I agree with your point, but you picked an awful example of latent racism. Tar baby is not broadly used as a racist term and in fact had no racist connotations until relatively recently. Certainly now that an issue has been made of it, it's wiser to avoid its usage, but Tony Snow was not being racist when he used it. If his words hadn't been broadcast to whatever little corner of the US in which it is considered to be a racist term, nobody would have noticed the difference.
The word "niggardly" has undergone a similar transformation for similar reasons: both of them could be mistaken for racist by someone unfamiliar with their usage, yet neither one is the slightest bit racist in origin. Shit happens.
I'd love to be helpful and come up with a replacement example but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.
You are describing two different things in your post.
These are some examples of (a particularly widespread) black American culture:
car with big stereo/big rims, blaring rap music, dressing like a punk
These are some examples of the lack of personal development found in poor areas of the country:
lazy, and usually having no common sense. don't come to work, are late to work, don't do their work, break work rules, or harass someone
I separate these where you have them intertwined to illustrate the point that one has very little to do with the other. You'll see the second set in the trailer park as much as you will in the hood. The negative work behavior stems from growing up in a poor (in the sense of experience as well as money) environment. It just happens to be that many of our poor areas are also black areas for historical reasons that should be obvious.
The problem arises when people see one behavior (rims'n'rap) and assume the other. There is a disproportionate poor black American population that exhibits that behavior, so such an assumption might turn out to be correct fairly often. But making such an assumption is merely judging someone based on a minuscule bit of information--the very definition of prejudice.
(I am not accusing you of this just because you talked about both sets of behavior simultaneously--it just jumped out at me and happens often enough to warrant attention. In fact, your problem with often having to fire people after two weeks shows the opposite: you are willing to give people a chance to prove themselves individually in spite of having poor performance from previous people who are culturally similar.)
I don't think Somalia could be considered libertarian. Anarcho-capitalist with heavy emphasis on the "anarcho", perhaps. The US as an example is to my eyes also problematic, but I won't argue the point here.
I too have noticed the success of some European welfare states, and I think it's fantastic. I am not one to disparage a system that is working well. The question I have been pondering with regards to them is, "would it be possible, given the current US system of government, to make a system such as the Nordic model work well in the US?" My instinctive answer is that we certainly cannot do it on a national scale: there is a huge difference between Finland and the US in both size, education level, and (presumably) income spread. All of the things that people dislike about welfare would be amplified. Now, if a state were to decide to try implementing the Nordic model, depending on the state they have a decent chance of making it work (the small New England states come to mind). I like diversity, and the states should be able to choose such a model if they desire.
An interesting tidbit from the Nordic model's wiki page listing some of its characteristics:
Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.
Little barriers to free trade.
Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.
Little financial market regulation. Denmark and Finland have the lowest regulation burden in EU-15 according to OECD rankings.
All Nordics have been pioneers in privatization alongside competitive public services. For instance, Sweden successfully privatized education with education vouchers in 1992.
The ones that I listed sound a lot like the talking points that a libertarian would espouse. The biggest difference is the redistribution of wealth and social safety net in the Nordic model, and it is the redistribution of wealth that I do not foresee working in the US. Hmm.
Of course private companies screw up. Ideally, when they do that, they fail and are replaced by another company with a better plan.
When government screws something up, it either stays screwed up and creates more problems or, if the issue is big enough, there is a revolution resulting in loss of life, nationwide instability, and the installation of a new government that is likely just as bad as the old government only in different areas. The same can be said for companies except for the whole loss-of-life and nationwide instability bits.
It's amazing the difference the threat of force can make.
Hi. I lean libertarian and would like some clarification on what you posted. Much of libertarian philosophy is appealing to me, but I'm not dogmatic about it. Extreme libertarians are a lot like extreme christians - a tiny but vocal minority whose views don't accurately reflect those of "mainstream" libertarians.
So far, in terms of both social justice and overall efficiency, every single libertarian and anarcho-capitalist society - or at least anything approaching them - was an epic fail.
Which societies were these? Perhaps I'm being cynical, but your interjection "anything approaching [a libertarian society]" gives the statement a lot of wiggle room. At any rate, I have a decent grasp of libertarian philosophy, but know little of its history other than in the USA. If your case studies show the spectacular failure of societies built on highly libertarian ideals, then I will be forced to confront their failures one way or another and you might have one less libertarian to deal with =)
It is [because every libertarian society failed that] regulation was introduced in early 20th century, and increased by the middle.
You are speaking in generalities here. Are you saying that the stated reasons for regulating (something) in the US were, "Well, (Libertaria) failed because (something) wasn't regulated. We aren't going to make that mistake." Most regulations that I have looked at were put there either at the behest of lobbyists or in the wake of scandal or collapse.
Again, I'm not really looking for an argument, just more information. I do need to say this, however, and feel free to respond: I am perfectly fine with mutual cooperation and sharing, and I bet many if not most libertarians agree with me here. What we don't like is government's use of force to facilitate those ideals. My own opinion is that American culture is not ready for a libertarian government (we have grown too mean and irresponsible and we care too little for our neighbors), but if steps are taken in a libertarian direction then the culture will adapt.
Good correction, but you haven't responded to my point about influence. In my experience (which amounts to little more than hearing stories from a friend and watching Oz), the character of the people that a jailbird will contact on his own does not differ significantly from the character of his fellow inmates.
Then again, taking into account the huge number of nonviolent offenders tossed in the brink for violating stupid laws, my estimate of such a program's overall effects could be way off. I still think that a better solution is to get more community-minded people to go into prisons and provide influence that way, but I also recognize that such an effort would require volunteers, who are in short supply nowadays.
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think that allowing cell phones in prisons is the way to go about it. Someone being "not in jail" doesn't automatically make them "normal, law abiding citizenry," and in all likelihood most of the same people that prisoners would use cell phones to talk to are the same people who contributed in some measure to putting the prisoner on the path to jail in the first place.
What you appear to be advocating is a greater sense of community with good people, and I like that. I don't have a solution, but I'm certain that allowing the use of cell phones in prison, while occasionally furthering that goal, will be much more likely to detract from it.
It is less considerate to talk on a cell precisely because of the chatter pattern. We are conditioned to hear certain patterns in conversation, and when half of the expected pattern drops out our minds tend to focus on it. I think there was even an article about it here a few years ago.
It is similar to the situation where someone is trying to sleep and someone else wants to turn on a light. If the light is turned on and left on most people will be able to adapt and sleep just fine. If the light is being flicked on and off at varying intervals, most people will come up swinging. It isn't the chatter itself that's distracting but the start-and-stop nature of a half-conversation.
It's not the end of the world, and I carefully chose to write "less considerate" rather than "more rude" for a reason. Still, one should be aware of the effects of one's actions on those around him, and nearby cell phone conversations are more distracting than nearby in-person conversations.
In addition to all that, where on earth did people get the idea that it's the job of the President to mess with the game industry? I don't consider it to be the job of government to do any such thing, but if you do you should be looking to Congress...
Apologies for replying (first, even!) to my own post.
I should make it clear that I am not opposed to good, well-thought-out network neutrality legislation. While I lean libertarian and find government intervention distasteful, I am increasingly of the opinion that the Internet should be considered a public resource and should be treated as such by law. ISPs (should) play a similar role to water or power companies, who have no right to dictate how I use the water or electricity or throughput that they provide.
My previous post was a high-level statement of why government's role should be minimized as much as possible and did not deal with the specifics of this case.
1) A bunch of large corporations dueling it out amongst themselves, with the ones who gain and maintain the largest market share being the most successful.
2) A bunch of large corporations dueling it out amongst themselves, with the ones who gain and maintain the ears of the most powerful government officials being the most successful.
Yes, companies will abuse their positions in the name of greed. There is no way around that. When you get government involved, however, you're simply raising the stakes. Sure, you can vote out the current crop of greedy politicians who favor the corporations, but you're still stuck with the bad laws they made because it's a hell of a lot easier to pass a bad law than to repeal one. Libertarians think that it's better to pass no law than a bad law.
Additionally, as other posters have done, I challenge you to point to some concrete examples of the free market failure you believe is so rampant. (You might want to avoid pointing to the Great Depression, as that has been debunked before and will no doubt be debunked again should you do so.)
But then again, there are always your run-of-the-mill assholes who think their cynical worldview makes them superior and wise.
You've got it backwards. It's not that my cynical worldview makes me feel superior and wise. It's my superiority and wisdom that have given rise to my cynical worldview.
It's okay, the people who voted for Barack Obama won't be getting what they want either. Our current system is a few hundred million sheep voting on which of the wolves looks friendliest...
So yes, we in the US can change our government officials but you're kidding yourself if you think there will be any significant change of policy without a significant change in who is running for office.
I did'nt catch that reference while reading New Sun - good eye. I was thinking of mentioning Fomalhaut system's role in the Hyperion Cantos by Dan Simmons, even though it's just a minor setting IIRC. Then I was going to tell people to check out the series because it's a fine one, but since you've mentioned The Book Of The New Sun, I'm just going to shut up and hope that more folks put it at the top of their reading lists, and then insert it again halfway down to catch what they missed before.
Been pondering that one myself. A massive troll effort? An inside joke? I almost said "I don't get it," but then remembered that Bash quote: "And you never will." I bet that's what they're waiting for, driving around in their red and white cars...snickering behind my back...
You know what? Curl up and die or grow some balls and let's see a name other than "Anonymous Coward" attached to your oh-so-intelligent post.
If you do not subscribe to racial equality, then you are a racist.
What you seem to be talking about (you will forgive me, for I am a lesser light who can only hope to attain such a great height of mind and may misunderstand your point) is a trend where some races have a higher or lower average intelligence (or aptitude or...) than others. If that is the case, you should not refer to "racial equality" because that is not what you are talking about.
Racial equality means that a person of another race is just as much a person as you are. It is about empathy, not ability. People have all sorts of different abilities, and if I am to believe you (I don't), one of yours is high intelligence. Bravery is not, coward.
I do not know what the theory you are talking about is called and I do not care to, because it is statistical bullshitting that is no indicator of the abilities of any single individual. Even if extensive studies were done, and the differences in socioeconomic status, education, and a metric fuckton of other factors were accurately accounted for (good luck), and the trends that you theorize proved to exist, i.e. Blacks turned out to have a higher average intelligence than Asians, it would have no effect on the personhood of either Blacks or Asians. I fervently hope that such a study is never (again?) attempted because it would inevitably be wildly inaccurate and would accomplish nothing except to foment your kind of racism, the kind that hides behind feelings of superiority but is too afraid of backlash to come out and say "I am better than you because I am white."
Racial equality has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with perception. If you do not perceive another person to qualify as much as you for the title of "human being," and that perception is based solely or significantly on race, then that makes you a racist (in addition to a coward).
Slashdot Mirror
Like when Tony Snow made his "tar baby" comment.
I agree with your point, but you picked an awful example of latent racism. Tar baby is not broadly used as a racist term and in fact had no racist connotations until relatively recently. Certainly now that an issue has been made of it, it's wiser to avoid its usage, but Tony Snow was not being racist when he used it. If his words hadn't been broadcast to whatever little corner of the US in which it is considered to be a racist term, nobody would have noticed the difference.
The word "niggardly" has undergone a similar transformation for similar reasons: both of them could be mistaken for racist by someone unfamiliar with their usage, yet neither one is the slightest bit racist in origin. Shit happens.
I'd love to be helpful and come up with a replacement example but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.
You are describing two different things in your post.
These are some examples of (a particularly widespread) black American culture:
car with big stereo/big rims, blaring rap music, dressing like a punk
These are some examples of the lack of personal development found in poor areas of the country:
lazy, and usually having no common sense.
don't come to work, are late to work, don't do their work, break work rules, or harass someone
I separate these where you have them intertwined to illustrate the point that one has very little to do with the other. You'll see the second set in the trailer park as much as you will in the hood. The negative work behavior stems from growing up in a poor (in the sense of experience as well as money) environment. It just happens to be that many of our poor areas are also black areas for historical reasons that should be obvious.
The problem arises when people see one behavior (rims'n'rap) and assume the other. There is a disproportionate poor black American population that exhibits that behavior, so such an assumption might turn out to be correct fairly often. But making such an assumption is merely judging someone based on a minuscule bit of information--the very definition of prejudice.
(I am not accusing you of this just because you talked about both sets of behavior simultaneously--it just jumped out at me and happens often enough to warrant attention. In fact, your problem with often having to fire people after two weeks shows the opposite: you are willing to give people a chance to prove themselves individually in spite of having poor performance from previous people who are culturally similar.)
bah, undoing misclicked moderation
Thanks for responding.
I don't think Somalia could be considered libertarian. Anarcho-capitalist with heavy emphasis on the "anarcho", perhaps. The US as an example is to my eyes also problematic, but I won't argue the point here.
I too have noticed the success of some European welfare states, and I think it's fantastic. I am not one to disparage a system that is working well. The question I have been pondering with regards to them is, "would it be possible, given the current US system of government, to make a system such as the Nordic model work well in the US?" My instinctive answer is that we certainly cannot do it on a national scale: there is a huge difference between Finland and the US in both size, education level, and (presumably) income spread. All of the things that people dislike about welfare would be amplified. Now, if a state were to decide to try implementing the Nordic model, depending on the state they have a decent chance of making it work (the small New England states come to mind). I like diversity, and the states should be able to choose such a model if they desire.
An interesting tidbit from the Nordic model's wiki page listing some of its characteristics:
The ones that I listed sound a lot like the talking points that a libertarian would espouse. The biggest difference is the redistribution of wealth and social safety net in the Nordic model, and it is the redistribution of wealth that I do not foresee working in the US. Hmm.
Well sure! These things don't write themselves, you know!
Of course private companies screw up. Ideally, when they do that, they fail and are replaced by another company with a better plan.
When government screws something up, it either stays screwed up and creates more problems or, if the issue is big enough, there is a revolution resulting in loss of life, nationwide instability, and the installation of a new government that is likely just as bad as the old government only in different areas. The same can be said for companies except for the whole loss-of-life and nationwide instability bits.
It's amazing the difference the threat of force can make.
Hi. I lean libertarian and would like some clarification on what you posted. Much of libertarian philosophy is appealing to me, but I'm not dogmatic about it. Extreme libertarians are a lot like extreme christians - a tiny but vocal minority whose views don't accurately reflect those of "mainstream" libertarians.
So far, in terms of both social justice and overall efficiency, every single libertarian and anarcho-capitalist society - or at least anything approaching them - was an epic fail.
Which societies were these? Perhaps I'm being cynical, but your interjection "anything approaching [a libertarian society]" gives the statement a lot of wiggle room. At any rate, I have a decent grasp of libertarian philosophy, but know little of its history other than in the USA. If your case studies show the spectacular failure of societies built on highly libertarian ideals, then I will be forced to confront their failures one way or another and you might have one less libertarian to deal with =)
It is [because every libertarian society failed that] regulation was introduced in early 20th century, and increased by the middle.
You are speaking in generalities here. Are you saying that the stated reasons for regulating (something) in the US were, "Well, (Libertaria) failed because (something) wasn't regulated. We aren't going to make that mistake." Most regulations that I have looked at were put there either at the behest of lobbyists or in the wake of scandal or collapse.
Again, I'm not really looking for an argument, just more information. I do need to say this, however, and feel free to respond: I am perfectly fine with mutual cooperation and sharing, and I bet many if not most libertarians agree with me here. What we don't like is government's use of force to facilitate those ideals. My own opinion is that American culture is not ready for a libertarian government (we have grown too mean and irresponsible and we care too little for our neighbors), but if steps are taken in a libertarian direction then the culture will adapt.
This is a reasonable explanation, except...how do the oak trees monitor the squirrel population?
Good correction, but you haven't responded to my point about influence. In my experience (which amounts to little more than hearing stories from a friend and watching Oz), the character of the people that a jailbird will contact on his own does not differ significantly from the character of his fellow inmates.
Then again, taking into account the huge number of nonviolent offenders tossed in the brink for violating stupid laws, my estimate of such a program's overall effects could be way off. I still think that a better solution is to get more community-minded people to go into prisons and provide influence that way, but I also recognize that such an effort would require volunteers, who are in short supply nowadays.
Does anyone else see this as a harbinger for another legal quagmire in the future, or am I just trying to get karma by using big words?
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think that allowing cell phones in prisons is the way to go about it. Someone being "not in jail" doesn't automatically make them "normal, law abiding citizenry," and in all likelihood most of the same people that prisoners would use cell phones to talk to are the same people who contributed in some measure to putting the prisoner on the path to jail in the first place.
What you appear to be advocating is a greater sense of community with good people, and I like that. I don't have a solution, but I'm certain that allowing the use of cell phones in prison, while occasionally furthering that goal, will be much more likely to detract from it.
It is less considerate to talk on a cell precisely because of the chatter pattern. We are conditioned to hear certain patterns in conversation, and when half of the expected pattern drops out our minds tend to focus on it. I think there was even an article about it here a few years ago.
It is similar to the situation where someone is trying to sleep and someone else wants to turn on a light. If the light is turned on and left on most people will be able to adapt and sleep just fine. If the light is being flicked on and off at varying intervals, most people will come up swinging. It isn't the chatter itself that's distracting but the start-and-stop nature of a half-conversation.
It's not the end of the world, and I carefully chose to write "less considerate" rather than "more rude" for a reason. Still, one should be aware of the effects of one's actions on those around him, and nearby cell phone conversations are more distracting than nearby in-person conversations.
In addition to all that, where on earth did people get the idea that it's the job of the President to mess with the game industry? I don't consider it to be the job of government to do any such thing, but if you do you should be looking to Congress...
It will be interesting to see if a trend develops of pre-cooked birds falling from the sky behind jetliners outfitted with this technology.
Roasted fowl falling from the heavens? It's like the Bible, only I don't have to be wandering in the desert!
Hang on...they'll be using microwaves?
Never mind. I can get that without leaving the basement.
Apologies for replying (first, even!) to my own post.
I should make it clear that I am not opposed to good, well-thought-out network neutrality legislation. While I lean libertarian and find government intervention distasteful, I am increasingly of the opinion that the Internet should be considered a public resource and should be treated as such by law. ISPs (should) play a similar role to water or power companies, who have no right to dictate how I use the water or electricity or throughput that they provide.
My previous post was a high-level statement of why government's role should be minimized as much as possible and did not deal with the specifics of this case.
Which would you rather have?
1) A bunch of large corporations dueling it out amongst themselves, with the ones who gain and maintain the largest market share being the most successful.
2) A bunch of large corporations dueling it out amongst themselves, with the ones who gain and maintain the ears of the most powerful government officials being the most successful.
Yes, companies will abuse their positions in the name of greed. There is no way around that. When you get government involved, however, you're simply raising the stakes. Sure, you can vote out the current crop of greedy politicians who favor the corporations, but you're still stuck with the bad laws they made because it's a hell of a lot easier to pass a bad law than to repeal one. Libertarians think that it's better to pass no law than a bad law.
Additionally, as other posters have done, I challenge you to point to some concrete examples of the free market failure you believe is so rampant. (You might want to avoid pointing to the Great Depression, as that has been debunked before and will no doubt be debunked again should you do so.)
But then again, there are always your run-of-the-mill assholes who think their cynical worldview makes them superior and wise.
You've got it backwards. It's not that my cynical worldview makes me feel superior and wise. It's my superiority and wisdom that have given rise to my cynical worldview.
=)
The Wii is not more efficient, it simply does not do as much.
Well sure it does. It plays video games.
It's a shame they don't go to eleven.
It's okay, the people who voted for Barack Obama won't be getting what they want either. Our current system is a few hundred million sheep voting on which of the wolves looks friendliest...
So yes, we in the US can change our government officials but you're kidding yourself if you think there will be any significant change of policy without a significant change in who is running for office.
I did'nt catch that reference while reading New Sun - good eye. I was thinking of mentioning Fomalhaut system's role in the Hyperion Cantos by Dan Simmons, even though it's just a minor setting IIRC. Then I was going to tell people to check out the series because it's a fine one, but since you've mentioned The Book Of The New Sun, I'm just going to shut up and hope that more folks put it at the top of their reading lists, and then insert it again halfway down to catch what they missed before.
Been pondering that one myself. A massive troll effort? An inside joke? I almost said "I don't get it," but then remembered that Bash quote: "And you never will." I bet that's what they're waiting for, driving around in their red and white cars...snickering behind my back...
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
I guess I was hoping for a bit more than another troll response. Oh well, the dice can't always be in my favor.
You know what? Curl up and die or grow some balls and let's see a name other than "Anonymous Coward" attached to your oh-so-intelligent post.
If you do not subscribe to racial equality, then you are a racist.
What you seem to be talking about (you will forgive me, for I am a lesser light who can only hope to attain such a great height of mind and may misunderstand your point) is a trend where some races have a higher or lower average intelligence (or aptitude or ...) than others. If that is the case, you should not refer to "racial equality" because that is not what you are talking about.
Racial equality means that a person of another race is just as much a person as you are. It is about empathy, not ability. People have all sorts of different abilities, and if I am to believe you (I don't), one of yours is high intelligence. Bravery is not, coward.
I do not know what the theory you are talking about is called and I do not care to, because it is statistical bullshitting that is no indicator of the abilities of any single individual. Even if extensive studies were done, and the differences in socioeconomic status, education, and a metric fuckton of other factors were accurately accounted for (good luck), and the trends that you theorize proved to exist, i.e. Blacks turned out to have a higher average intelligence than Asians, it would have no effect on the personhood of either Blacks or Asians. I fervently hope that such a study is never (again?) attempted because it would inevitably be wildly inaccurate and would accomplish nothing except to foment your kind of racism, the kind that hides behind feelings of superiority but is too afraid of backlash to come out and say "I am better than you because I am white."
Racial equality has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with perception. If you do not perceive another person to qualify as much as you for the title of "human being," and that perception is based solely or significantly on race, then that makes you a racist (in addition to a coward).