I hear where you're coming from and I admit I've thought similar things at times. However it might not be gullibility, but rather the ability to dismiss abstract notions like "truth" in favor of concrete benefits like "cohesive group membership". I think there are many advantages to agreeing with all your friends - advantages that those of us who pat ourselves on the back for having "strong minds" miss out on. So who's really wiser?
I'm not saying I'd trade it away, but maybe that's why I've yet to produce any offspring:)
Cheers.
PS - hypnotism is an interesting case: Richard Feynman certainly seemed to have a strong mind, but claims he was hypnotized
Interestingly they already do something along these lines to most naturally grown beef: after the animal is slaughtered they generally hook it up to some electrodes and juice it a few times so the muscles contract and burn up all the residual ATP. Apparently this eliminates rigor mortis setting in and results in more tender beef. After I learned about this I was haunted by images of convulsing cattle corpses. I don't think I'll seek out video.
I _hate_ this bullshit argument. Here's why: it only works if everyone values their life enough and also correctly determines how risky it is to start a gunfight.
You can look into any of the countless gang dominated areas around the globe to see that this doesn't always work. People can get to the point where they have nothing to lose, or the stakes are high enough that death is not a deterrent. Also, people can think they're invincible carrying a gun even if everyone else is carrying a gun too.
In the US, in a town where nearly everyone has a decent living standard or the opportunity to achieve one, then yes, this might work. In other cases, it has obviously not. I'm actually fine with everyone owning guns, but that doesn't actually solve the problem most of the time.
I don't have a problem with people arming themselves for defense, but there's a related argument I often hear, which goes along the lines of: "if everyone had guns we'd all be more safe". This is demonstrably false - just look at the lives of heavily armed gang members anywhere in the world. Everyone has a gun and everyone is in danger. The reason is that in situations where desperation is high enough, risk of death is not an effective deterrent. Especially when you're young and cocky and don't realize that having a gun doesn't make you invincible... because everyone else has guns too. You only have roughly a 50% chance of winning any gunfight you do happen to engage in.
So you know, let people arm themselves. But don't think this solves anything: real social stability comes from reducing desperation.
Let's do something about that ignorance you have going there: in point of fact, atoms and molecules from actual piss are already in your cornflakes. Shit too. It's fairly certain that many things you are eating today contains atoms and molecules that were at one point excrement of some kind. What do you think corn is made of?
More generally, even if you don't take organic reuse into account, there's only 92 or so naturally occurring elements and they get reused in everything.
Insightful?!? So operating dangerous machinery (dangerous to others, not just yourself) in public places shouldn't be regulated or require a license? Mind if I run my rocket sled up and down your neighborhood street? I need my freedom of movement, dude.
That's one of the worst over-applications of the term "basic constitutional rights" I've seen.
Driving cars on public land is a privilege that we grant each other with certain restrictions. Whether this DUI checkpoint scheme is a good thing or not is another debate, but the idea that this has anything to do with constitutional rights is foolish.
Everything you say is true, but the parent comment was stupid because Obama certainly demonstrated "the knowledge and/or responsibility one would expect of a Presidential candidate". If you don't think so, you've never paid attention to anything he's said or written. Whether he's been an effective leader is another issue, and that will be decided a bit further down the road, but he is certainly knowledgable and responsible, even if you don't agree with him.
I can say many Republicans are knowledgable and responsible even if I don't agree with them. I cannot say that about Palin. It's always nice when people can tell the difference between things like disagreement, corruption, and idiocy.
So I call myself a software developer, but I've never worked on any group project that required builds at all. I've done java and c++ projects of my own, but any time there was more than just me, it was a web development environment where things were broken up to the script level and it was very rare that one person's work would break another's. Launching individually tested scripts was fast and asynchronous. It seems to me that is a superior model for web development. I know that the place I used to work switched over to java for a lot of stuff, and now they have build headaches and compatibility issues between the communication layers. I'm not sure what the advantage is there for web development. Isn't the whole idea of builds a pointless carryover from desktop software?
So you're saying that if I can find a corporation that has abused power and done evil, then all corporations must be equally abusing power and doing evil? Or if I can find one criminal in the US then we're all similarly criminals? What you're saying doesn't make sense even on a basic logical level, before even looking at the real world examples which would further take the wind out of this line of thinking.
Please let's stop oversimplifying with "it's all bad". It's not. There may be some bad in nearly everything, but it's worth recognizing and fighting those parts while promoting and nurturing the good in those same entities -- be they people or organizations.
Agreed. I tire of the knee-jerk "government programs are bad" mentality that has been gaining ground the last decade, but I am also strongly in favor of a balanced budget, and that would limit the size of government considerably right there.
Too bad nobody will vote for someone who would raise taxes and cut programs at the same time -- probably the only way out of this mess.
I hear where you're coming from, but it is too simplistic. Some large governments are bad, but there are also plenty of examples where some small government is not as good as some larger government. The point being: it's not about size, it's about the particulars of what the government is doing and how.
I agree that a balance is best, but no, both those statements can't be true. It seems we agree there are some situations where less government reduces freedom, so the absolute statement "larger government == less freedom" by the original poster is false.
Larger government can take away freedom. They can also expand freedom. Our large government provides more freedom than many smaller governments. My point is: it's not about size, it's about what they're doing.
So if something comes along and prevents an inevitable "worse" situation, you're still happy to call it "bad" and "evil"? Compared to what? While I don't think you're wrong, I do think that's a pretty strange way to look at it. I'm also pretty sure you can name a few things off the top of your head that you appreciate from the government -- not just "necessary evil", but actually beneficial.
There's plenty in government to criticize, but I think it's worth giving credit where credit is due as well.
You realize Jefferson owned slaves? That's not to say I am smarter than the man; I most certainly am not. But to claim that smart people are always right is, frankly, stupid.
That's simply not true. Sure, laws and regulations and taxes take away some freedoms, but they grant others at the same time. In most cases, the freedoms they grant are larger than those they take away.
A simple case that we probably agree upon is law enforcement and the judicial system. It takes away some freedoms, but the resulting freedoms that come from having a safe and stable society far outweigh those lost.
Another example would be the taxes that pay for our roads and infrastructure. The freedom and financial empowerment afforded by cheap travel outweigh that lost to taxation. If you don't agree you really should try living someplace without such infrastructure and see how free you feel.
Are there times when the government oversteps or creates a net loss of freedom? Absolutely. But that must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Actually it was the original post that cast things as a "simple extreme", I gave an example to highlight how flawed the statement was. Outside of that, I'm all for a nuanced discussion of what things our government should or shouldn't be involved in.
But here's a question I've never had answered:
The world is full of nations with different sized governments. Which governments do you think are more appropriately sized? Which nations would you (language issues aside) seriously consider living in?
Not at all. The OP made a black-and-white statement equating larger government with fewer choices. I simply reflected that idiocy back at him or her.
Certainly there is a valid debate to be had as to what things a government should or shouldn't do, but that debate certainly doesn't start with the assumption that larger government means less freedom.
I've not said it aloud before, so most honestly I guess I didn't know how I felt about actually saying it. I think what I meant was that I was a wary of saying it -- I don't generally like pooh-poohing other people's hard work. But now, having said it, I feel fine. So I guess you're right.
I hate to say it, but string theory has always reminded me of Kepler's platonic model of the solar system: a wonderfully elegant description that is wrong. He spent an enormous portion of his life trying to make that model fit, but it didn't. The very fact that it was an elegant description was compelling to him, as I think string theory is to its theorists, but I'm not sure that should be counted as a point towards a theory.
I read Greene's "Elegant Universe", and indeed the initial insights of string theory are mathematically beautiful. But by the time he was talking about adding in lots of rolled up dimensions to make it work, I was starting to feel the theory was a little threadbare.
I suppose the proponents will rework the number of dimensions and such to account for these latest results. And maybe they'll find the One True Theory. Or maybe they'll spend another couple decades exploring a beautiful mathematical world that simply doesn't map to our own.
That's all well and good, but you're forgetting that such clear headed and straightforward analysis as you've presented here is simply a leftist tactic.
The larger the government is, the fewer choices the individual has
You throw that in as if it is an established fact, but it is demonstrably untrue. There are plenty of places you can live right now with little or no government and the result is certainly not increased freedom. In such cases you're either living nearly isolated (which limits your options) or you're dealing with bandits and warlords (which limits your options). On the flip side, you and I live under an enormous government and we exercise a degree of freedom unimagined in such places -- exemplified by having this stupid debate on Slashdot in the middle of a workday.
Folks, please -- the whole "government == bad" thing is naive in the extreme. It can only be said by people who haven't the slightest bit of experience in places with little or no government. I'm not saying "government == good", because it certainly is not. Government is a tool, and a necessary one. Dismissing it as "bad" simply means you don't know how to use it properly and aren't willing to try.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear where you're coming from and I admit I've thought similar things at times. However it might not be gullibility, but rather the ability to dismiss abstract notions like "truth" in favor of concrete benefits like "cohesive group membership". I think there are many advantages to agreeing with all your friends - advantages that those of us who pat ourselves on the back for having "strong minds" miss out on. So who's really wiser?
I'm not saying I'd trade it away, but maybe that's why I've yet to produce any offspring :)
Cheers.
PS - hypnotism is an interesting case: Richard Feynman certainly seemed to have a strong mind, but claims he was hypnotized
Interestingly they already do something along these lines to most naturally grown beef: after the animal is slaughtered they generally hook it up to some electrodes and juice it a few times so the muscles contract and burn up all the residual ATP. Apparently this eliminates rigor mortis setting in and results in more tender beef. After I learned about this I was haunted by images of convulsing cattle corpses. I don't think I'll seek out video.
But damn, I still love a good steak.
I _hate_ this bullshit argument. Here's why: it only works if everyone values their life enough and also correctly determines how risky it is to start a gunfight.
You can look into any of the countless gang dominated areas around the globe to see that this doesn't always work. People can get to the point where they have nothing to lose, or the stakes are high enough that death is not a deterrent. Also, people can think they're invincible carrying a gun even if everyone else is carrying a gun too.
In the US, in a town where nearly everyone has a decent living standard or the opportunity to achieve one, then yes, this might work. In other cases, it has obviously not. I'm actually fine with everyone owning guns, but that doesn't actually solve the problem most of the time.
I don't have a problem with people arming themselves for defense, but there's a related argument I often hear, which goes along the lines of: "if everyone had guns we'd all be more safe". This is demonstrably false - just look at the lives of heavily armed gang members anywhere in the world. Everyone has a gun and everyone is in danger. The reason is that in situations where desperation is high enough, risk of death is not an effective deterrent. Especially when you're young and cocky and don't realize that having a gun doesn't make you invincible... because everyone else has guns too. You only have roughly a 50% chance of winning any gunfight you do happen to engage in.
So you know, let people arm themselves. But don't think this solves anything: real social stability comes from reducing desperation.
Let's do something about that ignorance you have going there: in point of fact, atoms and molecules from actual piss are already in your cornflakes. Shit too. It's fairly certain that many things you are eating today contains atoms and molecules that were at one point excrement of some kind. What do you think corn is made of?
More generally, even if you don't take organic reuse into account, there's only 92 or so naturally occurring elements and they get reused in everything.
Insightful?!? So operating dangerous machinery (dangerous to others, not just yourself) in public places shouldn't be regulated or require a license? Mind if I run my rocket sled up and down your neighborhood street? I need my freedom of movement, dude.
That's one of the worst over-applications of the term "basic constitutional rights" I've seen.
Driving cars on public land is a privilege that we grant each other with certain restrictions. Whether this DUI checkpoint scheme is a good thing or not is another debate, but the idea that this has anything to do with constitutional rights is foolish.
Everything you say is true, but the parent comment was stupid because Obama certainly demonstrated "the knowledge and/or responsibility one would expect of a Presidential candidate". If you don't think so, you've never paid attention to anything he's said or written. Whether he's been an effective leader is another issue, and that will be decided a bit further down the road, but he is certainly knowledgable and responsible, even if you don't agree with him.
I can say many Republicans are knowledgable and responsible even if I don't agree with them. I cannot say that about Palin. It's always nice when people can tell the difference between things like disagreement, corruption, and idiocy.
Morse code vibrate mode, obviously.
So I call myself a software developer, but I've never worked on any group project that required builds at all. I've done java and c++ projects of my own, but any time there was more than just me, it was a web development environment where things were broken up to the script level and it was very rare that one person's work would break another's. Launching individually tested scripts was fast and asynchronous. It seems to me that is a superior model for web development. I know that the place I used to work switched over to java for a lot of stuff, and now they have build headaches and compatibility issues between the communication layers. I'm not sure what the advantage is there for web development. Isn't the whole idea of builds a pointless carryover from desktop software?
So you're saying that if I can find a corporation that has abused power and done evil, then all corporations must be equally abusing power and doing evil? Or if I can find one criminal in the US then we're all similarly criminals? What you're saying doesn't make sense even on a basic logical level, before even looking at the real world examples which would further take the wind out of this line of thinking.
Please let's stop oversimplifying with "it's all bad". It's not. There may be some bad in nearly everything, but it's worth recognizing and fighting those parts while promoting and nurturing the good in those same entities -- be they people or organizations.
Cheers.
Thanks for the reply. I think that as far as governmental preferences go, I'm not too far off from where you're at.
Agreed. I tire of the knee-jerk "government programs are bad" mentality that has been gaining ground the last decade, but I am also strongly in favor of a balanced budget, and that would limit the size of government considerably right there.
Too bad nobody will vote for someone who would raise taxes and cut programs at the same time -- probably the only way out of this mess.
I hear where you're coming from, but it is too simplistic. Some large governments are bad, but there are also plenty of examples where some small government is not as good as some larger government. The point being: it's not about size, it's about the particulars of what the government is doing and how.
I stand by my comment. Care to add to the discussion or do you just want to engage in vagueness and ad hominem?
I agree that a balance is best, but no, both those statements can't be true. It seems we agree there are some situations where less government reduces freedom, so the absolute statement "larger government == less freedom" by the original poster is false.
Larger government can take away freedom. They can also expand freedom. Our large government provides more freedom than many smaller governments. My point is: it's not about size, it's about what they're doing.
So if something comes along and prevents an inevitable "worse" situation, you're still happy to call it "bad" and "evil"? Compared to what? While I don't think you're wrong, I do think that's a pretty strange way to look at it. I'm also pretty sure you can name a few things off the top of your head that you appreciate from the government -- not just "necessary evil", but actually beneficial.
There's plenty in government to criticize, but I think it's worth giving credit where credit is due as well.
You realize Jefferson owned slaves? That's not to say I am smarter than the man; I most certainly am not. But to claim that smart people are always right is, frankly, stupid.
That's simply not true. Sure, laws and regulations and taxes take away some freedoms, but they grant others at the same time. In most cases, the freedoms they grant are larger than those they take away.
A simple case that we probably agree upon is law enforcement and the judicial system. It takes away some freedoms, but the resulting freedoms that come from having a safe and stable society far outweigh those lost.
Another example would be the taxes that pay for our roads and infrastructure. The freedom and financial empowerment afforded by cheap travel outweigh that lost to taxation. If you don't agree you really should try living someplace without such infrastructure and see how free you feel.
Are there times when the government oversteps or creates a net loss of freedom? Absolutely. But that must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Actually it was the original post that cast things as a "simple extreme", I gave an example to highlight how flawed the statement was. Outside of that, I'm all for a nuanced discussion of what things our government should or shouldn't be involved in.
But here's a question I've never had answered:
The world is full of nations with different sized governments. Which governments do you think are more appropriately sized? Which nations would you (language issues aside) seriously consider living in?
Not at all. The OP made a black-and-white statement equating larger government with fewer choices. I simply reflected that idiocy back at him or her.
Certainly there is a valid debate to be had as to what things a government should or shouldn't do, but that debate certainly doesn't start with the assumption that larger government means less freedom.
I've not said it aloud before, so most honestly I guess I didn't know how I felt about actually saying it. I think what I meant was that I was a wary of saying it -- I don't generally like pooh-poohing other people's hard work. But now, having said it, I feel fine. So I guess you're right.
Carry on.
I hate to say it, but string theory has always reminded me of Kepler's platonic model of the solar system: a wonderfully elegant description that is wrong. He spent an enormous portion of his life trying to make that model fit, but it didn't. The very fact that it was an elegant description was compelling to him, as I think string theory is to its theorists, but I'm not sure that should be counted as a point towards a theory.
I read Greene's "Elegant Universe", and indeed the initial insights of string theory are mathematically beautiful. But by the time he was talking about adding in lots of rolled up dimensions to make it work, I was starting to feel the theory was a little threadbare.
I suppose the proponents will rework the number of dimensions and such to account for these latest results. And maybe they'll find the One True Theory. Or maybe they'll spend another couple decades exploring a beautiful mathematical world that simply doesn't map to our own.
Cheers.
That's all well and good, but you're forgetting that such clear headed and straightforward analysis as you've presented here is simply a leftist tactic.
samzenpus said "let the flame wars begin" so...
The larger the government is, the fewer choices the individual has
You throw that in as if it is an established fact, but it is demonstrably untrue. There are plenty of places you can live right now with little or no government and the result is certainly not increased freedom. In such cases you're either living nearly isolated (which limits your options) or you're dealing with bandits and warlords (which limits your options). On the flip side, you and I live under an enormous government and we exercise a degree of freedom unimagined in such places -- exemplified by having this stupid debate on Slashdot in the middle of a workday.
Folks, please -- the whole "government == bad" thing is naive in the extreme. It can only be said by people who haven't the slightest bit of experience in places with little or no government. I'm not saying "government == good", because it certainly is not. Government is a tool, and a necessary one. Dismissing it as "bad" simply means you don't know how to use it properly and aren't willing to try.
And this today:
China wants Korean reunification, officials confirm
And this is just one story. The fact that Saudi Arabia was pushing the US to bomb Iran puts a new twist on the narrative there as well.