Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 08:28am PT
|
Good additions, Escopeta. I wanted to get the "basics" of the theory out there, which, as you note, indeed have many "extensions" all the way to fully modern commerce with abstractions.
Thank you.
And thank you, HFCS, for your thoughtful reply.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 08:29am PT
|
Poor olde Locke didn't foresee collateralized debt obligations or fed fund swaps.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 08:35am PT
|
It was sure easy to skip through the last couple pages
Walls of TEXT
first with CAPITALS, then w/o
Hey MB
When are you going to explain that it's intelligent to allow Trump/Cruz to become President because you refuse to vote for the opposition that will stop Trump/Cruz from winning.
I'm sure a nice WOT will do the job
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 08:40am PT
|
So.......I have been reading on Bernie....he has been getting over $200 a year...possible much more...for decades and decades but says his net worth is under $700 k. So what is it? Is he a liar or an idiot when it comes to money management? Either way, I say no thanks!
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 08:57am PT
|
I'll have to read the WOT when I have more time... For now, I have a counter-example to your premise on the role of government in the context of individual freedoms and values. You assert that government should not engage in conflicts of individual values. I assert, if not government, then who?
Let's say you want your freedom to smoke wherever you want. But you asserting your right in a public place hurts my health. I want the freedom to not be harmed in public. You want the freedom to smoke. I see it as the government's job to arbitrate. Who else? Whoever draws their gun the fastest?
Further, I see it as the government's role to do everything in support of our societal/collective interest that would not emerge as a consequence of individuals or businesses acting for their individual interests. The form and leadership of a government is itself an expression of values, and from my perspective, its very purpose is to express our collective societal values by mediating wildly different individual perspectives.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, equality (following the spirit of that beyond white male land owners). From there we each branch in different directions for what that entails, and that is the meat of our conversations about what a government should and shouldn't do.
Your happiness is served by government not intervening in your life (at least theoretically), my happiness (at least theoretically) is served by government taking a more active role to shape our society, to smooth out imbalances that naturally occur in the timeless power struggles between rich and poor.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 10:23am PT
|
Poor olde Locke didn't foresee collateralized debt obligations or fed fund swaps.
Actually he did in a way. What he didn't account for is a system of regulations that REQUIRED investors rely on the spurious, self serving, ratings agencies whose business model shifted from one that relies on their reputation to one that is rife with conflicts of interest.
But investors had no other choice since they were mandated by law in many cases to only invest in securities that were rated by the aforementioned ratings agencies.
Locke didn't plan for such a dizzying array of regulatory oversight and figured people should be free to invest how they see fit.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 10:59am PT
|
Let's say you want your freedom to smoke wherever you want. But you asserting your right in a public place hurts my health. I want the freedom to not be harmed in public. You want the freedom to smoke. I see it as the government's job to arbitrate. Who else? Whoever draws their gun the fastest?
First, you are using the term "values" is such a broad way that it now encompasses every possible preference, desire, or whim. That is not the sense I intended when I say "value-agnostic." I'm talking about moral values.
Second, you are conflating "federal government" with "government." I have been careful throughout to talk about the role of "the feds," "the constitution," the "SCOTUS," and so on.
I have NO problem with state and local governments adjudicating between "values" in the sense your "counterexample" describes. But I see NO role for the FEDS (was that an appropriate emphasis for clarity?) to be engaged in "individual values" like that.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 11:09am PT
|
I must reluctantly disagree, MB. We have always used government to deal with clashes of moral values. For example, is it moral to buy up all of your competition so you can be a monopolist? John D. Rockefeller argued that it was, because Standard Oil's monoply provided the incentive to make kerosene available to the general public, creating a better source of light for a cheaper price than they had before. Senators Sherman and Clayton (and economic theory) thought otherwise.
Is it moral to murder? Depending on how you interpret "jihad," some people believe it is. I want the government to enforce the belief of most people that it is not.
All of this is really another way of saying that what constitutes conflicts in morals or values comes down to definitions and degrees. Whether we like it or not, the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable government intervention remains fuzzy. Those of us with libertarian values tend to think that freedom has as its primary component a lack of interference by others. Those with a more liberal background think freedom involves the ability to do what everyone else can do. That will always produce conflicts in values that can't be resolved just one-on-one by contract.
John
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 11:25am PT
|
Ok, more specific on fed vs state power...
If I understand your viewpoint, the federal government should not have any laws that pertain to individual moral values. That is up to localities or states to regulate based on the collective interests of the citizens of those regions.
Then Fed power should be used only for foreign relations (commerce, diplomacy, war), interstate commerce regulation, interstate roads... and maybe anything where the state has a conflict of interest for regulating within the state?
Where does that leave you on healthcare and education? Is it ok for the bible belt to intellectually cripple their children? Is it the children's fault to be born in those states? Just like the bad luck to be born in a low caste in India or to be born Christian in Saudi Arabia?
I must admit that at least part of me likes the idea of dramatically different legal/regulatory environments in different states. On some level, it solves the problem of our diversity and giving everyone a space where they can really feel at home, like their government serves them.
But another part of me worries for the minorities stuck in those states. If we embrace this idea of more localized customized government to suit regional majorities, we end up with persecution of Christians in places governed by Sharia law, poor people in Texas who can't take enough time off of work to drive hundreds of miles to get an abortion, etc....
The economic and family costs of dislocating so many people (to a state more suitable for their government preferences) is huge.
The bigger question is how do we as a society decide what is and is not a baseline human right that we need to uphold across all regional governments? Are there any in your vision? Or just the rough laws of nature, you get weak and you're culled from the pack?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 12:47pm PT
|
Sorry, but more mistakes.
Is it moral to murder? Depending on how you interpret "jihad," some people believe it is. I want the government to enforce the belief of most people that it is not.
Our government was founded on certain core beliefs about negative rights. Murder is the clearest violation of the negative right to life.
We do indeed have a "hard core" of shared values (that emerge from our "Western" notion of rights). Those are indeed enshrined in our constitution, and they DO reflect "the government" adjudicating among moral values. However, these were moral values "we all" agreed upon from the get-go, and they literally define how we think of "persons" and "rights" in general.
There is NO comparison between those and, say, the feds making national laws about smoking, or a national helmet law, or the stupid "war on drugs," or it being involved in the marriage or abortion debate, and the litany of failed attempts to adjudicate among individual "values" goes on an on.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 01:56pm PT
|
We do indeed have a "hard core" of shared values (that emerge from our "Western" notion of rights). Those are indeed enshrined in our constitution, and they DO reflect "the government" adjudicating among moral values. However, these were moral values "we all" agreed upon from the get-go, and they literally define how we think of "persons" and "rights" in general.
There is NO comparison between those and, say, the feds making national laws about smoking, or a national helmet law, or the stupid "war on drugs," or it being involved in the marriage or abortion debate, and the litany of failed attempts to adjudicate among individual "values" goes on an on.
At times you are quite rigorous but your present argument is not. Nor is mine that follows, but it is closer to fact and more logical.
There was not uniform agreement on a range of moral values from the get-go for our country's founding (just among the white land-owners who signed the docs and had something to gain in terms of not paying taxes to the British). Uniform agreement should not be a prerequisite for establishing nationally enforced moral values. We fought a Civil War because people didn't agree on the humanity of African Americans or the moral values related to slavery. Our country changed because a majority were against slavery, even if there was a loud and vocal minority willing to kill to ensure their viewpoint persisted. So this consideration of history and the changing of moral values shows that a national dialog is very appropriate to revisit what should be included in moral values applied to all, even if there is a vocal minority. The dialog is healthy to have a more informed collective viewpoint.
Right now MB, you are among the vocal minority that says government should not provide a safety net if people screw up their own lives. (I'm not clear on your stance of the safety net in cases where people can't be directly blamed for their circumstances). In general, you seem to value the "tough love" model of sink or swim. The moral value, the "rightness", the ethics, or whatever of your position, is not what the majority of citizens in our country want for the role of our government. But, the voice of that minority is disproportionately loud and advantaged because of a confluence of circumstances:
1. There is a reasonably large constituency that believes as you do (but still a clear minority)
2. For the purposes of voting, all issues boil down to "Democrat" or "Republican" and your minority is cobbled together with die-hard issue voters (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and closet racists), which collectively is about half of the country if you go by Republican vs. Democrat popular votes. I'm purposefully excluding Libertarian, Independent, Green Party, and others because in the end, the battle comes down to two opposing forces of the largest coalitions, and that is Republican and Democrat in USA.
3. The combined message of your coalition is more strongly supported by rich/powerful people who invest in that message because a very tiny tiny minority in that coalition stands to make lots of money with various financial/business policy changes that are slipped into the mix as part of the Republican agenda.
MB, you seem to have a more nuanced and thought out position than most folks, which I respect. From my perspective, it seems you have a hard choice among conflicting values:
1. Stick to your guns on personal freedom and not taking responsibility for those who fail to take responsibility for themselves. This is real justice (which might not be compassionate, but it's fair according to the laws of nature)
2. Fight against crony-capitalism to get closer to free market principles. Fight against rich/powerful people who abuse their power to undermine democracy. (I might point out these collaborations among the rich and powerful are another aspect of natural laws, and are a major part of why I don't believe in societal regulation strictly following the laws of nature).
I think you are more concerned about the fundamental risk of #2 that might lead to us losing democracy altogether... so you'll vote based on that but still be pissed about #1, sucking it up for a future battle to be fought.
MB, do you feel that I have understood your position even while I don't agree with it? Am I twisting your words or misrepresenting your viewpoint? For me, this exercise is about understanding multiple sides of issues and testing my allegiance to my current positions.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 02:01pm PT
|
And for those who don't like to read, to balance out the walls of text:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Fast forward to 3:10 for the start of Bernie talking.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 03:11pm PT
|
I appreciate your efforts and thoughtfulness, Nutagain. I'm buried at the moment, but I'll respond in kind as soon as I can.
MUCH appreciated!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2016 - 09:36pm PT
|
Okay, Nutagain, here we go.... LOL
There was not uniform agreement on a range of moral values from the get-go for our country's founding (just among the white land-owners who signed the docs and had something to gain in terms of not paying taxes to the British). Uniform agreement should not be a prerequisite for establishing nationally enforced moral values.
I agree that there has never been universal agreement regarding "all" founding values. However, that fact does not threaten my assertion that the "hard core" of negative rights enjoyed virtually universal agreement.
I say "virtually universal" merely because there was, for example, debate about exact verbiage on such things as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" vs. "property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The latter version (that was not adopted) presumed "life" (went without saying) and made much of Locke's notion that "the right to property just is the right to life." But there was no real debate about the core negative rights.
There is an important reason for this that is anchored in Kantian thought about rights. Kant argued in extremely compelling fashion that the negative rights of a person can be derived a priori (without appeal to empirical data or contingent circumstances). Kant was so successful in his enterprise that virtually all modern ethicists are some "flavor" of "deontologist" (the Kantian rights/duties-based ethical theory).
Kant argued that moral facts regarding negative rights/duties are grounded in reason itself. And, contrary to some post-modern thought, it simply doesn't get off the ground to argue that there are "various logics," such as "feminist logic" and "Eastern logic" and "emotional syllogisms" and so forth. There is just one logic, as there is just one mathematics, and even "extensions" (such as non-bivalent, temporal, and others) to logic are "consistent" with the hard core of "classical," bivalent logic.
Our founders believed strongly in a Kantian sort of negative rights, derived by reason alone, not dependent upon circumstances and the whims of people. That, again, is why this hard core was called "inalienable." And I can't emphasize strongly enough that the founders did not believe that these were "debatable" or open to interpretation. They believed (as do I today) that there can be NO legitimacy to a government that starts tinkering around with that hard core.
Now, you are correct that they didn't know how to integrate "values" such as slavery into that hard core. Kant himself, for example, did not think that women were truly rational creatures, which is why he thought that they were not "fully" in the "moral realm."
Notice, please, however, that such empirical mistakes do not threaten his actual ethical theory (or the founders' notion of inalienable rights). The core can be entirely correct without a theorist recognizing that more entities get into the "moral sphere" than was originally thought. Most people at present do not think that cattle and prairie dogs make it into the "moral sphere" like PERSONS do. But that's an empirical assessment, so it could well be incorrect. We might come to learn that cattle actually have very deep thoughts (like the mice in Hitchhikers Guide), in which case we would recognize them as full-blown persons.
The point is that Kant (followed by our founders) did have a rock-solid theory of rights/duties, and they simply failed to recognize that some entities were included in that framework. Thus, you have a constitution that didn't know how to deal with slavery, as it was not "widely agreed" whether or not Africans were "fully persons."
So, my overarching point is that the constitution was a "compromise" document on many fronts, but it was entirely uncompromising (tied as it was to the Declaration of Independence) regarding the "hard core" of inalienable rights. Those rights (and the theoretical framework that established them) literally defined persons and legitimate government.
If you (and others) now want to "question" even those, then you REALLY ARE after a VERY different nation than was founded. This is not a question of "interpretation." It's a question of outright denying the notion of inalienable rights (and the framework under which those were recognized). Then you cannot in principle "defend the constitution," because you literally do not believe in it!
And if you can generate enough traction for your denial of the founding principles, you can count on a LOT of people that are not going to go with you on the "new and improved" constitution. So, you're probably looking at yet another civil war.
FAR better for us to hash this stuff through as we are doing on this thread, to hopefully come to generous understanding if not solid agreement.
And on that note I'd like to thank you thoroughly and in heartfelt fashion for your contribution to this discussion!
We fought a Civil War because people didn't agree on the humanity of African Americans or the moral values related to slavery.
Yes, to a certain extent that's true. But, to the extent that it's true, just imagine the war that would be fought between those that still believe in the founders' commitment to inalienable rights and those that don't!
The dialog is healthy to have a more informed collective viewpoint.
Absolutely! And again I'll thank you for engaging the way you are. FEW on these forums are capable and motivated as you are. As you rightly note, these things MATTER, and people are definitely willing to fight and die over them. Discussion, understanding, and tolerance is better than war!
Right now MB, you are among the vocal minority that says government should not provide a safety net if people screw up their own lives.
I don't think I'm as "minority" as you believe. IF I'm a minority, it's a bare minority, as I believe that the nation is just about evenly split on this subject. People are tired of paying and paying, while seeing more and more people that are not paying taxes, while the nation seems to invent sporty new "rights" out of the ether.
(I'm not clear on your stance of the safety net in cases where people can't be directly blamed for their circumstances).
I don't think it's theoretically defensible, but I'm a compromise sort of guy (within limits). So, I have no practical problem with a limited "safety net" for the "worthy poor," with an emphasis on very systematically "teaching them to fish" rather than just "giving them fish."
The moral value, the "rightness", the ethics, or whatever of your position, is not what the majority of citizens in our country want for the role of our government.
Again, I simply don't agree that there's this clear divide, with "my position" in the clear minority, as you say. I think that 20-30 years ago you were closer to right than you are today. There is a major shift happening, as people see us approaching 20 TRILLION in debt, and the spending and spending just continues.
But, the voice of that minority is disproportionately loud and advantaged
Nope. Sorry. I get what you're saying and why you are saying it. But I just don't agree. I am FAR from alone in my angst about the endless spree of new "programs" and "projects" to "level the playing field." A lot of us are tired of the endless paying and paying, and we want a sea change to the basics of individual responsibility. I am not in some "tiny" but "loud mouthed" and "advantaged" minority.
2. For the purposes of voting, all issues boil down to "Democrat" or "Republican" and your minority is cobbled together with die-hard issue voters (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and closet racists), which collectively is about half of the country if you go by Republican vs. Democrat popular votes. I'm purposefully excluding Libertarian, Independent, Green Party, and others because in the end, the battle comes down to two opposing forces of the largest coalitions, and that is Republican and Democrat in USA.
I think that this point is basically spot on, except for the aspect of the idea that all these "republicans" are united on all sorts of "social issues" that really don't sweepingly include "welfare reform."
It's true that "republicans" are "united" around a whole slate of (to my mind largely ridiculous) social issues that THEY take to be "moral issues" (in the sense that the feds just MUST come down on the "right" side). But the thread of individual responsibility and fiscal responsibility is woven through the "republicans" and most "independents."
MB, you seem to have a more nuanced and thought out position than most folks, which I respect.
Right back at you. And you have clearly thought about how to articulate what are quite abstract perspectives.
From my perspective, it seems you have a hard choice among conflicting values:
1. Stick to your guns on personal freedom and not taking responsibility for those who fail to take responsibility for themselves. This is real justice (which might not be compassionate, but it's fair according to the laws of nature)
2. Fight against crony-capitalism to get closer to free market principles. Fight against rich/powerful people who abuse their power to undermine democracy. (I might point out these collaborations among the rich and powerful are another aspect of natural laws, and are a major part of why I don't believe in societal regulation strictly following the laws of nature).
The choice is really not hard. I'm an odd combination of "radical idealist" and "pragmatist." I firmly believe in (1), but I realize that you can't unring the bell. There is NO getting fully back to founding principles without a full-on civil war. I do NOT want to see another civil war. So, for me, the question comes down to how to "make the best of it" today.
Thus, (2) is a choice I can live with, which is why I find Bernie appealing. He is the ONE (basically) honest candidate, and I do think he really intends to take on the biggest threats to our republic. Believe it or not, I can fully cope with him moving things more toward socialism IF he correspondingly takes on the evil elements that have infested capitalism and the electoral process.
There IS no "perfect" candidate, so the "best" candidate is the one that offers the "best" slate of compromises. At present, that's looking like Bernie to me.
I think you are more concerned about the fundamental risk of #2 that might lead to us losing democracy altogether... so you'll vote based on that but still be pissed about #1, sucking it up for a future battle to be fought.
Not really, but this is a point not worth debating, as I don't need the discussion to be "about me." I prefer to talk about principles as much as possible. But I am a compromise guy. That said, I am indeed a "fighter," so I will vociferously argue my "back to the founders" message, as that's the best I can do while I make continual practical compromises.
MB, do you feel that I have understood your position even while I don't agree with it?
Close enough for rock and roll. :-)
I think that it is possible in principle for gentlemen like us to discuss such things in good faith and come to a GREAT deal of mutual understanding and even mutually changed perspectives enabling us to find mutually-acceptable compromises. Compromises are generally better than wars! (Not always, but generally.)
Am I twisting your words or misrepresenting your viewpoint?
There are yet nuances, but I wouldn't call your efforts "twisting" or "misrepresenting." It's literally impossible in a forum context to "fully" hash these things out. Already you and I have both created "walls of text" on this subject. We're unlikely to understand each other's positions better in this context. But your efforts have be profoundly admirable!
For me, this exercise is about understanding multiple sides of issues and testing my allegiance to my current positions.
Again, truly admirable! It has been a genuine privilege to discuss with you. Thank you.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2016 - 06:34am PT
|
The core can be entirely correct without a theorist recognizing that more entities get into the "moral sphere" than was originally thought.
I might argue that this specific concept is the single most mis-used, twisted idea that is trotted out by people looking to change baseline of freedom and negative (some might say - absolute) rights our founders intended.
The argument of "times change" or "you can't rely on the founders/constitution because those people wanted slaves and women to be repressed" is invalid.
The idea that our founders envisioned a mandatory level of negative rights for beings that met a criteria allowed for such mistakes without changing the whole framework. You simply add more moral beings to the list, you don't change the qualifications and requirements of its make up. Which, for the record, has been happening for the better part of the last century or so.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2016 - 08:01am PT
|
Why those no good, dirty rotten ...
An apparent "error" on the part of [Colorado's] Democratic Party could widen that lead even further, the Denver Post has revealed, which would hand Sanders the Colorado delegation.
The Post reported Tuesday that the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week to "misreporting" the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations.
Colorado Democratic Party officials reportedly discovered the error a week or so after the caucus, but did not publicly admit the mistake, nor change the website where it reported caucus results, coloradocaucus.org. The website still featured the incorrect numbers on Tuesday morning.
...
Adding to the controversy, the newspaper notes that the mistake "was shared with rival Hillary Clinton's campaign [five weeks ago] by party officials but kept from Sanders until the Post told his staff Monday night."
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2016 - 12:25pm PT
|
""individual values" like that."
Like clean air? Seems like a natural right, to me.
Damn, MB...you sure write a lot.
|
|
TWP
Trad climber
Mancos, CO & Bend, OR
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2016 - 02:04pm PT
|
Here is how I see it today. Nirvana is closer than ever!
Here is the nirvana scenario for Bernie:
1. The Republiclowns nominate Paul Ryan;
2. The Disgusted/Disgusting Donald runs as an independent;
3. The emboldened Democrats go for broke and take Bernie over Hillary;
4. And in that three-way contest, either Bernie or Hillary will/can win all 50 states.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2016 - 02:10pm PT
|
4. And in that three-way contest, either Bernie or Hillary will/can win all 50 states.
and then either Bernie or Hillary will become President and realize that the Republicans still control the House of Representatives and will exorcise their power to block everything Bernie or Hilary wants to do, just as they have to President Obama since 2010 when they took over the House.
and the only thing coming out of the White House will be dinner party guests.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!