Geeks In the Public Forum?

cedarhillbilly writes "In his new book The Geek Manifesto, Mark Henderson 'pleads for citizens who value science to force it onto the mainstream political agenda and other main walks of life.' There are some important questions that need answers: 'Do you have to give up your tech practice to undertake a public role?' Also, 'Is political life (compromise, working by consensus, irrationality) antithetical to the "geek" values?'" The Guardian's coverage sums up the idea nicely: "What I desperately want is a move toward an evidence-based culture in politics. Politicians are free to say: 'I think people on drugs should be punished because drugs are immoral.' That's a moral call, albeit a rather stupid one in my opinion. What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not a moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."

Comments

Technocrats

[MyLongNickName]

In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

And the environmentalists want environmentalists running the system, the banks want financial people running the system, large corporations want businessmen running they system, and so on and so on. Yea, we all wish that politicians had our point of view, but it's not realistic. To get elected, you need to be able to convince more than half the population that you would properly represent them. If you're too focused in one area, then you'll have a real hard time getting support from people not in that area.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good as long as the public policy is not hijacked by the "elite", non-legislative officials who significantly influence the public discussions on the media by their own politically biased views, or that the value of the pragmatism and money always wins when dealing with actual effects on the lives of the subjects. I have witnessed both on my country. I'm sure everyone else has as well, one time or another.
I also would argue that China is a good example of technocracy lying to itself for political reasons.

Re:Technocrats

[Anne_Nonymous]

What's always surprised me is why we can't have more pimply-faced, basement-dwelling virgins running the system.

Re:Technocrats

[AmiMoJo]

I tend to agree.

But will they? He says he wants an evidence based approach, but how often is the evidence clear and agreed upon by a large majority? Look at climate change. Look at the medical profession, particular mental health.

You would need some way of judging evidence too. Peer review is fine but even then it is often fooled or simply gets the wrong answer and is later itself reviewed and found lacking.

Democracy is highly imperfect but still the least bad choice.

Re:Technocrats

[hackula]

...but how often is the evidence clear and agreed upon by a large majority?

Most of the time, actually. Significant disagreements based on evidence are typically exceptions to the rule. Non-disagreements are simply not particularly noteworthy. The majority of legislation is that way too.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

But those are all political-eco issues. It's going to cost (votes or money) to fix them, so we have to ignore them right?

If we hold them accountable (to us, not corporations) - with sanctions if they don't perform, then it might work.

Make their benefits based on a satisfaction vote from their constituents. (Do you think your senator/congressman did a good job, yes/no/don't know/don't care)
If a majority say anything but yes, then they lose their benefits, salary, pension, and have to pay a fine equal to any salary they earn after exiting said job equal to 50% of their earnings for life for screwing off while in office.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since all politicians tell me that they are highly moral, and that sex outside of marriage is immoral, near as I can tell all unmarried politicians must be virgins. Though generally it's a good idea to get some acne cream before going on to a nationally televised debate.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that's it at all. You can make decisions based on evidence and rational thinking rather than gut instincts and not be a technocrat. Personally I don't want government run by any one particular group with a narrow interest. I just want people to be less caught up in ideologies and more focused on evidence. Rule by technocrat would likely be horrible in some different way. There's a strong control freak mentality among many technical people that would be a horrible if it got out of control.

Re:Technocrats

[bky1701]

Technocracy allows variation within it. It is more a methodology than an ideology. Environmentalists are largely monolithic; they vary on some issues, but it is an ideology. You can still have Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians... but it is about using fact-based arguments over appeals to emotion.

Will that ever work? Doubtful. Is it becoming more likely in the US? Hell no. But it is more complicated than "I want politicians who think like me," and it's disingenuous to paint this that way. We would be much better off if we didn't have the witch hunts, security theater, censorship, racism, and all other unfortunate little problems caused by people thinking with their crotch and not their head.

Re:Technocrats

[clang_jangle]

If only words like "geeks" and "technocrats" actually meant something other than a diverse group of people who *identify* with science and technology... For many people "science" is simply a matter of faith -- they have zero knowledge or understanding, Naturally, it also complicates matters quite a lot that "science" is a term which covers a lot of conflicting/divergent schools of though. IOW, TFA reads like something written by a 12 year old who recently decid he's "a geek".

Re:Technocrats

[SuricouRaven]

A more serious problem is getting people to admit their own ignorance. Look at climate change, for example. Climatology is a very complicated field, just like most fields. It's hard enough for specialists, who spend their careers studying, to understand. Does the average layperson have any idea what is meant by a monte carlo model, or the implications of microclimate variation in dendrochronology, or methods for compensating for the urban heat island effect in weather monitoring, or the absorbtion spectra of atmospheric gasses? No. And yet many, maybe most of those laypeople are able to skim a couple of magazine articles or a political speech on the subject and gain confidence that they have evaluated the evidence and are just as qualified to pass judgement as any expert ever could be. So the real problem is getting people to admit their own ignorance, and that is no easy task. It goes against human nature.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still have Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians... but it is about using fact-based arguments over appeals to emotion.

They derive opposite conclusions from the same facts, so I don't see where that gets us.

Re:Technocrats

[houghi]

In a two party system you are right. You must have a majority and then you can ignore all the others.

In a multi party system, you can not ignore them and that means compromising.
Yes, that means that nobody gets 100% what they want. However many more will get more or less what they want.

Re:Technocrats

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Well it would mean we'd get Firefly back, that's for sure.

Re:Technocrats

[MozeeToby]

Put another way, it isn't "I want politicians who think like me", it's "I want politicians who think". The idea is, in my mind at least, that any proposed course of action should have evidence, or at least a verifiable theory, to back it up. And, almost more importantly, results should be reviewed and fed back into the system, something that seems sorely lacking in today's political climate. A technocracy or meritocracy can have division over what is the correct course of action, just like you can have two software engineers who are both experts in their field disagree about the best way to solve a problem. It isn't about finding the one true path forward, it's about evaluating the possible paths based on reality instead of ideology.

Re:Technocrats

[causality]

You can still have Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians... but it is about using fact-based arguments over appeals to emotion.

They derive opposite conclusions from the same facts, so I don't see where that gets us.

That's his precise point. They do that because they are ideologies. For example, libertarianism is the ideology that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want unless there is a necessary and compelling reason to forbid something. The only necessary and compelling reasons it recognizes are those things which infringe on the freedoms of other people who do not consent. For example, you are free to drink alcohol whether or not I think that's a good idea, because it is your body; but you are not free to drive drunk and put me in danger I didn't ask for.

Whereas a few extremely conservative people may feel that drinking is always wrong. They cannot be satisfied with simply not doing it themselves, because that gives no cause for controlling their neighbors, so they want alcohol to be illegal. They lost that battle a long time ago, and banning alcohol outright is no longer politically possible. So instead they implement local laws that make no sense, such as forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sundays (as though one couldn't stock up on Saturday).

Both of them are looking at the same thing: the act of consuming alcohol. All competent observers who watched you drink a beer would report the same data. It is the ideology that drives their responses to it. This is the difference between a conclusion and a response.

I also have wanted evidence-based politics for a very long time. Under such a system, we could not have a War on (some) Drugs without first demonstrating that it is a law-enforcement issue and not a medical issue. It would also have to be demonstrated that there is no such thing as responsible use and therefore all use of certain substances is always undesirable. Finally, it would also have to be proven that making drugs illegal prevents users from easily acquiring them through the black market, otherwise there is no point. Because all of those things are easily falsified, such a policy would not exist under that system.

The real frustration of modern politics is that so many people are at such an immature emotional level that they insist on continuing policies in the face of contradictory facts. It's as though they think that if you just try hard enough you can divide by zero. When you show them contradictory evidence in abundance, they get angry instead of saying "perhaps I should change my mind." For emotionally immature people, that would mean a victory for you and a loss for them, because they honestly believe they would be submitting to you personally for pointing something out and not to the truth. Thus politics is reduced to popularity because that's a form of brute force -- you have more numbers than me so it doesn't matter if you're wrong, you still get your way.

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address (emphasis mine)

Re:Technocrats

[bjorniac]

You need to convince just over 50% of the _voting_ population, and sometimes not even that. This tends to be much less than half of the population for most countries. Turnouts rarely break 80% in most countries, in US presidential elections it doesn't exceed 60% these days - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html - so really it's about 30% of people you actually need to convince strongly enough to actually vote for you.

In some systems it can seem fairly ridiculous: The UK 2005 General Election was won comprehensively (in terms of seats, and hence power) by the Labour party. They had 56% of the seats with just 35% of the vote. The turnout was around 61%, meaning that just 20% of the electorate voted for them. http://www.ukpolitical.info/2005.htm

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be confusing 2 different concepts.

You listed environmentalists, financiers, businessmen, and so on ... equating them with technocrats. Do you know anyone who is a technocrat by trade? And just as an FYI, technologist != technocrat.

Technocrats, as I define it since I consider myself one, have more an systematic approach to government policies. It is founded in the concept that policy be the result of study, research, and testing with no one party or group weighted over another. And with it, be applied to every aspect of goverment. It is based on facts, and hard science and the needs of the people for survival and sustaining societal progression for the long term. Think centuries not decades. Think long-term nation building, and yes this would step on a lot of property owners toes, mainly Corporate.

To be fair though, of the few groups defining themselves as 'Technocratic' online I've come across, they still see it as a political party. Something I feel it is staunchly NOT. It is more of an approach to governing, with strict guidelines for implementation, devoid of belief or strict old-world idealogies. In this way, it does not cater to special interest, other than open research based policy. I say again, OPEN research based policy.

The major problem with electing technocrats, is that it asks too much of the general public. It is really asking them to change every way they look at how they really percieve government, and how the government implements change for the future. Lobbying... Special interests... These are hallmarks of the current US model of policy making. That sort of establishment does not go away over night, especially since it has been built up for 2 centuries. Those hallmarks, would have no more stature of influence, than what the individual has on any opinion of any government policy.

Re:Technocrats

[Gravitron 5000]

Will that ever work? Doubtful. Is it becoming more likely in the US? Hell no. But it is more complicated than "I want politicians who think like me," and it's disingenuous to paint this that way. We would be much better off if we didn't have the witch hunts, security theater, censorship, racism, and all other unfortunate little problems caused by people thinking with their crotch and not their head.

It's not that I want politicians to think like me. I just want them to think.

Re:Technocrats

[ShieldW0lf]

More often than not, scientists falsify their results to get ahead. The idea that scientists are bastions of truth is a myth.

There was an article on this very subject on the front page of slashdot a week ago.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/05/11/1232236/positive-bias-could-erode-public-trust-in-science

Leadership is about having wisdom instead of intellect and being decisive instead of skeptical and non-committal. These aren't qualities scientists are known for. Leaders have advisers for those things.

Re:Technocrats

[uslurper]

"And the environmentalists want environmentalists running the system, the banks want financial people running the system, large corporations want businessmen running they system, and so on and so on."

Thats kinda the point of promoting the insertion of science into politics. Many people blindingly follow whatever cult they subscribe to. -This goes for techies too as you can see that in flame wars and fan boys. Geeks are just as likely to argue based on moral or personal values. And they are often just as irrational.

There are some big obstacles to overcome in order for science to really make a dent into politics. The first of which is the populace. The majority of people are uneducated, and thanks to our traumatizing education system, unwilling to learn new things. And most people really hate being told they are wrong. Getting geeks elected will be very difficult.

Another issue is the science itself. This is especially true when there are 'studies' and 'models' involved. People know that models and studies can be warped to political goals. And that knowledge presents a certain level of distrust in all science. Scientific research needs to be LESS political and LESS motivated by profit. There are too many 'breakthrough' studies that cannot be repeated in scientific journals. And too much fake science in advertising. People think its all mumbo-jumbo.

I am often surprised by the intentional ignorance of people. Technology is ingrained in the US society. The actual details of how I can talk into a little box and have my voice transfered across the country to someone listening to another little box is like magic. People dont know 1% of how it actually works and even less of the math that goes into it, but they blindly trust it and accept it. But tell me that I shouldnt drive my Ford F150 because of greenhouse gasses or drink that vente caramel machiatto because its bad for my heart, and I will tell those skinny geeks where to stick it.

Re:Technocrats

[geminidomino]

To get elected, you need to be able to convince more than half the population that you would properly represent them

And since, as we all know, you don't actually have any intention of "properly representing them," this does make the bottom 51% the ideal target. Not too many of them are interested in evidence and logic.

Stop the planet, please? I'd like to get off.

Re:Technocrats

[TheCarp]

sure but thats not the only issue. There is also the question of ideology. I think everyone would like to see 'technocrats' in power. The problem is that who counts as a technocrat does come back to ideology... the ideology of what government policies should even be trying to accomplish...because that is not a valueless question, or even a purely technical one.

Lets go back to "drug policy", since its my favorite...from the original post:
"I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that."

Its an interesting example but, it rests on that first statement "I want to do X". Well how do we determine that X is a good thing, and something that the government should be doing? What is their goal? What is it that they are intend to do?

Is it the governments job to protect us from our own bad decisions? Is it their job to enable us to live in freedom as we choose, or is it to build an orderly society that gets things done. Is it more important to build forward or to garauntee liberty? When these come into conflict, ideology will deterime which evidence is important.

Even if you were to make a technocratic argument that liberty is the most efficient way to achieve the goals of an orderly society that gets things done, it still can't answer whether that should be the goal. The goal itself has to come from ideology.

Re:Technocrats

[jeffmeden]

You can still have Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians... but it is about using fact-based arguments over appeals to emotion.

They derive opposite conclusions from the same facts, so I don't see where that gets us.

That's his precise point. They do that because they are ideologies. For example, libertarianism is the ideology that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want unless there is a necessary and compelling reason to forbid something. The only necessary and compelling reasons it recognizes are those things which infringe on the freedoms of other people who do not consent. For example, you are free to drink alcohol whether or not I think that's a good idea, because it is your body; but you are not free to drive drunk and put me in danger I didn't ask for.

Here's the rub (aside from your other points): You are not free to drive drunk... But what's "drunk"? Failing a field sobriety test? A BAC of .05? .08? Any readable BAC? Is it legal to pull someone over (or set up a checkpoint) specifically to test for drunkenness?

How far in advance is it legal to require someone to not drink newly purchase alcohol (via restricted hours/day of sale)? Any time Sunday? Only 2AM to 6AM each morning? Never? How long should a person have to age before being allowed to drink? 16 years? 18 years? 21 years? No restriction at all?

These laws were ALL put in place to try to reduce the chances of someone either directly injuring themselves or others, or being too drunk to drive, getting behind the wheel and injuring themselves or an innocent bystander (thus infringing on their rights). But how far is too far? Few people agree. That's why we end up with so many laws (and politicians around to change them) and feel like the system is "Broken". It's broken insofar as it's not possible to line up everyone's expectations with the same version of reality.

Re:Technocrats

[aztracker1]

But, what we wind up with is lawyers running the system, which nobody wants.

Re:Technocrats

[AliasMarlowe]

More often than not, scientists falsify their results to get ahead.

Your statement asserts that more than half of scientific results are deliberately falsified. Bullshit.
There are, of course, a few who might deliberately falsify results, but they are a tiny minority. They are also always caught out in the end. Scientists know that the truth will always win for any testable hypothesis, and the idea of faking results is ludicrous.

It's depressing, albeit unsurprising, that you were modded "insightful". The article which was linked to in the slashdot story you linked to was concerned with medical and social pseudosciences (where innumeracy prevails, .05 seems to be a magical significance level, and results are blithely cherry-picked). If you had bothered to read that article, you might have noticed that real science was not impugned.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are the most logical political groups in the world and how do they rank in the world (use whatever data point(s) you wish)?

Re:Technocrats

[MyLongNickName]

I'm not qualified to do a ranking. But love them or hate them, the Chinese sure have a good long term vision for what they want to accomplish and they sure are getting what they want.

Re:Technocrats

[causality]

Put another way, it isn't "I want politicians who think like me", it's "I want politicians who think".

This was beautifully stated.

A technocracy or meritocracy can have division over what is the correct course of action, just like you can have two software engineers who are both experts in their field disagree about the best way to solve a problem. It isn't about finding the one true path forward, it's about evaluating the possible paths based on reality instead of ideology.

Those two engineers may debate each other about which of (let's say) 3 good solutions is the best one. They would agree that the other possible solutions (which could number in the millions) are all faulty and wouldn't waste time and resources trying to implement them. That's the important part. We'd end up with either The Very Best Possible Solution EVER ... or at least a very good one. That sounds good to me!

If politics worked this way, we'd have all learned the lesson of Prohibition and tried something that might work, rather than reimplementing Prohibition for substances other than ethanol.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Booooo meta-populism! OP's point is politicians need to stop or be prevented of lying.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Or such-a-nerd type "geeks" with neat hairdos and fashionable glasses that spend their time hanging around Starbucks sipping lattes and tapping away on their Macbooks, expressing their views on the great political forums of Twitter and Facebook.

- Not sent from my iPhone

Re:Technocrats

[rtb61]

This is simply a call for factual truth. If a politician wants to make a statement of fact then they must be able to prove that statement, if they can not, then they should be held liable and pay a penalty, either a fine, imprisonment of both, considering the responsibility they are seeking to take and the consequences. Politicians are free to voice opinions no matter how crazy but they should be bound by statements of facts and of course promises they make.

Contractually any promises they fail to keep should be adjusted against any payments made to them ie the salary should be garnished for each promise the break and backdated to when they first started drawing a salary based upon false promises.

So simply a demand for truth in politics. Tell lies and you will pay a penalty for telling those lies, simply a desire to hold politicians accountable for what comes out of their mouths, something the majority would consider fair and reasonable bit of course politicians will never vote for, surprise, surprise, surprise.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

The existence of climate change is generally agreed upon by most people with brains. It is whether or not it is mad-made or not that is up for debate.

Re:Technocrats

[ikeman32]

And the environmentalists want environmentalists running the system, the banks want financial people running the system, large corporations want businessmen running they system, and so on and so on. Yea, we all wish that politicians had our point of view, but it's not realistic. To get elected, you need to be able to convince more than half the population that you would properly represent them. If you're too focused in one area, then you'll have a real hard time getting support from people not in that area.

All true but under Technocracy the only people in the positions of power are those that actually qualify for the position and are put there by the people qualified to make the decision of who is qualified. This pretty much leaves out 99% of the populous and eliminates any semblance of Democracy. But it would be nice to have someone in office that actually knew what they were doing.

Re:Technocrats

[chrismcb]

These laws were ALL put in place to try to reduce the chances of someone either directly injuring themselves or others, or being too drunk to drive, getting behind the wheel and injuring themselves or an innocent bystander (thus infringing on their rights).

None of the laws you listed (other than those related to BAC) have to do with driving. The blue laws (Sunday and late night drinking) are because some people think you shouldn't drink. Has nothing to go with driving or hurting others. The age thing is similar...

Re:Technocrats

[jeffmeden]

These laws were ALL put in place to try to reduce the chances of someone either directly injuring themselves or others, or being too drunk to drive, getting behind the wheel and injuring themselves or an innocent bystander (thus infringing on their rights).

None of the laws you listed (other than those related to BAC) have to do with driving. The blue laws (Sunday and late night drinking) are because some people think you shouldn't drink. Has nothing to go with driving or hurting others. The age thing is similar...

Not true, most of the laws are in place (gasp) during the hours in which the incidence of drunk driving accidents peak... Of course the laws can't completely stop that from happening but the intent is to lessen it in some small way.

Re:Technocrats

[ShieldW0lf]

That's right. It wasn't real science that was impugned. It was "professional" scientists.

And you can go blah blah blah telling me how stupid we are for not trusting you all you want. The stupid ones are the ones that do.

Re:Technocrats

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the stupid ones are the ones who make up wild claims like "More often than not, scientists falsify their results to get ahead" and then respond with baby-talk when called out on them.

Like you. I was referring specifically to you. You needed that pointed out to you, because you are so very stupid.

Manifesto == Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to shoot yourself in the foot! Who has manifestos these days? Lunatics, terrorists and cults, that's who. The word manifesto has a very negative connotation in today's society.

So, while I'm sure this schmuck thinks he's being very clever, what he's actually doing is causing the general populace to associate geeks with lunatics, cults and terrorists. They were already perceived as two of the three.

Way to 'win friends and influence people'.

Re:Manifesto == Fail

[Patch86]

Political parties* have manifestos. That's presumably the motif he's going for.

* They do in the UK anyway, and the author is a Brit. They're a statement of what a party would do if they won an election. YMMV if you live elsewhere.

$100k per prisoner per year

[Anonymous Coward]

Jails cost hundreds of dollars a day per person in my country.

$100k per prisoner per year

Re: $100k per prisoner per year

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/prisonindustry.html

        Number of correctional facilities, 1995: 1500
        Cost to run the prisons and jails in all 50 states and the federal prison system, 1999: $49 billion
        Average cost to incarcerate a prisoner for a year, 1996: $20,142
        Average cost to incarcerate a prisoner per day, 1996: $55.18
        Prison expenditure per prisoner per day in Alabama, 1996: $21.88
        Prison expenditure per prisoner per day in Minnesota, 1996: $103.63

And sadly, I live in Minnesota but that still is only about $38k a year. I'm curious what country you live in.

Re: $100k per prisoner per year

[Dr_Barnowl]

Here in the UK, it was £41,000 per year, so around $64,000.

So presumably not here.

Re: $100k per prisoner per year

[starworks5]

The cost of housing them may be $64k, but then your forgetting about the externalities, for example the lost wage they would earn on average.

so $64k + $36k (uk average) = $100k

Policy Analysis

[garcia]

Policy analysis generally uses longitudinal analysis as well as qualitative analysis to provide data to decision makers with the information they need to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, politicians generally don't always pay attention to factual evidence but this isn't the fault of the staff working the projects.

There's also the fact that factual analyses are influenced by interpretation of data. This is always a grey area which is impacted by morals, etc, etc, etc.

This is a much bigger problem than most people are willing to admit.

There is only one moral call

[Anonymous Coward]

Coercion is immoral (except in pure self-defense, where it is moral). This would, of course, challenge the very foundation of government, and that is exactly why you will never hear a politician say it.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Galestar]

Ron Paul talks about this all the time.

Freedom is living without government coercion.

The “Right” to Healthcare is Based on Theft and Coercion

He has a sign on his desk that says "Don't steal, the government hates competition"

Re:There is only one moral call

[h4rr4r]

He is a nutjob, thanks for confirming that.

Using taxes to buy stuff for everyone is not theft, no matter how many crazies claim it is. The Right to healthcare is based on many things, not one of them is theft nor coercion. I see no wall keeping him or you in the USA.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Anonymous Coward]

Said by the same guy who has a taxpayer-funded healthcare plan that would be the envy of most of he population.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Anonymous Coward]

The Right to healthcare is based on many things, not one of them is theft nor coercion.

Oh really? Under Obama's plan, if I don't go out and pay for my health insurance, the government will then fine me. How is that not coercion? If I don't do what they want me to do, they will take my money. Is that not both coercion and theft? How is it any different if someone has a gun in my back and tells me to hand over my money or they will shoot me?

Further, you are stating the healthcare money is a tax. So on top of everything else, you now want me to pay for my next door neighbor ('s' actually) healthcare who smoke even though smoking is known to cause cancer and emphysema. Instead of forcing them to quit, you want them to be able to continue smoking while I get to pick up the tab. How nice of you.

There is no right to healthcare contrary to what you and others say. If you want healthcare, you pay for it. Or should I be forced to pay for your car because you think everyone has a right to drive? Funny how a large portion of people on here talk so much about the freedom to choose, yet at the same time a large portion of those same people insist that I have no right to choose whether I want to pay for insurance or not. Funny how that works.

Re:There is only one moral call

[TheBilgeRat]

Ron Paul may be extreme, but he is hardly a nutjob. I doubt that a pure libertarian stance would ever be enacted. However, the amount of tax money misappropriated, lost, unaudited, burned, spent on hookers for the Secret Service... shouldn't the government be held accountable for the necessary burden placed upon its citizenry? Do you think that, perhaps, some common middle ground could be achieved? Take this speech from Pete DeFazio, my favorite local Rep made about trying to pass an audit of the DOD:

DeFazio addresses House committee that blocked Pentagon audit

I am all for moderate amounts of taxes spent frugally and appropriately and in a completely transparent and open manner. I am not for blindly dismissing ideas from the right simply because they are on the right.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Wonko the Sane]

This would, of course, challenge the very foundation of government, and that is exactly why you will never hear a politician say it.

If only it were as easy as merely challenging the foundation of government, the idea that coercion is immoral would have been universally accepted a long time ago.

Stating that coercion is immoral would challenge the very foundation of families, wherein for nearly off human history children have been considered effectively the property of adults.

That's why it's so hard to spread political freedom - because people have been conditioned from infancy to obey the arbitrary dictates of someone more powerful. They learned from an early age that the rules they were forced to abide by didn't apply to the people making the rules. The existence of governments is merely a side effect of this early conditioning.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, you are wrong. There is no right to healthcare; we are fortunate to have medical knowledge to have healthcare. The only rights we really have are the rights do do for ourselves what we are capable of doing for ourselves. Whatever happened to self reliance? How many people can be reliant on others before it breaks the collective back of society? There aren't enough docs out there or even healthcare infrastructure for it to be a right.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Fwipp]

Heaven forbid a government collect money in order to enable it to do anything.

Re:There is only one moral call

[SydShamino]

>> There is no right to healthcare contrary to what you and others say. If you want healthcare, you pay for it.

If there's no fundamental human right to healthcare, food, and shelter, then there's no fundamental human right to free speech, or association, or any of the those other negative rights that are meaningless when you're dead.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Talderas]

A right is something that cannot be taken away from you and healthcare is hardly something that meets that most basic requirement.

I can easily take healthcare away from you by having all doctors suddenly shut their doors (even though this is an unlikely scenario it serves the point). Without doctors the only healthcare you have a right to is what you can provide to yourself.

Hell, let's look at a pandemic situation across the US. There would be too many sick people and hospitals and doctors would be overloaded. What happened to your right to health care? Woops. It disappeared.

Something cannot be a right if it's based on a finite good or service.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a nutjob, thanks for confirming that.

Using taxes to buy stuff for everyone is not theft, no matter how many crazies claim it is.

No, it's not theft. And it's not even coercion -- you said using the taxes, not collecting them.

As for collecting taxes, feel free to say it's not theft, as that's a matter of definition. Personally, I'm not a big fan of using the term "theft" or "stealing" for taxes, precisely because it always degenerates into this silly semantics quibbling. What it undeniably is, however, is coercion -- from which we can have a discussion about when, how much, and for what reasons, coercion may be morally justified.

(Protip: Almost everyone agrees that if it's not morally justifiable for an individual in the absence of government, it's not morally justifiable for a government. But if there's room for the argument that a starving person is morally justified to steal food, then there's room to argue governments can tax and spend the money on bread for the starving poor, etc.; we may not agree, but we can have this sort of discussion if we back away from emotionally charged and semantically-controversial terms and just talk about what we have to talk about.)

Re:There is only one moral call

[cheekyjohnson]

You haven't spoken to the magical rights fairy, have you?

Re:There is only one moral call

[PraiseBob]

Whatever happened to self reliance? How many people can be reliant on others before it breaks the collective back of society?

I'm all for personal responsibility, and self reliance, but lets be realistic. Humans aren't like bears that wander their territory completely alone, and then once a year meet up with other bears to mate and then go their seperate ways. Humans are tribal, and live in a collective relying on each other. It is the very foundation of our species. There are several cliche'd phrases that apply such as- "no man is an island", "we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" and so on.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Mindcontrolled]

Uh, yeah. What kind of definition is that? I can take away your life, easily. So you got no right to life? I can take away your freedom, easily. No right to liberty? I can take away your right to speak freely. No right to free speech? What good is a phone call, Mr. Anderson, when you cannot speak?

Re:There is only one moral call

[grep_rocks]

I wish everyone who says there is no right to healthcare also embrace the repeal of legislation which requires ERs to take care of sick people who walk in - traffic accident, no insurance you are left to die on the side of the road - they should embrace the implications of their stance, just come out and say what kind of country you want to live in, likewise if you don't like taxes, fine don't pay them, but then no government services, rent your own security company, fire protection and drive on toll roads, educate your kids in a private school and eat food from unregulated providers - just do it already

Re:There is only one moral call

[h4rr4r]

So I can take your land when you are not looking?

That would be self reliance. We can make more doctors.

Re:There is only one moral call

[h4rr4r]

So then life is not a right? Ownership of property is not a right? Free speech is not a right? They can all be taken away.

Ownership of property is based on finite goods.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Galestar]

The Right to healthcare is based on many things, not one of them is theft nor coercion

All taxes are coercion, healthcare is paid for by taxes. Please see the dictionary:
coercion(noun)
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Medicare etc is *indirect* coercion (paid for by taxes). The individual mandate is *direct* coercion (do this thing or else).

I see no wall keeping him or you in the USA

Incorrect assumption #1: I said nothing to imply that I agreed with him either way. I made factual quotes in response to "why you will never hear a politician say it.", not personal value statements.
Incorrect assumption #2: I do not live in the USA
Incorrect assumption #3: If someone disagrees with you, they are unpatriotic and therefore should leave your country.

P.S. Again, I have not made any value judgements or opinions. I have stated the facts as they are. I personally believe in sociallized medicine, that doesn't mean I walk around blind to what it is.

Re:There is only one moral call

[causality]

If there's no fundamental human right to healthcare, food, and shelter, then there's no fundamental human right to free speech, or association, or any of the those other negative rights

How do you figure that?

I can exercise my free speech without forcing you to do anything. I don't need to take your money (through government as a proxy). I don't need to force you to listen, though I can hope you will choose to. At no point does my free speech require that armed men (police) use threats of violence to force you to do anything.

That is the difference between an inalienable human right and an entitlement. If you believe they are the same, you could not be more misguided. Be careful, because there are a lot of monied interests that view both the Constitution and the entire notion of inalienable human rights as pesky obstacles to their goals. For that reason, these things (rights and entitlements) are often conflated deliberately in order to cause the very confusion you manifest. It is not done to strengthen the perceived value of entitlements, but to weaken the perceived value of rights.

I would go so far as to say it is plain evil.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Dr_Barnowl]

*sigh*

Yes, in a perfect world with a healthcare system paid out of taxes, people wouldn't do anything adverse to their health. One current hypothesis is that lowering your calorie intake to 20% below what is considered a "normal" intake is actually the best way to prolong your life ; I can't see that happening on a mass scale either.

I think the main point here is that everyone needs healthcare of some kind, statistically speaking, throughout their life. Some people need more than others, often through no fault of their own. Their right to life is often dependent on them getting this healthcare. But their right to life does not automatically give them the income to pay for it. With the economy the way it is, many people are struggling to eat, let alone pay for healthcare.

What you are essentially saying is "I don't give a shit if you die, I want my [pool | car | foreign holiday]."

On top of this, the way that healthcare is paid for in the USA currently makes it the most expensive in the world. Of the G8 nations, you pay nearly twice the cost per head of the next nation, for pretty similar outcomes. This extra cost is pretty obviously because of the nature of your health insurance industry. It seems insane to leave your health in the hands of a corporation who profit the most from denying you as much healthcare as possible. The extra bureaucracy the insurance industry engages in for their campaign to deny their customers treatment undoubtedly increases costs.

A libertarian will usually step in at this point and say "Well then, do away with the insurance companies, let me pay my doctor out of my own pocket, and the prices will drop!". This, alas, does not work well for everyone, as pointed out, because not everyone can afford healthcare, even healthcare that is now cheaper because of market forces. Healthcare is both labour intensive and employs many expensive, low-volume technologies, and neither of these costs can be depressed by mass production.

If you want a cheaper healthcare system, you only have to look to countries with socialised healthcare. Here in the UK, we have very similar outcomes to the USA (they have slightly better cancer treatment, largely because they have a larger population, and this means that drug trials for rare cancers are more viable, we have better cardiac outcomes). But we pay less than half per head what you do, because our healthcare system is run by the government, and the focus is not on making a profit, but providing the best outcomes. When we cut costs, we aren't trying to prop up the bottom line. We cut reluctantly, because we know that cut is hurting our patients, instead of rubbing our hands expecting a juicy bonus.

Well, I can see your point of view. Everyone has a selfish streak. No-one likes to be told what to do. But I would be interested to see how long your resolve to be a self-reliant individual lasts should you contract a medical condition or suffer an accident that outstrips your ability to pay for the care it requires.

Re:There is only one moral call

[causality]

Stating that coercion is immoral would challenge the very foundation of families, wherein for nearly off human history children have been considered effectively the property of adults.

A parent is supposed to be a benevolent dictator. This is not something you could ever realistically expect from the State.

That's why it's so hard to spread political freedom - because people have been conditioned from infancy to obey the arbitrary dictates of someone more powerful. They learned from an early age that the rules they were forced to abide by didn't apply to the people making the rules. The existence of governments is merely a side effect of this early conditioning.

It depends. Truly good parents don't condition; they reason. They convince their children to obey their rules by showing that their own rules are good enough for them as well. In other words, they are not hypocrites. They correct rather than punish because they don't get angry easily. They see a need to earn respect by being respectable and personally upholding every virtue they expect from their children, rather than demanding respect just-because.

It's the difference between authority and dominance. Too many parents have no authority, so all they have left is "I'm bigger than you" and "I can take things away from you" and "I can make you miserable". They actually blame the child for this rather than seeing it as their own failing. They're basically bullies to their children, but they feel justified in their destructive methods because their goals are decent enough. Standard bullies want your lunch money; parent-bullies want you to succeed in life. It's typical consequentialism (ends justify the means) justification.

Yes, some coercion is necessary, just like some government is necessary. The idea is for both to be minimal and appropriate.

Re:There is only one moral call

[starworks5]

Rights are something that we imagine, I have no right to be not eaten by a hungry lion, just as I have no right to healthcare. What we do have is a set of privileges, which are conducive to the society that we live in, and liberties from individuals or groups of individuals and to do certain things.

That being said, the case could be made that universal healthcare is a national security priority. I mean if it only takes a ferret farm and a few flu samples, in order to make a super viral pandemic that could kill 50% of the world, whose to say that universal heathcare isn't a good risk avoiding strategy.

Furthermore the government does have a place paying for and charging for positive and negative externailities, and since no human being is an island and healthcare problems are ones of accruing interest, it seems like something the government ought to pay for.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Wonko the Sane]

Truly good parents don't condition; they reason. They convince their children to obey their rules by showing that their own rules are good enough for them as well. In other words, they are not hypocrites. They correct rather than punish because they don't get angry easily. They see a need to earn respect by being respectable and personally upholding every virtue they expect from their children, rather than demanding respect just-because.

I agree with this definition of good parents. My experience is lacking in real examples of parents who make more than a token effort to live up to that as a standard, however.

Yes, some coercion is necessary

Necessary to achive what, specifically?

Re:There is only one moral call

[starworks5]

He is a nutjob, since he believes that the world could go on the gold standard for fractional reserve banking, and even be able to find enough gold to do it. That and it would limit the actual application of gold, since the price will go astronomically high. He simply doesn't get economics, because he has been listening to those austrian wackos, who dont actually believe in the scientific method in economics. I will give him credit for the fact that he is uncorruptable, and by virtue is against all corruption in government whatsoever, and is against aggressive acts of imperialism. But i wouldn't want him making complex decisions in either economics or heathcare on my behalf, nor does his personal ideology seem very practical upon examination, as laws that prevent liberties for some protect the liberties of others in many cases.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Bob the Super Hamste]

when it come to arguing about healthcare I like to use the following:
You have a right to healthcare but you don't have a right to have me pay for your healthcare.

This at least is logically consistent with the other rights that have been enshrined in our constitution in that it doesn't impose any obligation on any one else. I can stand on the street corner all day long and exercise my first amendment rights but that in no way imposes an obligation on your to listen to my rantings. My right to keep and bear arms does not impose any obligation on you to purchase them for me. I happen to believe that the current healthcare affordability act (aka Obamacare) is probably unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. A single payer system would have at least stood up to that test as congress does have the power to tax and spend.

Re:There is only one moral call

[causality]

I agree with this definition of good parents. My experience is lacking in real examples of parents who make more than a token effort to live up to that as a standard, however.

I am fortunate enough to have friends who are this kind of parent. They would freely admit that they are not perfect, and in the face of such an awesome task and tremendous responsibility like raising a child, I cannot fault them for that. But they love and cherish Reason and gently instill this in their children by showing them why Reason is beautiful. The result is that their children are calmer and more well-behaved than most, and tend to follow the rules even when the parents aren't watching their every move.

Necessary to achive what, specifically?

I'll make up an extreme example in order to clarify the point, though much milder examples would not be hard to conceive. Let's say you're the parent of a young teenager. You discover that your teenager has started smoking crack cocaine. You have an obligation to take the crack away from that teen and, if necessary, to get them some treatment so they can beat the habit. The teen is not going to like that -- it will happen against his or her will. You had to resort to coercion because self-destruction cannot be reasoned with.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Anonymous Coward]

I would go so far as to say it is plain evil.

Attempting to build a system that provides health care to all people is evil? Fuck that.

Re:There is only one moral call

[causality]

I would go so far as to say it is plain evil.

Attempting to build a system that provides health care to all people is evil? Fuck that.

Is reading comprehension truly that hard? It comes quite easily for me, but then I don't make the mistake of entangling my personal emotions with simple discussion.

I clearly said that what is evil is to deliberately blur the distinction between inalienable human rights and entitlements. I actually made no statement about health care at all. I neither supported universal health care, nor opposed it. Re-read my post.

Does anyone else wish to mod me "Troll" and put words in my mouth, or can we all be adults here? Honestly some of you are just plain infantile and you really, truly don't have to be.

Re:There is only one moral call

[CCurzon]

How many people can be reliant on others before it breaks the collective back of society?

Do you know what society is? People relying on other people. That's pretty much the definition.

Re:There is only one moral call

[TheBilgeRat]

Nor will anyone, as that is what the democratic process is all about. Candidates like him I am not worried about - I am more worried about the mainstream morons and nutjobs that represent the "middle". They are the ones who keep voting in morons and nutjobs going all the way back to Nixon.

Re:There is only one moral call

[DemonGenius]

I'm sure you know that in Canada we have universal health care. You mention that you don't want to have to pay for your neighbor who smokes. I'd gladly do so if it ensures that I don't go bankrupt because I had an accidental fall and need to be in a cast for 6-7 weeks. I broke my achilles tendon and the only thing I had to pay for was my crutches and physio, which should be partially covered in most workers' health benefits. Everything else is covered by our income tax which we all have to pay into anyway. I've talked to Americans who wish they had our health care system. Whatever Obama has implemented down south probably isn't anywhere near what we have in Canada.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Magius_AR]

I think the main point here is that everyone needs healthcare of some kind, statistically speaking, throughout their life. Some people need more than others, often through no fault of their own.

And do you have actual statistics on how often it is their fault? The top 5 healthcare expenses in the US (such as heart disease) for instance have very strong ties to obesity. What about drug users? Smokers? People who use tanning beds and avoid sunscreen? Etc, etc, etc. I would argue the vast majority of healthcare issues are caused by lifestyle choices. And the "not their fault" (genetic conditions and truly bad luck) are the exception. Going into this argument with that frame of mind leaves a few options:

A) let the taxpayers pay for the people making bad life choices while letting them continue their bad life styles
B) let the taxpayers pay for the people making bad life choices while passing heavy legislation to curb bad behavior
C) let the people live their own goddamned lives and pay for their own mistakes

Between the options available, I prefer C, especially in this country where no one is willing to be accountable for their own actions. Option B invites a huge government crackdown on freedom, and Option A is a financial clusterfuck and a huge "fuck you" to all the healthy/responsible people out there.

What you are essentially saying is "I don't give a shit if you die, I want my [pool | car | foreign holiday]."

Ah yes, because all of us use any income boosts on frivolous things. Personally, I'd like to support my parents in their old age who are in their 50-60s, failed to responsibly save when growing up, and now cannot retire because of it. Every fucking dollar you take from me that has to go to some other jackass that made poor life decisions is one you take from me that I could be using to take care of my own family. So get off the "you're all greedy assholes who just want another ferrari" preachy talking point.

Of the G8 nations, you pay nearly twice the cost per head of the next nation, for pretty similar outcomes. This extra cost is pretty obviously because of the nature of your health insurance industry.

"Obviously"? Why, how scientific of you. I'm sure lifestyle has absolutely nothing to do with it. Or the fact we spend ungodly amounts of money giving terminal patients a few more weeks to live when Europeans tend to let them go earlier. But it feels more right just to criminalize the industry rather than take responsibility for our own actions after all.

It seems insane to leave your health in the hands of a corporation who profit the most from denying you as much healthcare as possible. The extra bureaucracy the insurance industry engages in for their campaign to deny their customers treatment undoubtedly increases costs.

I find it insane to leave those decisions in anyone's hands but the patients/family. Shifting from a corporate death panel to a government death panel doesn't exactly fix the problem.

If you want a cheaper healthcare system, you only have to look to countries with socialised healthcare.

Why? Because that's the only counter example? Because no one else has a system implemented like the US? So naturally the only available alternative must be correct and all others wrong? It's mighty convenient for your argument that there isn't a single additional private healthcare system out there to provide a second data point for the opposite side of the argument, isn't it?

Re:There is only one moral call

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the COBRA modification should be abolished. Emergency Rooms have decreased in number as population has increased. I'm strongly suspect weight times have gone up too. Although you can't get turned away without some handwaving or paperwork, you have entitlement to the care or the ER actually being there. I know a case in Chicago (!) where the ambulance had to drive around for an hour until a facility could take an eye injury patient (the eye was lost - does not function but physically present).

Also, the requirement to treat became an unfunded mandate that gets billed to those least able to negotiate their healthcare costs. Assuming, of course, the ER didn't just shut down.

Also, you fail Freedom 101 by not realizing what ought to be eliminated first. Medical licensing. If the government is going to state who may treat, they might as well just pay for it. We are simply bearing the costs of decisions made over 100 years ago.

Also, as pertains to IP et cetera, we ought to abolish all patents and copyrights. Patents in particular as it is a major health cost driver. We have more knowledge than we care to implement. If the country is butthurt for some tech, then Congress can earmark funds for that purpose. For the rest, we ought to focus on incremental changes, reverse engineering, and the only advantage to radical advancements should be the length of time you can keep it a secret.

Why you focus on a non problem is beyond me. Affordable healthcare is possible, but not when you have to pay off all the lawyers, insurance companies, pretend innovators, guilded "professionals", and some of the BS liability stuff.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Magius_AR]

He is a nutjob, since he believes that the world could go on the gold standard for fractional reserve banking, and even be able to find enough gold to do it.

You only believe he's a nutjob because that's a hyperbolic exaggeration of his view. He acknowledges problem with a "gold standard" as well and actually wants to introduce a "hard money" parallel currency that could be used as legal tender (competing with fiat dollars). It's a reasonable view. In fact, the fact people don't view purely fiat currencies as "nutjob" boggles my mind.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Wonko the Sane]

Let's say you're the parent of a young teenager. You discover that your teenager has started smoking crack cocaine. You have an obligation to take the crack away from that teen and, if necessary, to get them some treatment so they can beat the habit. The teen is not going to like that -- it will happen against his or her will. You had to resort to coercion because self-destruction cannot be reasoned with.

It's easy to justify statements like "some coercion is necessary" if you accept as a premise that situations like you describe can just materialize out of nowhere, with no prior warning signs and with no way to detect and prevent them from occuring in the first place.

I'm not sure that teenagers who have grown up in a healthy and rational environment starting from good attachment in infancy and growing up with parental relationships which allow them to communicate openly and honestly will all of a sudden turn into crack addicts out of the blue.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Wonko the Sane]

Another problem with your example is that a parent who has failed so drastically that his or her teenager becomes a crack addict is in no way, shape, or form qualified to employ coersion responsibly.

The idea that coersion by parents is sometimes necessary to correct eariler failures of parenting is completely ludicrous because the more extreme of an example you can devise the more it demonstrates the parents are incompetent and therefore the last people who should be allowed to use such a tool.

Re:There is only one moral call

[causality]

Let's say you're the parent of a young teenager. You discover that your teenager has started smoking crack cocaine. You have an obligation to take the crack away from that teen and, if necessary, to get them some treatment so they can beat the habit. The teen is not going to like that -- it will happen against his or her will. You had to resort to coercion because self-destruction cannot be reasoned with.

It's easy to justify statements like "some coercion is necessary" if you accept as a premise that situations like you describe can just materialize out of nowhere, with no prior warning signs and with no way to detect and prevent them from occuring in the first place.

I'm not sure that teenagers who have grown up in a healthy and rational environment starting from good attachment in infancy and growing up with parental relationships which allow them to communicate openly and honestly will all of a sudden turn into crack addicts out of the blue.

That occurred to me when writing the example, which is why I described it as extreme. I left out the part you mention because I was hoping it should be obvious that things don't happen in a vacuum. At least, to any would-be parent I really hope this is "well duh" type of territory.

Are you saying you have honestly never seen small children want things that are bad for them to have? You think they understand perfectly and 100% of the time why those things are denied to them? You think they never, ever get out of line and require a consequence? Can you imagine a child coming to you and saying "hey I just abused this privilege so it should be taken away now" or did you have to do that yourself?

You have to have some rules and at least once in a while they might not like them. That is de facto coercion. This isn't always evil though. Murder is illegal in my state. If someone commits murder, you bet that the police are going to coerce them into a jail cell. I consider this a legitimate use of coercion. A minimal government would confine such things to where they are genuinely legitimate. See where I'm going with that?

There comes a point where you either give a certain benefit of doubt and understand where the guy's coming from, and if you don't, you split hairs about the lack of a Totally Perfect Absolutely Objection-Proof analogy or example. This is not a technical discussion.

Re:There is only one moral call

[Rangelus]

Look, it's very simple. IIRC the #1 reason why people go bankrupt in the US is because of healthcare. This doesn't happen in other countries, and their level of healthcare not only doesn't suffer, but is oftentimes better. What's not to like?

Re:There is only one moral call

[robsku]

I don't agree with your definition of what can or can't be a "right".

However more importantly I want to say that while the right for healthcare is almost never as simple as people for or against it make it be, but still more importantly that right seems currently very much proven to be possible - it works just great here in Finland and on number of EU countries as well. There is proof that this is a "good thing" - is this not part of the issue(s) on TFA / comments?

Re:There is only one moral call

[Magius_AR]

Look, it's very simple. IIRC the #1 reason why people go bankrupt in the US is because of healthcare. This doesn't happen in other countries, and their level of healthcare not only doesn't suffer, but is oftentimes better. What's not to like?

Because you have no idea what the cause of high healthcare costs in the US is. For all you or anyone else knows, a European system adopted here would in fact cost even more than we're already spending. That's the point. Medicare is a great example. Other countries out there have similar programs. Yet ours is performing horribly and theirs are not. Or how about gun laws? Where some countries are crazy restrictive on guns and others are fairly relaxed and both have similar levels of violent crime? You can't just pick one data point/factor and ignore any other possible correlation/causes.

Religion First

[clickclickdrone]

If you want governments to start basis decisions on logic and sense, you'll need to remove all influence from the religious types first. Until then, we're stuck with some pretty depressingly stupid laws.

Re:Religion First

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The best person I know putting forth the cause of reason and sense is Pope Benedict XVI. Go read his address to the University of Regansburg if you don't believe me. Remember though it's the one that the religions you so deride decided to kill priests and nuns over, because the Pope was stupid enough to tell the truth about how certain religions deny reason.

Re:Religion First

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think religion is the root of the problem. It's just the most visible sign of the complete irrationality of the human race.

Personally I don't think we can solve this one without leaving behind 99% of the human race, so we're stuck with what we have.

Re:Religion First

[SirGarlon]

you'll need to remove all influence from the religious types first

While I agree that we'd be better off without "religous types" such as Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum, I'd like to remind you that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi were also "religious types."

Re:Religion First

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a wet-behind-the-ears statement. You really think society will suddenly become logical and reasonable without religion? You are starting to sound like Mao. Idiocy isn't attributable to religion; it's the fallacy of idiots themselves.

Re:Religion First

[wcrowe]

Please re-read your sentence, except this time try substituting "niggers" or "gays" or "jews" for "religious types".

I'd hate to see the laws we'd be stuck with if you were in charge.

Re:Religion First

[DesScorp]

If you want governments to start basis decisions on logic and sense, you'll need to remove all influence from the religious types first. Until then, we're stuck with some pretty depressingly stupid laws.

Yes, because things like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are just horrible public policy. Damned zealots.

Some people seem to think that taking religion away will lead to a utopia for humanity. I think it'll just be replaced with something else... communism, fascism, some new-ism. And it would be hellish.

Re:Religion First

[clickclickdrone]

You really think society will suddenly become logical and reasonable without religion?

Err, no and I didn't say it would be. It would however be a step forwards.

Luckily I don't live in the US or I think I'f go mad. I don't know a single person who goes to church and only a handful who profess to any particular faith although none of those appear to actively practice it. Some of the comments to my original post are frankly disturbing in their knee jerkism.

It's also always fun to see any comment that dares to diss religion getting rapidly modded down by a group of people that ought to be in theory above all that.

Re:Religion First

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Yes, because things like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are just horrible public policy. Damned zealots.

It's not about the rules, it's about where they come from. If you say, "Thou shalt not kill because it's the root of X socioeconomic problem" then fine, but if you say, "Thou shalt not kill because some invisible ghost told me so" then you don't belong in politics...

Re:Religion First

[Mindcontrolled]

You think your religion *invented" thou shalt not kill? Please, come on...

Re:Religion First

[denmarkw00t]

"Thou shalt not *blah*" were fine when they were needed, the point is that we should be at a place in our societies where we can derive moral guidance from logic, not from old books. Laws have a role that requires them to evolve with society, and basing laws off of books that don't evolve leave us with ridiculous laws like "life starting 2 weeks before conception" - WTF is that? Anti-marriage laws are passed not because LGBT couples marrying hurts anyone, but because religious doctrine pushed in laws that should never have seen the light of day.

Granted, this issue has many facets - one being that THOSE OPPOSED RARELY GO AND VOTE. At least in these cases. I'm from NC and the recent passage or Amendment 1 is ridiculous, particularly because there are so many people I know who complain about it but didn't bother to take 15 minutes to fill out a ballot.

Re:Religion First

[a90Tj2P7]

Religious people make up a decent chuck of society. They should have representation, that's the point of goverment. The majority of our presidents have been religious, and that didn't mean they were all personal-value-imposing zealots. The problem of not making informed, objective decisions can't be solved by taking away people's ability to make decisions at all - the problem with overkill religion in politics is when they're forcing their beliefs or values on people, how can you solve that problem by forcing yours on them?

Re:Religion First

[causality]

you'll need to remove all influence from the religious types first

While I agree that we'd be better off without "religous types" such as Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum, I'd like to remind you that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi were also "religious types."

They understood the difference between having your personal faith and respecting that others have the right to do (or not do) the same, versus implementing a theocracy.

Gandhi had no problem with the teachings of Christ even though he was thoroughly Hindu. His only complaint about Christianity was that the Christians who practice it are not enough like the Christ they claim to follow.

I personally admire the teachings of Christ. I believe he was better and more advanced than myself, and therefore I should listen to him (as I do with anyone meeting that criteria). I believe that practicing his teachings makes me a better, more loving, more forgiving person. But I cannot stand the way it's paraded around like it's a political issue.

One's faith should be a personal thing. I am spiritual, but spirituality is not something I can give to another person. If they want it, they have to find it themselves in their own terms. If they don't want it, I respect that even though I don't personally agree. In either case, telling someone else how they should live goes against everything I believe in. Selling one's faith in exchange for votes makes that person a sort of whore and calls into question the sincerity of their faith.

Not only do I not care what religion a candidate practices, I don't even want to know. Candidates should be judged on whether they promote freedom and prosperity, not whether they're in the same denominational club as oneself.

Re:Religion First

[causality]

If you want governments to start basis decisions on logic and sense, you'll need to remove all influence from the religious types first. Until then, we're stuck with some pretty depressingly stupid laws.

Yes, because things like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are just horrible public policy. Damned zealots.

Some people seem to think that taking religion away will lead to a utopia for humanity. I think it'll just be replaced with something else... communism, fascism, some new-ism. And it would be hellish.

The main reason why hardcore Communists and National Socialists have tried to stamp out religion and kill religious people is easy to understand. A religious person recognizes a higher authority than the State. That's perceived as a threat to totalitarian types.

I have always considered Statism itself to be a type of religion. It's a secular religion, but it has its articles of faith, its priesthood, and its zealots all the same.

Re:Religion First

[Dr_Barnowl]

Removing the religion doesn't suddenly render you an immoral beast. I think the biggest problem with religion is that it provides an arbitrary justification for any stupid law you like, with a vast sourcebook of quotes that you can bend to support it. Without this, you have to justify your laws solely on their merits.

  "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty obvious - everyone has an interest in this one being enforced. If you permit arbitrary killing, you might be next.

Despite "Thou shalt not kill" being quite early in the Bible, the rest of the Old Testament is packed with killing, genocide, etc, all approved of by Jehovah ; it translates more closely to "Thou shalt not murder". Wars of conquest, apparently, don't count as murder when God Says So. Without the religion, it becomes a whole lot more impartial - you don't have any particular groups of people who you can dismiss as being unimportant by dint of their religious beliefs or geographic location. So, remove the God, and now you have fewer justifications for killing, and you only have evidence and logic to fall back on - which really only leaves you with self-defence as a viable justification. If people only killed people in self defence, no-one would kill anyone, because there wouldn't be any people killing anyone except in self defence...

"Thou shalt not steal" is also pretty damn obvious. If you ask a 5 year old "How would you like it if I took your sweeties?", they'll say that's not fair. So if a 5 year old can grasp it, I'm sure it's not really a very challenging leap to ask atheists to support this remaining on the law books.

I think the kind of depressingly stupid laws being referred to are things like :

Tax exemption for religion : even Jesus said "Pay unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" ; ie, pay your damn taxes. Religion is all about the next world, right? So you can chip in your fair share to maintain the mundane and worldly matters we have in this one.

Laws that require Women to be subjugated and marginalized.

Laws that target homosexuals for different treatment, despite the evidence being very clear that homosexuality is a natural variation in not just humans but many other species, and thus presumably part of God's design (if you believe in that sort of thing).

Re:Religion First

[clickclickdrone]

Awesome, +4 insightful to 0 Flamebait. Oh how I love to see those religious ones show they know how to live their lives the way Jesus asked them to. Or not.

Re:Religion First

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's ok for religious people who think like you do to vote, but we should disallow any religious people who DON'T think like you do?

I know that's not what you're meaning (believe me, this reply is not aimed solely at your comment), but it is what you're implying. You place your trust in what you consider to be "reason", and they place their trust in what they consider to be "truth". And the politicians will pander to whichever group they think will get them a position of power so they can begin operating under what THEY place THEIR trust in (truth, reason, money, power, sex, friendship, etc.) -- they have to, else someone else will run things under the flag of what THEY trust (truth, reason, money, power, sex, friendship, etc.)

In almost any worldview (religious, scientific, philosophic), you are nothing but a mound of sand telling yourself that you know better than another mound of sand, and the other mound of sand strongly believes that they know better than you.

Re:Religion First

[causality]

So it's ok for religious people who think like you do to vote

Yes, it is.

but we should disallow any religious people who DON'T think like you do?

No, we should not. We should promote reason. We should not persecute narrowmindedness. I honestly believe in the superiority of Reason over narrow-mindedness, which is why I feel no need to make laws against the latter. It's called being a secure person.

I know that's not what you're meaning (believe me, this reply is not aimed solely at your comment), but it is what you're implying. You place your trust in what you consider to be "reason", and they place their trust in what they consider to be "truth".

I trust what is trustworthy. That's why you are incorrect about the implications of my prior post.

Why? That's easy. If I reason incorrectly, you could come along and point out exactly where I made a mistake, what kind of error I made, and how it may be corrected. If I said "all cats are mammals, therefore all mammals are cats" you could correct me and it would be more than just your opinion. If we disagreed about that, my position would not merely be "different" from yours; it would be wrong. All you would have to do is find a single mammal that is not a cat and my statement would be objectively falsified and anyone could confirm that to their own satisfaction.

Religion doesn't work this way. That's why reason is better than religion when it comes to making decisions that can affect millions of people. That's when the ability to objectively confirm the correctness of a position is obviously desirable. In this context, which is public policy, reason and religion are not merely "different". One is clearly superior.

In almost any worldview (religious, scientific, philosophic), you are nothing but a mound of sand telling yourself that you know better than another mound of sand, and the other mound of sand strongly believes that they know better than you.

Actually I am both Reasonable and Spiritual. For me those two are not in conflict, not even slightly, but then I never did like organized religion and have always viewed spirituality as a personal thing. Even if I am certain that the way I live is better than the way you live, it would be wrong to force you to conform to my ways. Perhaps I would try to persuade you, but we're talking about government here. Laws are not intended to persuade. They are enforced by the threat of violence.

The only legitimate reason to outlaw something you want to do would be if that activity infringed on the rights of other people to make their own decisions about how they wish to live. For example, murder is illegal and should be illegal because if you murder someone, you're definitely interfering with the way they wish to live.

To borrow your terms, I am more like a mound of sand that isn't worried about how the other mounds of sand live their lives. I do not wish to place restrictions on them or to shove an agenda down their throats (supposing sand dunes have throats...). Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they like. What other people want to read, watch, think, say, and practice is none of my damned business unless they choose to share. What's that saying, that those who need the force of law to support their religion must not believe in the power of its message? It's true.

Re:Religion First

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you don't get to troll religious people, then cry about them not turning the other cheek when they mod-slap you.

(Posting anonymously to avoid getting karma-bombed by the zealots.)

No chance in hell

[Anonymous Coward]

The same skills that get your laid also get you elected...

facts and truth are irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts have not been relevant in American politics in a long time. The lawyers are in charge. Lawyers are not taught to find the truth. Lawyers are taught to make the best argument they can for their client. Politicians (who are mostly former lawyers) do the same thing. Instead of "What is best for my country?" the question is "What is the best argument I can make for my party/constituents/re-election bid?"

Engineers are taught to find solutions, so they have a hard time understanding this political reality.

Re:facts and truth are irrelevant

[fortfive]

First, the lawyers are not in charge, and were perhaps significantly influential only at certain times, such as at the founding of the US, and in the 60's and 70's. It appears that the people with money are in charge.

Second, lawyers are taught to practice zealous advocacy within an adversarial system, presenting opposing sides to fact-finder. How well this system works depends on the fact finder. In the US political system, the fact finder is the voting public. This fact is why the founding fathers, especially Jefferson, were so keen on public education. An irrational, non-discerning, non-analytical voter pool will be susceptible to unreasonable arguments.

But even when everything works perfectly, there can still be thoughtful, significant differences of opinion. There are often no objectively quantifiable success criteria, compared to most problems in engineering. But even in engineering, there are still non-engineering considerations that set priorities for engineering projects. Performance v. Battery life, for example.

It's why the US system is often cited as the worst way to come up with an equitable governance ever, except for all the others.

Re:facts and truth are irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Two of the last three Presidents were lawyers.

You will find many more lawyers in the house and senate.

If the President and Congress are not in charge, who is in charge?

Re:facts and truth are irrelevant

[Fwipp]

"the people with money are in charge."
I wonder if the lawyers outnumber the rich in the federal legislatures.

Re:facts and truth are irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because lawyers are well known for living in poverty.

Re:facts and truth are irrelevant

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That would be an interesting venn diagram I would love to see.

The ourcome is a different "desired behavior"

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence suggests that: humans don't generally make decisions based on logical choices. They do it based on desires (that may or may not be logical/rational), and then afterwards they rationalize their decision to have it make sense within the context of their world view.

The desire to promote this line of thinking can be applied to specific and formalized venues where you set up processes to ensure that these decision making protocals are followed....

But it is an uphill battle to change human's inate decision making processes to be rational.

Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/592/

Let's do Science to it!

[VortexCortex]

Okay. I understand logical statements, but what we need is Hypothesis, Tests, CONTROL GROUPS, etc. The scientific method should be applied.

I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.

Who gives a flying fuck what you think. If we did science this way we'd still be fighting against flat-earthers. TEST RESULTS, or STFU.

Re:Let's do Science to it!

[fortfive]

The problem with letting science decide is that science cannot make normative decisions. That is, science cannot tell us whether one outcome is better than another.

Consider water pollution. Science can tell us that if we put *x* mcg of Hg into a stream, *y* number of trout will get contaminated and *z* number of people will get sick, and it will cost the plant *a* number of dollars, which will lead to *b* number of layoffs, and *c* number of people going on food stamps, etc.

What science can't tell us is what value of *x* is the right one.

Re:Let's do Science to it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading comprehension fail

What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based

Re:Let's do Science to it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, that IS evidence based! At least it can either be proved or disproved with evidence, unlike the moral call that the article seems to say is a better argument.

This person does not represent... well anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if it turns ou that they do want to resuce drug use and the the most cost effective way to acheive that is indeed to send all users to prison that would be ok?

I think their may be a deeper issue here and if that's the best argument a trained journalist can present I don't think anyone would want them on their side as an advocate.

That's Democracy

[Sloppy]

Politicians say things that they think will cause us to vote for them. When they say stupid shit, the fault isn't so much in the limited realm of "politics" but rather the much wider realm of all of us. Do most people argue in terms of evidence? You're not going to make politics become evidence-based, until you can answer that last question with a confident Yes.

Re:That's Democracy

[CanHasDIY]

Excellent points, all.

So then, at this point the question becomes, how do we get most people to argue in terms of evidence (and thus, logic)?

Therein lies the real challenge.

Re:That's Democracy

[bky1701]

The problem with democracy is that it makes people in general feel responsible for the mistakes of the government, when usually, they had few options and were lied to. It is basically a pressure release to allow corrupt systems to exist without boiling over into revolution.

Test-Driven Government!

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Every time some politician gets a brainwave for a law, it needs to be tested in the real world. Laws are the programs for social order. To make them and roll them out without testing is as mad as writing a computer program and rolling it out without testing.

Re:Test-Driven Government!

[doston]

Every time some politician gets a brainwave for a law, it needs to be tested in the real world. Laws are the programs for social order. To make them and roll them out without testing is as mad as writing a computer program and rolling it out without testing.

Politicians already know better answers but continue with poor policy because a business interest is benefitting. You'll find that's true of most bad social policy. A better way is known, tested and studied, but since that solution is cheap, easy and effective, it's not instituted because the policy conflicts with some entrenched, costly and inefficient business interest. What you're talking about is great and it's already been done and ignored. What you're talking about would require the end of capitalism or a massive reigning in of it.

Re:Test-Driven Government!

[makomk]

it's not even necessarily businesses that benefit. For instance, a while ago the government - and the Guardian - were pushing for new laws on prostitution in the UK that were aimed at stopping sex trafficking. All the available scientific evidence suggested that they were trying to solve a problem that didn't exist rather than deal with reality and the actual workers who the law was meant to protect actually considered it to be dangerous. Despite this, said law very nearly passed in its original form just because our feminist lobbying groups demanded it, and in their world ideology outweighs actual facts.

Re:Test-Driven Government!

[Dr_Barnowl]

Taking the software analogy further, I strongly believe that the law should be kept in Git, and amendments merged in, instead of the current practise of suffixing the text to the end of the bill, essentially making people run `patch amendment.diff` in their head.

In addition, you'd be able to `git blame` the right person for each part of the law, have thorough law amendment reviews, and spot the filibuster rammed between two paragraphs about providing more funds for kittens.

Re:Test-Driven Government!

[doston]

it's not even necessarily businesses that benefit. For instance, a while ago the government - and the Guardian - were pushing for new laws on prostitution in the UK that were aimed at stopping sex trafficking. All the available scientific evidence suggested that they were trying to solve a problem that didn't exist rather than deal with reality and the actual workers who the law was meant to protect actually considered it to be dangerous. Despite this, said law very nearly passed in its original form just because our feminist lobbying groups demanded it, and in their world ideology outweighs actual facts.

If you're talking about the UK, you're talking about an entirely different government. Slashdot is a US based site, so most of the chat here is referring to the US, unless otherwise specified. I have a feeling, without knowing a lot about it, that we wouldn't agree even on the issue you're discussing, but I don't know enough about it.

Lying with math

[MsWhich]

I agree with Henderson's point. I also think that we should make basic education in statistics part of the math curriculum in schools. When you don't understand statistics, don't know what a standard deviation from the mean is, don't understand the concept of "statistically significant," etc., it's very easy for someone to lie to you by manipulating numbers or misrepresenting study results. Newspaper reporting has never done a particularly good job of accurately reporting study data or scientific findings, but today's news environment (consisting of old-school newspapers desperate for ratings, politically-slanted news organizations, and of course the blogosphere) is orders of magnitude worse. (People should also understand what an order of magnitude is.)

I mean, people are always going to try to lie with numbers and cook their data, but a better-educated public will be inoculated against it to some extent. When a politician says, "Look, this study shows that we save money by sending drug users to prison," you'll have more people who can say, "Wait, those numbers don't look right. How was this data collected? I don't agree with those findings" rather than simply saying, "Oh, okay, someone did a study so it must be true."

Re:Lying with math

[JDG1980]

I agree with Henderson's point. I also think that we should make basic education in statistics part of the math curriculum in schools. When you don't understand statistics, don't know what a standard deviation from the mean is, don't understand the concept of "statistically significant," etc., it's very easy for someone to lie to you by manipulating numbers or misrepresenting study results.

What if the average person doesn't have enough raw brainpower to understand statistics?

Re:Lying with math

[MsWhich]

We expect the average person graduating from high school to have enough raw brainpower to be able to read, write, and do a non-trivial amount of mathematics. If you can get through an algebra class, you can get through a very basic stats class. Or even just a stats unit in one of your other math classes. I don't think it makes sense to tailor the entire curriculum to people who are too dumb to be able to do algebra. Some people can't manage to write a coherent paragraph either, and yet we still expect students to be able to do that.

Re:Lying with math

[cheekyjohnson]

I also think that we should make basic education in statistics part of the math curriculum in schools.

More than that needs to be done. Such as fixing the public education system so that it teaches more than just how to do well on tests and how to memorize things. And then we need to figure out a way to get people to not completely forget things they don't use. Otherwise, I can't say I expect good results.

What an elitist

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
  Isaac Asimov

Re:What an elitist

[CanHasDIY]

There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated
Political scientists think the same one vote that some monkeys are inbred
Majority rule, don't work in mental institutions
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions

What are we left with?
A nation of god-fearing pregnant nationalists
Who feel it's their duty to populate the homeland
Pass on traditions
How to get ahead religions
And prosperity be a symbol to culture

-- Fat Mike, NOFX The Idiots Are Taking Over

Re:What an elitist

[swillden]

There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated Political scientists think the same one vote that some monkeys are inbred Majority rule, don't work in mental institutions Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions What are we left with? A nation of god-fearing pregnant nationalists Who feel it's their duty to populate the homeland Pass on traditions How to get ahead religions And prosperity be a symbol to culture

-- Fat Mike, NOFX The Idiots Are Taking Over

If Fat Mike would like to make statements decrying anti-intellectualism, he should first learn to compose a coherent sentence.

Re:What an elitist

[cpu6502]

Strange that Asimov spent a lot of time writing about corrupt societies (Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun, The Galactic Empire).

The problem is that a lot of these "technocrats" or regulators as we call them in the U.S. are horribly, horribly corrupt. They use their knowledge not for the benefit of the common man, but for their own personal benefit (and landing future jobs with RIAA or Bank of America). The regulators are in bed with the industries they are supposed to be regulating. And the industries are buying-off the regulators to get favors or exemptions (like MF Global not being prosecuted for stealing funds from customer accounts).

I would sooner put the power in the hands of the People who, in their everyday market decisions, will decide which products succeed and fail. It's the closest thing we have to democracy with people "voting" directly with their dollars.

Of course we need agencies like OSHA to protect the workers, and the EPA to stop dumping of chemicals in waterways, and FTC to keep investment banks (gambling houses) separate from savings banks..... but we should try to keep these things as minimal as possible. When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized.

Re:What an elitist

[CanHasDIY]

If Fat Mike would like to make statements decrying anti-intellectualism, he should first learn to compose a coherent sentence.

No argument against what the poet said, so you resort to lowest-common-denominator, ad hominem attacks on his sentence structure?

Ever hear of artistic license? Obviously not.

Re:What an elitist

[cpu6502]

Another change I would make is to convert the House (half of the Congress) into a direct vote. The representatives would still be there, debating with one another and crafting the actual bills, but when it came to the final vote, the Reps would step aside and the people would vote directly (via computer). If we had that, TARP and the other bailouts would have never passed..... per the will of the people.

The Senate would remain the same as now (the Member States' legislature).

Re:What an elitist

[DesScorp]

In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

  Isaac Asimov

There'd be less anti-intellectualism if so many of our intellectuals weren't such arrogant asses. "I'm smarter than you. You should just shut up and do as I tell you" is not a great way to instill confidence on someone's leadership.

If people want a technocracy, go off somewhere and start one. Live in it yourselves. But I'll lay money that most people would leave it after awhile. Because there's always someone smarter than you, and in such a technocratic system, a lot of egos are going to clash, a lot of toes are going to get stepped on, and a lot of styles are going to get cramped. Technocratically-minded people idealize such a system until that system starts dictating their lives. Good for thee, but not for me is what it would be if you want to be honest about it.

Re:What an elitist

[Talderas]

Horrible idea. Look no further than California to understand why.

Re:What an elitist

[Phusion]

"You know I've noticed a certain anti-intellectualism going around this country ever since around 1980, coincidentally enough. I was in Nashville, Tennessee last weekend and after the show I went to a waffle house and I'm sitting there and I'm eating and reading a book. I don't know anybody, I'm alone, I'm eating and I'm reading a book. This waitress comes over to me (mocks chewing gum) 'what you readin' for?'...wow, I've never been asked that; not 'What am I reading', 'What am I reading for?' Well, goddamnit, you stumped me...I guess I read for a lot of reasons — the main one is so I don't end up being a fuckin' waffle waitress. Yeah, that would be pretty high on the list. Then this trucker in the booth next to me gets up, stands over me and says [mocks Southern drawl] 'Well, looks like we got ourselves a readah'...aahh, what the fuck's goin' on? It's like I walked into a Klan rally in a Boy George costume or something. Am I stepping out of some intellectual closet here? I read, there I said it. I feel better."

-Bill Hicks

Re:What an elitist

[CanHasDIY]

One line needs correction:

Political scientists think the same one vote that some monkeys are inbred

should read

Political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred

So, if that's the one you are complaining about, mea culpa. That's what I get for trusting a website for song lyrics.

Re:What an elitist

[demonbug]

If Fat Mike would like to make statements decrying anti-intellectualism, he should first learn to compose a coherent sentence.

No argument against what the poet said, so you resort to lowest-common-denominator, ad hominem attacks on his sentence structure?

Ever hear of artistic license? Obviously not.

Oh, it was a poem? I think you need to preface it by saying something like, "Yes, Fat Mike is literate - this is just a poem, which is why it has only the most tenuous connection with English grammar." Otherwise it just looks like any other idiot on the internet who can't put more than two words together coherently. It would be especially helpful for those of us who have no idea who Fat Mike is, what NOFX is, or what The Idiots Are Taking Over is (nearly everyone).

Re:What an elitist

[Outlander Engine]

"Of course we need agencies like OSHA to protect the workers, and the EPA to stop dumping of chemicals in waterways, and FTC to keep investment banks (gambling houses) separate from savings banks..... but we should try to keep these things as minimal as possible. When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized."

Except that they feed that natural milk to their kids, and it has a tendency to do severe and permanent damage. Enough damage that we, as a society, say you have to clean that milk up before you sell it.

Your argument sounds very close to that of an anti-vaccination nut. You might want to rethink your opinion on that one.

Re:What an elitist

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you let the people vote for. But leaving it solely in the hands of the people is simply foolish. It should be a mix of representatives and people.

Re:What an elitist

[X0563511]

I haven't gotten to Galactic Empire yet, but I've read the first three "Elija Baley" books. What corrupt societies? Sure, they are various societies taken to extremes, but I wouldn't call any of them corrupt. (sure, a few of the members, but you will never get away from that)

Re:What an elitist

[cheekyjohnson]

Technocratically-minded people idealize such a system until that system starts dictating their lives.

Yeah, I'm having so much fun being dictated by the current system.

Re:What an elitist

[X0563511]

I like this idea.

Nothing can be done without consensus between the representatives and constituents, and the executive branch retains it's existing veto power.

That missing direct-power from the constituents is really being felt these days.

Re:What an elitist

[WillDraven]

You must be the life of the parties, eh? Making sure everybody there knows that the music they're dancing to is grammatically incorrect.

Re:What an elitist

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Fat Mike doesn't care what you think

Re:What an elitist

[causality]

If Fat Mike would like to make statements decrying anti-intellectualism, he should first learn to compose a coherent sentence.

No argument against what the poet said, so you resort to lowest-common-denominator, ad hominem attacks on his sentence structure?

Ever hear of artistic license? Obviously not.

Oh, it was a poem? I think you need to preface it by saying something like, "Yes, Fat Mike is literate - this is just a poem, which is why it has only the most tenuous connection with English grammar." Otherwise it just looks like any other idiot on the internet who can't put more than two words together coherently. It would be especially helpful for those of us who have no idea who Fat Mike is, what NOFX is, or what The Idiots Are Taking Over is (nearly everyone).

NOFX is a band with a singer. Bands with singers tend to write lyrics. Lyrics tend not to resemble the composition and structure of dissertations.

What would be especially helpful would be for you to recognize when you are unfamiliar with something being referenced, and respond to that by taking the seconds needed to Google it. That's if you care enough about it to complain.

Re-read your post I quoted. You're too prideful to admit you had no idea what you were talking about when you could have easily found out, so you try the "stick to my guns" tactic. This is how a simple error escalates into outright asshattery. You can do better. At least, I hope so.

Re:What an elitist

[Beardo the Bearded]

Uh, excuse me, I have a problem with the "Beardo Gets Kicked in the Nuts and Everyone Else Gets $500 Act."

passes 137,000,000 to 1... you guys are jerks.

Re:What an elitist

[causality]

Of course we need agencies like OSHA to protect the workers, and the EPA to stop dumping of chemicals in waterways, and FTC to keep investment banks (gambling houses) separate from savings banks..... but we should try to keep these things as minimal as possible. When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized.

A technocrat in the real sense wouldn't ever do that, because there is no evidence that drinking natural milk is a law-enforcement problem. The only thing a real technocrat would be concerned about is that milk of any kind is labelled accurately so that customers know what they're buying. There'd be nothing for them to do unless misrepresentation/fraud were taking place.

Re:What an elitist

[starworks5]

I offered this as an actual campaign promise in my state legislative (oregon district 36) race, as well as offering complete transparency with my bank, phone, and emails, and in the end it came down to who had the most money and who had better connections with the news media. The funniest thing is that one opponent came from a wealthy family, and had a BS in economics and a JD in law, and a MD in ER medicine. However she was stumped when she had to answer actual questions IN HER FIELD OF EXPERTISE, like the benefits of and how to pay for single payer health care (she doesn't understand what externalities are) , or when I asked her about her how to accomplish her policy to "create jobs and economic growth". It signaled to me a combination of both being dumb because she has been literally handed everything in life, and also being beholden to rich special interests due to her answers and history. The newspaper refused to cover me whatsoever, hardly ever asked me any questions whatsoever, and supported the most corrupt candidate.

Its not what you know but who you know that makes you a successful politician, that or how much power your able to exert with your capital (human or real), politics makes the most raunchy sex look like good clean fun.

http://www.barberb.com (yes I know its hodgepodge and rough around the edges, im not made out of time you know, and I switched effort to working with americans elect).

Re:What an elitist

[causality]

Except that they feed that natural milk to their kids, and it has a tendency to do severe and permanent damage. Enough damage that we, as a society, say you have to clean that milk up before you sell it.

The solution to that is to prosecute the parents for being negligent, not the farmers for selling milk that was honestly described to the customer.

Any way you care to look at it, going after the farmers makes no sense. If the milk were being sold as "pasteurized" when it was not pasteurized, that would be a reason to prosecute the farmers. But they would be prosecuted for fraud by local law enforcement, not for selling natural milk by the feds.

Re:What an elitist

[CanHasDIY]

Oh, it was a poem? I think you need to preface it by saying something like, "Yes, Fat Mike is literate - this is just a poem, which is why it has only the most tenuous connection with English grammar." Otherwise it just looks like any other idiot on the internet who can't put more than two words together coherently. It would be especially helpful for those of us who have no idea who Fat Mike is, what NOFX is, or what The Idiots Are Taking Over is (nearly everyone).

I take it your Google is broken? Mine seems to be working fine...

Re:What an elitist

[Eponymous Hero]

it's a song lyric. that was the most obvious thing about it.

It would be especially helpful for those of us who have no idea who Fat Mike is, what NOFX is, or what The Idiots Are Taking Over is (nearly everyone)

google it yourself, retard. nobody wipes your ass for you, either, so get your shit together. (NOFX is a punk band, which is why nobody cares about the grammar or your ignorance.)

Re:What an elitist

[causality]

Technocratically-minded people idealize such a system until that system starts dictating their lives. Good for thee, but not for me is what it would be if you want to be honest about it.

How do you figure? There is no technical evidence-based reason to tell other people how to manage their personal lives. Such a one-size-fits-all plan for everyone is easily shown to be problematic. Just one person who didn't fit the plan would be enough to falsify it entirely.

We already have a system that wants to dictate more and more of daily life. The War on (some) Drugs is a great example, but it's not nearly the only behavior among consenting adults that can result in prison. This isn't coming from overwhelming evidence. It's coming from a certain Puritannical desire to stamp out everything that isn't approved of. I'll take evidence-based any day.

Re:What an elitist

[Anonymous Coward]

People are even worse at being informed, unbiased and keeping ideaology out of their decisions. At least elected representatives have to worry about staying in their constituents' favor or losing office.

And that would only get worse if they had to act on every bill. Do you have any idea how many bills are introduced or voted on each year? You'd be heading to polls several times a week. Do you really think people are going to be that motivated, or able to stay that informed? You're going to get to a point where the only people who show up to vote are the ones who are radically for/against the bill.

Re:What an elitist

[Kurrel]

1) Representativess cast their votes.
2) Each rep's vote is broadcast to his constituency.
3) Constituents vote to either approve the rep's vote or force him to abstain.

How's that for accountability?

Re:What an elitist

[starworks5]

Thats not so much about the people, as it is about the process. For example I was offering this as a part of my state legislative campaign. But the caveat was that you would have to either read an article with a question on the bottom, or watch a youtube video about the topic in question, before you had the ability to provide me with your vote. This way Its actually providing the expertise along with the personal opinion of the constituency. Furthermore there is no funding requirement for spending increases for ballot initiatives in california, and there are no spending reductions required for tax breaks for the ballot initatives either, which is the most absurd way to manage a state budget because you cant have your pie and eat it too.... However if people vote that they would rather give up education, than pay for the taxes what so ever, despite the fact that they were forced to prove they read the bill text before voting on it.... I suppose they deserve what they want, for it is the consent of the governed, and perhaps an socio-economic emergency might take presidence over education.

Re:What an elitist

[starworks5]

as i like to say :

"ill stop arguing with you, and telling you that your stupid, when you stop insisting on being wrong"

Re:What an elitist

[starworks5]

I remember watching george carlin say something in his "kids aren't special" tirade

"We have gone from head start, to no child left behind"

What a fucking joke, the special ed kids get so much spent on them, so they can live on welfare their whole life. Meanwhile I was stuck in what amounted to a kids jail, and was prevented in that system from reaching my full potential.

Re:What an elitist

[makomk]

When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized.

A few years ago I'd have agreed with you on that - raw milk's perfectly legal in the UK, you can even get cheese made with unpasteurised milk in the supermarkets, and it doesn't seem to do us any harm. Then I got some idea of the kinds of people who were deliberately flouting the law in the US, realised that they were marketing it as some kind of healthy natural option that was actually safer than pasteurised milk, and decided that you know what? Maybe banning it's not such a bad idea after all.

Re:What an elitist

[Anonymous Coward]

One line needs correction:

Political scientists think the same one vote that some monkeys are inbred

should read

Political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred

So, if that's the one you are complaining about, mea culpa. That's what I get for trusting a website for song lyrics.

Oy, thank you for that. That makes 1000% more sense now. I listen to this song now and then in the car and that one line I could never figure out. I could have looked it up online but by the time I get home my mind has moved on to other topics. I read over the monkey one 20 times and couldn't make sense of it.

Re:What an elitist

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I have a different take that I have been kicking around. :
1. We create a 3rd chamber for the congress but they are not elected but randomly selected.
2. The new chamber is 1% of the voting population (registered voters).
3. They serve a 1 year term
3. They remain at home and either submit their votes electronically or by mail (choice made when they start)
4. They do not get to introduce legislation but only vote up or down on legislation
5. They vote only after the House and Senate have voted
6. If an individual doesn't vote it is counted as a no vote

Re:What an elitist

[causality]

When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized.

A few years ago I'd have agreed with you on that - raw milk's perfectly legal in the UK, you can even get cheese made with unpasteurised milk in the supermarkets, and it doesn't seem to do us any harm. Then I got some idea of the kinds of people who were deliberately flouting the law in the US, realised that they were marketing it as some kind of healthy natural option that was actually safer than pasteurised milk, and decided that you know what? Maybe banning it's not such a bad idea after all.

Then their solution is wrong and it "solves" the wrong problem.

If marketers are making false claims, go after them for false advertising. This is no reason to stop honest businesses from selling that product.

If treating all businesses the way these dairies have been treated were standard practice, can you imagine the Joe Jobs that would become possible? A doctor makes a false statement and then what, we outlaw all medicine?

Re:What an elitist

[causality]

and there are no spending reductions required for tax breaks for the ballot initatives either

This makes sense, actually. It often happens that a reduction in the tax rate actually results in more tax revenue. Because that may or may not be the case for a given proposal, it makes sense not to have a blanket rule that tries to cover all scenarios.

Re:What an elitist

[Hatta]

The only thing a real technocrat would be concerned about is that milk of any kind is labelled accurately so that customers know what they're buying.

Unless there's evidence that people dont' read warning labels (they don't), and if there's evidence that banning has a superior outcome than labeling.

If the technocrat's mandate is "keep as many people healthy as possible", then he could easily eschew labeling for a ban if the evidence indicates that's more productive.

Re:What an elitist

[Anonymous Coward]

You should never tell someone that their stupid.

Re:What an elitist

[cpu6502]

>>>Except that they feed that natural milk to their kids, and it has a tendency to do severe and permanent damage.

Bullshit. People have been drinking natural milk for 10s of thousands of years without harm. And besides the sellers of natural milk are strictly regulated for cleanliness. It's probably safer than the homrone-injected pastuerized milk that sometimes has puss floating in it.

Furthermore and most importantly: It's MY body and MY kids. I will decide what to drink, not some unelected stranger who doesn't give a shit about my kids, as he shoots them dead during an armed raid. (Yes it has happened that kids were killed by swat teams..... mutiple times.) The armed bureaucrats busting down the door and shooting are FAR more dangerous than a little bit of natural milk.

Re:What an elitist

[cpu6502]

>>>Your argument sounds very close to that of an anti-vaccination nut.

I am pro-vaccine you stupid shit. YOU on the other hand sound like someone who jumps for joy when you read articles like, "Cops raid home & kill grandma by mistake" or "Kids murdered by swat team during drug bust" or "Miltiary veteran shot down when SWAT entered wrong house".

YES you love to see the government abusing the citizens. That's why you sit here and defend these actions. You probably can't wait to read the article I found two days: "California police invade home, kill family dog, and confiscate natural milk". You get your jollies off of it.

Re:What an elitist

[cpu6502]

(sigh). What part of "The Senate would continue to operate normally" did you not understand? Yes a stupid law MIGHT pass a direct vote in the House, but it would not pass the Senate. Or the President. Or the Supreme Court (which would strike it down as unconstitutional).

AND it's preferable to the existing House, which represents the corporation campaign donors not us.

Anyway: At least make SOME attempt to understand how our government operates. It's actually easier to understand than learning C (the government's user manual is only ~10 pages long).

Re:What an elitist

[mrsquid0]

>>>Except that they feed that natural milk to their kids, and it has a tendency to do severe and permanent damage.

> Bullshit. People have been drinking natural milk for 10s of thousands of years without harm.

Rubbish. Lactose tolerance in humans is a very recent development. The mutation is only about 5000 years old, and far more recent in some populations. It is also not true that drinking raw milk did not harm people. For example, raw milk was one of the primary vectors for tuberculosis. Illness from milk was one of the leading causes of bacterial infection in pre-industrial farmers and herders. There is a reason that the world adopted Pasteurization as quickly as it did: it saved a lot of lives.

Re:What an elitist

[causality]

The only thing a real technocrat would be concerned about is that milk of any kind is labelled accurately so that customers know what they're buying.

Unless there's evidence that people dont' read warning labels (they don't), and if there's evidence that banning has a superior outcome than labeling.

If the technocrat's mandate is "keep as many people healthy as possible", then he could easily eschew labeling for a ban if the evidence indicates that's more productive.

For one, it wouldn't be a warning label. It would be a description of the contents.

Two, I have no sympathy whatsoever for a literate adult who suffers harm because he disregarded a label.

Three, if your ultimate goal is the best benefit for the largest number of people, then you allow adults who make bad decisions to suffer the consequences because that's the only way some people ever learn. It's called reaping what you sow, or laying in the bed you have made.

Four, if people are hurting themselves now with milk of all things, where does this end? Do you outlaw hammers because someone might accidentally strike his fingers? How then do you justify the automobile, with its often severe consequences for error? Do you outlaw walking because some people are clumsy and might fall and hurt themselves? Electricity because someone might get electrocuted? Stoves because someone might touch them when they're hot? Eating because there is a chance of choking?

The only way to really do this is to have everyone strapped to a hospital bed from birth and fed by an IV, by law. How much of a technocrat must you be in order to realize how unreasonable this is? The desire to protect people not from those who would victimize them (by force or fraud), but from themselves, does not come from reason. It comes from emotion.

Re:What an elitist

[Hatta]

if your ultimate goal is the best benefit for the largest number of people, then you allow adults who make bad decisions to suffer the consequences because that's the only way some people ever learn.

Do you have data to support this assertion? What if it's the case that people never learn, even if you allow them to make bad decisions?

Four, if people are hurting themselves now with milk of all things, where does this end?

For the technocrat, it ends when the things being banned cause less harm than the ban itself does.

The only way to really do this is to have everyone strapped to a hospital bed from birth and fed by an IV, by law.

Obviously such a policy would be more harmful than the lack of such a policy. Therefore no technocrat would back such a policy. See how that works?

Re:What an elitist

[Tyndmyr]

I really hate the "MY kids" argument. Your kids are not your property. They are independent human beings, and properly belong to themselves. You are merely a caretaker until they are of age to decide for themselves. Taking actions that are well known to cause risk to children SHOULD result in liability for you when the predictable result does happen.

Re:What an elitist

[moeinvt]

A "tendency"? Nonsense, and any ill effect is due to contamination, not with some inherent property of the milk.

Is the risk of contamination higher with raw milk? Probably, yes. Do the health benefits of the milk exceed the risks? That is for the individual, not the government to decide. Is it any worse than mega-doses of corn syrup, preservatives, artificial sweeteners and hormone-laced meat/dairy products and other "government approved" crap that they sell as "food"?

"[you] as a society" have no right to interfere in the consumption choices of others. Buying and selling milk of all things? What next? Are you also going to tell people that they cannot milk their own cows and feed the milk to their kids?

"Think of the children" Again?

Some parents repeatedly expose their children to second hand smoke and far too many parents are also over-feeding their kids. Both of which definitely cause health damage. Do you also see a role of the state in policing this behavior too?

Anti-vaccination? Of course not. Anti-FORCED-vaccination? Absolutely.

You might want to re-think your opinion regarding the degree to which you and society feel morally justified in interfering with the behavior of others.

Re:What an elitist

[Beardo the Bearded]

I was illustrating the problems with Tyranny of the Majority using hyperbole.

Although I have to tell you -- if it was one kick in the nuts and literally everyone in the US got a cheque for $500, I'd take one for the team.

Re:What an elitist

[moeinvt]

"If marketers are making false claims, go after them for false advertising."

Exactly. Fraud, including fraudulent misrepresentation of a product, should definitely be illegal. Government steps over the line when its minions begin interfering in our informed choices.

Re:What an elitist

[Anonymous Coward]

voting with dollars..um
how about a health insurance agency where if you like where this chip under ur skin, where it like takes readings on ur surgar intake/call it a pepsi counter// your premium fluctuates ..--

Re:What an elitist

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but he wouldn't make such a decision before science based studies were conducted to confirm that.

And I'm fine with that, this would make cannabis legal and MAFIAA claims put in the Fiction department. Just to name a few

Re:What an elitist

[causality]

Do you have data to support this assertion?

Do you seriously think there is no connection between this desire to separate adult people from the consequences they earn, and all the idiots who are everywhere? How do you think they got to be that way? Do you really believe they were born that way? This is one of those organic common-sense questions, not so much of a "mystery of life" question.

What if it's the case that people never learn, even if you allow them to make bad decisions?

As the saying goes... if you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

For the technocrat, it ends when the things being banned cause less harm than the ban itself does.

Yes, and creating a nation of overgrown 4-year-olds who need to have every aspect of their lives micromanaged by the State is a greater harm overall. We don't have to be like so many corporations, looking at only the next quarter and giving no thought to the long-term consequences.

Obviously such a policy would be more harmful than the lack of such a policy. Therefore no technocrat would back such a policy. See how that works?

So you barely managed to grasp the point I was making and then decide to use a condescending tone? Interesting. At any rate, the fact that no technocrat would back such a policy was my precise point.

Re:What an elitist

[ahodgson]

like MF Global not being prosecuted for stealing funds from customer accounts

MF Global isn't being prosecuted because a) the money mostly went to JP Morgan and b) Corzine is President Obama's bestest bud. Neither has anything to do with corrupt regulators, but everything to do with corrupt politicians.

Re:What an elitist

[CanHasDIY]

google it yourself, retard. nobody wipes your ass for you,

Now, now, we don't know that for a fact...

Re:What an elitist

[cpu6502]

>>>I really hate the "MY kids" argument. Your kids are not your property. They are independent human beings, and properly belong to themselves. You are merely a caretaker until they are of age to decide for themselves.
>>>

Exactly. *I* am the caretaker, and they came from my body, therefore I care more about my kids wellbeing than some stranger in the state legislature. DUH. Why do liberal-lovers of government always overlook the obvious? PARENTS should be the primary decision maker of the individuals that sprung from their body, not some bureaufuck in the legislature. Parents care about their children. Bureaucrats don't give a damn except collecting a paycheck and acting like control freaks.

Re:What an elitist

[cpu6502]

>>>>> When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized.
>>>
>>>a real technocrat would be concerned about milk of any kind is labelled accurately so that customers know what they're buying.

Yeah nice try but "real" technocrats are gathering shopping lists from organic stores, sending cops to the addresses, forcing their way into homes, and either taking the natural milk and in some extreme cases, arresting people or taking their kids.

If you can sit there and say these "real technocrats" are doign nothing wrong..... just doing their job, then I imagine you also thought rounding-up the
japanese-Americans by technocrats for WW2 imprisonment was a-okay too.

Re:What an elitist

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring for a second the hypocrisy* of your post, all Outlander Engine was doing was politely pointing out what they felt your post sounded like. No where in that post is it possible to draw the conclusions that you have apparently made regarding their feelings on abuse of police/military powers, and it certainly didn't warrant acting like a 2 year old with the name calling.

*Funny how you berate others for "resorting" to name calling while doing it yourself.

Re:What an elitist

[Anonymous Coward]

While in general I agree with you that government should stay out of trying to be parents, it isn't always true that parents care about their children. Several people that I personally know can attest to that. It's why we have laws against child abuse and such. The problem arrises when we as a society cannot come to a consensus on what sorts of things parents should be allowed to force on their children.

And no, I'm not going to share my personal views on that issue, because they are irrelevant to this discussion.

Re:What an elitist

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah nice try but "real" technocrats [...]

Is this another one of those "No True Scotsman" thingies? I've never even heard the term "technocrat" before this story, and it seems like no one is quite sure what it actually means.

Re:What an elitist

[tbannist]

Do you seriously think there is no connection between this desire to separate adult people from the consequences they earn, and all the idiots who are everywhere? How do you think they got to be that way? Do you really believe they were born that way? This is one of those organic common-sense questions, not so much of a "mystery of life" question.

According to my father-in-law, he had the job of nailing the severed thumbs and fingers of injured workers to a safety sign when he was a teenager. Again, according to him, on average two to four workers would loose a finger or thumb each month. Now safety legislation requires that those machines have plastic guards to keep hands away from the blades and there are far fewer accidents now. In your world view are the current workers, therefore more stupid because the safety system is in place? Because the "horrible example" system seemed to work for about a week, before it started breaking down again. However, adding a few dollars of molded plastic seems to have permanently reduced the problem.

Of particular issue is that the people who harm themselves this way, often end up costing society more than preventing their foolish behaviour would have cost. For example, if someone doesn't have health insurance and they get extremely sick from tainted milk, it's the rest of society that has to pay for their foolishness. Some people suggest simply refusing to treat those people, but that's a dangerous game to play with contagious pathogens.

Re:What an elitist

[tbannist]

Actually, it happens pretty rarely, in that I'm not actually aware of it ever having happened. The laugher curve is a theoretical model and I think most economists place the inflexion considerably higher than 50%. I think it may have happened when the U.S. reduced the top marginal tax rate from 98% to 70%. However, that wasn't Reagan, who is the commonly cited example. However, Reagan did a mix of tax cuts and tax raises. The actual evidence seems to indicate that the places he raised tax (for example, capital gains) accounted for all of the additional revenue.

Federalism

[mdarksbane]

Theoretically, this is one of the arguments in favor of Federalism. Local communities can beta-test new ideas before they go into general deployment.

Doesn't always quite work that way, but that's the idea.

Re:Federalism

[swillden]

Theoretically, this is one of the arguments in favor of Federalism. Local communities can beta-test new ideas before they go into general deployment.

Doesn't always quite work that way, but that's the idea.

I think that was one of the understood and therefore unstated goals of the designer of the US system: to enable n parallel experiments in government, with the ability of individuals to vote with their feet if they realized that too many of their local fellows disagreed with their personal theories. Unfortunately, one of the legacies of the civil war was a drive toward national unification, and not just in terms of keeping all of the states in the federation. Over a roughly 50-year period after the war, states harmonized their criminal and civil codes to a large degree, and we started to introduce lots of federal oversight/interference, culminating eventually in the 16th and 17th amendments which gutted state authority and put the federal government firmly in the driver's seat.

Personally, I'd like to see us go back to much greater local control. I'd like to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, replacing the 17th with a system of mandatory levies by the federal government on the states, proportioned by state GDP. Each year, the federal budget would be apportioned out to the states, whose legislatures would have to figure out how to come up with their share, whether through taxation or debt. Meanwhile, state legislatures would regain the ability to sack Senators who displeased them. I'd also like to see the federal criminal code mostly repealed, retaining only crimes whose interstate nature clearly cannot be addressed by states.

I'm just dreaming, of course.

Re:Federalism

[starworks5]

this would work if we were able to collect meaningful data, and if the constants were more constant, but human activity is not like that. People thrive on information disparities for competitive advantages, and will make logically irrational decisions all of the time, and hold pawns as hostages until they impale themselves on their own swords.

Re:Federalism

[Anonymous Coward]

That is an interesting way of looking at the Federalist system but I think it's fundamentally flawed.

Assuming I understand your analogy correctly, local communities beta-testing ideas before "general deployment" means localities instituting a policy and then if it works out well then maybe the federal government institutes the policy. Or have I misunderstood?

If so, that's not at all the idea of federalism. The idea of having different layers of government (local, state, federal) is to allow different populations to tailor their policies to what they feel are best, so long as that policy only really affects that specific population. So a local government determines zoning restrictions for commercial and residential property because local citizens are the ones most affected by those policies, a state determines how much water can be used from lakes and rivers because that use affects everyone in the state, and the federal government controls the army because it's meant to defend the nation as a whole.

There are a myriad of things that local and state governments regulate that the federal government cannot. So the idea that a locality can implement an idea and the federal government will pick it up if it works out is a little off base because there are, beleive it or not, some things that are just out of the federal government's reach.

Re:Federalism

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>mandatory levies by the federal government on the states

The Federalist Papers discussed this idea.

Taxation depends on coercion, by definition. You can coerce an individual with a few police officers and little or no disruption of the peace.

Coercing a state requires a civil war. Ghastly.

Re:Federalism

[swillden]

>mandatory levies by the federal government on the states

The Federalist Papers discussed this idea.

Taxation depends on coercion, by definition. You can coerce an individual with a few police officers and little or no disruption of the peace.

Coercing a state requires a civil war. Ghastly.

Very cogent point. State levies could turn really ugly, and probably would, eventually. I'll have to rethink that.

Re:Federalism

[mdarksbane]

Both what I describe and what you describe are part of the design. Most federal legislation, and indeed most state legislation, is based on previous state or local legislation that has been in use for some time.

For example, Ohio recently passed a law allowing concealed carry of firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol. One of the strongest arguments in favor of it was that other states had already passed similar laws, and those laws did not have significant negative effects.

So part of the goal of federalism is to allow local control, and part of it is to limit the scope of your potential failures.

Fuck me, this is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Grauniad:

Mark Henderson suggests that we should have an Office of Scientific Responsibility to apply the "evidence or STFU" rule to Parliament. This wouldn't restrict the autonomy of ministers, but: "when science is cited to justify a policy, the OSR would audit it, naming and shaming those who bend it to their political advantage."

Yeah, and exactly WHO gets to appoint the public servants to this "Office of Scientific Responsibility"? The government, that's who. Guess what? The Office will then proceed to find fault with everything oppositions do and nothing the government does.

Re:Dawkins Said It...

[slapyslapslap]

Yeah, you tell 'em Anonymous Coward.

Re:First Post

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Ah. Replace Politics with Discourse.

Another fantasy, based on the assumption that the human animal is a brain on legs...

Why.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should any geek stay in the US. They are treated like shit. Move to Singapore or china where geeks are respected and treated right. The US put prision all the real hackers. Do you think we have forgotten. No.

Backwards and dangerous

[Hatta]

Politicians are free to say: 'I think people on drugs should be punished because drugs are immoral.' That's a moral call, albeit a rather stupid one in my opinion. What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."

This is a terrifying position. The government should never ever regulate morality. If you think something is immoral, don't do it. When you force your moral values on others, that's tyranny.

Government exists for practical reasons. We are trying to accomplish something by having a government, so every law should have a basis in practicality.

Politicians absolutely should say, 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.'. Because if they say that, that's a falsifiable claim that we can disprove with evidence. That means we can potentially change their minds by presenting evidence. You can't do that when someone has made a subjective moral judgement.

Re:Backwards and dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't read too much into "immoral". By "immoral", what they mean is "the social costs / negative externalities of drug use are very high, and causing such high social costs is immoral". It's really a complaint about the social costs of drug use rather an abstract idea about morality.

Re:Backwards and dangerous

[Hatta]

What you're saying is that the claim of immorality is actually a factual claim. If that's the case, we can and should measure those social costs and compare them to the social costs of prohibition. If we did that, we'd find that it's prohibition that is "immoral".

Re:Backwards and dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a terrifying position. The government should never ever regulate morality. If you think something is immoral, don't do it. When you force your moral values on others, that's tyranny.

Wrong, we have laws against things precisely because they are immoral. Rape isn't prevented becuse it's "cost-effective". It's prevented because it's fucking evil. It's true that not all immoral things should be illegal but it's wrong to say that the law isn't about morality at all, it is. In an ideal world, illegal would be a subset of immoral, and only that which is extremely immoral, enough so that violence is justified in response e.g. theft, rape, assault, etc.

Re:Backwards and dangerous

[Hatta]

We have laws against rape because the vast majority of the populace does not want to be raped. This is not a moral judgement, it's practical.

Re:Backwards and dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

We have laws against rape because the vast majority of the populace does not want to be raped. This is not a moral judgement, it's practical.

"Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity." (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice)

The vast majority also doesn't want to be cheated on by their partners, yet that's not a crime. The reason why is because most people recognize that infidelity doesn't justify locking someone in a cell. You simply can't pretend that justice has nothing to do with morality.

Re:Backwards and dangerous

[Mindcontrolled]

Where else do you think morality derives from?

Re:Backwards and dangerous

[DragonWriter]

The government should never ever regulate morality.

Every proposition of "should" is moral, and every decision (and certainly every policy) is based on a proposition of "should" (often, but not always, along with empirical considerations.)

Empirical considerations can tell you what outcomes are most likely from a different course of actions, but unless you have a value framework, you have no way of choosing among those actions.

Politicians absolutely should say, 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.'. Because if they say that, that's a falsifiable claim that we can disprove with evidence.

"I want to reduce drug use" is a moral position (or, rather, as part of the justification for a policy proposal, it either expresses the moral position "We should act to reduce drug use", or relies on the implicit moral premise "We should act according to my desires".)

"sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to [reduce drug use]" is a fact claim.

While you can in principle prove or disprove the fact claim, that isn't enough to justify the policy decision, you also have to accept or reject the moral position.

Re:Backwards and dangerous

[Hatta]

Generally, it's pulled entirely from the moralizer's ass.

Re:Backwards and dangerous

[greghodg]

I thought the same thing when I read that, what the hell?! It's ok for politicians to make policy based on morality, and they shouldn't base claims on falsifiable stamements? That's exactly the opposite of what it ought to say. Maybe the writer just got confused, because that is just wrong.

Re:Backwards and dangerous

[starworks5]

morals aren't the same as ethics.

morals are subjective to each person, whereas ethics can be quantified impartially, read some immmanuel Kant for more info.

Re:This person does not represent... well anything

[h4rr4r]

If it worked, maybe. It does not work though.

Science and politics don't mix

[Karmashock]

More FORMER scientists in public office is great. But don't start politicizing science. For the same reason you don't want to politicize the military... it has serious negative consequences.

Re:Science and politics don't mix

[Fwipp]

It wouldn't politicize science - it would sciencify politics.

Re:Science and politics don't mix

[Karmashock]

You can't.

Politics doesn't play by scientific rules. If you bring science into politics, then science has to play by politics rules.

Don't try and win a power game with politics. Politics is about power. It will win these games. Every. Single. Time.

We are taking about two year old baby versus T-Rex. ZERO contest.

Science's strength is in its objectivity and disinterest in opinion. Politics is all about subjectivity and bias.

The only way to win is not to play.

Don't get involved in these struggles as a scientist or your status as a scientist will be worthless. The political forces aren't going to respect your role if you use your position to claim power or influence. They'll find a way to destroy you and then they'll do it.

However, if you make it clear that you act for no side and are neutral then you're pawn that can be used by either side but are not taken for granted nor vilified by either side. You're a volley ball to be tossed back and forth between one side and the other. This will be confusing but it's how the process works. Ultimately, a compromise will be reached and that will be the result of your contribution.

Again, if you're talking about EX-scientists joining politics, that's a different story. Just remember, we've had a few doctors in the US congress and most of them get the political crap kicked out of them on a regular basis.

Re:Science and politics don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

And this would be good because...

Stop the thread

[Rooked_One]

politics and logic have no place together in our time. Except for the insanely rich... and those who have no morals and will kiss butt rather than work hard to achieve success. Oh wait - that's politics.

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to confront the climate change cult, once and for all.

We'd rather have a fake cowboy lead us than a soft-spoken, well read, genuinely smart person.

Which is why Americans chose an affirmative-action mediocrity to be their president. Right.

Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[betterunixthanunix]

Even without religious influences we are going to be stuck with some stupid laws. Drugs are not illegal because some politician thinks they are immoral; drugs are illegal because some fascist racists discovered a convenient way to increase the power of the police, pump up the profits of certain corporations, and attack minority communities while pretending to be working for the benefit of the people. For every idiotic law that you can attribute to religion, there is a dangerous law that can be attributed to lobbyists.

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[clickclickdrone]

Oh totally agree. Religion and coprorations write our laws these days.

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh totally agree. Religion and coprorations write our laws these days.

Please say that was a deliberate pun... because if so, it's awesome.

(for those who don't know, copro, as in coprophilia, coprolite, coprophagy, etc. is from the greep 'kopros', meaning shit.)

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[baffled]

It's called law and order for a reason. Drug use encourages a chaotic populace, it pushes society away from order. This is the foremost reason for the illegality of drugs. If this is not obvious to you, I encourage you to indulge your curiosity and smoke some weed, drop some acid, etc. It will all become clear to you.

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[denmarkw00t]

The foremost reason for the illegality of drugs is money (not "law and order") - plain and simple. Hemp threatened the lumber industry, among others, because it could provide better *everything* - paper lasts longer, ropes are stronger, clothes are more durable. The smear campaign launched against many drugs has been in the interest of preserving other business, regardless of their ability to provide a comprable product.

And, while some drugs are quite harmful from a public standpoint because of the way they cause people to act (PCP, alcohol, meth), other drugs are simply illegal for business reasons. The AMA originally found that marijuana had no reason to be illegal, yet the federal government classifies it as Schedule I: "(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

Cocaine has a lower schedule because of it's accepted medical uses, whereas marijuana's countless studies about lack of physical addiction, medical benefit, insanely low toxicity, etc are thrown out the window because politicians won't touch the subject.

I think that a society that values a programatic approach to laws - both in writing them and interpreting them - is the best method.

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[betterunixthanunix]

Drug use encourages a chaotic populace, it pushes society away from order

[citation needed]

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[Anonymous Coward]

See the Opium Wars in China.

Or look at your average stoner...

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[box4831]

Or look at your average stoner...

I walked into a friend's place and there were a bunch of stoners sitting in a circle listening to Zeppelin and watching movies. That was one hell of a chaotic scene! I barely made it out alive!

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[Spectre]

Or look at your average stoner...

I walked into a friend's place and there were a bunch of stoners sitting in a circle listening to Zeppelin and watching movies. That was one hell of a chaotic scene! I barely made it out alive!

I'll bet there wasn't a bag of Doritos left anywhere within a mile, either.
Now that is rampant chaos!

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[clickclickdrone]

Please say that was a deliberate pun... because if so, it's awesome.

I'd love to say so but twas but a typo from going too fast. I think your mission in life is to spread it though, it's a cool phrase.

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[box4831]

Or look at your average stoner...

I walked into a friend's place and there were a bunch of stoners sitting in a circle listening to Zeppelin and watching movies. That was one hell of a chaotic scene! I barely made it out alive!

I'll bet there wasn't a bag of Doritos left anywhere within a mile, either. Now that is rampant chaos!

Please don't make me relive that moment :'(

I've been in therapy for two years and I've only just recently been able to be near a Taco Bell without having a panic attack :(

Re:Lobbyists and Fascists Too

[robsku]

Done that, seen evidence (factual) that proves your statement false, have not seen facts to support that prohibition reduces (or does not increase) any problems commonly attributed to drug use.

Something has become clear to me - and it's NOT what you seem to believe. One thing clear to me now is that it's useless to argue with prohibitionists - it's clearly a moral issue for them.

We need more nerds/geeks/etc in politics!

[ckthorp]

I am deeply involved with party politics in my state. There is a deep need to get more technical people involved. Many friends I have talked to either "don't have the time" or think "it's so broken it can't be fixed". I say that the only reason it requires so much time and is so broken is precisely because normal everyday people aren't getting involved.

Politics takes time and energy, but it is run by those who show up. Please take time and get involved. I really couldn't care less which party you choose because the more people that get involved, the better the process will work. The SOPA fight was just the start. Let's get involved and show the world what this country can do.

Re:We need more nerds/geeks/etc in politics!

[spidercoz]

Agreed. Let's start our own political party. Who's in?

my take

[Tom]

I've been working fulltime in an elected, political position for about six years, so I kind of know what I'm talking about here:

If you get the chance, do it. This is a real win-win for everyone when it happens. It will help you do things with real meaning and bring about some important changes. I'm modest when I say that my approach to the office revolutionized it and most of the methods I developed are still in use today, four years after I left. That is the "evidence-based" approach TFA talks about, but more. Geeks in general have a less ideological approach to methods and procedures: We tend to have it easier dropping stuff that doesn't work instead of clinging to it "because we've always done it this way". That does get you into political fights sometimes, when you unceremoniously dump the pet method of someone, but it works and that's where you get the credit and trust you need to push more changes through.

And it also benefits you tremendeously. My social skills advanced greatly in this time. Instead of sitting at a computer most day with occasional meetings, my job suddenly was mostly about meeting people.

Negotiations are the greatest thing, ever. A geek with some negotiation training is most opponents worst nightmare. Most of us don't care enough about our own image to be tricked with the various ad hominem dialectics, and we have a great ability to cut through the bullshit and hit the facts of the matter. And since numbers and math are our friends, we aren't easily fooled by bullshit statistics.

And finally, you will almost certainly find that law is not the evil enemy, but just a different type of code. After a few years on the job, I was regularily discussing with full-time lawyers at eye level. A basic understanding of the law - not of any particular law, but the way the law in general works - is a benefit that will pay you back for the rest of your life.

So yes, yes, yes - if you geeks find an opportunity to enter politics, by all means do it. It doesn't have to be a for-life choice. I would've certainly been re-elected for a third term, but decided not to run again because I'd had enough. It isn't always easy, and sometimes all the politics and the people with their pet agendas and all the personal crap gets on your nerves, a lot. I wouldn't want to do it for live, but it was more than worth it doing it for a few years, and I know that both myself and the office profited from it.

Did I say you should go and do it?

Re:my take

[HapSlappy_2222]

I would've certainly been re-elected for a third term, but decided not to run again because I'd had enough.

You should be very proud of your accomplishments in the political circle, and this decision was just as important as all the rest. You've had a net positive effect on the system, but knew when it was time to step aside and let a new person with a new perspective have their chance.

It's just shocking to me that it is even possible to serve as a politician for a half-century.

Re:my take

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say is YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I held elected office (part-time, small town) while continuing to program at a time when programming was less central to my life. I am now in no office, but a new job, and social skills, understanding of law and power dynamics, etc. have earned me a reputation of the guy who can get people to listen together. Plus I still write pretty good code :).

Do it. Do it do it do it. Then I'll accept your ad hominem "all politicians suck" posturing.

Re:my take

[Saxophonist]

OK.

I say that because I'm about to seek my party's nomination for state Senate. I'm not truly going public yet because the meeting that will allow my endorsement is not until June 7, and there are certain legal restrictions on what I can do before I file paperwork and the like. It appears that the incumbent would otherwise be running unopposed, and I cannot in good conscience let that happen.

Congratulations to you on your time in office and on your life moving forward!

Re:my take

[dkleinsc]

Frank Zappa, when asked what kids ought to hope for:
"What I tell kids and what I’ve been telling kids for quite some time is first, register to vote, and second as soon as you’re old enough, run for something."

For what it's worth, in my early forays into elected positions (high school student council, not exactly cutthroat), I got up, gave my impassioned speech about the idea that student council presidents need to be advocates for the students rather than party planners, and promptly lost to the guy who got up and said "I'll give everyone who votes for me a beer." It wasn't a total waste though: Some of the points I made (e.g. the city underfunding schools to the point where they didn't have toilet paper in the bathrooms) ended up causing a hue and cry among parents, and after a couple of years the mayor was voted out and school funding increased.

Re:my take

[Patch86]

For what it's worth, in my early forays into elected positions (high school student council, not exactly cutthroat), I got up, gave my impassioned speech about the idea that student council presidents need to be advocates for the students rather than party planners, and promptly lost to the guy who got up and said "I'll give everyone who votes for me a beer."

Unfortunately, depressingly, that is probably a pretty accurate microcosm of the world of democratic politics.

Speaking of the war on drugs...

[doston]

Years ago -- maybe thirty five years ago -- around the time Nixon's first War on Drugs was called, there was a big study by the army and the RAND corporation (the main, outside advisory research bureau) analyzing the effects on drug use of various approaches to it. They studied four. The one that came out the most cost effective was prevention and treatment by a large margin. Next, much more expensive and less effective, was police work. Still less effective and more costly was border interdiction. And least effective and most costly was out-of-country operations like chemical warfare in Columbia. Well, the methods that are used are the exact opposite. Most of the funding goes into cross-border operations (least effective, most costly,) next, interdiction and police action, and least to prevention and treatment. Rational people don't keep pursuing a policy that's failing when they know there's a better policy unless there's some other reason, and I think the other reason is not terribly hidden.

Out-of-country operations are just a cover for counter-insurgency, or for clearing land in Columbia and driving out peasants so multi-national corporations can come in for mining, and resource-extraction, and agribusiness, and macra production, and so on. Which is why you have (outside of Afghanistan) probably the largest refugee population in the world in Columbia. The War on Drugs is not effecting drug production. In fact, it's going up.. But it's going to continue because that wasn't the purpose.

Here in the United States, the drug war has been associated, clearly, with a very sharp rise in incarceration. If you go back to 1980, the prison population in the United States, per capita, was approximately like other industrial countries -- kind of toward the high end, but not off the chart. Now, it's five to ten times as high and still going up. And most of it is drug related (also, length of sentences, and repeated sentences, and so on.)

And it mostly targets what are called the "dangerous classes," the poor, minorities, and so on. So like, black males, is astronomical. On the other hand, drug use among wealthy people is barely prosecuted. So it's a class-based form of control of superfluous population, and for that purpose, it seems to be working.

It's also making a lot of money for commercial enterprises. What some criminologists call the prison-industrial complex has been a pretty substantial development, especially for rural counties, it's a Godsend. When they build prisons, it brings in construction work, jobs, and surveillance. A couple of years ago, maybe still, the fastest growing white-collar profession was security officer, and it gets rid of people you don't want anything to do with. They don't have a place in the current industrial system. And there's also racial elements involved. So you can say the drug war is a success for what its real purpose is, but not for its proclaimed purposes. -Noam Chomsky

Re:Speaking of the war on drugs...

[alen]

if you go back to the 1980's crime was a lot more rampant, murder rates were double and triple what they are today. the justice system was a joke and criminals were back on the street within hours of being arrested.

in NYC i used to see drug dealers openly selling drugs on the streets with cops 50 feet away saying they couldn't do anything about it

between guiliani and bloomberg they cleaned up NYC. its safe now in most places. and putting drug users/dealers in jail is part of the reason

Re:Speaking of the war on drugs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correlation != causation

And an anecdote. Nice.

Re:Speaking of the war on drugs...

[doston]

if you go back to the 1980's crime was a lot more rampant, murder rates were double and triple what they are today. the justice system was a joke and criminals were back on the street within hours of being arrested.

in NYC i used to see drug dealers openly selling drugs on the streets with cops 50 feet away saying they couldn't do anything about it

between guiliani and bloomberg they cleaned up NYC. its safe now in most places. and putting drug users/dealers in jail is part of the reason

What you said changes nothing. Jailing people works less well than prevention and rehabilitation, it doesn't not work at all, it just doesn't work as well and costs a lot more. So those people who were locked up, saving the streets of NY, could have been treated or prevented totally and for a lot less money. All legitimate studies point to that. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/buyers/doitwork.html

Re:Speaking of the war on drugs...

[Zero__Kelvin]

"putting drug users/dealers in jail is part of the reason"

Really? You did know Alcohol was a drug, right? In fact it is one of the worst drugs people use in the U.S. today. I haven't noticed them putting the CEOs of the biggest drug dealers in the U.S. in jail. The U.S. has absolutely no problem with drug dealers, as long as they are tax paying drug dealers*.

* I am not suggesting that we should put these people in jail. In fact, that would be as ridiculous as the current "anti-drug" laws.

Re:Speaking of the war on drugs...

[starworks5]

Freakonomics posited that the correlation was caused by abortion becoming legal, and the delayed pregnancies provided more affluent and stable offspring.

Re:Speaking of the war on drugs...

[bill_mcgonigle]

So you can say the drug war is a success for what its real purpose is, but not for its proclaimed purposes. -Noam Chomsky

Big fan of Noam here, but he's not right on this. Yes, there are beneficiaries of the Drug War, but the purpose isn't that benefit, it's to define the power relationship.

That's what makes something like marijuana so perfect to be it's major centerpiece. Hemp even. You can make all the logical, consistent arguments you want, but that doesn't matter. You can be 100% and their proffered arguments can be roundly defeatd, but if you grow it, they'll hurt you. Because they're in charge and you're not. Get that f'ing straight. As they say, "any questions?"

Noam's work on manufactured consent applies more strongly.

Re:Speaking of the war on drugs...

[doston]

So you can say the drug war is a success for what its real purpose is, but not for its proclaimed purposes. -Noam Chomsky

Big fan of Noam here, but he's not right on this. Yes, there are beneficiaries of the Drug War, but the purpose isn't that benefit, it's to define the power relationship.

That's what makes something like marijuana so perfect to be it's major centerpiece. Hemp even. You can make all the logical, consistent arguments you want, but that doesn't matter. You can be 100% and their proffered arguments can be roundly defeatd, but if you grow it, they'll hurt you. Because they're in charge and you're not. Get that f'ing straight. As they say, "any questions?"

Noam's work on manufactured consent applies more strongly.

So, you're saying that the drug war is to show people who's in charge, basically? Trying to understand exactly what you're saying here.

Re:Speaking of the war on drugs...

[bill_mcgonigle]

So, you're saying that the drug war is to show people who's in charge, basically?

Basically that's it - there's no rational justification for it, and it's been logically defeated over and over again. People ask, "but why don't they listen / understand / realize?" They play this game like the politicians are just uneducated, thick, don't have all the facts, etc.

Sure there are revenue reasons (both the Drug War support complex and the CIA's black ops funding - even the head of the DEA admitted to that) but if you look back historically, Nixon launched the Drug War at the same time he gave total control of the money supply to the bankers. Both represent a major power shift away from the people and towards the corporate/government complex. The USAPATRIOT Act doubles down on it.

Money does motivate people but power motivates them even more. Power is also a good way to get lots of money, so the two aren't entirely decoupled. Simply saying "follow the money" is a way to pretend that the power balance isn't a major factor.

duh, politics has always been political

[alen]

the US Constitution was a result of months of bitter argument and bickering. same with politics in almost every democracy on earth. except that you will normally have a party win 40% or so of the vote and they will have to make a coalition with lots of smaller parties and make political deals as a process

this is called life. the US has 300 million people. say almost 200 million adults who can vote. almost everyone will have different opinions on every subject based on their home location, upbringing, etc.

to pass laws that affect different people you have to make political deals

this childish star trek fantasy of an all wise council making the right decision is just a fantasy. there is no right decision for most people

Re:duh, politics has always been political

[Anonymous Coward]

this childish star trek fantasy of an all wise council making the right decision is just a fantasy. there is no right decision for most people

Many societies in Africa still has an all wise council making decisions for the tribe. Indians are said to have had a council that looked into the 7th generation in the future before making a consequence.

See where it got them.

Re:duh, politics has always been political

[Anonymous Coward]

Then someone should make them all agree. Someone should force logical decisions, rules, and laws. Someone should end this destructive conflict and bring order to this world. Someone wise.

Re:duh, politics has always been political

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed that while you're comparing the US to its international contemporaries, you forgot to mention that your basis for comparison is completely worthless in a two-party system, such as we have here. Awesome false equivalency, though... barely even felt the bump.

Re:duh, politics has always been political

[alen]

it might work for a few thousand people, but not for modern nations of tens of millions of people living across millions of square miles, different climates, etc

Re:duh, politics has always been political

[alen]

the US two party system is in name only. in effect we have what we always had, the small states vs the big states and cities vs suburban/rural areas. the opinions of republicans and democrats will differ based on their state and where they are within their state. there are democrats from smaller states that are more conservative than republicans from north east states

the electoral college is partly the result of this city vs rural political battle

i live in NYC but the political opinions of those who live in the 99% by land mass of NY State outside NYC will usually be very different from us city people

Re:duh, politics has always been political

[coldsalmon]

"The great misconception of the democracies is that they can see the active participation of the people only in the form of plebiscites according to the principle of majority. In a democracy the people does not act as a unit but as a complex of unrelated individuals who form themselves into parties ... The new Reich is based on the principle that real action of a self-determining people is only possible according to the principle of leadership and following."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14058/14058-h/14058-h.htm#NATIONAL_SOCIALISM

Godwin's Law strikes again.

Re:duh, politics has always been political

[starworks5]

What i would give for a society that thought beyond the next quarter, or the next political cycle whatsoever. I tried to argue in my run for state congress, that we were heading over a cliff, because of peak resources in phosphate, oil, coal. Of course i wasnt the medias darling, so I got largely ignored with a single line attribution.

Re:duh, politics has always been political

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read his/her comment again, you will see that s/he wasn't exactly disagreeing with you...

Re:duh, politics has always been political

[Patch86]

I'm glad you went there. It terrifies me that there are people like the AC who actually believe this tripe; after all, millions of Germans bought it hook, link and sinker, and see where that got us.

Moral calls are everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."

When you say that the person making it should shut up, that is also a moral call. Who are you to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do?

Re:Moral calls are everywhere

[DragonWriter]

When you say that the person making it should shut up, that is also a moral call.

OP doesn't say anything against moral calls (which would be insane, as you can't make any kind of decision without ultimately reaching back to a moral value proposition). He says that fact claims and moral claims need to be distinguished, and that the former needs to be supported by evidence.

For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[eldavojohn]

In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.

I haven't read this book and I think the article discussing it doesn't accomplish much aside from briefly agreeing with the author on everything. I think this whole argument is sort of a nonstarter. Oftentimes I try to look at "soft" issues as an ethical engineer and I come to the conclusion that you can approach a lot of hotly debated issues from two sides. And, like the limit as x approaches zero in y(x) = -1/x, you can sort of logically come to two extremely different conclusions. As an oversimplified example, take anti-trust laws. From the left we start with something really innocuous like it's the government's job to protect an individual's basic rights which means that if they wish to enter a market then other individuals shouldn't be able to collude to keep them out of that market by price fixing which means that we should have government regulations against it ... and we're at positive infinity. But if you approach from the right you start with something really innocuous as well like governments should enable individuals to follow their dreams and if their dreams are price fixing so be it because the free market will decide whose product is better and the consumer will be smart enough to buy the new product if it is indeed made better and the price fixing will result in a loss to the colluding parties and so therefore we need to make the free market freer and truly free to alleviate all these issues ... and we're at negative infinity. Both sides are clamoring for one extreme and the engineer is just sitting there saying "Technically it's undefined."

Basically, two strong narratives will ruin an ethical engineer's best intents.

Another topic that I'm not sure how it is addressed is that you only get one experiment. There is no control group for your political policies. On top of that a negative stigma has been attached to people being used as lab rats so don't even try to divide your populace into statistical experiments -- they have to do that themselves. If an engineer does not have absolute control over an environment, he or she usually considers the experiment flawed and the resulting data potentially worthless. This is one of the defining hallmarks of our political process -- no one person controls all of the variables.

I'm left wondering why any ethical engineer would desire to be a technocrat.

I am 100% behind pushing science in the public forum and seeking more data and more models. I will argue, however, that the first decision an engineer makes in office will likely be as emotionally, personally and financially motivated as it would had Governor Evil been there instead.

Re:For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[cpu6502]

I think Jefferson summed-up your thoughts eloquently: "If it were possible we would have no government. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to government at all."

In other words the ideal would be no government or regulation at all (anarchist), but since that's impractical, we create a minimal government to protect basic rights like not being harmed by others (libertarian). BTW I side with the free market viewpoint, since I don't see why there's need for government to regulate products, except to make sure factories don't abuse their workers, or abuse the water supply via dumping chemicals.

Oftentimes monopolies arise, not through the free market, but via government order: Such as granting Comcast a monopoly in my neighborhood, or DeBeers a monopoly over diamonds, or the Central Bank over interest rates for loans (price-fixing). Those orders should be revoked, and the free market allowed to operate.

Re:For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Jefferson and Libertarianism has anything to do with GP's thoughts.

GP is saying what is "minimal" or acceptable government mean different things to different people, and since extremist people exist, there will always be debate on what is acceptable "minimal" government

This includes Libertarianism. What you consider is "ideal" (no government at all) is just one view point on what is "minimal" government. Other people/ideologies disagree (otherwise we'd all be Libertarians, all governments would be too, and this article wouldn't even exist)

Take what you say here:

"I don't see why there's need for government to regulate products, except to make sure factories don't abuse their workers, or abuse the water supply via dumping chemicals."

Well, just for the sake of argument, *I* say government has no business worrying about worker abuse or water supplies. Look at China: they're a lot less strict in treatment of workers or their water. I think the free market will sort that out. Abusive businesses will have less people willing to work for them, less people willing to buy their products, and eventually lose to less abusive businesses. Businesses who pollute too much can be sued by people who got hurt by polluted water.

Re:For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[a90Tj2P7]

Oftentimes monopolies arise, not through the free market, but via government order: Such as granting Comcast a monopoly in my neighborhood,

Your city. Your city made a franchise agreement with Comcast, typically in order to enforce requirements for customer service, uptime, service quality, etc. That has absolutely nothing to do with "big goverment". Federal regulation to take that ability away from the states/municipalities would be the only real way to solve that problem.

Re:For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[DragonWriter]

Oftentimes I try to look at "soft" issues as an ethical engineer and I come to the conclusion that you can approach a lot of hotly debated issues from two sides. And, like the limit as x approaches zero in y(x) = -1/x, you can sort of logically come to two extremely different conclusions.

This is certainly the case when there is a genuine disagreement on fundamental moral value propositions. The problem that can be addressed by clearly separating fact claims and moral value propositions is that many real-world political disagreements which seem to be intractable disagreements of values are involve disagreements on fact claims which are embedded in things which are often treated as if they were value propositions.

(More rigor in defining terms in value propositions is also helpful here, as it helps understand where the hidden fact claims are.)

For instance:

But if you approach from the right you start with something really innocuous as well like governments should enable individuals to follow their dreams and if their dreams are price fixing so be it because the free market will decide whose product is better and the consumer will be smart enough to buy the new product if it is indeed made better and the price fixing will result in a loss to the colluding parties and so therefore we need to make the free market freer and truly free to alleviate all these issues ...

There are several embedded fact claims that are susceptible to refutation embedded in here, its not, as you suggest, just pure logic from value propositions. particularly of note "price fixing will result in a net loss to colluding parties".

Basically, two strong narratives will ruin an ethical engineer's best intents.

What an "ethical engineer" needs to do is decompose narratives into sets of atomic propositions, identify the value propositions and the fact propositions. The pure value propositions may be the subject of disagreement, but they aren't really rationally debatable.

The fact propositions can be analyzed in light of evidence, the same as any other fact proposition.

The logic, of course, can be analyzed directly.

Re:For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[starworks5]

I think what you are referring to are the concepts of "positive" and "negative" liberties. Which form the "introverted" and "extroverted" focus in american politics. and conversely the "communism" and "free market" ideologies. in reality there needs to be a balance, but because people dislike cognitive dissonance, they refuse to hold both contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

Re:For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[Hatta]

Basically, two strong narratives will ruin an ethical engineer's best intents.

But not a scientist's. Determine the assumptions behind the two narratives, at least one of them is flawed. In your example, the right winger who assumes that price fixing and free markets can coexist is obviously mistaken.

If your experiment can be interpreted in two different ways, you didn't design a very good experiment.

Re:For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[cpu6502]

>>>That has absolutely nothing to do with "big goverment".

Um.

You're wrong. (1) I didn't say big government. (2) The contract exists between Comcast and the county GOVERNMENT where I live. Therefore my original sentence still stands as written: "Oftentimes monopolies arise, not through the free market, but via government order: Such as granting Comcast a monopoly in my neighborhood."

Re:For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[a90Tj2P7]

"The goverment" implies the federal goverment. Especially when you're crediting them with controlling the diamond trade and banking interest rates all in the same sentance. Yeah, that clearly implies "big goverment". You're citing something your county took it upon themselves to do as one of your examples of why we need reform at the national level.

Re:For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like your theory of divergent solutions to ethical limits but the example you give doesnt make sense.Why would price-fixing be considered part of the practices in a free market? That would be contradictory and self-defeating. I urge all slashdot readers to try to come up with better examples supporting this interesting idea.

Re:For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero?

[Patch86]

Local government is still government. GP said "via government order...in my neighborhood"; it's fair to assume he meant his local government. GP didn't even say "the" government; if he had, your mistake would be more understandable.

Nobody said that the size or overbearingness of a government had anything to do with the size of the area it governs. North Korea has a similarly sized population to Texas, so the N. Korean government has the same sized area of authority as the Texan state local government. And yet I don't think many people would argue that N. Korea has anything other than a very big, very overbearing government...

Re:Dawkins Said It...

[Sperbels]

I'm tired of suffering at the hands of stupidity, and I don't want to bite my tongue over it, anymore.

You have a point. But you're missing another. You may suffer just as much or more at the hands of intellectuals.

Ummm, no...

[MikeRT]

You know who has societies where "geeks" (engineers, mainly) are highly placed throughout government? China, Iran and many other closed societies run by authoritarian states. Geek arrogance toward the common man combined with political power is an extremely dangerous combination. Thanks, but no.

"Scientific government" sounds great until you realize that in practice it'll be run by people who think statecraft and philosophy are nearly worthless endeavors and that it'll likely have an attitude of "hey, let's try this radical restructure of people's lives because the theory sounds great and looks applicable on paper."

Re:Ummm, no...

[Zero__Kelvin]

You should have just gone for the Godwin and mentioned the Third Reich. I mean, if you are going to sound like a moron, you should at least do it right.

Re:Ummm, no...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideology-based != evidence-based.

Heres your evidence

[hackula]

The "evidence" is typically found in an envelope discretely left on a senator's desk. What more does one need to make a decision? The more zeroes, the better the evidence!

Re:I'll be happy if...

[hackula]

...the day after the rapture, when all of the Unitarians get sucked up into the sky

Geeks are as bad as anyone else

[wcrowe]

"That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."

Right there is the problem. Geeks are often, by nature, chock full of hubris. Assuming that you have all the evidence, and that all your evidence is correct, and that you have interpreted the correct conclusion from your evidence, and therefore anyone who questions your evidence should just "shut the hell up", is not conducive to compromise or cooperation. It is precisely THAT attitude that got the U.S. into Iraq, to cite a recent example ("We KNOW there are WMD's, and we KNOW Saddam is going to use them, so we're going to invade Iraq and the rest of you can just shut the hell up.").

This is a constant problem at my office, where the .Net developers are so bloated with hubris that they think their applications are perfect, and always want to blame the DB2 database first when something goes wrong. And they continue to do this, even though evidence indicates that 99% of the time they have a bug in their application.

"Evidence" is not always objective, or correct, and geeks are just as prone to ignore facts as anyone else.

 

Re:Geeks are as bad as anyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd sound a lot less stupid if you'd listened to the actual reasons we went to Iraq instead of Jon Stewart's reasons.

Re:Geeks are as bad as anyone else

[flirno]

Political peer reviews. Nothing to knock the hubris out of a geek like another geek.

Re:Geeks are as bad as anyone else

[DragonWriter]

"That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."

Right there is the problem. Geeks are often, by nature, chock full of hubris. Assuming that you have all the evidence, and that all your evidence is correct, and that you have interpreted the correct conclusion from your evidence, and therefore anyone who questions your evidence should just "shut the hell up", is not conducive to compromise or cooperation.

Nice rant, except nothing in the quote you are responding to presumes that the poster has all the evidence, or any interpretation of the evidence. It simply argues that if a fact claim is to be made, it should be supported by evidence, and if there is no evidentiary support for the claim, it should not be made. It provides an example of a fact claim, but it proposes nothing about what the evidence actually says about that claim.

It may imply a particularly skepticism on the part of the poster that the particular claim given as an example would be supportably by evidence, but its not making an argument about that. It is, instead, saying that in order to be able to meaningfully discuss fact claims that underly policy propositions, those claims (and the counterclaims, which are themselves fact claims) need to be presented with evidence so that they claims and counterclaims can be evaluated.

It is precisely THAT attitude that got the U.S. into Iraq, to cite a recent example ("We KNOW there are WMD's, and we KNOW Saddam is going to use them, so we're going to invade Iraq and the rest of you can just shut the hell up.").

Well, actually, there is considerable evidence that that interpretation of the Iraq war is wrong and that we didn't go to war based on evidence on WMD that decision-makers mistakenly believed to be correct and complete, but instead based on a number of considerations that had nothing to do with WMD, where, at most, mistaken beliefs about the completeness and correctness of evidence on WMDs were in the mind of the public after decision-makers who had committed to war used selective presentation (and outright misrepresentation) of evidence on WMDs as part of the campaign to maintain public support for a decision made for entirely unrelated reasons.

This is a constant problem at my office, where the .Net developers are so bloated with hubris that they think their applications are perfect, and always want to blame the DB2 database first when something goes wrong.

An approach, as the GP suggest, of requiring fact claims (e.g., "the problem is not in the .NET application code") to be supported by evidence would neatly deal with this problem. So, rather than being an analogy that undermines the GPs position, it simply reinforces it.

Re:Geeks are as bad as anyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not necessary to be in possession of and understand all the evidence to recognize that your opponent's position has no basis in said evidence. That attitude would have *kept us out* of Iraq, as a thorough review of the evidence would have revealed much of the reasoning behind that war to be wholly flawed.

You go right on preaching your bias, though. Perhaps if you beat your chest enough online, the application geeks in your office will recognize the superiority of database geeks.

Re:I'll be happy if...

[Sperbels]

There was nothing natural about the way she slipped that comment in there. She clearly just slid it in there for her constituents.

Technocracy is not dictatorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Geek arrogance toward the common man combined with political power is an extremely dangerous combination. Thanks, but no.

You're accusing the wrong party. None of the examples you give are of technocratic societies. They're all dictatorships of one kind or another, and the techs in them have zero power. If the techs did wield power in them, the dictatorships would disappear pretty quickly because it's not defensible on the basis of evidence.

Technocracy is not dictatorship, unless you want to call logic and hard evidence a dictator. And if you do then you are clearly a religious nut, and ripe to be ignored.

Re:Technocracy is not dictatorship

[game kid]

They're all dictatorships of one kind or another, and the techs in them have zero power.

Yup. If anything, the geeks of China, Iran, and friends are being used like a rag to censor, track, and capture any fellow citizen who does not follow the vile decrees of the government.

The ones on top there are politically-inclined, power-hungry jerks and sociopaths, not geeks.

Hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much this idiotic douchebag would complain if someone said, "'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison doesn't do that.' He'd praise them for their insightfulness, even though they have no evidence to back it up.

Re:Hypocrite

[Kergan]

I wonder how much this idiotic douchebag would complain if someone said, "'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison doesn't do that.' He'd praise them for their insightfulness, even though they have no evidence to back it up.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence supporting that:

1. Criminalizing drug use and drug distribution costs trillions to the tax payers, to no effect.

2. Legalizing drugs, all of them, no exceptions, generates new tax revenues (which is why prohibition was repelled, btw) in addition to removing the costs related to 1).

3. It also decreases the healthcare costs by keeping the drug quality in check and maintaining specialized structures (see Switzerland or Portugal: if you must, do it; but preferrably here, with a clean needle and a doctor on hand).

4. Criminals deprived of their revenue fizzle out (as happened when the prohibition was repelled), further extending the benefits in 1).

5. Educating and informing drug/booze/tobacco users does work, as seen for tobacco and alcohol, and this comes at no additional charge given the prior points. In fact, the tax revenue alone handily pays for boosting information and education campaigns.

Anyway, your point was?

Re:Hypocrite

[Dr_Barnowl]

I think he might take a more practical viewpoint, given that roughly 9% of the UK population use marijuana.

It's self-evident that sending all drug users to prison would reduce drug use, just by denying them access to supply. But it's simply not practical to do so. Our prisons are already overcrowded, so you'd have to divert quite a portion of the national economy into building, maintaining, and staffing prisons, and also suffer the removal of 9% of the population from the economy - currently, we have 0.001% incarceration rates.

So, given that incarcerating all drug offenders will essentially destroy the economy of the UK and turn us into an Island Stalag Luft, we have to ask the question, is there a less harmful way of dealing with the problems involved with drugs? Is it cheaper for the state to safely feed the habits of drug users, given the cost in social disruption and healthcare costs they cause through theft and the use of poor quality, unregulated product? Which solution causes the least amount of harm?

Whereas a politician stating that "Drug use is immoral and you should be locked up!" isn't providing any kind of justification. Pick one, he :

i) Hasn't thought it through. Should people who don't actually think about what they are saying actually be in charge of anything? Note that in this one I am including all the subspecies of not thinking things through, including religion, moral outrage, fear of a different culture, etc.

ii) HAS thought it through. Has a financial interest in the prison-industrial complex. Since 9% of the UK population is a drug offender, there is an effectively endless supply of "product" for the commercial prison system, since as we have already postulated, incarcerating all drugs users isn't actually possible given that it would probably plunge the country into revolution.

It makes far more sense to insist on locking up people who commit actual offences (other than just possessing drugs) to feed their drug habit. It makes even more sense to try and work out what causes drug habits and how to fix THAT.

Maybe you're not smarter than everyone else.

[coldsalmon]

"At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom..." -- Plato, _Apology_

Re:Maybe you're not smarter than everyone else.

[Beardo the Bearded]

Interestingly enough, when I took my iron ring oath (for engineering) part of it was to remind us that the sum total of our knowledge was close to zero.

Maybe that same pledge should be done for politicians. "We're good at getting elected and taking bribes, but we should ask for help when we're outside our scope."

Re:Maybe you're not smarter than everyone else.

[coldsalmon]

Yes, Socrates was a lot harder on the politicians than on the artisans:
"When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me."
That sounds a lot like contemporary politics.

Gotta kill Bulverism first

[Oloryn]

Good luck getting an evidence-based culture developed in the face of the entrenched Bulverism of modern political discourse. Even more generally, we don't argue over the issues at hand, we argue over why the other side shouldn't be listened to (and Bulverism is just one tool in that arsenal). Not even the geeks or the scientists are immune. If you really want to move to an evidence-based culture, you're going to first have to pull people's focus off of defeating the opposition, and onto actually investigating the truth or falsity of particular issues. As C. S. Lewis put it "Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs". There's your assignment. Get to it.

Re:Gotta kill Bulverism first

[Kergan]

Meh, that would only be one in a very very long list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Re:Gotta kill Bulverism first

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace Bulverism with religion and the argument still stands. C.S. Lewis shouldn't meddle with truth-seeking, moral ethics and in general, "living the good life".

Disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Stating that coercion is immoral would challenge the very foundation of families

For all intents and purposes, a child is the property of the parent, not an equal (as another adult would be), and thus the "pure voluntary association" rule (which determines adult-adult morality) doesn't apply. Obviously there is a line to be drawn, and excessive parent-child coercion is certainly immoral. The only issue here is where exactly to draw the line between moral discipline and immoral discipline.

Regardless, the difference is fundamental and should be underlined.

Re:Disagree

[Wonko the Sane]

I agree that the relationship between children and parents is not a volentary one. Parents choose to create children while children do not choose to be born. Children do not have the ability to support themselves via pure voluntary association due to inherent biological limitations.

This means, however, than any injunctions against coersion are more applicable to children. Parents have even more responsibility to avoid using coersion against their children than they have to avoid using it against other adults because other adults can choose not to associate with them while their children do not have that option.

The situation which you are proposing (which has been the status quo for most of human history) is the very definition of tyranny. You propose because parents have the ability to impose their will on children than they should be allowed to do so without being condemned for taking advantage of the power disparity.

Parents do not own their children. They are trustees who care for children on behalf of those children's future adult selves. In any fair and moral society they would be explicitly accountable to their children for misusing or negelecting this responsibility..

Re:Disagree

[starworks5]

A parent does not own a child, a parent is the "CUSTODIAN" of a child, in many cases children can choose their own guardians or emancipate.

Just as genesis was misinterperated by the christians, where it says that man was given stewardship over the earth.

Good luck with that

[KGBear]

The people who run the world are the ones who want to rule the world. They do what it takes. People want to hear familiar ideas framed in familiar terms. Politicians and marketers deliver just that. Moving to an evidence-based society, if accomplished, would remove all the alpha-male characteristics from leadership. It would favor hard thinking and research, and it would not favor personality and manipulative abilities. The world is as it is. I know deep in my heart that Facebook is evil, that people could be doing exactly the same thing without relinquishing their privacy, and that what people are doing on Facebook is idiotic in any event. That does not change the fact that influencing people and weaving a web of social relations is what people want to do, and what they will do. Denying human social traits is stupid, in politics, in social networking, in religion, and everywhere else. People are what they are. If geeks want to change the game, they need to learn to play the game. To be manipulative, to believe that the end justifies the means, and to not let ethics interfere. Yes, wielding power is incompatible with geek values. The sooner we learn that, the better.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

im serious , saying it is immoral to lie,and it means also logically,that they actually won , not the geeks,cause in the end "geeks" did the same,and why everybody is talking in a manner that implies geeks as none-humans ?!!

Fuck the moralists

[SolitaryMan]

I think people on drugs should be punished because drugs are immoral.

I'm so fucking sick of fucking moralists! Whatever your idea, if it implies this stupid know-it-all assholes get kicked, I'm onboard.

NOT a factual statement at all

[Anonymous Coward]

"'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement"

Is NOT a factual statement at all, facts actually dispove this statement - there are more drug users today than there were before drug prohibition. The only difference is, now it is a crime and comes with threat of prison as punishment.

You gotta love the industrial-military-prison4profit conglomerate government, eh? (or the boot will be on you next).

Re:NOT a factual statement at all

[a90Tj2P7]

He doesn't mean it's factually correct, he means that it's a statement of fact - something that can be objectively proven wrong or right.

Re:First Post

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Somehow, I seem to have posted this, writing in the persona of Mark Corrigan.

All that's missing is a Stalingrad reference.

For those that are serious about this...

[mj1856]

Carl Franklin, co-host of the popular ".NET Rocks!" podcast has a great show about this very subject. http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=768 Don't worry, it's not Microsoft focused. You really should have a listen. He actually went to Washington DC to get involved. That's more than most of us can say.

Opinion =/= Fact

[Infernal Device]

> What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."

That is opinion, which can be driven by facts, but the two are never the same.

Be careful what you ask for...

[Anonymous Coward]

One only needs to look to the actions of the Soviet Communists and the National Socialist German Workers Party to see what happens when "conventional morality" is shunted aside for in favor of what was considered "evidence based or technocratic" decision making.

Right and wrong aren't readily quantifiable.

"moral call"??

[GrayWhiZ]

what is wrong with "moral calls" well other than politicians just "use" them as a bait to get themselves elected? that doesn't make "morals" a "bad" thing !! instead he can just educate people enough so they won't elect liars and make bad choices when elections comes !

Evidence-based thinking

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

It's not going to happen with adults. A good educational system (I did NOT say "school system"!) would try to develop the skills to analyze an argument. It may not succeed, not with human beings.

Re:Evidence-based thinking

[CanHasDIY]

It's not going to happen with adults. A good educational system (I did NOT say "school system"!) would try to develop the skills to analyze an argument. It may not succeed, not with human beings.

Well, I for one would welcome our new non-human overlords. 'Cause really, there's not much any entity could do to fuck things up more than what we humans are capable of.

evidence-based... libertarian?

[SlowMovingTarget]

If a technocrat really was operating on evidence, then they'd have to eliminate OSHA for not moving the needle on workplace safety.

Evidence: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-36.html

Technocracy

[frank_adrian314159]

It didn't gain support back then; it won't gain support now.

The bottom line is that people have an inherent distrust of those who are smarter than them, worrying that the other person might use superior intelligence to take advantage of them. They'd much rather have someone who might be less smart, but that they can understand, in charge than someone who might do a better job, but whose actions are incomprehensible (and, thus, unpredictable) to them. Welcome to our politics.

Jacque Fresco - Futurists & Technocrats in Gov

[jtollefson]

Jacque Freso has been preaching this for at least 50 years now.

His thoughts and ideas are very interesting, if you like futurists he's one to read up on. He also has a documentary called Future By Design which is available streaming on Netflix if you've got that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco

Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society

[Baldrson]

INTRODUCTION

Secession is necessary to free society. Free society starts with mutual consent. Mutual consent implies the option not to consent. "Freedom From" compliments "Freedom To".

Secession is necessary to true social science: We can best discover causal laws by testing theories with controlled experiments. This is true of all science. Controlled experiments require separate experimental groups, treated according to different theories and comparing the measured results with predictions. In practice, human ecologies can form separate experimental groups only by upholding geographic boundaries that prevent cross-contamination between treatments – cross-contamination with its resulting confusion and confounding of results. We can argue how best to achieve this in practice, but the principle of giving experimental evidence priority over any amount of argument, debate, deliberation, peer review or judicial proceeding stands as more self-evident than anything in the Declaration of Independence.

In a free scientific society, an individual is subject to treatment only after giving informed consent.

These two pillars of social good -- truth and freedom -- stand upon the foundation of secession.

Tyranny of the majority, limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights -- the sine qua non of "liberal democracy" -- must submit to the right to secede or it violates truth and freedom, hence all social good.

SLAVERY

Getting right to the point that people need addressed whenever "secession" is uttered:

Abolition of slavery is support of individual secession.

Slaves want to secede from their "owners" just as others want to -- and do -- secede from societies they find objectionable. The difference between slavery and others turns solely on whether the individual's right to secede is realized. All who are denied secession are slaves: their consent is violated.

If men from Maine choose to support the right of secession of slaves by marching on South Carolina to kill unrepentant slave owners -- every last one of them -- those men from Maine in no way lose their own rights. Men retaining their humanity may differ over whether it is wisest to intervene in such a way – or to intervene at all. For example, should a government which is capable of raising taxes do so for the waging of war against slavery or, better for the purchase of slaves to be freed from their dependent owners? Eminent domain “taking” arguments aside, just men may, as well, differ over whether it is wisest to put down a rabid animal, or to treat it. The compromise upon which the United States was founded was flawed, perhaps fatally, by its incorporation of slave states.

Likewise, this in no way supports the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution or The Union. It supports only the 13th Amendment. Despite Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's pretenses to the contrary, it is still a "badge of slavery" to be forced into association with others. Likewise the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 compounded this badge of slavery born of the so-called “Civil Rights Movement”.

"Freedom From" compliments "Freedom To". Just as a person's right to vote with his feet takes precedence over a State's powers, so a body politic may leave a Federation that has overstepped its bounds.

The Federal government is a creature of its constituent States and the State is a creature of its constituent People.

The Creature is subordinate to the Creator.

Lucifer and his slavery be damned.

FREEDOM

There is no true freedom without a domain upon which men may live as they choose. The key to practical freedom is that men may choose to live among others that share their ecological beliefs. Ecological beliefs include beliefs in cause and effect on human ecologies. Note, this is more profound than merely sharing territory with those “of like mind”. Beliefs about ecological cause and effect are, by definition, at t

Thatcher looks good these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for politicians of yore with actual gonads, who believed in something. At least when they were wrong it was for good reason.

  “It used to be about trying to do something. Now it's about trying to be someone.”
  Margaret Thatcher

“When I'm out of politics I'm going to run a business, it'll be called rent-a-spine”
  Margaret Thatcher

"If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing."
  Margaret Thatcher [Not sure if this last one is a genuine quote or from the Iron Lady movie script only]

Henderson has it the wrong way round

[BeanThere]

Politicians are free to say: 'I think people on drugs should be punished because drugs are immoral.' That's a moral call, albeit a rather stupid one in my opinion. What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not a moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based

Our natural rights do not derive from statistics. What a dangerous idea. What if statistics really showed (hypothetically) that sending drug users to prison was effective at engineering some 'greater goal', would that make it morally OK? Precisely not.

I could probably show "evidence" that slavery helped reduce the economic costs of picking cotton. Such "evidence" - even when true - is clearly not what ought to be the foundation of our political and moral reasoning.

Henderson is right that politics should be evidence-based, but he gets it precisely the wrong way round. It should precisely be the moral claims that are evidence-based and reason-based (e.g. whether drug users should be punished).

Politics is basically all about when violence should be applied, and politicians should not be free to claim "violence should be used against drug users" - that notion that such "morality" subjective is very and dangerously wrong - such a claim must in itself be able to be objectively backed by facts and reason. It is objectively wrong (using facts and reason) to initiate violence against (i.e. put in jail) drug users who are harming nobody --- the moral claim is precisely the one that ought to be attacked. And the statistical claims, while peripherally interesting, should be utterly irrelevant to politics --- again, our natural rights do not derive from statistics, any more that hypothetical statistics showing (say) that slavery had economic benefits, would in any way be a valid argument for slavery. Slavery was wrong because it involves the non-consenting initiation of force against the slaves, not because of statistical evidence relating to indirect consequences.

It is correct that scientific thinking should be applied to politics, but it should be applied in the sense of using scientific thinking properly to determine the validity of moral claims, from which law must then be derived.

prison reduces drug use? buuuuullll shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Drug treatment programs are known to reduce drug use. Putting people in prison does NOT. It just gets them out of our faces. Also guess whiivh one is cheaper.

Kidney failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Bacteria love milk. Pasteurisation and refrigeration reduce the risk of contracting food-born illnesses. Recent documented outbreaks

more support

see here as well

and this

You think geeks ran the third reich?

[MikeRT]

The Nazi leadership had more in common with renaissance fair nerds than science and engineering geeks. The People's Republic of China and Iran, meanwhile, actually have a lot of engineering-trained leaders. For pete's sake, Hu Jintao, one of the most powerful leaders in the world right now has a degree in hydraulic engineering. The President of Iran is a civil engineer who actually still teaches a class or two on civil engineering at university.

Is that enough for you or do I need to drive a few nails into the clue stick for you?

Re:You think geeks ran the third reich?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I guess you didn't read my post. I had already figured out that you are a moron, but thanks for driving the point home anyway!

Re:This person does not represent... well anything

[robsku]

So if it turns ou that they do want to resuce drug use and the the most cost effective way to acheive that is indeed to send all users to prison that would be ok?

Maybe if "reducing drug use" in itself would have a proven value of it's own - however putting users in prison is often supported regardless of what it will result in, and often by people who don't count alcohol and tobacco as drugs for no other reasons than them being legal.