02:51 · Score: 1

You'd probably never know for sure what caused the deaths and no one would ever be punished.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:Libertarians? by tbannist · 2012-01-04 03:00 · Score: 1

I agree with you, but the system is worse than you describe. Reading that closely, it's private arbitration and hiring mercenaries to collect it. Who's fault is it when your kid gets shot while someone else is trying to "collect" on the debts they are owed because their kid is dead? Who will be willing to try and collect the debts from organisations that can afford standing mercenary armies to protect their assets?

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:Libertarians? by tbannist · 2012-01-04 03:10 · Score: 1

Amusing. You propose destroying the American economy to teach the rest of the world a lesson. I assume you've already cut off your nose.

You'd have to forbid the Pharma companies from selling to the rest of the world. They charge whatever price other people are willing to pay. Every other industrial country has a universal healthcare system, which means they have negotiating power because they're buying medicine for millions of people. The Pharma companies love the rest of the world because they're easy to work with. The U.S.? They love you because they get high profit margins because you have no bargaining power, they also hate you because they have to deal with 30,000 different purchasers.

I find it amusing that you think plunging the U.S. into another great depression will teach the rest of the world a lesson. It's unlikely there would be another World War which leaves the U.S. untouched and ready to supply the world's reconstruction needs to pull you out of it, this time.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 03:20 · Score: 1

Hopefully we get another great thinker who can complete Rand's original work

Thanks for the laugh.

The answer to your problem is to read about anarchism, which (apart from an aversion to government) is almost entirely the opposite of libertarianism, as it is based on people behaving well rather than selfishly, and abhors power structures of all kinds, including economic ones.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 03:30 · Score: 1

It just works, and pulls everyone out of poverty as capital accumulates

What bollocks, in the glorious early days of free market capitalism you still had appalling slums in places like New York and London. It was only subsequent nterference in the free market that allowed things like working hours regulation, abolition of child labour, dcent health and safety for workers and so on.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:China too.... by newcastlejon · 2012-01-04 03:32 · Score: 1

Indeed. I just put that link up there because it makes me smile.

Unfortunately it seems to have had quite the opposite effect on poor jd.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.

Re:Libertarians? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-04 03:35 · Score: 1

I was referring not to companies as entities in their own right, but rather to people constituting them. I have personal experience with MS, and yes, it is definitely very left-leaning (a simple and rough but still meaningful test is to come to Redmond at rush hour and count Obama stickers on cars). From what I've heard from folks working at Google, it's similar there.

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 03:41 · Score: 1

I think you're misunderstanding what "limited liability" means. It refers to the liability of shareholders being limited to the nominal amount of share capital they purchase, it has nothing to do with the corporation's liability to lawsuits or whatever.

Nitpick aside, I agree with your point that if you let people accumulate a disproportionate amount of wealth, you simply can't expect all of them to do good (or at least not do evil) with it.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-04 03:42 · Score: 1

The revolving door between big pharma and the FDA and the regulatory capture that such a situation brings might come as a shock to you.

The only difference between the FDA and a free-market third party is that we can't get away from the FDA, making the FDA the perfect method for big corporations to bend us over a barrel.

If Engineers Ran the Government... by rocker_wannabe · 2012-01-04 03:46 · Score: 1

If Slashdot is any indication, then a government filled with engineers would be really snarky!

I don't believe that any particular group of people will ultimately be better or worse than any other at running government. I would like to point out that the technology, that members of Slashdot have helped develop, will allow governments to micromanage a large population in a way that was previously impossible. The ability to use computers to track and profile people has allowed the government to lockdown society in ways that make the powers of a police state truly terrifying.

--
"Meaningless!, Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless!"

Re:Libertarians? by oreaq · 2012-01-04 03:50 · Score: 1

He doesn't have any source for it, because he's wrong. You need a solid understanding of newtonian mechanics to build a steam engine from scratch. The (ancient) Romans couldn't even understand how Achilles could overtake a tortoise. I.e. they didn't have any modell to understand, explain, or predict motion.

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 03:52 · Score: 1

Libertarians like you make the entirely simplistic and incorrect assumption that government and business are one and the same. In fact, at least in slightly more socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere, government performs a valuable service in regulating the excesses of business. The US assumption that all politicians are simply leeches on big business says more about your particular society than about political theory in general.

The 2008 crash was caused by government regulation not being tough enough, thanks to the (partial) poisoning of the political well by big banks with too much money and influence. It was unfortunate that government then bailed the fuckers out, but there you go, they had to act in the interests of the country as a whole, i.e. the millions of small investors who would have been buggered six ways to Tuesday if a string of big banks had gone bust.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 04:00 · Score: 1

Assault and attempted murder aren't allowed under a free market, moron.

What do you mean "not allowed"? Who's going to stop them? I suppose murder victims' families could sue the killers, but who would decide jow much for? And who would enforce the damages if the murderer didn't pay up?

I suppose you could have private armies/bodyguards if you're rich enough, but that's hardly a viable preventative solution for most people.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 04:06 · Score: 1

Ah yes, the good old days! It's great when you read about all those aristocrats and successful capitalists, what great lives they had!

Obviously, everyone here would be part of the tiny middle/upper class, and not one of the majority forced to live out their lives doing backbreaking labour with inadequate food in unsanitary conditions and with no hope of dragging themselves upwards.

But, of course, back then the poor were happy with their lot and generally believed in some sort of religion to act as their opium. I'm not sure you'd get away with it quite so easily nowadays.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 04:09 · Score: 1

Who tells you that the FDA isn't a fraud?

It has no financial incentive to be. Unlike private for-profit ratings agencies.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 04:13 · Score: 1

It's OK, you'll go back to the king/barons set up where the king borrowed some money and men off barons towards he was suitably generous when it came to sharing out the spoils of war.

A bit like Bush and Haliburton, really, but more transparent.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 04:19 · Score: 1

Why the fuck do you think we would only buy drugs from US companies? Also, do you really think that US drug companies are selling to Europe and the rest of the world at a loss, just for the fun of it?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by tehcyder · 2012-01-04 04:21 · Score: 1

A lot of us also think your medical system is a complete disgrace.

Feel free not to use any of the advances we develop, on principle.

That would be a vile comment if the US was the only place in the world that developed medical advances. As it's not, the comment is merely asinine.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Libertarians? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-04 04:37 · Score: 1

At least back then the war was largely limited to the battlefield- the grand majority of Haliburton's kill ratio were Iraqi civilians. Knights at least had honor. Mercenaries don't.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-04 04:38 · Score: 1

Its a deal if you promise not of use any of ours either. :)

Don't be a jackass, the US isn't the only hub of medical science in the world. That's not even related, he's talking about the availability of medical care to the population, not the number or quality of your medical scientists.

Those aren't disconnected. We could stop all of our medical research and have plenty of money to pay for medical care for the entire population.

Money isn't unlimited (though money isn't the primary problem, it's 3rd-party payer risk).

But, that aside, he benefits from the uninsured here because the money goes into research instead. If he's morally opposed to a system, he shouldn't profit from it.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Libertarians? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-04 04:41 · Score: 1

"I think you're misunderstanding what "limited liability" means. It refers to the liability of shareholders being limited to the nominal amount of share capital they purchase, it has nothing to do with the corporation's liability to lawsuits or whatever. "

I guess I really misunderstood- I thought it meant that you could go after the corporation, but not the shareholders or officers individually.

When you can hold 51% of the shares of a corporation and have voting control, how is that limited in any real sense of the word limited?

Now if you had *truly* limited share capital that one person could purchase, hostile takeovers would be a thing of the past.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-04 04:42 · Score: 1

Who is the "we" in that sentence? Are you are a libertarian? If you are, I sincerely hope you actually work for a pharmaceutical company because, otherwise, you just used the "Royal We" which is a big no-no.

We who are forced to pay for the system.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Libertarians? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-01-04 04:45 · Score: 1

but those that use their money to do harm are criminals no matter what political system you subscribe to.

Then why don't we treat them as such? Why do we give them bailouts, lobbying jobs, and cabinet positions instead?

Seems much safer to prevent people from doing a lot, than attempting to catch all the fraud- especially since under normal circumstances, fraud is far more rewarding than any punishment the government is willing to impose.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Libertarians? by JesseMcDonald · 2012-01-04 04:46 · Score: 1

So how exactly does this help when (for example) I go to a restaurant and my kid dies from eating tainted food? No amount of private arbitration will bring someone back from the dead; ...

No amount of civil suits or criminal prosecution will bring someone back from the dead, either. As I said, the purpose of arbitration is simply to establish the legitimacy of your grievance.

... you have to take preventative measures in the first place, which would definitely not happen if the only system of redress was private arbitration.

I disagree; arbitration may be enough on its own. Still, it's a good thing that the system of redress is not limited to arbitration. The restaurant takes preventative measures, not because you might pursue private arbitration, but because, arbitration or no arbitration, if they poison your child you have a right to seek restitution, as well as retribution in kind if the attack was deliberate or they refuse to pay the compensation owed (which effectively makes the harm deliberate). And what could they possibly pay that would be sufficient restitution for the loss of a child? They would end up owing you everything. Considering that risk, the preventative measures pay for themselves.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat

Re:Libertarians? by riverat1 · 2012-01-04 05:39 · Score: 1

I think the difference between left & right is more a matter of what they want to control more than whether they want to control peoples lives. The right wants to control your private life while the left wants to control your public life.

Re:What a strawman argument by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-04 06:37 · Score: 1

Some statistics don't tell you anything useful. Knowing that some percentage of programmers tend to espouse a particular ideology doesn't tell you what their thoughts on the issues are.

Knowing that some percentage of programmers tend to espouse libertarianism tells you that those programmers are probably not going to be in favor of, say, strong government regulations of pollutant emissions or of drug laws. Knowing that some percentage of programmers tend to espouse social-democratic views tells you that those programmers are probably going to be in favor of some form of universal health insurance with some form of government mandate. Knowing that some percentage of programmers tend to espouse....

None of those tell you that all programmers will have those views, but I'm not sure that anybody argued that all programmers will, say, oppose strong government regulations of pollutant emissions and oppose drug laws and....

Re:What a strawman argument by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-04 06:55 · Score: 1

I see labelling someone a "Libertarian" (for example) as no more viable than assuming the personality of someone just because they're Black, Hispanic, etc.

"Labeling someone a {insert your ideology here}" is not the same thing as "assuming the personality of someone just because they're {insert race, sex, ethnicity} here". It's the same as "labeling someone a member of {race, sex, ethnicity}", and both are quite viable in many circumstances. If somebody has a Y chromosome, I'm probably correct to label them as a "male" (modulo transsexuality, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, etc.). If somebody believes in a minimal government, with no drug laws, no sodomy laws, little or no regulation of private commerce, a military sufficient to defend against external attack but no more, etc., I'm probably correct to label them as a "libertarian". There are other cases where it's not so easy - what about somebody who believes there should be no drug or sodomy laws, little or no regulation of private commerce, and a large military with bases all over the world? What's their ideology called? What's the race or ethnicity of somebody from a very-mixed background? In their case, it might be what they consider themselves, unless that's a completely silly self-identification (e.g., somebody whose ancestry is 127/128th northern European white and 1/128th Nigerian black identifying themselves as "black" if nobody else even knows about their black great-great-great-...-grandfather).

The labels themselves are bigotry, regardless of whether they're based on race, creed, or profession.

Calling Keith Ellison or Herman Cain or Condoleezza Rice "black", or calling Mitt Romney or Bernie Sanders or Stephen Harper "white", or calling Joseph Lieberman "Jewish", or calling Rick Santorum "Catholic", or calling Keith Ellison "Muslim", or calling Linus Torvalds a "programmer" or "software engineer", is bigotry?

!@#$%^&*()_+! by tqk · 2012-01-04 07:28 · Score: 1

Is it Monday? You guys just enjoy playing with my mind, yes? Scott Adams is running for President?!? Since when?!? WTF?!?

Fine. Turnabout's fair play. Ptheh.

... engineers -especially Silicon Valley types- like to think that they're libertarians, they are in fact much more likely to be control-freak technocrats.

Point of order, Mr. Speaker ... I'm a small "l" libertarian, and I'm somewhat of a "control freak technocrat." Why do you believe it's so difficult to be both? Methinks you don't really understand the meaning of the words you're using.

On systems I admin or support, I'm a benevolent tyrant; no apologies. I enjoy protecting the weak (no offence intended) from hurting themselves. It's my job! They're welcome to play all they want and have all the fun they can, but at the end of the day, if they can't find the file they need, that's my fault. I don't expect them to know what they're doing, nor to read all the spiffy documentation I write for them, nor to bother to understand the informative emails I'm continually bombarding them with. I do expect that the backups I create can be read. I do expect that I can clobber their lost password when they need me to. I do expect them to fear me when there's a need for that (which isn't often). I'm not ordinarily a BOFH (too much work), but I can be when necessary.

I want users to have all the freedom they can grab for. That means I need control of the system to ensure they get it. This is not a difficult question. When I'm logged in as root, I'm carrying lit sticks of dynamite in both hands. That's serious business. You just go on with your day and ignore the messes I'm dealing with. We'll both be better off that way.

Ah, crap. /usr's filling up. !@#$ Never mind ...

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by Sique · 2012-01-04 07:36 · Score: 1

Mercantilism is much later than the Middle Age, it started at the end of the Renaissance and grow to full power in the Baroque. When mercantilism started, the Middle Age was over for more than 100 years already.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Re:Libertarians? by bhcompy · 2012-01-04 07:49 · Score: 1

Which doesn't mean anything as far as stopping ideas. Apple didn't start with venture capital, even if it received it prior to the IPO when it went full scale. It just means you need to invest in things you're sure of, or not at all. I'm okay with that, really. We can see what unworthy investments did to the economy in the past decade.

Re:Libertarians? by Sebastopol · 2012-01-04 08:06 · Score: 1

+1

--
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested

Two Words by Sebastopol · 2012-01-04 08:11 · Score: 1

Jimmy Carter

Damn kids don't even know history.

--
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested

For Large Values of X by DarthVain · 2012-01-04 09:16 · Score: 1

Large budgets are too much for people to process. When I explain things to people I try to use values they can relate to.

So to the Conservative supporters up here in Canada, complaining about wasting 3 million dollars annually on a national gun registry, I try to explain it as thus:

If you just bought a 30,000$ car last year, and found out this year you had to actually pay out 30$ on maintenance, do you think it is reasonable to torch it or throw it away. Heck even if you decided to keep it for a decade it would only cost you 300$ to find out.

It is sort of hard to argue that. I find most people have a hard time evaluating much more than 7 figures. Once you get into Billions with a capitol B, I think it is lost on most people how much money that is. With the US, you start getting into the Trillions with a big capitol T, which I have a hard time getting my head around... XKCD had a great chart not too long ago, that illustrates the issue.

http://xkcd.com/980/

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-04 10:16 · Score: 1

Libertarians are more likely to be intellectually immature internet addicts with far too high an opinion of themselves.

*That's* what you got onto the net to say today? Really? That's all you've got?!? Let me help you:

$blah are more likely to be intellectually immature internet addicts with far too high an opinion of themselves.

Tell me, why does the latter contain any less value than the boring vitriol you posted? Why aren't you posting as AC? You'd be more in character that way.

In case you need it spelled out for you, YOU'RE PREJUDICE DRIVEN! You're making blanket statements about whole populations. There's a lot of people out there, including some libertarians, most of whom you've never met, and most of who think nothing like that $asshole_libertarian_you_once_met.

It's better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm the fact.

I have a dream, where I wake up in a world populated only by people who think before they speak.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-04 10:53 · Score: 1

So, identify these needs, and build non-violent replacements for each of them. When they're all complete, government will be merely an expensive alternate implementation.

You make it sound so ... reasonable. I'm fairly sure there's a whole lot of TLAs out there which would consider that a threat to their operation.

Gov't doesn't play nice. You're not going to get away with beating them on merit. Sad, but know thy enemy.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by trout007 · 2012-01-04 11:38 · Score: 1

Well maybe a small mom and pop company might have the government come down on them. But that's why bigger businesses hire lobbyists. I haven't seen too many bank executives that took trillions in bailout money begging for change. Actually they got huge bonuses that year.

So the banks that create money from nothing care where it goes? Right that is why they had such strict lending standards for mortgages. Oh wait that never happened.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Re:Libertarians? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-04 11:48 · Score: 1

You're not going to get away with beating them on merit. Sad, but know thy enemy.

People have been trying to beat "them" with violence for at least five millennia. Then we become them.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-04 11:59 · Score: 1

I'm afraid I simply don't believe that any more than I believe that tax cuts for the rich makes all of our lives better.

Partisan troll detected. Demopublican? Republicrat? Whatever.

Think about the ideas we're talking about, not your preferred constituency.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by MrHanky · 2012-01-04 12:00 · Score: 1

It's not based on prejudice, it's based on observation of libertarians, many of them on this site. You're idiots.

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-04 14:44 · Score: 1

No, I assert that as it's defined today Libertarianism is a complete farce, and simply doesn't take modern realities into account.

What weasle words. :-P

i) Defined by who? You? Not good enough.

ii) Modern realities ... What modern realities?!?

If funding the government was voluntary, nobody would do it.

If it was interested in doing anything I approved of, yes, I would!

I've read the books ...

Doubt it. B! S!

It works out well for the privileged, and those in power ...

Yup, you skimmed well. Way to go shallow, as a pane of glass.

You're just mouthing off about things you've never bothered to do *any* research into. Please, $deity, make me wake up on a planet inhabited by better people!

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-04 15:04 · Score: 1

In a true free market, I would be able to put rat poison in a can labeled NUTRITIOUS FOOD and sell it.

... and in a true free market after your arbiters and their arbiters got together, privately hired thugs would come by and dispose of you for your aggressive deception in the market.

Because thats EXACTLY what the world should be like!

Yes. Problem? "Daddy, there's a guy down at the end of the block selling poison as food." "Well son, go shoot him. He's at least a potential murderer."

Do you have a problem with this, or would you prefer children be sold rat poison when it's mis-labled as nitritional?

A lot of the stuff peolple like me spout is intended to be self-correcting. A few instances of this !@#$ happening, it wouldn't be happening much longer ...

Kind of like concealed carry laws. Nutbar stands up in a McDonalds with a gun, and twenty people pull out their guns and blow him away. Fuck you very much!

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-04 15:22 · Score: 1

Sic semper tyrannis!

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-04 15:39 · Score: 1

Fantastic. I'm really happy with the idea of spending much of my life litigating a bunch of profit loving morons that are planning on getting away with as much as is humanly possible.

Huh. That sounds a lot like today, in real life. So, how is it that your reality is better?

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-04 15:43 · Score: 1

Assault and attempted murder aren't allowed under a free market, moron.

What?!? Of course they are!

Hunting you down and ripping your throat out after the fact is allowed too. So, think about it. Do you really want to go there? Take your time.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-04 15:52 · Score: 1

I don't know of anyone who advocates your definition of a 'true free market.' We need a a set of regulations in order to ensure fair competition and fair rights for workers.

You do now. I don't trust BS systems like that.

I trust in reputation, recommendations from those I trust, & etc. Some TLA in $captol?!? Ha! Not a chance.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by Seraphim_72 · 2012-01-04 17:30 · Score: 1

"Note the every economy that has ever industrialized did so under a libertarian economic policy."

Oh, do tell. Her Majesty, Elisabeth by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith is intrigued how her Renaissance and Industry is fueled by Libertarian economics. Please explain, and hurry, the Tower awaits.

In other words, pick up a history book.

"a mixed market, which has proved to be a very slippery slope heading straight for fascism."

Yes, the libertarian vision of a Corpocracy is so much different than Fascism. Wait, what? How exactly is it different? You mean they are ultimately the same thing? Say it isn't so Ron Paul!

"Interesting, so you claim that the only model that has ever worked doesn't work."

Here is a hint: NONE of them work. People were never designed to work in groups much larger than tribes, and even that is a stretch. But if we have to (and we do), prefer a model where, yes, you are going to have to take care of your neighbor then we need to be civil. Now I can ask you to give five dollars a week (gasp! TAXES!), or you can go over one day a week and wipe her 105 year old can (That is (SLAVERY/SOCIALISM/AMERICAN)!). You can even refuse both. but refusing both also has consequences. Consequences, like me singing the asshole song about you being dumb enough at age whatever to sign off on the social compact that if you should someday reach 105 that you will be happy to sit in your own filth.

--
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.

Re:Libertarians? by NouberNou · 2012-01-04 18:00 · Score: 1

Yes, because the problem with libertarianism is that while something not as drastic might happen, there would be no one monitoring that from happening.

Re:Libertarians? by Seraphim_72 · 2012-01-04 18:09 · Score: 1

And giving corporations then only compounds the issue.

--
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.

Re:Libertarians? by repapetilto · 2012-01-04 22:43 · Score: 1

You are very very wrong. Government support of unions is one of the worst things that could have happened to them. It was only when they became too dangerous that this occurred. And anyway, a forced increase in wages, etc (eg france in 1968) is usually dealt with by concurrently inflating the currency to pay for it. It may treat the symptom for a short time but won't cure the disease. In the end, everyone is worse off except those who have access to the fresh capital.

Re:Libertarians? by selven · 2012-01-05 03:56 · Score: 1

> Then why don't we treat them as such? Why do we give them bailouts, lobbying jobs, and cabinet positions instead?

Does any sane person advocate more bailouts, lobbying and revolving door cabinet positions? Because I haven't heard any

> Seems much safer

He who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety...

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-05 04:24 · Score: 1

Yes, because the problem with libertarianism is that while something not as drastic might happen, there would be no one monitoring that from happening.

I take it you're thinking of entities like the DEA, FDA, EPA, FCC, FBI, NSA, CIA, FTC, ... & etc? So you believe that mere people are incapable of communicating with each other, informing their neighbours of what's good or bad out there, yada, yada? You believe the power of the press is an illusion? You believe civilization depends on us slapping vast amounts of cash down to fund vast bureaucracies whose job it is to "protect us" from each other? You approve of things like ICE and the TSA? In the current system, you've no say in whether or not they exist, by the way.

Just for a minute, consider how much green is going down that hole. Then add on all the corollary waste (Congress & Senate, and state legislatures and senates, ...) that sets it into place and maintains it. Imagine what all that cash could mean to your children's future. Imagine how much sheer waste you're promoting!

I don't believe you're getting your money's worth. Cf. Occams razor.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-05 04:58 · Score: 1

Obama is right of center and only mildly more authoritarian than libertarian.

If you don't understand the meaning of a word, you shouldn't use it, else you make yourself appear a fool. Libertarians are not authoritarian. In fact, they're the opposite.

How did you come to the belief that Libertarians are authoritarian? It's really infuriating to those for whom words do have a specific meaning.

As for Obama, yes, he's a lot more authoritarian than average libertarians, as are and were all the statist plutocrats you've elected in the past.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by tqk · 2012-01-05 06:25 · Score: 1

I call that anarchy.

And you'd be wrong. I can trust my neighbour to watch out for my house and family, as I can for his. Some faceless bureaucrat thousands of miles away, in the employ of others I've never met, not so much.

Government doesn't have to be big and ugly and expensive and far away. It can be just our sense of right and wrong and inside us, looking out for each other's interests, just as it always was before all these big gangs took control.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Re:Libertarians? by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-05 07:57 · Score: 1

Of course it does. The FDA can choose (under threat of violence if its demands are not met) to block products from the market entirely. If you think big pharma doesn't use this power to profit itself, I invite you to look closer into the people who run the FDA and where they go after their appointments.

No one would normally claim that the government is beyond engaging in corruption to financially benefit itself, but as soon as someone brings up the profit incentive of private business, suddenly every unelected bureaucrat becomes an angel, wholly motivated to benefit the public and not themselves (ignoring, of course, that the bureaucrat and the corporate CEO are often the exact same person).

Re:China too.... by jd · 2012-01-05 07:59 · Score: 1

He has schizophrenia, which is not quite the same thing as being insane. Schizophrenics live in an entirely self-consistent universe, merely not the universe everyone else lives in. This is actually very good for a theorist (and may be why more than a few have schizo-effective symptoms) because the theory has to be abstract enough and universal enough to not be tied to implementation specifics.

Economics is a horrible problem (it's extremely noisy, and worsened by the fact that economists attempt to manipulate the markets by the latest theories, which means a theory has to remain correct even in the presence of knowledge of the theory). Thermoeconomics, bioeconomics, etc, are all attempts to model economics with the assumption that an "ignorant" system will resemble a physical system, but since economists aren't ignorant these theories become untestable. It's worse than quantum mechanics - there you have to observe the system to change it. In economics, merely thinking about the system will change it.

(Isaac Asimov recognized this aspect of people in his Foundation novels, placing those doing the modeling -outside- the system being modeled and making those being modeled as ignorant as possible of the model. It may be that economics as a whole is simply too unstable to be modeled unless you had a "Second Foundation" entirely of economists. *Shudder!*)

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:China too.... by Keybounce · 2012-01-05 21:31 · Score: 1

John Nash showed that economics can be modeled mathematically, that it follows certain rules, that the implementation of the economy doesn't alter those rules... And anything that is repeatable, deterministic and experimental in the physical world is a science.

And that is why it is a science.

Different take: Since the translations between reality and math destroy the assumptions, the conclusions that come out are completely unjustified.

For example, Micro economics has the assumption of perfect information. The translation into math basically treats information as another good, and you pay more for better information.

Never mind that this introduces a feedback term, which eliminates the solvability, and introduces chaotic behavior. It also assumes that the information is available to purchase at all; given that the current economic collapse is based on lack of information and outright lying/hiding/disguising information, that shows another problem.

Oh, and your Turing issues have another flaw. You assume that no computer can ever be made that is not within the Turing domain. That's a big assumption. Turing machines were all about showing what is common to all (then) current systems; it isn't clear that nothing can ever be made outside of that limit.

Slashdot Mirror

Are Engineers Natural Libertarians Or Technocrats?

614 of 727 comments (clear)