The Argument for a Falsity Tax, Against libertarianism Options

[Peter Damian]

I briefly discussed this http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html in another thread but perhaps the general idea belongs in a thread of its own. The gist is that the truth will only flourish if there is a 'tax on falsity'. This is because the vast majority of people who are interested in the truth, are only mildly interested in it. Conversely, those who are interested in error are passionate about their error (there are various categories of these people which I discuss in the post). Thus the people interested in the truth are not interested enough to get in protracted argument with those who are on the side of error. Thus, without any social mechanism to favour the truth, error will always prevail.

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

This is a general argument against libertarianism. At least, versions of libertarianism that hold that all taxation is wrong.

There are libertarians here: what do they think?

* Oh dear I completely mispelled both parts of the title - It should be 'The argument for a falsity tax' and 'Against libertarianism'. (Libertinarianism is something quite different). Could a mod oblige please? - Thanks.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[the fieryangel]

'Against libertarianism'. (Libertinarianism is something quite different).

Boy, all of that Wikiporn is finally getting to you, Peter!

Interesting ideas, which require some thought. I'm thinking about it, but my initial response is that this is a very good idea that will probably never be put into practice. Kind of like that "Christianity" thingee....

[Peter Damian]

my initial response is that this is a very good idea that will probably never be put into practice. Kind of like that "Christianity" thingee....

Well as I point out, the idea of a 'university' is precisely that, or at least the university model as used to exist in England, where the state subsidises education by means of taxation. The more recent model, where education is nearly universal, but has to be paid by the parents of those who are educated, or by ruinous loans to students, is a retrograde step in my view.

The principle of having government departments responsible for regulating commercial interests is also similar. Both of these are rejected by libertarians, who hold (AFAIK) that a completely market-controlled economy is sufficient for what is socially useful. My view is that the market = the crowd, and that there is no magic about a crowd that gets you to truth, or justice, or whatever.

I suspect a lot of the WR crowd will agree with me here, and I put it to you that the real defining principle that separates 'WR' from 'WP' is around libertarianism. I see many posts here against libertarian ideas. Turning to WP, by contrast, all I get is the idea that 'anyone can edit', this inviolable principle that somehow defines a Wikipedian.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

And Bamboozlement Grew Like Kudzu

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

I generally agree with the notion of providing a reward for producing truth and imposing a cost for producing falsehood, in proportion to the social costs associated with the falsehood. The reward-cost function should be constructed according to the principles first set forth by Joseph-Louis Lagrange, one of the first mathematicians to study the design of optimal regulatory models. The slope of the reward-cost curve must correspond to the marginal social value of truth and the marginal social cost of falsehood. When the Lagrangian function is properly constructed, people will ride the curve gracefully in the desired direction (toward valuable truths and away from costly falsehoods). Nor will there be any temptation to game the system. Unlike the present dysfunctional model, Bamboozlement will not grow like Kudzu. Neither shall they learn deceit any more.

[CharlotteWebb]

Of 100,000 people, probably all but ten would like to see the truth.

Maybe in a minarchy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

In seriousness you must take a brighter view of humanity than I do. I'll accept that a majority of people (though certainly not 99.99%) favor information which they believe to be true, but how often is it so? How many people have a vested interest in promoting information which they do not believe to be true? Certainly more than ten.

[Peter Damian]

Of 100,000 people, probably all but ten would like to see the truth.

Maybe in a minarchy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

In seriousness you must take a brighter view of humanity than I do. I'll accept that a majority of people (though certainly not 99.99%) favor information which they believe to be true, but how often is it so? How many people have a vested interest in promoting information which they do not believe to be true? Certainly more than ten.

The article was slightly tongue in cheek and remember I am English so 'X is very Y' means 'X is slightly Y' and 'X is slightly Y' means 'X is very Y'. This doesn't always translate well.

But, seriously, you have reminded me of another class of contributor: companies. Everybody, apart from those who moan about their company, lies about their company.

[CharlotteWebb]

But, seriously, you have reminded me of another class of contributor: companies. Everybody, apart from those who moan about their company, lies about their company.

Yes, and/but/however the same shoe fits governments equally well.

[Peter Damian]

But, seriously, you have reminded me of another class of contributor: companies. Everybody, apart from those who moan about their company, lies about their company.

Yes, and/but/however the same shoe fits governments equally well.

Very true, and another to add to the list. Does anyone have anything on this? There was a thread somewhere about some government sponsoring Wikipedia articles.

Oh yes

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&sourc...l=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Thousands of changes by employees at the Defence Department and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have been discovered by tracking site WikiScanner, including some rather obscure contributions. One simply stated: “Poo bum dicky wee wee”.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

What I have to add probably goes well beyond the scope of your article. (There's that blasted "beyond scope" meme again.)

As a science educator, what interests me are widespread popular misconceptions that, at present, only a handful of scientists know about. Probably the most famous one in history was the Copernican Model that Galileo was stupid enough to blab about in front of Pope Urban (or was it Pope Yerbanned?).

But that was four centuries ago.

There is, today, a comparable widely held misconception that is poised to fall, sooner or later. I've written about it for over a decade (but I'm not the only one).

And lemmetellya, itsadoozie.

[the fieryangel]

There is, today, a comparable widely held misconception that is poised to fall, sooner or later. I've written about it for over a decade (but I'm not the only one).

And lemmetellya, itsadoozie.

<going off-topic here> Care to fill us in, Barry?</back on topic>

[Peter Damian]

There is, today, a comparable widely held misconception that is poised to fall, sooner or later. I've written about it for over a decade (but I'm not the only one).

And lemmetellya, itsadoozie.

<going off-topic here> Care to fill us in, Barry?</back on topic>

Yes please tell.

[Moulton]

There is, today, a comparable widely held misconception that is poised to fall, sooner or later. I've written about it for over a decade (but I'm not the only one). And lemmetellya, itsadoozie.

Care to fill us in, Barry?

Functional Systems vs. Rule-Based Systems - How to understand the oldest error in the architecture of human culture.

The First Book of System Design - A creation story for the Cybernetic Age from the Post-Apocalyptic Seminary of Neuro-Mathematical Systems Theology.

Disjunction Dysfunction and the Error Function - Why rule-driven systems are chaotic sources of dramaturgy, and what it takes to craft a functional and graceful regulatory process.

Rules, Games, and Dramas - Mathematicians have known for over a century that rule-driven systems are mathematically chaotic.

Apostasy and Emunah - Turning away from unreliable and untrustworthy belief systems.

Punishment and Violence: Is the Criminal Law Based on One Huge Mistake? by James Gilligan, Harvard University; published in the Journal of Social Research, Fall 2000.

[the fieryangel]

There is, today, a comparable widely held misconception that is poised to fall, sooner or later. I've written about it for over a decade (but I'm not the only one). And lemmetellya, itsadoozie.

Care to fill us in, Barry?

Functional Systems vs. Rule-Based Systems - How to understand the oldest error in the architecture of human culture.

The First Book of System Design - A creation story for the Cybernetic Age from the Post-Apocalyptic Seminary of Neuro-Mathematical Systems Theology.

Disjunction Dysfunction and the Error Function - Why rule-driven systems are chaotic sources of dramaturgy, and what it takes to craft a functional and graceful regulatory process.

Rules, Games, and Dramas - Mathematicians have known for over a century that rule-driven systems are mathematically chaotic.

Apostasy and Emunah - Turning away from unreliable and untrustworthy belief systems.

Punishment and Violence: Is the Criminal Law Based on One Huge Mistake? by James Gilligan, Harvard University; published in the Journal of Social Research, Fall 2000.

Thanks! I'll read all that stuff, but it runs along the lines of a lot of stuff I've been thinking about myself lately...

[Moulton]

Thanks! I'll read all that stuff, but it runs along the lines of a lot of stuff I've been thinking about myself lately...

As you can see, I've been thinking about it for well over a decade. And more recently I've been working up an educational module for demonstrating the core ideas in those essays and references to the original literature.

[Peter Damian]

Functional Systems vs. Rule-Based Systems - How to understand the oldest error in the architecture of human culture.
[...]

Back on topic please. This is nothing to do with rule-based vs functional systems. The question is whether there is something wrong with the libertarian model of Wikipedia. Allowing 'anyone to edit' does not result in a comprehensive and reliable reference work.

I don't care whether the process is drama-filled or not. Drama is often a good thing as it keeps people amused and concentrates the mind. The question is: is the end-product any good - I don't care how we get there. And my point is that the end-product is rubbish.

[GlassBeadGame]

I briefly discussed this http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html in another thread but perhaps the general idea belongs in a thread of its own. The gist is that the truth will only flourish if there is a 'tax on falsity'. This is because the vast majority of people who are interested in the truth, are only mildly interested in it. Conversely, those who are interested in error are passionate about their error (there are various categories of these people which I discuss in the post). Thus the people interested in the truth are not interested enough to get in protracted argument with those who are on the side of error. Thus, without any social mechanism to favour the truth, error will always prevail.

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

This is a general argument against libertarianism. At least, versions of libertarianism that hold that all taxation is wrong.

There are libertarians here: what do they think?

* Oh dear I completely mispelled both parts of the title - It should be 'The argument for a falsity tax' and 'Against libertarianism'. (Libertinarianism is something quite different). Could a mod oblige please? - Thanks.

This is an interesting idea that at least begins to address the problem one of the basic problems of "free" as a price point almost universal on the internet. "Free" content requires that all burdens relating to the content to be shifted to persons other than whoever hosts the content. Thus Section 230 immunity. Thus take down notices and safe harbors. Thus shifting the burden of offensive content unto parents via "controls." Thus wholesale BLP irresponsibility. Thus every form of spam, inaccuracies, lies and deceit imaginable.

I believe that the burden ought to be born by the host and speakers jointly and severally. So I would prefer a system that would tax (or provide tort liability and regulation) the host and speakers rather than the general public. In the case of a "truth tax" it could be perhaps best imposed based on upload bandwidth usage. Believing in a mixed rather than outright command economy I would prefer the revenue be dispersed via grants to universities and public advocacy groups rather than some kind of government "Truth Ministry." But the idea has a lot merit.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

That's a little ambiguous. Does that mean that the universities will be paying the lion's share of the tax? I could see that.

[CharlotteWebb]

That's a little ambiguous. Does that mean that the universities will be paying the lion's share of the tax? I could see that.

Meanwhile churches will continue hiding behind form 1023, schedule A.

Falsity tax, my ass.

[Peter Damian]

That's a little ambiguous. Does that mean that the universities will be paying the lion's share of the tax? I could see that.

No. Surely the context makes it clear that universities are the recipients of the tax, which everyone pays (at least in the UK until the 1990's). I admit the wording was unclear.

Neither I nor my parents paid for my university education. My grant and living costs were entirely subsidised by the UK government via direct and indirect grants. The indirect grant was for the tuition fee, which went to the university to pay adminisration costs, lecturer salaries and so on. My PhD was also entirely funded by the State.

This was not so expensive because in the 1970's far fewer school students went on to university. Academic salaries were relatively higher then, and the universities could afford really high quality staff. The arrival of universal higher education in the 1990's and beyond completely changed that, and was bad thing in my view. There were a lot of junk courses created, and a lot of students left university without any chance of a job, because completely unqualified for the sort of jobs available. We see the results around us. Many unemployed 23 year olds, or working in McDonalds. But I am drifting from the topic. Or perhaps not. The American 'privatised' system, which does not rely on universal taxation, is demonstrably inferior to the taxation model. The Dean of studies at one of the London universities told me that he only recruits students from the former communist countries, who still stick to the model of educating a small number of talented people at the expense of the State.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

That's a little ambiguous. Does that mean that the universities will be paying the lion's share of the tax? I could see that.

No. Surely the context makes it clear that universities are the recipients of the tax, which everyone pays (at least in the UK until the 1990's). I admit the wording was unclear.

I was attempting to make a joke. I'm not a big fan of today's universities. They remind me of Wikipedia.

[Cedric]

* Oh dear I completely mispelled both parts of the title - It should be 'The argument for a falsity tax' and 'Against libertarianism'. (Libertinarianism is something quite different). Could a mod oblige please? - Thanks.

Fixed.

[anthony]

I was attempting to make a joke.

As is "Peter". His is funnier.

[Peter Damian]

I was attempting to make a joke.

As is "Peter". His is funnier.

Now let's hear some reasoning, Anthony.

[A User]

That's a little ambiguous. Does that mean that the universities will be paying the lion's share of the tax? I could see that.

No. Surely the context makes it clear that universities are the recipients of the tax, which everyone pays (at least in the UK until the 1990's). I admit the wording was unclear.

Neither I nor my parents paid for my university education. My grant and living costs were entirely subsidised by the UK government via direct and indirect grants. The indirect grant was for the tuition fee, which went to the university to pay adminisration costs, lecturer salaries and so on. My PhD was also entirely funded by the State.

This was not so expensive because in the 1970's far fewer school students went on to university. Academic salaries were relatively higher then, and the universities could afford really high quality staff. The arrival of universal higher education in the 1990's and beyond completely changed that, and was bad thing in my view. There were a lot of junk courses created, and a lot of students left university without any chance of a job, because completely unqualified for the sort of jobs available. We see the results around us. Many unemployed 23 year olds, or working in McDonalds. But I am drifting from the topic. Or perhaps not. The American 'privatised' system, which does not rely on universal taxation, is demonstrably inferior to the taxation model. The Dean of studies at one of the London universities told me that he only recruits students from the former communist countries, who still stick to the model of educating a small number of talented people at the expense of the State.

The cost of university education today is exorbitant. A lot of the campus services have been privatized since the 1980s, yet it's still a black hole for funding. The problem may not be so much the cost of paying staff rather the state simply pruning back on spending, forcing the campuses to find revenue unfortunately from the students - the ones who can least afford it.

[anthony]

I was attempting to make a joke.

As is "Peter". His is funnier.

Now let's hear some reasoning, Anthony.

But tongue in cheek sarcasm is so much more fun.

What's the topic about which you want to hear "some reasoning"?

[Peter Damian]

What's the topic about which you want to hear "some reasoning"?

Well, do you agree with my argument that the crowd, the mob, is able to establish the truth better than a bunch of experts? If so, we have no quarrel, and there is no point in your being sarcastic. If you don't agree, give a reasoned argument.

[Somey]

It's an interesting idea to be sure, but the sad fact of it is that too much stuff in the world is subjective (or at least, not objective) for this to work consistently.

The thing that people should be able to agree on is that "market forces" should be allowed to help determine if any given speech platform is being deliberately and/or maliciously abused, and then law enforcement and a (reasonably fair, one would hope) judiciary would take over in cases that resulted in actual injury, etc. This is how it works in traditional publishing, after all.

But as we've discussed many times, because web hosts are being treated (in the US and elsewhere) as "service providers," essentially exempt from liability, web hosts are allowed to provide such platforms with near-total impunity. That gives them a completely unfair market advantage over traditional publishing, and indeed, over nearly all other forms of mass media. This isn't fair, it isn't good for society, and it isn't even "libertarian" - nor is it intentional, to be honest. It's simply people taking advantage of the fact that traditional legislative structures and institutions can't, or won't, keep up with the rate of modern technological progress.

Ideally, IMO, any cost associated with the promotion of falsity should be partially borne by a web host only in cases where the host isn't clearly and definitively presenting the information as the ideas/opinions/research-findings of one individual (or, perhaps, one corporate entity if they're going to insist on being treated as such). That would at least allow for the same level of individual freedom of speech on the internet that we have now. Unfortunately, I don't believe legislatures are going to want to make that distinction, or even take the trouble to understand it - meaning that forums for individual expression will be lumped in with the Wikipedias and Encyclopedia Dramaticas of the world, and all web hosts will be subject to the same potential for liability. And that would be, in a word, sad. But Wikipedians, more than any other group in the world, will bear the guilt for that tragedy.

[Peter Damian]

Ideally, IMO, any cost associated with the promotion of falsity

Fine if there is a single individual, or small group of individuals, harmed by the falsity. But if the harm is to society as a whole? E.g. from the promotion of quack medicine, e.g. chiropractic? Or harm which is difficult to prove, but nonetheless exists, if Wikipedia says that some cult is harmless, and people join as a result, and are harmed.

But as we've discussed many times, because web hosts are being treated (in the US and elsewhere) as "service providers," essentially exempt from liability, web hosts are allowed to provide such platforms with near-total impunity. That gives them a completely unfair market advantage over traditional publishing, and indeed, over nearly all other forms of mass media. This isn't fair, it isn't good for society, and it isn't even "libertarian" - nor is it intentional, to be honest.

Well it is libertarian isn't it? On the assumption that as well as being against taxation, some libertarians are against regulation as well.

[edit] I suppose someone is bound to argue that laws against defamation are not the same as regulation. But libertarians are against those, as well http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2010/01/31/...efamation-laws/ .

As David Friedman showed in his popular economics book “Hidden Order“, the best way to establish a good reputation is to actually be a good person.

So no one will call you a rapist or a pedophile or a murderer on Wikipedia, so long as you are a good person.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[anthony]

What's the topic about which you want to hear "some reasoning"?

Well, do you agree with my argument that the crowd, the mob, is able to establish the truth better than a bunch of experts?

No.

If so, we have no quarrel, and there is no point in your being sarcastic.

I thought you were the one being sarcastic.

If you don't agree, give a reasoned argument.

A reasoned argument for what? My not agreeing? I don't just agree with people randomly because they say something. Is that a valid argument for not agreeing?

[Peter Damian]

If you don't agree, give a reasoned argument.

A reasoned argument for what? My not agreeing? I don't just agree with people randomly because they say something. Is that a valid argument for not agreeing?

Give a reasoned argument for your not agreeing. Simply disagreeing is not an argument. You don't have to give an argument of course. You can simply say 'I don't agree with you but I am not telling you why'. Or you can smirk like a schoolgirl, which is pretty much what you have been doing.

I wonder if you are upset because I wrote the bit below. So you are not in fact a tax advisor, as you claim, but really a 15 year old girl. Fine.

Thus the academically marginal Ayn Rand receives more coverage than Aristotle, the father of Western philosophy and easily the most important figure in the Western intellectual tradition. The article on his Sophistical Refutations, for example, is no more than a list of contents. Compare this in size and scope with any article on the nonsensical and philosophically illiterate work of Rand, e.g. this.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[anthony]

If you don't agree, give a reasoned argument.

A reasoned argument for what? My not agreeing? I don't just agree with people randomly because they say something. Is that a valid argument for not agreeing?

Give a reasoned argument for your not agreeing. Simply disagreeing is not an argument. You don't have to give an argument of course. You can simply say 'I don't agree with you but I am not telling you why'. Or you can smirk like a schoolgirl, which is pretty much what you have been doing.

I don't agree because you haven't provided any evidence that what you say is true. And like I said, I don't just agree with people randomly because they say something.

I wonder if you are upset because I wrote the bit below.

Nope. Didn't even notice it actually.

If anything I'm upset about this:

Neither I nor my parents paid for my university education. My grant and living costs were entirely subsidised by the UK government via direct and indirect grants. The indirect grant was for the tuition fee, which went to the university to pay adminisration costs, lecturer salaries and so on. My PhD was also entirely funded by the State.

But I figured maybe you were being sarcastic. After all, you did say that you were being tongue-in-cheek. If this was meant to be A Modest Proposal, then kudos. If you seriously do believe that we should steal from the productive to subsidize "truth for the sake of truth", then shame on you.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[CharlotteWebb]

If you seriously do believe that we should steal from the productive to subsidize "truth for the sake of truth", then shame on you.

If one good reason did exist, this is probably it.

Still, schemes like this can go horribly wrong on occasion. I doubt Tennessee used the term "falsity tax" for the $100 levied against Mr. Scopes, but the underlying theory was similar (albeit wrong-headed).

I know I couldn't assure anyone that enough has changed since then, particularly below the Mason-Dumbass line.

[anthony]

If you seriously do believe that we should steal from the productive to subsidize "truth for the sake of truth", then shame on you.

If one good reason did exist, this is probably it.

Still, schemes like this can go horribly wrong on occasion. I doubt Tennessee used the term "falsity tax" for the $100 levied against Mr. Scopes, but the underlying theory was similar (albeit wrong-headed).

It's quite a racket. You punish people for actually being right and acting on it, and reward them for telling a classroom full of others that they're right. So perverse and backwards I figured I'd give "Peter" the benefit of the doubt and assume he was being sarcastic.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

It's an interesting idea to be sure, but the sad fact of it is that too much stuff in the world is subjective (or at least, not objective) for this to work consistently.

Well, we could go with "Unverifiability, not falsity." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I recently stumbled across an old debate between SlimVirgin and myself, which may be of historical interest because I think it may be the very first mention of "Verifiability, not truth."

[Somey]

Fine if there is a single individual, or small group of individuals, harmed by the falsity. But if the harm is to society as a whole? E.g. from the promotion of quack medicine, e.g. chiropractic? Or harm which is difficult to prove, but nonetheless exists, if Wikipedia says that some cult is harmless, and people join as a result, and are harmed.

It's tempting to agree with you, but I'd be willing to accept the idea that a crowdsourced encyclopedia-like website can manage to present information about things like that in such a way as to make the risk of harm to individuals no worse than if there were no information available about them at all.

The thing about making the WMF subject to class-action suits is, they aren't a tempting enough target for that kind of thing, at least not now (and probably not in the foreseeable future). They just don't have enough money. All they would have to do is avoid summary judgements, i.e., open-and-shut cases - and while they may not currently be competent enough to do that, I'd imagine that they could develop that kind of competence soon enough if they had to.

Well it is libertarian isn't it? On the assumption that as well as being against taxation, some libertarians are against regulation as well.

But from their perspective, it isn't regulation - it's government interference with market forces, by their allowing one market sector a grossly unfair advantage over the others. The difference between them and people like myself is that their "solution" would be to give the other market sectors the same advantage, i.e., the same lack of interference. But just because they would happily make the problem worse doesn't mean that the current situation is in keeping with their ideology.

[Avirosa]

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

There is another, and I would argue more useful, example of an operative tax on falsity that has been in some level of effective operation for at least 800 years. Although I doubt it is any more acceptable to the market libertarians, than public funded Universities.

Aside from the great battles for ‘truth’ wage in mediaeval and post mediaeval Europe, which were frequently characterised by slaughter of thousands, a rather quieter and more mundane process of ‘truth assurance’ progressed against the background of every day transactions. The need to know whether a loaf of bread contains the weight of flour that the baker claims, or that a fish is fresh from the river and not five days old, was vital information for survival in the developing exchange economies of urbanising Europe from 1000CE onwards. In response to this need for assured quantity and quality in transactions, systematised weights and measures gained legal statute and laws previously applied to personal conduct were crafted to apply to the exchange of goods. As the cost to the individual of checking the value of each exchange increased (time, requirement of specialist knowledge etc) authorities charged with providing assurance to whole societies over the quality of foods they purchased came into being.

These methods of assurance certainly developed sophistication and eventually looked to the Universities to provide scientific support for the methods of assurance employed, but the policing of the process is/ and always was dependent upon the vigilance of the ordinary person, supported by specialists working outside of academia.

Trades description legislation and product assurance are now (within Europe at least) universally applied to all legally traded goods. In the field of services however there has been a huge degree of retrenchment in recent decades and while unprovable claims for products are illegal, unprovable claims for services are frequently unchallenged, particularly where some semblance of ‘belief’ lays behind the service offered. Reiki, Homeopathy and a whole raft of crank services are traded in circumstances where quantitative assurance is impossible to deliver. It seems to me that this is the ‘market’ in which Wikipedia ‘trades’, where its ultimate defence against being tested for ‘truthfulness’ is founded on ‘belief’, and belief (in the crowd sourcing paradigm) has to be treated as inviolable. Whether Wikipedia is a cult is perhaps moot, it certainly is bordering upon becoming a religion and like most religions making itself immune to the everyday tests of truthfulness. It’s a wonderful, if horrific, irony that the project to encapsulate the sum of all human knowledge should actually be a force that inhibits the growth of the knowledge.

A.virosa

[dogbiscuit]

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

There is another, and I would argue more useful, example of an operative tax on falsity that has been in some level of effective operation for at least 800 years. Although I doubt it is any more acceptable to the market libertarians, than public funded Universities.

Aside from the great battles for ‘truth’ wage in mediaeval and post mediaeval Europe, which were frequently characterised by slaughter of thousands, a rather quieter and more mundane process of ‘truth assurance’ progressed against the background of every day transactions. The need to know whether a loaf of bread contains the weight of flour that the baker claims, or that a fish is fresh from the river and not five days old, was vital information for survival in the developing exchange economies of urbanising Europe from 1000CE onwards. In response to this need for assured quantity and quality in transactions, systematised weights and measures gained legal statute and laws previously applied to personal conduct were crafted to apply to the exchange of goods. As the cost to the individual of checking the value of each exchange increased (time, requirement of specialist knowledge etc) authorities charged with providing assurance to whole societies over the quality of foods they purchased came into being.

These methods of assurance certainly developed sophistication and eventually looked to the Universities to provide scientific support for the methods of assurance employed, but the policing of the process is/ and always was dependent upon the vigilance of the ordinary person, supported by specialists working outside of academia.

Trades description legislation and product assurance are now (within Europe at least) universally applied to all legally traded goods. In the field of services however there has been a huge degree of retrenchment in recent decades and while unprovable claims for products are illegal, unprovable claims for services are frequently unchallenged, particularly where some semblance of ‘belief’ lays behind the service offered. Reiki, Homeopathy and a whole raft of crank services are traded in circumstances where quantitative assurance is impossible to deliver. It seems to me that this is the ‘market’ in which Wikipedia ‘trades’, where its ultimate defence against being tested for ‘truthfulness’ is founded on ‘belief’, and belief (in the crowd sourcing paradigm) has to be treated as inviolable. Whether Wikipedia is a cult is perhaps moot, it certainly is bordering upon becoming a religion and like most religions making itself immune to the everyday tests of truthfulness. It’s a wonderful, if horrific, irony that the project to encapsulate the sum of all human knowledge should actually be a force that inhibits the growth of the knowledge.

A.virosa

Welcome to the review Mr Virosa (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) A very helpful analysis, if I may say. If only all our first time posters could be so constructive!

Just yesterday there was a news report of an Indian language radio station in the UK being successfully investigated with improperly advertising faith healing, where the argument was essentially that the advertising was or had the potential to prey upon the vulnerable. The fact that someone was found to part with a considerable sum of money in return for prayers was used to bump the case up to OFCOM from the ASA.

It would seem that the regulatory institutions are capable of dealing with it in principle (I rather like the analogy of a trading standards for information). However, it seems that they felt the need to weasel out of challenging faith into "preying on the vulnerable".

Of course, Wikipedia is a far more amorphous concept to do battle with. It is that shapelessness of the problem that makes it so difficult for those who divine the problem and then understand it as obvious to transfer that insight to others. Myself, I think I've been pretty consistent that Wikipedia's "it's not our fault you can't rely on us, sort yourself out" approach is indeed preying on the vulnerable.

[GlassBeadGame]

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

There is another, and I would argue more useful, example of an operative tax on falsity that has been in some level of effective operation for at least 800 years. Although I doubt it is any more acceptable to the market libertarians, than public funded Universities.

Aside from the great battles for ‘truth’ wage in mediaeval and post mediaeval Europe, which were frequently characterised by slaughter of thousands, a rather quieter and more mundane process of ‘truth assurance’ progressed against the background of every day transactions. The need to know whether a loaf of bread contains the weight of flour that the baker claims, or that a fish is fresh from the river and not five days old, was vital information for survival in the developing exchange economies of urbanising Europe from 1000CE onwards. In response to this need for assured quantity and quality in transactions, systematised weights and measures gained legal statute and laws previously applied to personal conduct were crafted to apply to the exchange of goods. As the cost to the individual of checking the value of each exchange increased (time, requirement of specialist knowledge etc) authorities charged with providing assurance to whole societies over the quality of foods they purchased came into being.

These methods of assurance certainly developed sophistication and eventually looked to the Universities to provide scientific support for the methods of assurance employed, but the policing of the process is/ and always was dependent upon the vigilance of the ordinary person, supported by specialists working outside of academia.

Trades description legislation and product assurance are now (within Europe at least) universally applied to all legally traded goods. In the field of services however there has been a huge degree of retrenchment in recent decades and while unprovable claims for products are illegal, unprovable claims for services are frequently unchallenged, particularly where some semblance of ‘belief’ lays behind the service offered. Reiki, Homeopathy and a whole raft of crank services are traded in circumstances where quantitative assurance is impossible to deliver. It seems to me that this is the ‘market’ in which Wikipedia ‘trades’, where its ultimate defence against being tested for ‘truthfulness’ is founded on ‘belief’, and belief (in the crowd sourcing paradigm) has to be treated as inviolable. Whether Wikipedia is a cult is perhaps moot, it certainly is bordering upon becoming a religion and like most religions making itself immune to the everyday tests of truthfulness. It’s a wonderful, if horrific, irony that the project to encapsulate the sum of all human knowledge should actually be a force that inhibits the growth of the knowledge.

A.virosa

Welcome to WR, Avirosa. More posts like this please.

[radek]

What's the topic about which you want to hear "some reasoning"?

Well, do you agree with my argument that the crowd, the mob, is able to establish the truth better than a bunch of experts? If so, we have no quarrel, and there is no point in your being sarcastic. If you don't agree, give a reasoned argument.

The straightforward answer to this question is another question; "establish the truth better" about what? Different kinds of facts and truths are better arrived at through different kinds of processes. Certainly, if I wanted to know the number of jelly beans in a jar, asking a thousand people and taking the average would work very well. But notice that even in this case there is a need for an efficient aggregator of information (in this simple example, somebody's got to take the average). If such efficient aggregators don't exist, then you don't get the truth but a whole lot of bias.

In relation to Wikipedia: do you really think it has "efficient" ways of aggregating all the "information" that gets inputed into it? Nope.

[anthony]

What's the topic about which you want to hear "some reasoning"?

Well, do you agree with my argument that the crowd, the mob, is able to establish the truth better than a bunch of experts? If so, we have no quarrel, and there is no point in your being sarcastic. If you don't agree, give a reasoned argument.

The straightforward answer to this question is another question; "establish the truth better" about what? Different kinds of facts and truths are better arrived at through different kinds of processes. Certainly, if I wanted to know the number of jelly beans in a jar, asking a thousand people and taking the average would work very well. But notice that even in this case there is a need for an efficient aggregator of information (in this simple example, somebody's got to take the average). If such efficient aggregators don't exist, then you don't get the truth but a whole lot of bias.

Very well said. You have much more patience than I. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Peter Damian]

What's the topic about which you want to hear "some reasoning"?

Well, do you agree with my argument that the crowd, the mob, is able to establish the truth better than a bunch of experts? If so, we have no quarrel, and there is no point in your being sarcastic. If you don't agree, give a reasoned argument.

The straightforward answer to this question is another question; "establish the truth better" about what? Different kinds of facts and truths are better arrived at through different kinds of processes. Certainly, if I wanted to know the number of jelly beans in a jar, asking a thousand people and taking the average would work very well. But notice that even in this case there is a need for an efficient aggregator of information (in this simple example, somebody's got to take the average). If such efficient aggregators don't exist, then you don't get the truth but a whole lot of bias.

In relation to Wikipedia: do you really think it has "efficient" ways of aggregating all the "information" that gets inputed into it? Nope.

Aggregation is irrelevant. As I argued http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html , people do not edit Wikipedia for free. They edit Wikipedia to get their agenda across - pedophilia, nationalistic bias, crank theories, whatever. No one cares about the truth enough (though they care a bit) to edit Wikipedia with the truth. The result is plain to see.

Now if you paid someone to establish the truth, then they have the right kind of incentive, namely money. Then they will write the truth.

Some thoughts about this from a philosopher (and Wikipedia editor) Michalal Huemer.

Problems: I see mistakes in Wikipedia articles about things I know about, and it makes me distrust the articles in subjects I don't know about. I could edit the articles to correct the mistakes, but this can be extremely time consuming (one could spend days just going through various philosophy articles). I also find periodic grammar or other style problems. One doesn't find this in traditional encyclopedias such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or the Edwards (Macmillan) Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Probably other readers have the same experience.

Causes of the problems:

No one is accountable, nor does anyone feel responsible, for the accuracy of Wikipedia articles, since they are unsigned and have no official authors.
There is virtually no incentive to work on them.
Doing so is extremely time-consuming. People who write traditional encyclopedia articles also expend a lot of time. However, they are typically repaid in one or more of three ways: with money, with recognition or prestige, and with the chance to gently support what they see as the right view of the subject. However:
One is paid nothing to write or edit Wikipedia articles.
One gets no recognition or prestige, since the articles are unsigned.
One gets no chance to forward what one sees as the correct views, because of the NPOV policy.
Finally, one can't even link to one's own relevant papers on the subject, since there seems to be an unofficial policy to automatically delete such links. So the deal is: spend hour upon hour doing web editing, and you can be sure of getting nothing in return.
Genuine experts in a subject are usually people who have other demands on their time--often professors, for example, who could spend their time working with their own students or doing research in their field that they'll get credit for. So just thinking of these factors a priori, it seems unlikely that many experts would contribute to Wikipedia.
It's true that if someone sees an error in an article they can fix it. But it's also true that others can introduce new errors. And the people most likely to see errors and not introduce new ones, are the experts who seem to have no incentive to contribute. --owl232 11:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Owl

N.B. Huemer is a libertarian.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[milowent]

Back on topic please. This is nothing to do with rule-based vs functional systems. The question is whether there is something wrong with the libertarian model of Wikipedia. Allowing 'anyone to edit' does not result in a comprehensive and reliable reference work.

I don't care whether the process is drama-filled or not. Drama is often a good thing as it keeps people amused and concentrates the mind. The question is: is the end-product any good - I don't care how we get there. And my point is that the end-product is rubbish.

but we don't reach the end product until the end of infinity, or whatever those math types would say, right? the current product has lots of rubbish, but its not all rubbish. and under the current model, it will have more rubbish in 10 years, and more good content as well. but most of what is written everywhere is rubbish, its ultimately up to the reader to learn how to tell the difference.

while wikipedia claims they allow "anyone to edit," this is not really true depending how you look at it. it is limited to one those who are (semi?) literate, who have access to a computer and the internet, and those who would actually choose to edit. i admit that is still a huge pool, while a small percentage of the world's population. taking that group, everyone gets a free shot at editing, unless they become so disruptive that they get banned. if no one could ever get banned, would that be more of a true libertarian model? we have regulation, but its extremely weak regulation. i suppose that is as close to libertarianism as the real world gets?

This post has been edited by milowent:

[anthony]

I see mistakes in Wikipedia articles about things I know about, and it makes me distrust the articles in subjects I don't know about.

I wonder if there's anyone who regularly reads Wikipedia, but doesn't regularly edit it, about whom that statement isn't true.

Every few months I'll check on Wikipedia articles about tax topics, like [[Earned Income Tax Credit]], and invariably there are always inaccuracies to correct. Generally the inaccuracies are due to either 1) someone misreading a news article or other source; or 2) someone relying on a news article or similar source which misunderstood something in the first place.

[Subtle Bee]

but we don't reach the end product until the end of infinity, or whatever those math types would say, right? the current product has lots of rubbish, but its not all rubbish. and under the current model, it will have more rubbish in 10 years, and more good content as well. but most of what is written everywhere is rubbish, its ultimately up to the reader to learn how to tell the difference.

Totally. It's too bad there's not some sort of encyclopedia, or something.

[Peter Damian]

while wikipedia claims they allow "anyone to edit," this is not really true depending how you look at it. it is limited to one those who are (semi?) literate ...

Mostly illiterate as far as I can judge.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[jayvdb]

Aggregation is irrelevant. As I argued http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html , people do not edit Wikipedia for free. They edit Wikipedia to get their agenda across - pedophilia, nationalistic bias, crank theories, whatever. No one cares about the truth enough (though they care a bit) to edit Wikipedia with the truth. The result is plain to see.

Now if you paid someone to establish the truth, then they have the right kind of incentive, namely money. Then they will write the truth.

Money is not the only good sort of incentive, and it can be as rotten as any other incentive.
Your claim that the well known problems on Wikipedia are evidence that no one cares about truth is laughable. Whether or not the problems on Wikipedia are sufficient to consider it an ill-advised project is open for debate, but calling into question the motivation of all project members is dishonest.

[Avirosa]

Your claim that the well known problems on Wikipedia are evidence that no one cares about truth is laughable. Whether or not the problems on Wikipedia are sufficient to consider it an ill-advised project is open for debate, but calling into question the motivation of all project members is dishonest.

The contention is not: ‘no one cares’, the contention is: ‘no one cares enough [to effect change]’. We could add a sophistication to the contention by saying that, there is a small cadre of those who: ‘do care enough’, but who lack the collective power to effect change. But really that would be a conceit, the system of Wikipedia ensures that only those who either care nothing [for the truth] or who only care a little, are able to prosper within the system. Of course any Wikipedia participant may claim that they care ‘deeply’, [about the truth], but if the very fact of their participation results in the continued function of Wikipedia as an ‘obfuscation engine’, then their claim is reasonably judged as dubious.

Wikipedia, like much of the notional Web2 ‘project’, is little more than a tourney ground for propagandists, where the thuggish competition concerns not the achievement of the triumph of virtue (neither intellectual nor knightly), but the capture of territory and the shaping of meaning within that territory. Some of the warriors on the field (we might smugly assert that WR is a sanctuary to some) may well have ‘truth or die’ on their standards but the nature of propagandism is that it doesn’t allow a value for overarching ‘truth’. Propaganda values obfuscation as much as it values partial presentation of the truth, and Wikipedia is exquisitely structured to promote obfuscation, in the face of which the only effective opposition to a prevailing propogandism ( either on a single article or across a cabalistic string) is contra propaganda.

To be a WP player, one has to be either motivated to capture territory (set operant paradigms for articles, categories and projects, or simply scent mark an area with offensive, obscurist or asocial text/content), and/or engage in meaning shaping. Beyond that all else is mere tactics. I actually applaud the efforts of some of Wikipedia's propagada warriors because IMO, (whatever their motivation) there is some propaganda that is so harmful that it must be challenged. But I've no illusions about these propaganda wars being anything to do with 'truth', or even basic acuracy, at best it's a question of harm reduction.

A.virosa

[jayvdb]

Your claim that the well known problems on Wikipedia are evidence that no one cares about truth is laughable. Whether or not the problems on Wikipedia are sufficient to consider it an ill-advised project is open for debate, but calling into question the motivation of all project members is dishonest.

The contention is not: ‘no one cares’, the contention is: ‘no one cares enough [to effect change]’. We could add a sophistication to the contention by saying that, there is a small cadre of those who: ‘do care enough’, but who lack the collective power to effect change.

I am challenging this notion that the number who care is so small as to be insignificant. What you are saying may well be true if you are only referring to Career Wikipedians, and other people who draw the attention of a review board like this one, however there are many people who contribute top notch articles in areas that they are qualified to do so, and in topics where only a nutjob would bother creating a controversy around the topic. Often there is a little debate about key aspects, however the concept of compromise is feasible.
Maybe I am overestimating this, and it would be nice to see stats or effective debate on the topic; my guess is that the greater percentage of the encyclopedia is made up of really mundane content which comes pretty damn close to 'truth'.
IMO, the "success" of Wikipedia in the real world, ignoring Google rankings, is in having that mundane content about a very broad set of topics. Attempts to portray Wikipedia as a cesspool of agenda-driven propagandists and players are not going to be received very well as that disregard what the typical viewer, and editor, goes to Wikipedia for.

And, I often see positive changes on Wikipedia. Sometimes it is ahead of the game, but often it is not, and it is the latter that is focused on here. Sometimes the change process is two step forward and one back, but the collective direction is improving roughly in step with the demand for improvement.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Attempts to portray Wikipedia as a cesspool of agenda-driven propagandists and players are not going to be received very well as that disregard what the typical viewer, and editor, goes to Wikipedia for.

Fair enough. Wikipedia provides a convenient and relatively accurate resource on the mundane topics. I would further acknowledge that many of Wikipedia's most agenda-driven propagandists put in a substantial amount of work on maintaining the accuracy of the mundane topics, as a way of "paying their dues" and earning the right to control content on a handful of propaganda topics. Perhaps Wikipedia could be salvaged by a system where all controversial topics are tagged, and the reader is warned that the content of those articles is shaped by the opinion of the editors (who should preferably be named.) Of course, the thrill for the perpetrators is largely defined by being given the opportunity to present their particular POV as authoritative, on a par with all those articles about geography and Pokemon figures.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

To be a WP player, one has to be either motivated to capture territory (set operant paradigms for articles, categories and projects, or simply scent mark an area with offensive, obscurist or asocial text/content), and/or engage in meaning shaping.

Well said, except did you intend to say "obscurantist"?

[GlassBeadGame]

Your claim that the well known problems on Wikipedia are evidence that no one cares about truth is laughable. Whether or not the problems on Wikipedia are sufficient to consider it an ill-advised project is open for debate, but calling into question the motivation of all project members is dishonest.

The contention is not: ‘no one cares’, the contention is: ‘no one cares enough [to effect change]’. We could add a sophistication to the contention by saying that, there is a small cadre of those who: ‘do care enough’, but who lack the collective power to effect change.

I am challenging this notion that the number who care is so small as to be insignificant. What you are saying may well be true if you are only referring to Career Wikipedians, and other people who draw the attention of a review board like this one, however there are many people who contribute top notch articles in areas that they are qualified to do so, and in topics where only a nutjob would bother creating a controversy around the topic. Often there is a little debate about key aspects, however the concept of compromise is feasible.
Maybe I am overestimating this, and it would be nice to see stats or effective debate on the topic; my guess is that the greater percentage of the encyclopedia is made up of really mundane content which comes pretty damn close to 'truth'.
IMO, the "success" of Wikipedia in the real world, ignoring Google rankings, is in having that mundane content about a very broad set of topics. Attempts to portray Wikipedia as a cesspool of agenda-driven propagandists and players are not going to be received very well as that disregard what the typical viewer, and editor, goes to Wikipedia for.

And, I often see positive changes on Wikipedia. Sometimes it is ahead of the game, but often it is not, and it is the latter that is focused on here. Sometimes the change process is two step forward and one back, but the collective direction is improving roughly in step with the demand for improvement.

"Caring about the truth" means accepting some amount of limitation upon the autonomy of the "community" and shifting the ability to make changes to stakeholders outside of the project. This type of change run against the very grain of Wikipedia and will be difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Any solution that depends on internal solutions implemented by the community is doomed to failure. Whistling past the graveyard (jaydbd) isn't going to be helpful.

[anthony]

Now if you paid someone to establish the truth, then they have the right kind of incentive, namely money. Then they will write the truth.

Money is not the only good sort of incentive, and it can be as rotten as any other incentive.

Moreover, it all depends on who's doing the paying.

[Peter Damian]

Maybe I am overestimating this, and it would be nice to see stats or effective debate on the topic;

An actual debate, on Wikipedia, would be interesting. Actually, perhaps not.

my guess is that the greater percentage of the encyclopedia is made up of really mundane content which comes pretty damn close to 'truth'.

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

The Wikipedia entry on the word 'mundane', which has every meaning apart from the correct one, is also interesting.

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

Keep going, John.

IMO, the "success" of Wikipedia in the real world, ignoring Google rankings, is in having that mundane content about a very broad set of topics. Attempts to portray Wikipedia as a cesspool of agenda-driven propagandists and players are not going to be received very well as that disregard what the typical viewer, and editor, goes to Wikipedia for.

It won't be received well by Wikipedians I agree. By people who write large cheques, I think it will be received very well. I mean $3m can support a number of worthwhile genuinely educational projects that would have lasting benefit.

[edit] Ah you've got me going here. The stupid 'Mundane' page has a link to this

The vampire lifestyle is an alternative lifestyle, based on the modern perception of vampires in popular fiction. The vampire subculture has stemmed largely from the goth subculture,[1] but also incorporates some elements of the sadomasochism subculture. The Internet provides a prevalent forum for the subculture along with other media such as glossy magazines devoted to the topic.[2]

Active vampirism within the vampire subculture includes both sanguinarian vampirism, which involves blood consumption,[2] and psychic vampirism, whose practitioners believe they are drawing spiritual nourishment from auric or pranic energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanguinarian#Sanguinarians

This is complete shite. Oh God it links to this

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

[Runs for the door, screaming]

[Note to self, check out the articles below, tomorrow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)#See_also

]

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

Active vampirism within the vampire subculture includes both sanguinarian vampirism, which involves blood consumption,[2] and psychic vampirism, whose practitioners believe they are drawing spiritual nourishment from auric or pranic energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanguinarian#Sanguinarians

Bloody Hell.

[CharlotteWebb]

Well said, except did you intend to say "obscurantist"?

"Obscuritarian" is a word, isn't it?

[jayvdb]

Maybe I am overestimating this, and it would be nice to see stats or effective debate on the topic;

An actual debate, on Wikipedia, would be interesting. Actually, perhaps not.

my guess is that the greater percentage of the encyclopedia is made up of really mundane content which comes pretty damn close to 'truth'.

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

The Wikipedia entry on the word 'mundane', which has every meaning apart from the correct one, is also interesting.

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

Keep going, John.

IMO, the "success" of Wikipedia in the real world, ignoring Google rankings, is in having that mundane content about a very broad set of topics. Attempts to portray Wikipedia as a cesspool of agenda-driven propagandists and players are not going to be received very well as that disregard what the typical viewer, and editor, goes to Wikipedia for.

It won't be received well by Wikipedians I agree. By people who write large cheques, I think it will be received very well. I mean $3m can support a number of worthwhile genuinely educational projects that would have lasting benefit.

[edit] Ah you've got me going here. The stupid 'Mundane' page has a link to this

The vampire lifestyle is an alternative lifestyle, based on the modern perception of vampires in popular fiction. The vampire subculture has stemmed largely from the goth subculture,[1] but also incorporates some elements of the sadomasochism subculture. The Internet provides a prevalent forum for the subculture along with other media such as glossy magazines devoted to the topic.[2]

Active vampirism within the vampire subculture includes both sanguinarian vampirism, which involves blood consumption,[2] and psychic vampirism, whose practitioners believe they are drawing spiritual nourishment from auric or pranic energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanguinarian#Sanguinarians

This is complete shite. Oh God it links to this

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

[Runs for the door, screaming]

[Note to self, check out the articles below, tomorrow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)#See_also

]

Surely you are not having a whinge that the page called "Mundane" is not about the topic you expect?

The existence of a page about Sailor Moon and an odd article about this subcultural/fictional "mundane" term does not adequately rebut my hand-wavy assertion that the majority of the content is mundane, and truthful albeit in an amateur way.

The overbearance of fan fiction on Wikipedia is a systemic problem for a project wanting to present itself as an encyclopedia that is comparable to one that has tighter scope and paid editorial control, but I can't manage to get my jocks in a knot about it as Wikipedia is obviously far from a credible encyclopedia (yet). The sensible reader sees the crap and recognises it for what it is. To my thinking, the main benefit of reducing the fan fiction cruft and pop culture crap is that the editor base changes in the process, and the flow on effect is that the admin corps will also shift for the better.

[CharlotteWebb]

Surely you are not having a whinge that the page called "Mundane" is not about the topic you expect?

Moreover, Category:German lugers isn't what anyone expects.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

"Obscuritarian" is a word, isn't it?

Evidently.

[thegoodlocust]

The gist is that the truth will only flourish if there is a 'tax on falsity'.

I disagree, I'd say that "falsity" is subsidized and crowds out "the Truth." The solution is to stop subsidizing falsity on both personal and group levels.

This is because the vast majority of people who are interested in the truth, are only mildly interested in it.

Perhaps, but when people promoting a "falsity" are inflicting harm then you'll motivate those interested in the truth to fight them.

Conversely, those who are interested in error are passionate about their error (there are various categories of these people which I discuss in the post).

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

Thus the people interested in the truth are not interested enough to get in protracted argument with those who are on the side of error. Thus, without any social mechanism to favour the truth, error will always prevail.

If this was true then we'd still be in the Stone Age.

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

Sorry, but this is an incredibly stupid idea - you will simply codify "falsity" through the rule of unintended consequences.

There are libertarians here: what do they think?

As I said before, to promote truth we simply need to stop subsidizing falsity.

To this end, if we must fund college education, then we need to fund colleges based on the quality of students they produce:

1) Test students after they graduate and then allocate funding to their universities according to their proficiency (perhaps post-test to see if they become employed in their educated profession too).

2) Allocate funding based upon hard sciences - schools that churn out engineers, physicists, architects, and similar professions will get more funding (or tax breaks) than those that pump out marine biologists, anthropologists, and other liberal art majors. If someone wants to be an artist then they can do it on their own dime. I'd also limit any tax breaks/grants based on citizenship of graduates - there is no benefit for us to fund students from other nations if they simply move back to their nation of origin.

Additionally, I'd drastically cut government research grants for everything except hard sciences and even then the grants would only go to people researching something that is either directly useful or will lead to something directly useful - no more 40-year studies on marmot populations.

Of course, I think far too many people go to college these days who shouldn't and I have a plethora of policies I'd implement to vastly improve high school education.

[jayvdb]

...
Additionally, I'd drastically cut government research grants for everything except hard sciences and even then the grants would only go to people researching something that is either directly useful or will lead to something directly useful - no more 40-year studies on marmot populations.
...

How will you determine what is 'useful' before it has been researched?

[thegoodlocust]

How will you determine what is 'useful' before it has been researched?

Personally I'd rather have the free market do it - it did a pretty good job before all this government interference bullshit. I'm curious how many brilliant minds have been shuffled into lifetimes of mental masturbation provided by government subsidized soft science - necessity is the mother of invention, not government grants.

But, if I had to make a "system" to determine usefulness, even though all systems can be abused to some extent, then I'd rather pass out a lump sum to universities to distribute for research and every year they can go to a board and articulate the collective discoveries of their university. The board (the weakness of the system I admit, but still workable), would then compare the accomplishments of the universities and then add and subtract points from a running multi-year "achievement" score - the lump sum universities get would be based on this running total.

This post has been edited by thegoodlocust:

[GlassBeadGame]

How will you determine what is 'useful' before it has been researched?

Personally I'd rather have the free market do it - it did a pretty good job before all this government interference bullshit. I'm curious how many brilliant minds have been shuffled into a lifetimes of mental masturbation provided by government subsidized soft science - necessity is the mother of invention, not government grants.

This libertarian hostility toward reasoned planning is at the heart of why "collaboration" isn't what it purports to be on Wikipedia. Articles are not developed by discussion and planning. They are arise from the accretion of multiple atomized edits. In (wrong) libertarian wiki theory this is guided by the ever wise invisible hand toward continuous improvement. But this doesn't work in practice. What actually results in any article of more than trivial complexity with multiple editors is chaos requiring ever more coercive means meddling ranging from "dispute resolution" to blocks and bans to cover over the failure of the magical edit-button-based "collaboration."

[Avirosa]

To be a WP player, one has to be either motivated to capture territory (set operant paradigms for articles, categories and projects, or simply scent mark an area with offensive, obscurist or asocial text/content), and/or engage in meaning shaping.

Well said, except did you intend to say "obscurantist"?

Obscuranist doesn’t really convey what I was intending and I’m surprised given how many neologisms make it into the main stream dictionaries that obscurist isn’t there yet. Obsucurist has been in usage in contemporary music discussion for years, where it describes an individual whose musical tastes are defined by the obscurity of the band and/or track, the more ‘unknown’ the more musical credibility is inferred. What I was trying to pin down under ‘obscurist’ in Wikipedia terms was the process of claiming territory by creating articles about which, at face value, no one else would care. Of course once created and ‘owned’ any article can become a platform for propaganda broadcast via Google.

En masse, obscurist articles do have an obscurantist effect, as jayvdb recognises:

The overbearance of fan fiction on Wikipedia is a systemic problem for a project wanting to present itself as an encyclopedia that is comparable to one that has tighter scope and paid editorial control, but I can't manage to get my jocks in a knot about it as Wikipedia is obviously far from a credible encyclopedia (yet). The sensible reader sees the crap and recognises it for what it is. To my thinking, the main benefit of reducing the fan fiction cruft and pop culture crap is that the editor base changes in the process, and the flow on effect is that the admin corps will also shift for the better.

A.virosa

This post has been edited by Avirosa:

[Moulton]

How will you determine what is 'useful' before it has been researched?

Ask Theodore Vail.

[Avirosa]

I am challenging this notion that the number who care is so small as to be insignificant. What you are saying may well be true if you are only referring to Career Wikipedians, and other people who draw the attention of a review board like this one, however there are many people who contribute top notch articles in areas that they are qualified to do so, and in topics where only a nutjob would bother creating a controversy around the topic. Often there is a little debate about key aspects, however the concept of compromise is feasible.
Maybe I am overestimating this, and it would be nice to see stats or effective debate on the topic; my guess is that the greater percentage of the encyclopedia is made up of really mundane content which comes pretty damn close to 'truth'.
IMO, the "success" of Wikipedia in the real world, ignoring Google rankings, is in having that mundane content about a very broad set of topics. Attempts to portray Wikipedia as a cesspool of agenda-driven propagandists and players are not going to be received very well as that disregard what the typical viewer, and editor, goes to Wikipedia for.

And, I often see positive changes on Wikipedia. Sometimes it is ahead of the game, but often it is not, and it is the latter that is focused on here. Sometimes the change process is two step forward and one back, but the collective direction is improving roughly in step with the demand for improvement.

That’s a curate’s egg argument. You recognise that “The overbearance of fan fiction on Wikipedia is a systemic problem” but you don’t acknowledge that the systematic problem (which isn’t in fact the fan fiction itself, that is a mere symptom) must inevitably spread the rot across the whole edifice. Gradualism, which seems to be your doctrine of improvement for Wikipedia, can only work if the rate of improvement is greater than the rate of degradation. Of course at this stage no one can ‘know’ how the interplay between improving influences and degrading influences on Wikipedia will pan out, but it strikes me as being a matter of faith bordering on magical thinking, to believe that the underlying system can be improved by surface changes, in an entity the existence of which, is predicated on the supremacy and integrity of that system. And that only addresses the internalised view of Wikipedia that you allow; the far greater problem which this thread is actually about – challenging falsity and social mechanisms to value ‘truth’, places a burden upon any entity such as Wikipedia to find reference outside itself – as GBG puts it:

"Caring about the truth" means accepting some amount of limitation upon the autonomy of the "community" and shifting the ability to make changes to stakeholders outside of the project. This type of change run against the very grain of Wikipedia and will be difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Any solution that depends on internal solutions implemented by the community is doomed to failure.

I’m unsure what you mean by: Attempts to portray Wikipedia as a cesspool of agenda-driven propagandists and players are not going to be received very well as that disregard[s] what the typical viewer, and editor, goes to Wikipedia for. I certainly wasn’t making any such attempt. My argument isn’t that Wikipedia participants are ‘evil’, my contention is that the underlying system of Wikipedia makes every participant into a ‘player’ and that the only feasible player strategy is in the role of ‘propagandist’. Do I expect ardent wikipediaists to appreciate that characterisation ? Of course not. But then I don’t care about Wikipedia, in that I do not see it as ‘improvable’, it is just one of many ‘harms’ and it is discussions about those ‘harms’ and the desirable social responses to them that interest me.

A.virosa

[anthony]

How will you determine what is 'useful' before it has been researched?

Personally I'd rather have the free market do it - it did a pretty good job before all this government interference bullshit. I'm curious how many brilliant minds have been shuffled into a lifetimes of mental masturbation provided by government subsidized soft science - necessity is the mother of invention, not government grants.

But, if I had to make a "system" to determine usefulness

Fortunately, you don't.

[thegoodlocust]

This libertarian hostility toward reasoned planning is at the heart of why "collaboration" isn't what it purports to be on Wikipedia.

Libertarians believe that the most "reasoned" planning tends to happen on micro (personal) levels rather than macro levels.

Articles are not developed by discussion and planning. They are arise 8from the accretion of multiple atomized edits. In (wrong) libertarian wiki theory this is guided by the ever wise invisible hand toward continuous improvement. But this doesn't work in practice. What actually results in any article of more than trivial complexity with multiple editors is chaos requiring ever more coercive means meddling ranging from "dispute resolution" to blocks and bans to cover over the failure of the magical edit-button-based "collaboration."

I'd say wikipedia is insufficiently libertarian and abundantly authoritarian - many of the rules (not the guidelines) are fairly silly and enforced in a one-sided manner. Get rid of silly 3rr, civility and canvassing rules and if people want an account then they can post using their confirmed real names.

[thegoodlocust]

Fortunately, you don't.

Any suggestions then? My idea certainly wouldn't be any worse than the current system and would encourage, on multiple levels, academics to research things that would benefit society rather than the useless shit many of them currently waste their time with.

If a school wants to keep grant money flowing then they'll hire the best researchers, encourage their current staff to work on projects that are actually valid, and fire the staff that can't make the cut.

Those schools that don't develop good policies or hire good administrators to oversee this will slowly lose their funding - better schools will get it instead. I'd say the school is the best body to determine the aptitudes of its staff rather than some moronic grant reviewer - all they need is the motivation to do it.

[GlassBeadGame]

This libertarian hostility toward reasoned planning is at the heart of why "collaboration" isn't what it purports to be on Wikipedia.

Libertarians believe that the most "reasoned" planning tends to happen on micro (personal) levels rather than macro levels.

Individual decisions, what Mr Wales would say Hayek means by Cosmos is the antithesis of collaboration which requires decisions made in coordination with others in which some degree of the absolute freedom of the individual is lost, this is Wales would deride as Taxis.

One can't understand my ideas about Wikipedia without understanding Hayek.
---Jimmy Wales

Once you understand Wikipedia as a libertarian dystopia many things fall into place.

[anthony]

Fortunately, you don't.

Any suggestions then?

My suggestion would be to refuse to compromise your beliefs, even as a hypothetical. At best, you waste your time. At worst you support the propagation of a mixed system with just enough free market in it to keep it from collapsing.

[anthony]

One can't understand my ideas about Wikipedia without understanding Hayek.
---Jimmy Wales

Once you understand Wikipedia as a libertarian dystopia many things fall into place.

Seems that you and Wales have both made the crucial error of treating governments the same as voluntary associations.

[thegoodlocust]

Once you understand Wikipedia as a libertarian dystopia many things fall into place.

If wikipedia's problems are due to libertarian ideals then the current economic crisis is due to the so-called failure of capitalism.

That is not the case.

It is the corruption of those ideals (as previously articulated) that is the problem. Currently, I'd say many segments of wikipedia are comparable to nation-states with their various god-kings and supporting nobility - libertarian ideals cannot flourish under artificially imposed inequality.

[GlassBeadGame]

Once you understand Wikipedia as a libertarian dystopia many things fall into place.

If wikipedia's problems are due to libertarian ideals then the current economic crisis is due to the so-called failure of capitalism.

That is not the case.

It is the corruption of those ideals (as previously articulated) that is the problem. Currently, I'd say many segments of wikipedia are comparable to nation-states with their various god-kings and supporting nobility - libertarian ideals cannot flourish under artificially imposed inequality.

The "ideas" do flourish although libertarianism does not because it does not work. It is because it does not work that the war-lords and thugs can fill in the gap. It devolves into a war of all against all. Wales starts out to pursue a program of "zero coercion" and gets a Lord of the Flies nightmare. Go look at the discussion in the porn riots or even FR. What you see is chaos and inability to move forward. The only value that is upheld is each ones right to do whatever they want. Libertarian Dystopia.

[thegoodlocust]

My suggestion would be to refuse to compromise your beliefs, even as a hypothetical. At best, you waste your time. At worst you support the propagation of a mixed system with just enough free market in it to keep it from collapsing.

Well, I'd say such a system is far more likely to be implemented, which makes it infinitely more practical than an idea that can never be.

Also, if you like, you could make the "research fund' entirely voluntary. Since the income tax isn't going anywhere for a very long time then it'd be nice to have a few sections on the form where people could donate a bit of money to their favorite programs - military, debt reduction, research, etc.

There are a lot of things the government shouldn't spend money on, some things they should spend money on and yet fail at, and some things they should fund and which they do adequately - I think publicly funded research may fall into that 2nd category (I haven't made up my mind)

Society needs knowledge, practical knowledge, to advance, and while the private sector is good at that I think there may be a place for government intervention here as well - subsidizing our future through the advancement of knowledge could be very beneficial if a system is designed to prevent political abuses of the process (e.g. NASA).

[GlassBeadGame]

One can't understand my ideas about Wikipedia without understanding Hayek.
---Jimmy Wales

Once you understand Wikipedia as a libertarian dystopia many things fall into place.

Seems that you and Wales have both made the crucial error of treating governments the same as voluntary associations.

I didn't make the error. Mr.Wales did.

[thegoodlocust]

The "ideas" do flourish although libertarianism does not because it does not work. It is because it does not work that the war-lords and thugs can fill in the gap. It devolves into a war of all against all. Wales starts out to pursue a program of "zero coercion" and gets a Lord of the Flies nightmare. Go look at the discussion in the porn riots or even FR. What you see is chaos and inability to move forward. The only value that is upheld is each ones right to do whatever they want. Libertarian Dystopia.

Sufficed to say that I disagree - libertarians value personal freedom as long as it doesn't harm others.

Inflicting propaganda could indeed be interpreted as harm, mental harm - this is especially true when opposition to said propaganda is censored. The problem is obviously determining what is propaganda and what is the truth - there is no perfect solution.

An adequate, but not perfect, solution is to get rid of the rules people abuse and wikilawyer with, get rid of anonymity, and let people slug it out - otherwise the system will eventually be corrupted to favor one side of a dispute through censorship implemented through bans and other administrative action.

[GlassBeadGame]

Sufficed to say that I disagree - libertarians value personal freedom as long as it doesn't harm others.

Must be those new-fangled Reformed Libertarians.

[Jon Awbrey]

Isn't it about time to move these Nøøbile Φantasies into the Annex where they belong?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[thegoodlocust]

Must be those new-fangled Reformed Libertarians.

Not really, I'm for drug use and prostitution, but as soon as you start harming others or suppressing their rights we have a problem (e.g. DUI's, knowingly spreading STDs, etc).

I consider voting fraud/manipulation to be a high crime since it is directly suppressing a person's freedom of speech - as implemented through voting.

Similarly, "harm" in wikipedia is similarly abstract - and no less harmful.

[Peter Damian]

Isn't it about time to move these Nøøbile Φantasies into the Annex where they belong?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Can you give a definition of what belongs in the Annex, and what doesn't? I thought a dislike of libertarian thinking was a defining feature of what we believe here at WR.

Or is your problem that this discussion could easily have taken place at Wikipedia, rather than here? Then what discussion actually belongs on WR? Is it that the only stuff that 'should' be on WR is

(1) Any thread started by Jon Awbrey

(2) Any slagging off of administrators disliked by Awbrey, or any of the original members of WR and the moderators?

Your influence here is poisonous and pernicious. I thought we had a reasonably common goal and set of ideals here at WR - which included acceptance of those who turn up here to defend WP, even if we do not agree. Your every action here has been destructive and divisive of this. It was your idea to set up the Annex, no?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Somey]

Your influence here is poisonous and pernicious. I thought we had a reasonably common goal and set of ideals here at WR - which included acceptance of those who turn up here to defend WP, even if we do not agree. Your every action here has been destructive and divisive of this. It was your idea to set up the Annex, no?

Was it? I forget now...

You can sort of understand the frustration, though. In this case, Mr. Locust began by making this statement:

If wikipedia's problems are due to libertarian ideals then the current economic crisis is due to the so-called failure of capitalism. ... That is not the case.

I mean, this statement is both wrong-headed and distractionary, even though it may be perfectly defensible on its face. Wikipedia's problems are not due to "libertarian ideals"; they're due to the failure of Wikipedians to overcome the inherent flaws and weaknesses of their system, which has little to do with ideals of any kind. The fact that many WP'ers espouse libertarian ideals in defense of that system, its results, and their place in it, is merely a side issue. As for the "corruption" of those ideals, sure, Wikipedia is full of corrupted ideals, but... so? We already knew that.

As for the current economic crisis, that too is due to a flaw/weakness in the system, only in that case the system is, in fact, capitalism. This doesn't mean capitalism has "failed" any more than it means socialism or some other economic system has "succeeded." But at least capitalism has a chance of fixing itself, and in the past it seems to have done precisely that in many cases. Whereas, Wikipedia probably doesn't have a chance of fixing itself, for the reasons Mr. GBG has already explained.

...libertarian ideals cannot flourish under artificially imposed inequality.

Then why would anyone hold those ideals? Can't these people see that "artificially imposed inequality" will always be with us, no matter what we do, and to follow a system that can't flourish under those conditions is tantamount to advocating societal self-destruction?

But like GBG also says (indirectly), the libertarians we generally refer to around here seem to have no problem with inequality, no matter how it's "imposed." I'm more than willing to accept that there are "kinder, gentler" libertarians out there who are more egalitarian... it's just that they're not the ones maintaining Wikipedia.

[GlassBeadGame]

Isn't it about time to move these Nøøbile Φantasies into the Annex where they belong?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Can you give a definition of what belongs in the Annex, and what doesn't? I thought a dislike of libertarian thinking was a defining feature of what we believe here at WR.

Or is your problem that this discussion could easily have taken place at Wikipedia, rather than here? Then what discussion actually belongs on WR? Is it that the only stuff that 'should' be on WR is

(1) Any thread started by Jon Awbrey

(2) Any slagging off of administrators disliked by Awbrey, or any of the original members of WR and the moderators?

Your influence here is poisonous and pernicious. I thought we had a reasonably common goal and set of ideals here at WR - which included acceptance of those who turn up here to defend WP, even if we do not agree. Your every action here has been destructive and divisive of this. It was your idea to set up the Annex, no?

Seems like a pretty over the top response to Jon's understandable impatience with the newbies. I actually think this discussion, and its newbie participants show some potential for critique in the discussion in the instant thread. I also know from experience I will probably be disappointed. It is very tiresome to cover the same ground over and over again only to have newbies you take the time to engage lapse into doctrinaire Wikipedian apologies. Jon's low level and mild crankiness seems a long way from "poisonous and pernicious."

[thegoodlocust]

You can sort of understand the frustration, though. In this case, Mr. Locust began by making this statement:

If wikipedia's problems are due to libertarian ideals then the current economic crisis is due to the so-called failure of capitalism. ... That is not the case.

I mean, this statement is both wrong-headed and distractionary, even though it may be perfectly defensible on its face. Wikipedia's problems are not due to "libertarian ideals"; they're due to the failure of Wikipedians to overcome the inherent flaws and weaknesses of their system, which has little to do with ideals of any kind.

I never said wikipedia's problems are due to libertarianism; if anything I implied that values opposed to libertarianism (e.g. authoritarianism) were part of the problem.

As for the current economic crisis, that too is due to a flaw/weakness in the system, only in that case the system is, in fact, capitalism.

No, the flaw was in excessive government interference screwing with the markets - and now Obama just passed a giant financial "reform" bill to fuck with the economy even more.

...libertarian ideals cannot flourish under artificially imposed inequality.

Then why would anyone hold those ideals? Can't these people see that "artificially imposed inequality" will always be with us, no matter what we do, and to follow a system that can't flourish under those conditions is tantamount to advocating societal self-destruction?

The key word you are glazing over is artificial - I have absolutely no problem with inequality resulting from natural processes. The problem is when the authorities unilaterally decide that some people/organizations have more or less rights than others.

[Peter Damian]

Your influence here is poisonous and pernicious. I thought we had a reasonably common goal and set of ideals here at WR - which included acceptance of those who turn up here to defend WP, even if we do not agree. Your every action here has been destructive and divisive of this. It was your idea to set up the Annex, no?

Was it? I forget now...

You can sort of understand the frustration, though. In this case, Mr. Locust began ...

It's perfectly fine to have the frustration, and fine to reply with some reasonable argument. It's not fine to move it somewhere else as a sort of punishment for having that view. Another fine ideal of WR is that we don't ban or punish people for saying what they think.

[anthony]

As for the current economic crisis, that too is due to a flaw/weakness in the system, only in that case the system is, in fact, capitalism.

No, the flaw was in excessive government interference screwing with the markets - and now Obama just passed a giant financial "reform" bill to fuck with the economy even more.

It's almost humorous how opponents of capitalism point to the current economic woes as proof of the failure of capitalism, when they were in actuality preceded by unprecedented amounts of government interference. I mean, granted that correlation does not imply causation, but correlation seems to be what the opponents of capitalism are trying to use as their proof, when it's not even there.

January 2008, unemployment is at 4.9%. The federal reserve institutes "the largest single day [federal funds target rate] cut since the Fed instituted its current procedures more than two decades ago". Two and a half years (and dozens or maybe hundreds more unprecedented government interference programs) later, unemployment is around 10% (by the government's measurement, which is almost surely severely undercounting true unemployment).

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Jon Awbrey]

As for the current economic crisis, that too is due to a flaw/weakness in the system, only in that case the system is, in fact, capitalism.

No, the flaw was in excessive government interference screwing with the markets — and now Obama just passed a giant financial "reform" bill to fuck with the economy even more.

It's almost humorous how opponents of capitalism point to the current economic woes as proof of the failure of capitalism, when they were in actuality preceded by unprecedented amounts of government interference. I mean, granted that correlation does not imply causation, but correlation seems to be what the opponents of capitalism are trying to use as their proof, when it's not even there.

January 2008, unemployment is at 4.9%. The federal reserve institutes "the largest single day [federal funds target rate] cut since the Fed instituted its current procedures more than two decades ago". Two and a half years (and dozens or maybe hundreds more unprecedented government interference programs) later, unemployment is around 10%.

Keep on slurpin' that oxycontin, Dude.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[Lar]

Seems like a pretty over the top response to Jon's understandable impatience with the newbies. I actually think this discussion, and its newbie participants show some potential for critique in the discussion in the instant thread. I also know from experience I will probably be disappointed. It is very tiresome to cover the same ground over and over again only to have newbies you take the time to engage lapse into doctrinaire Wikipedian apologies. Jon's low level and mild crankiness seems a long way from "poisonous and pernicious."

Seems to me a thorough FAQ that is kept up to date and is easily findable is the way to go here. Instead of answering things ad-hoc, get in the habit of pointing to the FAQ from your responses. Others will take up the habit and far less time will be spent on plowed ground. IMHO anyway.

[Somey]

No, the flaw was in excessive government interference screwing with the markets - and now Obama just passed a giant financial "reform" bill to fuck with the economy even more.

It's almost humorous how opponents of capitalism point to the current economic woes as proof of the failure of capitalism, when they were in actuality preceded by unprecedented amounts of government interference. I mean, granted that correlation does not imply causation, but correlation seems to be what the opponents of capitalism are trying to use as their proof, when it's not even there.

Both of you are either nuts or completely misinformed. The current recession would have been prevented by regulations which were eliminated in 1999, initiated by Republican legislators but signed by (Democrat) Clinton. You can even look it up in WP - it's called the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (T-H-L-K-D). This lack of regulation allowed, among other things, the sale of complex "derivates" and mortgage-backed securities that no properly-working system would ever have allowed to be sold in any form whatsoever - they were, and indeed still are, completely dependent on the non-volatility of an inherently volatile market (in this case, real estate). The mere fact that the act allowed banks to sell these "products" themselves - in effect, the fox guarding the hen-house, writ large all over the country - was probably enough to guarantee a collapse.

In other words, "financial deregulation" advocates took a system that had worked just fine in reining in Wall Street (and Banking Industry) greed and corruption for over 60 years, gutted it at the behest of their rich campaign donors, and came very close to destroying our economy as a result.

You can blame the individuals involved for this if you like, but again, a working system would not have allowed that. The system has been corrupted by people hiding behind secret deals, accounting trickery, and anonymity obtained by virtue of their own control of media properties - all of which should be much more tightly controlled and regulated than they are currently. The Financial Reform bill is supposed to restore some of the regulations that had been lost, but it isn't likely to fix the damage that's already been done - after all, how can you get money back from people you can't identify?

Nevertheless, various anarcho-capitalist liberatarian types will no doubt crow on and on during the next election cycle about how "we've had financial reform in place for two years and we still have 9 percent unemployment," and various uneducated, easily-misled folks might well believe them. It's sickening, quite frankly.

[anthony]

Both of you are either nuts or completely misinformed.

No, it's just that I, as I already explained in another thread, don't agree with things just because someone claims them (or even if *gasp* a lot of people claim them).

You can blame the individuals involved for this if you like, but again, a working system would not have allowed that.

A working system would have allowed it, it just wouldn't have made all of us pay to bail out the individuals involved.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Peter Damian]

Both of you are either nuts or completely misinformed.

No, it's just that I, as I already explained in another thread, don't agree with things just because someone claims them (or even if *gasp* a lot of people claim them).

You can blame the individuals involved for this if you like, but again, a working system would not have allowed that.

A working system would have allowed it, it just wouldn't have made all of us pay to bail out the individuals involved.

So the banks should have been allowed to fail?

[anthony]

A working system would have allowed it, it just wouldn't have made all of us pay to bail out the individuals involved.

So the banks should have been allowed to fail?

In a working system, banks would be allowed to fail.

Of course, a working system wouldn't have a government-run FDIC.

[Milton Roe]

No, the flaw was in excessive government interference screwing with the markets - and now Obama just passed a giant financial "reform" bill to fuck with the economy even more.

It's almost humorous how opponents of capitalism point to the current economic woes as proof of the failure of capitalism, when they were in actuality preceded by unprecedented amounts of government interference. I mean, granted that correlation does not imply causation, but correlation seems to be what the opponents of capitalism are trying to use as their proof, when it's not even there.

Both of you are either nuts or completely misinformed. The current recession would have been prevented by regulations which were eliminated in 1999, initiated by Republican legislators but signed by (Democrat) Clinton. You can even look it up in WP - it's called the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (T-H-L-K-D). This lack of regulation allowed, among other things, the sale of complex "derivates" and mortgage-backed securities that no properly-working system would ever have allowed to be sold in any form whatsoever - they were, and indeed still are, completely dependent on the non-volatility of an inherently volatile market (in this case, real estate). The mere fact that the act allowed banks to sell these "products" themselves - in effect, the fox guarding the hen-house, writ large all over the country - was probably enough to guarantee a collapse.

In other words, "financial deregulation" advocates took a system that had worked just fine in reining in Wall Street greed and corruption for over 60 years, gutted it at the behest of their rich campaign donors, and came very close to destroying our economy as a result.

You can blame the individuals involved for this if you like, but again, a working system would not have allowed that. The system has been corrupted by people hiding behind secret deals, accounting trickery, and anonymity obtained by virtue of their own control of media properties - all of which should be much more tightly controlled and regulated than they are currently.

As the WP article itself points out, the effect of Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (T-H-L-K-D) is heavily debated. Perhaps the strongest evidence that it wasn't really very causal is that it had the effect of returning the US banking system back to the place the European banking system had never left in the first place. In Europe, there was never a law keeping commerical and investment banks as seperate institutions, and yet between the great depression and the crash of 2008, Europe's banks did fine. By rights, the European housing market should have suffered the same fate as the US housing market, but much sooner. So there's something wrong with the line of logic that all that was keeping things from going to hell was Glass-Steagall. In Europe, there had never been a Glass-Steagall. Europe's banks had long taken deposist and made home loans (commercial activity), handled mergers and acquisitions of corporations (investment bank activity) and sold insurance against investment defaults (banking insurance activity). That combination in and of itself, is not a disaster.

The MECHANISM of the crash of 2008 was surely the "derivatization" or "securitization" of commercial bank loans (mortgage loans being our examplar), so they could be funnelled off into the investment market and sold AS investments (asset backed securities, ABS of various types), to any investor. Subsets of these are the various collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), of which structured finance CDOs (SFCDO's like mortgage backed securities = MBS) are what we're using as example.

That MECHANISM in 90's, with the invention of these new security "instruments" and ways to price them, was what led to the US housing bubble of 2000-2007. Suddenly commercial banks didn't care about the risk of mortage loans, since they could be MBS securitized, insured, and sold off through the investment banking community, where they disappeared without a trace (apparently). Lehman Brothers made a gazillion bucks buying this stuff and selling it to investors, and AIG made a gazillion insuring it all as a "sure thing" (since mortgage loans are always AAA-- right?). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went along-- if the government is insuring you and housing loans are backing you, how can you fail?

Except then they started making nutty loans on houses. Loans to people with no jobs, adjustable rate mortgages, finally loans in which people only had to pay the interest and no principle, and sometimes could even pay only part of the interest so the principal would expand-- the idea that the steady increase in housing prices (thought in 2006 to be a law of physics, as I remember) would absorb this. And continue to do so.

And for 6-7 years, all this worked. People borrowed $7 TRILLION against US housing, and SPENT IT. Nobody noticed, and if they noticed, nobody cared, because on paper the 2/3rds of houses with mortages went from $13 trillion to $20 trillion in value. Alas, the market eventually noticed what was happening in 2007, then started to go down in 2008, but by then, that $7 trillion had been hamburgherized and spread all around the globe. By the time housing prices were back down to what they'd been in 2000 when all this started, the total money owed on mortgaged houses in the US was a bit more than the $13 trillion they were NOW worth on the market. Wups. It's all underwater, and that's on average. A lot of stuff is WAY underwater.

Glass-Steagall (1932) would have prevented none of this. Gramm–Leach–Bliley (1999) may have speeded things up, but probably not much. Glass-Steagall only prevented commercial and investment banks and insurance companies from merging, presumably so that the FDIC depositor insurance (which applied only to protected individual deposit accounts in commerical banks) wouldn't be at risk if those banks were part of larger institutions that did other things. It hardly prevented commerical banks from making bad loans and passing them off as hot potatoes to the investment banks and banking insurance companies. Making sure these were separate institutions, instead of different sides of the same institution, wasn't enough to prevent 2008, because it didn't stop money from going from commercial to investment banks. The government had to bail out the investment banks anyway, because their loss would have brought the whole system down (as the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers alone nearly did).

Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros, and AIG never took money from depositors. The first two were investment banks and the third sold insurance of various types. Gramm–Leach–Bliley affected none of them, although it did lubricate the way to having JP Morgan save Bear Stearns, since the feds could give JP Morgan (as a commercial bank) money with which to buy out Bear Stearns, whereas they couldn't give it directly to Bear Stearns. But they'd have had to save Bear Stearns anyway, even without that mechnism, even as they had to save AIG later without that mechanism, via the TARP fund. Gramm–Leach–Bliley is probably irrelevant. What's relevant is the "asset backed securities" (ABS) idea, and the SEC's failure to regulate it. That opened a channel directly from housing and the money market, into the capital markets. The people who should have seen that as a problem (Greenspan) never did (until too late and he was out of office). By the time it all started to "go down," it was all one piece.

I see nothing to do in the future by require commercial banks to hold on to some fraction of their housing loans, and if that's not enough to concentrate their minds, then there are doing to have to be some draconian regulations about how and to who commercial banks can lend money, and on what basis. Certain classes of ABSs may need to be outlawed altogether, or else sold under the same heavy SEC scrutiny that common stock is.

"The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present." With the invention of "Asset Backed Securities," it's a new world. It's time for new regulation. I'm tired of hearing about Glass-Steagall and 1932. All that's like trying to solve internet problems by paying telephone switchboard operators what they used to get. One ringy-dingy, two ringy-dingies, Mr. LaRouche.

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Ernestine.jpg)

[thegoodlocust]

Both of you are either nuts or completely misinformed. The current recession would have been prevented by regulations which were eliminated in 1999, initiated by Republican legislators but signed by (Democrat) Clinton. You can even look it up in WP - it's called the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (T-H-L-K-D). This lack of regulation allowed, among other things, the sale of complex "derivates" and mortgage-backed securities that no properly-working system would ever have allowed to be sold in any form whatsoever - they were, and indeed still are, completely dependent on the non-volatility of an inherently volatile market (in this case, real estate). The mere fact that the act allowed banks to sell these "products" themselves - in effect, the fox guarding the hen-house, writ large all over the country - was probably enough to guarantee a collapse.

Hey genius, who do you think subsidized those "mortgage backed securities?" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own or guarantee about 40% of all mortgages in the country - and they can only do that because the government has their back.

[Somey]

Hey genius, who do you think subsidized those "mortgage backed securities?" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own or guarantee about 40% of all mortgages in the country - and they can only do that because the government has their back.

Thanks for referring to me as a "genius," but it should be obvious to even a low-intelligence person that allowing the widespread sale of derivatives based on mortgages that are "subsidized" by quasi-governmental agencies will only serve to transfer the risk/volatility onto the government itself, threatening to increase public debt in the event of a severe downturn in the market, and potentially even leaving the government holding large amounts of worthless real estate that it can't manage, use, or even give away in some cases.

[Somey]

As the WP article itself points out, the effect of Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (T-H-L-K-D) is heavily debated. Perhaps the strongest evidence that it wasn't really very causal is that it had the effect of returning the US banking system back to the place the European banking system had never left in the first place. In Europe, there was never a law keeping commerical and investment banks as seperate institutions, and yet between the great depression and the crash of 2008, Europe's banks did fine. By rights, the European housing market should have suffered the same fate as the US housing market, but much sooner.

Maybe the Europeans were mostly raised to be less greedy and unscrupulous than their American counterparts...? I don't believe it's valid to use Europe as an example of "why deregulation wasn't the problem" - I suspect the real difference is that the US banking system computerized sooner than the European banks, and had more programmers and "quants" at their disposal. Once the US banks got the ball rolling, it was really just a matter of the Europeans catching up eventually. Once they did, they suffered too. It's possible that if regulations had still been in place in the US, the reckless sale of derivatives would have started in Europe instead, but if so, the global crash-effect would have been considerably lessened, wouldn't you think?

"The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present." With the invention of ABS, it's a new world. It's time for new regulation. I'm tired of hearing about Glass-Steagall and 1932. All that's like trying to solve internet problems by paying telephone switchboard operators what they used to get. One ringy-dingy, two ringy-dingies, Mr. LaRouche.

I agree, but we're not talking about solving the problems in this case, we're talking about assigning blame for them, or more accurately, not assigning it to people who don't deserve it. Solving the problems will be a whole different kettle of fish, I'm afraid.

Just to bring this back on topic a smidge, you could say a lot of the same things about Wikipedia and the internet in general; the people who set all that stuff up probably didn't foresee the problems that would eventually come to plague them. But the sheer speed at which both of those things grew makes them a poor comparison to capitalism, which grew slowly and (somewhat) organically. In both cases you had social movements building in reaction to technological change and innovation, but with capitalism, the rise and fall of individual technologies took place over the space of years, decades, even centuries. With the internet, markets and social trends (I'd hardly call them "movements") rise and fall in the space of months or even weeks. Standards, laws and regulations are sometimes imposed on technologies that are already years out of date by the time the government gets around to noticing there's a problem.

[thegoodlocust]

Thanks for referring to me as a "genius," but it should be obvious to even a low-intelligence person that allowing the widespread sale of derivatives based on mortgages that are "subsidized" by quasi-governmental agencies will only serve to transfer the risk/volatility onto the government itself, threatening to increase public debt in the event of a severe downturn in the market, and potentially even leaving the government holding large amounts of worthless real estate that it can't manage, use, or even give away in some cases.

So how the hell can you blame this on the "free market" or capitalism, when a huge portion of the market was and is being manipulated by GSEs?

You aren't making any sense at all. Just be a man and admit you were wrong.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

So how the hell can you blame this on the "free market" or capitalism, when a huge portion of the market was and is being manipulated by GSEs?

The GSEs are operating as tools of private financial cartels. All the "free market" hokum is used to promote a system where the government itself acts at the behest of a financier oligarchy. Frankly, the closest you will ever get to the popular conception of a "free market" is when the government regulates the living daylights out of much of the economy, finance in particular, so that you have something approximating a level playing field where entrepreneurship can flourish. With deregulation, cartels inevitably call the shots, bleating all the while about the "free market." It's like Al Capone decrying government interference in the marketplace.

[Somey]

So how the hell can you blame this on the "free market" or capitalism, when a huge portion of the market was and is being manipulated by GSEs?

Are you not reading what I'm writing? I'm not blaming the current economic downturn on the free market or capitalism at all, I'm blaming it on a particular flaw in the system that was, at one point, covered by regulation. When you eliminate the regulation, you expose the flaw, and greedy manipulators take advantage of the flaw to enrich themselves.

Capitalism can only work when its flaws are covered by laws and regulations - I'm not saying you have to have a bazillion laws and regulations, I'm saying that you have to at least cover the flaws in the system. What you and your government do beyond that could be good or bad, depending on the situation or the problem being addressed.

You aren't making any sense at all. Just be a man and admit you were wrong.

I'd be making plenty of sense if you were simply reading what I'm saying, instead of imagining that I'm some sort of communist, which I'm most certainly not. I believe in moderation in all (or at least most) things, and having a healthy respect for both the good and bad things that people are capable of. Sure, an unregulated system could work if everybody was nice and honest and pure of heart, but sorry, not everybody is. This isn't some sort of nonsense claim; this is what human civilization is based on, and it has always been based on.

Last but not least, the idea that "GSEs" (i.e., Fannie 'n' Freddie) "manipulated" the market is really arguing from an unfounded premiss. Yes, too many people were buying too many mortgages that they couldn't afford for all the wrong reasons, and those agencies contributed to that by selling them, but that's a far cry from saying they went out of their way to sell adjustable- and deferred-rate mortgages in order to allow investors to enrich themselves off the sale of high-risk derivatives (which then went bust when the higher rates kicked in, natch).

[Milton Roe]

Thanks for referring to me as a "genius," but it should be obvious to even a low-intelligence person that allowing the widespread sale of derivatives based on mortgages that are "subsidized" by quasi-governmental agencies will only serve to transfer the risk/volatility onto the government itself, threatening to increase public debt in the event of a severe downturn in the market, and potentially even leaving the government holding large amounts of worthless real estate that it can't manage, use, or even give away in some cases.

So how the hell can you blame this on the "free market" or capitalism, when a huge portion of the market was and is being manipulated by GSEs?

You aren't making any sense at all. Just be a man and admit you were wrong.

For an article detailing the attempt of congress to limit the mortgage backed securities exposure of Fannie and Freddie, written in May 2005 when the 2008 economic crisis wasn't even suggested (nor even yet a downturn in the housing bubble, still more than a year away), see:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/22514

Frannie and Freddie's combined exposure was $3.7 trillion, more than the combined bond-default exposure of the TOTAL of all U.S. corporations (2.9 trillion then), and approaching the total government treasure bond debt of 4.4 trillion.

Congressman Richard Baker (R-La, take that you Democrats) had been trying to do something about the disaster-waiting-to-happen since 2000. Got voted down in 2002 and 2003. Too many people wanted the public to have bread and circuses. And cheap housing, why not? Besides, there was a war on to worry about.

However, in the meantime, Fannie and Freddie got new auditors in 2003 as a result of Enron imploding and taking Arthur Andersen (who had also been Fannie and Freddie's auditors) with it. The new auditors didn't like Fannie and Freddie's MBS exposure at all, and by 2005, even Alan Greenspan, while calling for less regulation, at the same time was saying that Fannie and Freddie should not be taking so much MBS risk, some of which the taxpayer was liable for. Again, congress ignored even this. So much for the libertarian option. And BTW, it was Republicans trying to do something about Fannie and Freddie all the way. They should couldn't get support from the rest of their own party, and certainly none from the Democrats.

So, who do we blame for all this? Everybody, I guess. Instead of a SNAFU or JANFU (Joint Army-Navy Fuck Up), this was a JCBFU. Joint congressional bipartisan.

And you can't even blame the libertarians, because even Greenspan was ignored on the few bits of wisdom (and mighty few they were) he contributed also. So long as the economy was running well, nobody gave a damn.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Not really, I'm for drug use and prostitution.

Available for prostitution ... hmmn, what will you do and what is your hourly rate?

[thegoodlocust]

Not really, I'm for drug use and prostitution.

Available for prostitution ... hmmn, what will you do and what is your hourly rate?

Depends on whether it is physical or intellectual prostitution.

[Jon Awbrey]

Isn't it about time to move these Nøøbile Φantasies into the Annex where they belong?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Can you give a definition of what belongs in the Annex, and what doesn't? I thought a dislike of libertarian thinking was a defining feature of what we believe here at WR.

Or is your problem that this discussion could easily have taken place at Wikipedia, rather than here? Then what discussion actually belongs on WR? Is it that the only stuff that 'should' be on WR is

1. Any thread started by Jon Awbrey
2. Any slagging off of administrators disliked by Awbrey, or any of the original members of WR and the moderators?

Your influence here is poisonous and pernicious. I thought we had a reasonably common goal and set of ideals here at WR — which included acceptance of those who turn up here to defend WP, even if we do not agree. Your every action here has been destructive and divisive of this. It was your idea to set up the Annex, no?

The Deil cam fiddlin thro the town,
    And danc'd awa wi th' Exciseman,
And ilka wife cries: — “Auld Mahoun,
    I wish you luck o the prize man!”

“We'll make our maut, and we'll brew our drink,
    We'll laugh, sing, and rejoice, man,
And monie braw thanks to the meikle black Deil,
    That danc'd awa wi th' Exciseman.”

There's threesome reels, there's foursome reels,
    There's hornpipes and strathspeys, man,
But the ae best dance e'er cam to the land
    Was “The Deil's awa wi th' Exciseman”.

                    CHORUS
The Deil's awa, the Deil's awa,
    The Deil's awa wi th' Exciseman!
He's danc'd awa, he's danc'd awa,
    He's danc'd awa wi th' Exciseman!

— Robert Burns, “The Deils's awa wi th' Exciseman” (1792)

Maybe it's an “Across the Pond” thing. I can't say I understood that titular tithe bit, but you really should've known by now that it'd be a total non-starter in a setting where Anonycorp Interests got them exempted from even so minimal an excise on falsity as libel laws.

But that's neither here nor there, since the subtitle was enough to subvert any chance of adult discussion — did you really not know that any mention of Libertarianism translates across the pond as the intellectual equivalent of “TOGA ! TOGA !! TOGA !!!”???

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Not really, I'm for drug use and prostitution.

Available for prostitution ... hmmn, what will you do and what is your hourly rate?

Depends on whether it is physical or intellectual prostitution.

The Whore of Mensa. One of my all time favorite Woody Allen shticks.

[Peter Damian]

A working system would have allowed it, it just wouldn't have made all of us pay to bail out the individuals involved.

So the banks should have been allowed to fail?

In a working system, banks would be allowed to fail.

Of course, a working system wouldn't have a government-run FDIC.

But depositors need some protection, otherwise they would keep gold under the mattress. What if there were an insurance protection scheme funded by the whole banking industry? Would that work any better? Not if markets are irrational - then the collapse of a bubble could wipe out the majority of banks and the protection scheme would not have sufficient funds to pay out.

I think there is strong evidence that markets are irrational. That is because crowds are irrational: their intelligence is the average intelligence of its members. See http://www.irrationalexuberance.com and particularly this

The global financial crisis has made it painfully clear that powerful psychological forces are imperiling the wealth of nations today. From blind faith in ever-rising housing prices to plummeting confidence in capital markets, "animal spirits" are driving financial events worldwide. In this book, acclaimed economists George Akerlof and Robert Shiller challenge the economic wisdom that got us into this mess, and put forward a bold new vision that will transform economics and restore prosperity.

Akerlof and Shiller reassert the necessity of an active government role in economic policymaking by recovering the idea of animal spirits, a term John Maynard Keynes used to describe the gloom and despondence that led to the Great Depression and the changing psychology that accompanied recovery. Like Keynes, Akerlof and Shiller know that managing these animal spirits requires the steady hand of government--simply allowing markets to work won't do it. In rebuilding the case for a more robust, behaviorally informed Keynesianism, they detail the most pervasive effects of animal spirits in contemporary economic life--such as confidence, fear, bad faith, corruption, a concern for fairness, and the stories we tell ourselves about our economic fortunes--and show how Reaganomics, Thatcherism, and the rational expectations revolution failed to account for them.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8967.html

Returning to the topic, Wikipedia is irrational in the same way. Its average intelligence is at the level of Pokemon, Dr Who, popular music, and pornography. Ergo that is exactly what you get.

PS I'm sure most people here have seen this, but for those who haven't, it is the best and funniest explanation of the subprime crisis I have ever seen http://www.cynicsunlimited.com/wp-content/...imemadeeasy.pps .

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[anthony]

In a working system, banks would be allowed to fail.

Of course, a working system wouldn't have a government-run FDIC.

But depositors need some protection, otherwise they would keep gold under the mattress. What if there were an insurance protection scheme funded by the whole banking industry? Would that work any better? Not if markets are irrational - then the collapse of a bubble could wipe out the majority of banks and the protection scheme would not have sufficient funds to pay out.

Fractional reserve banking would probably not last very long without an FDIC, if that's what you're getting at.

I think there is strong evidence that markets are irrational.

I think one of the dumbest claims made by pro-capitalists is that in free market capitalism, everyone is always better off. No, in free market capitalism, just like in any system, some people are going to lose their shirts. But at least the rest of us don't have to pay for their mistakes.

Of course, in today's economy, the system itself is irrational. The losers are bailed out, the winners are punished with windfall profits taxes, enormous markets are openly manipulated by the federal government through open market operations and various tax incentives, etc.

I don't think you can credibly claim that the housing bubble wasn't caused at least in part by the federal government. Between the FOMC artificially lowering interest rates, the IRS providing enormous tax benefits for homeowners (*), and the GSEs guaranteeing the owners of the loans that they wouldn't lose money, there's no doubt that government was at least *part* of the resulting rise in property values.

And you know what, if it weren't for the simple fact that interest rates can't go below zero, the whole scheme would probably still be going on. The government essentially promised that they'd never allow property values to fall as drastically as they have. That is at least part of the reason for the former mentality that "housing prices can never go down". A lot of people assumed, not all that unreasonably, that the government wouldn't let them go down (**). And the government tried its hardest to stop the fall. Once they ran out of power with open market operations, they tried bribing people to buy homes with "refundable tax credits". But markets eventually return to rationality, and the housing market was no exception.

You want to talk about irrational, look no further than the federal reserve system of fractional reserve banking. You've got to be insane to think that system can possibly last in the long term. But once again, the federal government has forced even the rational among us to participate in that system to some extent. Markets are irrational in large part, though not completely, because the federal government forces them to be.

I don't claim that perfectly free markets can never be irrational. But in a perfectly free market, at least we're not forced to participate in those irrational markets.

(*) My career is in income tax preparation, and I've said for years that "just about the only loophole left in Internal Revenue Code is home ownership". For your primary residence, you get to deduct the interest on your mortgage and then you don't have to pay capital gains on the gains. For rental properties, you get to deduct depreciation on your property while it appreciates in value, and if you die with the property, possibly having used "like kind exchanges" to trade from one property to another without realizing any gains, all those gains are tax-free, to both you and your estate, provided you are below the gift tax exclusion.

(**) Ever hear of "the Greenspan Put"? Similar concept in the equity markets.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

A working system would have allowed it, it just wouldn't have made all of us pay to bail out the individuals involved.

So the banks should have been allowed to fail?

In a working system, banks would be allowed to fail.

Of course, a working system wouldn't have a government-run FDIC.

But depositors need some protection, otherwise they would keep gold under the mattress.

This is the whole point of Glass-Steagall, which Milton has labored to obfuscate. Under G-S, commercial banks which perform a necessary function in the economy (think Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Wonderful Life") are backstopped by the government. Banks which engage in parasitic forms of speculation (that would be Mr. Potter) are on their own, and most definitely allowed to fail.

[Somey]

Of course, in today's economy, the system itself is irrational. The losers are bailed out, the winners are punished with windfall profits taxes, enormous markets are openly manipulated by the federal government through open market operations and various tax incentives, etc.

That's all true, but the flaw in the system is that "losers" are allowed to become "too big to fail," not merely that losers are bailed out. The best way to prevent bailouts would be to prevent poorly-managed companies (which probably describes a substantial majority of companies these days) from getting to be so large and spread out that their failure would put tens of thousands out of work, wipe out people's retirement plans, cause chronic diarrhea, yada yada yada. I'm guessing you disagree with this, but what's the alternative?

I don't claim that perfectly free markets can never be irrational. But in a perfectly free market, at least we're not forced to participate in those irrational markets.

Then how do you define "free market"? I guess the way I see it, there are so many ways to define it, the term itself has become almost meaningless. The context you seem to have been using so far is more like unregulated market, but I suspect that's not how most people define "free" in the economic sense (though I could be wrong, I suppose). And people can still be effectively "forced" to participate in an unregulated market if it's the only way to get something they absolutely must have. Illegal drugs are a good example...

At the same time, interest on savings (personal or otherwise) isn't something that everyone absolutely must have, is it? Particularly now, when the rates are well below 0.5 percent for practically all conventional savings accounts. That, in turn, is often seen as a deliberate attempt to get people to stop saving and start spending - not a good long-term economic strategy... not at all.

Personally, when I see the term "perfectly free market" I think of something that has no effective barriers to entry whatsoever (other than maybe a total lack of money or credit). As always, the debate there is over whether or not an unregulated market will inevitably lead to corruption in the form of monopolies, cartels, trusts, criminal enterprises, market cornering, etc., and yes, "government manipulation" if you insist. Those are all things that usually impose barriers to entry, not take them away - I believe it's sometimes referred to as "dominance factor," and it very much applies to Wikipedia too, by the way.

[anthony]

Of course, in today's economy, the system itself is irrational. The losers are bailed out, the winners are punished with windfall profits taxes, enormous markets are openly manipulated by the federal government through open market operations and various tax incentives, etc.

That's all true, but the flaw in the system is that "losers" are allowed to become "too big to fail," not merely that losers are bailed out. The best way to prevent bailouts would be to prevent poorly-managed companies (which probably describes a substantial majority of companies these days) from getting to be so large and spread out that their failure would put tens of thousands out of work, wipe out people's retirement plans, cause chronic diarrhea, yada yada yada. I'm guessing you disagree with this, but what's the alternative?

In any sane economic system, if you get a job with a poorly-managed company, there's a good chance you might lose your job; if you put all your retirement savings into poorly-managed companies, there's a good chance it might get wiped out; if you drink tons and tons of prune juice, there's a good chance you'll get diarrhea. The idea that the government is trying to prevent that is the problem, not the solution.

I don't claim that perfectly free markets can never be irrational. But in a perfectly free market, at least we're not forced to participate in those irrational markets.

Then how do you define "free market"? I guess the way I see it, there are so many ways to define it, the term itself has become almost meaningless. The context you seem to have been using so far is more like unregulated market, but I suspect that's not how most people define "free" in the economic sense (though I could be wrong, I suppose).

I hate to use Wikipedia (*), but when I did a good search it was right up there at the top and it's a good succinct definition. "A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts." Whether or not that means the same to you as "unregulated", I don't know. The line between "law" and "regulation" is a fuzzy one, and I'm certainly not a proponent of anarchy.

(*) I've actually put en.wikipedia.org 127.0.0.1 in my hosts.txt file, which blocks me from visiting the site, to try to remind myself never to use Wikipedia. But in this case it was in the google excerpt so...ohwell...

And people can still be effectively "forced" to participate in an unregulated market if it's the only way to get something they absolutely must have. Illegal drugs are a good example...

I can't say I understand that example. Someone who gets addicted to illegal drugs is "forced" to buy illegal drugs in an unregulated market?

Anyway, in a free market, there wouldn't be any illegal drugs.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Somey]

In any sane economic system, if you get a job with a poorly-managed company, there's a good chance you might lose your job; if you put all your retirement savings into poorly-managed companies, there's a good chance it might get wiped out; if you drink tons and tons of prune juice, there's a good chance you'll get diarrhea. The idea that the government is trying to prevent that is the problem, not the solution.

Unfortunately, you're using the classic libertarian deceptive argument-strategy here: We're not talking about one guy losing his job or his pension fund, we're talking about tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people (and in the case of AIG, millions) all at once, or at best, within a very short span of time.

I hate to use Wikipedia (*), but when I did a good search it was right up there at the top and it's a good succinct definition. "A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts." Whether or not that means the same to you as "unregulated", I don't know. The line between "law" and "regulation" is a fuzzy one, and I'm certainly not a proponent of anarchy.

Well, you have to remember that many prominent Wikipedians are also libertarians, including a few that could be described as "anarcho-capitalists." Even so, I suspect that what you're describing might be perfectly OK if it weren't for the fact that large companies have made "informal" collusion and backroom dealing (for the purpose of, say, price-fixing) into almost an art form, all in order to get around archaic and antiquated antitrust laws. (Hey, alliteration!)

I can't say I understand that example. Someone who gets addicted to illegal drugs is "forced" to buy illegal drugs in an unregulated market?

Essentially, though it would probably be better to use the market for a legal product as an example, since it could be argued that the illegality of the product acts as a form of regulation. After all, if your definition of "free" includes allowing the government to enforce IP and contracts, so that's already more regulated than the market for illegal drugs is.

[anthony]

In any sane economic system, if you get a job with a poorly-managed company, there's a good chance you might lose your job; if you put all your retirement savings into poorly-managed companies, there's a good chance it might get wiped out; if you drink tons and tons of prune juice, there's a good chance you'll get diarrhea. The idea that the government is trying to prevent that is the problem, not the solution.

Unfortunately, you're using the classic libertarian deceptive argument-strategy here: We're not talking about one guy losing his job or his pension fund, we're talking about tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people (and in the case of AIG, millions) all at once, or at best, within a very short span of time.

I'm not sure where you're getting those figures from, but I also don't see how that changes the argument. If a million people work for a couple dozen poorly-managed companies, there's a good chance they might all lose their jobs. If a million people drink tons and tons of prune juice, there's a good chance a million people will all get diarrhea.

I hate to use Wikipedia (*), but when I did a good search it was right up there at the top and it's a good succinct definition. "A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts." Whether or not that means the same to you as "unregulated", I don't know. The line between "law" and "regulation" is a fuzzy one, and I'm certainly not a proponent of anarchy.

Well, you have to remember that many prominent Wikipedians are also libertarians, including a few that could be described as "anarcho-capitalists." Even so, I suspect that what you're describing might be perfectly OK if it weren't for the fact that large companies have made "informal" collusion and backroom dealing (for the purpose of, say, price-fixing) into almost an art form, all in order to get around archaic and antiquated antitrust laws. (Hey, alliteration!)

Antitrust laws wouldn't exist in a free market. They neither enforce ownership ("property rights") nor enforce contracts.

Anyway, that's *my* definition of a free market. Yours is clearly different (I think you're talking about what's referred to by economists as a "perfect market", or a "perfectly competitive market").

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Peter Damian]

(*) My career is in income tax preparation, and I've said for years that "just about the only loophole left in Internal Revenue Code is home ownership". For your primary residence, you get to deduct the interest on your mortgage and then you don't have to pay capital gains on the gains. For rental properties, you get to deduct depreciation on your property while it appreciates in value, and if you die with the property, possibly having used "like kind exchanges" to trade from one property to another without realizing any gains, all those gains are tax-free, to both you and your estate, provided you are below the gift tax exclusion.

Actually yes that is very true. The UK Labour government in the 1960's wanted to tax the notional rent that home owners were paying themselves in order to live in their own houses. This never happened. And there are no capital gains on own residence in UK (and in US I believe).

It certainly makes no sense to put money on deposit or in bonds when the rate of inflation is higher than the interest rate, or in equities when capital gains are taxed so severely.

So perhaps you are right after all Anthony.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I hate to use Wikipedia (*), but when I did a good search it was right up there at the top and it's a good succinct definition. "A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts." Whether or not that means the same to you as "unregulated", I don't know.

It's a philosophy entirely consistent with feudalism. Much like Wikipedia, it permits the formation of cabals that order the economy to their liking, in the absence of any mechanism for society at large to deliberate on how best to order it.

[Somey]

I'm not sure where you're getting those figures from, but I also don't see how that changes the argument. If a million people work for a couple dozen poorly-managed companies, there's a good chance they might all lose their jobs. If a million people drink tons and tons of prune juice, there's a good chance a million people will all get diarrhea.

I didn't say it changed the argument - I'm just saying it's not a scalable argument to begin with. GM and Chrysler, combined, supposedly employ over 150K people, even now - during periods during which people are actually buying cars, it could be significantly more than that. And that doesn't include people working in support industries (such as independent dealerships, third-party parts manufacturers and what-not). Most of them are in the upper Midwest - if they all lost their jobs all at once, even without a banking-industry meltdown happening concurrently, you'd have a regional recession at best and a pretty good chance of a national one too, just from allowing those two companies alone to go bust. In a Libertarian Utopia, what happens? These companies essentially vanish, and all their employees then get together to set up hundreds of new car companies that are better than their predecessors? Call me cynical, but I don't see that as very likely - what's likely is what we actually see happening, namely that foreign producers take up the slack (if there is any), and the workers end up on unemployment, or setting up meth labs, or working as "greeters" at Wal-Mart for $6.50 an hour.

Antitrust laws wouldn't exist in a free market. They neither enforce ownership ("property rights") nor enforce contracts.

Well, exactly!

[anthony]

And there are no capital gains on own residence in UK (and in US I believe).

In the US you are generally exempted from $250,000 of capital gains ($500,000 for a married couple) on your primary residence every 2 years (it has to be your primary residence for 2 years before you sell it). Plus a bunch of other nitty gritty details.

As for rental properties, the scheme is outlined in the book How I Turned $1,000 into Five Million in Real Estate in My Spare Time, which, incidentally, I bought for 25 cents at a goodwill and sold on half.com for over $50 during the real estate boom (I call the book How I Turned $0.25 into fifty dollars in my spare time by buying and selling this book).

So perhaps you are right after all Anthony.

I certainly make decisions based on the assumption that I am (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif).

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Somey]

It certainly makes no sense to put money on deposit or in bonds when the rate of inflation is higher than the interest rate...

I believe this is why many people invest in things like gold, diamonds, and (until recently) real estate when that happens. Is it just a coinkydink that those are probably also the most "free" markets around, in terms of the amount of (i.e., lack of) government regulation and "interference"...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Still, you have to maintain some liquidity, if only to be able to pay your credit-card minimums every month.

...or in equities when capital gains are taxed so severely.

Even the highest-possible rate in the USA, starting next year, is just under 40 percent. I believe that's higher than the income-tax rate (for the highest bracket), and maybe it should be dropped to be equal to it, but I personally wouldn't consider it enough to actually avoid equity investments when you already make that much money to start with. But would indexing the capital gains rate to the income-tax rate be enough to satisfy them? For "poor people" the rate can be as low as 5 percent, and libertarians don't believe "losers" should be rewarded, so... when push comes to shove, aren't they basically asking "why can't us rich people pay the same tax rates as poor people?" (Or better yet, lower rates, or no taxes at all?)

Still, I would hate to think that economic libertarians are being motivated to create and espouse a whole big extreme-sounding ideology merely because they dislike marginal or graduated tax rates.

[anthony]

It certainly makes no sense to put money on deposit or in bonds when the rate of inflation is higher than the interest rate...

I believe this is why many people invest in things like gold, diamonds, and (until recently) real estate when that happens. Is it just a coinkydink that those are probably also the most "free" markets around, in terms of the amount of (i.e., lack of) government regulation and "interference"...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Still, you have to maintain some liquidity, if only to be able to pay your credit-card minimums every month.

Maybe if the government didn't go in and shut down and arrest people for starting companies like e-gold, you'd be able to pay your credit-card minimums straight from your gold account each month.

...or in equities when capital gains are taxed so severely.

Even the highest-possible rate in the USA, starting next year, is just under 40 percent. I believe that's higher than the income-tax rate (for the highest bracket), and maybe it should be dropped to be equal to it, but I personally wouldn't consider it enough to actually avoid equity investments when you already make that much money to start with. But would indexing the capital gains rate to the income-tax rate be enough to satisfy them?

Most free market capitalists, even those who support income taxes, feel that the capital gains rate should be zero. I haven't actually watched this video, so I don't know exactly what it says, but see here.

[anthony]

I'm not sure where you're getting those figures from, but I also don't see how that changes the argument. If a million people work for a couple dozen poorly-managed companies, there's a good chance they might all lose their jobs. If a million people drink tons and tons of prune juice, there's a good chance a million people will all get diarrhea.

I didn't say it changed the argument - I'm just saying it's not a scalable argument to begin with. GM and Chrysler, combined, supposedly employ over 150K people, even now - during periods during which people are actually buying cars, it could be significantly more than that. And that doesn't include people working in support industries (such as independent dealerships, third-party parts manufacturers and what-not). Most of them are in the upper Midwest - if they all lost their jobs all at once, even without a banking-industry meltdown happening concurrently, you'd have a regional recession at best and a pretty good chance of a national one too, just from allowing those two companies alone to go bust. In a Libertarian Utopia, what happens? These companies essentially vanish, and all their employees then get together to set up hundreds of new car companies that are better than their predecessors? Call me cynical, but I don't see that as very likely - what's likely is what we actually see happening, namely that foreign producers take up the slack (if there is any), and the workers end up on unemployment, or setting up meth labs, or working as "greeters" at Wal-Mart for $6.50 an hour.

I think you're right about what would happen, especially in the short term, especially if free market capitalism were instituted suddenly and without warning. As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone. People who are living today off inflated wages for work that could be more efficiently performed by foreign producers, jobs which they have only due to government interference with the free market, would lose their jobs and have to take a huge paycut, if they could find new employment at all. And there are probably millions of such individuals out there.

As it turns out, that's all bound to happen eventually anyway. Right now we're in the process of rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. If we keep up with the current policies, Zimbabwe here we come.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Milton Roe]

A working system would have allowed it, it just wouldn't have made all of us pay to bail out the individuals involved.

So the banks should have been allowed to fail?

In a working system, banks would be allowed to fail.

Of course, a working system wouldn't have a government-run FDIC.

But depositors need some protection, otherwise they would keep gold under the mattress.

This is the whole point of Glass-Steagall, which Milton has labored to obfuscate. Under G-S, commercial banks which perform a necessary function in the economy (think Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Wonderful Life") are backstopped by the government. Banks which engage in parasitic forms of speculation (that would be Mr. Potter) are on their own, and most definitely allowed to fail.

"Parasitic forms of speculation" being to buy up home mortgages and sell them off to other people (including commerical banks) as asset backed corporate bonds? Commercial banks have been able to buy each other's mortgage loans directly via "pass through" at least since the 1970's. The first "collateralized mortgage obligation" as such was created for Freddie Mac by two investment banks (First Boston and Salomon Brothers) and then sold as corporate bonds to commercial banks (which were perfectly free to buy corporate bonds under Glass-Steagall), in 1983. The whole system had been entirely perverted by exposing commercial banks to every kind of risk in the housing market (sometimes hidden ones), long before 1999.

A commercial bank is exposed to capital market risk if it holds bonds backed by toxic assets (in this case, housing assets). It does not need to be speculating in "the stock market" to be taken down by all this, and in fact, historically wasn't. Commercial banking was taken out by the housing bubble, which is naturally commercial banking's baby anyway. You've got the problem entirely wrong. Commercial banks were fully exposed to bad housing risk long before 1999. Most of the borrowing and repackaging of subprime loans happened after that, to be sure, but it would have happened anyway, since there's nothing in Glass-Steagall to stop commerical banks from buying that kind of bond (CDO's are just types of bonds), once they had been invented.

Once this starts happening, commercial banks find they're in a pickle. Who do you think commercial banks loaned money TO, and bought bonds FROM, before 1999? Tell me then how they would have been protected from the market crash of 2008 if Gramm-Leach-Bliley had never passed?

And of course, commercial banks still fail, and failed before 2008. Generally it has only been a few per year, although one can see a rise to 11 failures in 2002 when the market was suffering after 9/11. Interestingly, not a single commercial bank failed in the US in 2005 and 2006, at the height of the housing and lending bubble. Then a few in 2007, then a few more in the first half of 2008, then all hell broke loose. We had 21 more in the last half of 2008, 127 in 2009, and so far 92 in the first half of 2010. It may well go over 200 FDIC-bank-receiverships this year.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

Of course, when the FDIC takes over a commercial bank it's not like what you see in a "bank run" in It's a Wonderful Life. Instead the FDIC people just show up some Friday afternoon, spend the weekend locking things up and putting up "under new management" signs, and then they start paying off depositors the next week. Sometimes the bank even stays open for a while under FDIC managment. The government shows up with a truck full of money to pay off depositors (up to their FDIC limit) and that's it. The bank's assets are now owned by the feds.

[KD Tries Again]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone. A society in which some groups of people have major, systemic, unearned advantages over other groups of people when it comes to all forms of competition, including economic, is surely not a society a libertarian should support. Introducing a libertarian political and economic system within our existing society, without first removing sources of systemic inequality, would simply give enormous, unearned advantages to existing powerful groups, allowing inequalities to be perpetuated and magnified. Freedom would simply be freedom for the already powerful to become more powerful still.

Of course libertarianism - unlike socialism, for all its faults - does not address the removal of those systemic inequalities.

[Jon Awbrey]

A society in which some groups of people have major, systemic, unearned advantages over other groups of people when it comes to all forms of competition, including economic, is surely not a society a libertarian should support.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really believe in libertarians — they are like their congeners, unicorns, mythical beasts that exist solely in the fantasies of 14 to 40-year old virgins — but I think the most authoritative apocrypha all define the libertarian concept of “earned advantage” this way:

• earned advantage = any advantage that I have
• unearned advantage = any advantage that you have

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[anthony]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

[Milton Roe]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

No, the universe is not fair, the question is how much society is to compensate for that. I told the story of the freshman who came back from college fired up with socialism, and her dad asked her what grade she'd made in political science, and was told an "A." And what grade did her dormate make? Answer:"C". So he suggests that they split it and both get B's. "No way, daddy! I worked hard for that grade while Jane went out and partied!" "Welcome to the Republicans."

Here is fairness. You're born with genes to be tall, dark, handsome, strong, and intelligent. Also, you're born rich. I'm born with genes for the opposite, and my parents are poor.

Fairness: I get my fair share of your booty. And I mean boo-teh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Teh community of womens must include teh booty tax.

[anthony]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

No, the universe is not fair, the question is how much society is to compensate for that. I told the story of the freshman who came back from college fired up with socialism, and her dad asked her what grade she'd made in political science, and was told an "A." And what grade did her dormate make? Answer:"C". So he suggests that they split it and both get B's. "No way, daddy! I worked hard for that grade while Jane went out and partied!" "Welcome to the Republicans."

Here is fairness. You're born with genes to be tall, dark, handsome, strong, and intelligent. Also, you're born rich. I'm born with genes for the opposite, and my parents are poor.

Fairness: I get my fair share of your booty. And I mean boo-teh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Teh community of womens must include teh booty tax.

So, that's sarcasm, right? Fair≇equal.

[GlassBeadGame]

It is hopeless. Try to discuss how WP attempts to emulate markets in aggregating atomized edits (and how that fails) and a half a dozen varieties of right wingers rush in to defend capitalism. Hard to make any progress like that.

[anthony]

It is hopeless. Try to discuss how WP attempts to emulate markets in aggregating atomized edits (and how that fails) and a half a dozen varieties of right wingers rush in to defend capitalism. Hard to make any progress like that.

Why not try criticizing WP without simultaneously taking pot shots at capitalism? Might make more progress that way.

Wikipedia has very little to do with capitalism. In fact it's largely designed in left-anarchist fashion: consensus decision making, lack of ownership of articles, disrespect for intellectual property laws... Wikipedians may tend to be on the libertarian side, but libertarianism is not capitalism. In fact, the left-libertarianism that pervades Wikipedia is closer to socialism than capitalism.

[GlassBeadGame]

It is hopeless. Try to discuss how WP attempts to emulate markets in aggregating atomized edits (and how that fails) and a half a dozen varieties of right wingers rush in to defend capitalism. Hard to make any progress like that.

Why not try criticizing WP without simultaneously taking pot shots at capitalism? Might make more progress that way.

Wikipedia has very little to do with capitalism. In fact it's largely designed in left-anarchist fashion: consensus decision making, lack of ownership of articles, disrespect for intellectual property laws... Wikipedians may tend to be on the libertarian side, but libertarianism is not capitalism. In fact, the left-libertarianism that pervades Wikipedia is closer to socialism than capitalism.

Complete Fail. Now resume your middle school blabber.

[anthony]

It is hopeless. Try to discuss how WP attempts to emulate markets in aggregating atomized edits (and how that fails) and a half a dozen varieties of right wingers rush in to defend capitalism. Hard to make any progress like that.

Why not try criticizing WP without simultaneously taking pot shots at capitalism? Might make more progress that way.

Wikipedia has very little to do with capitalism. In fact it's largely designed in left-anarchist fashion: consensus decision making, lack of ownership of articles, disrespect for intellectual property laws... Wikipedians may tend to be on the libertarian side, but libertarianism is not capitalism. In fact, the left-libertarianism that pervades Wikipedia is closer to socialism than capitalism.

Complete Fail. Now resume your middle school blabber.

Will do. Here goes: One of the key principles of capitalism is private ownership. One of the key principles of Wikipedia is public ownership of everything.

But why focus on the points where we disagree?

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Avirosa]

It is hopeless. Try to discuss how WP attempts to emulate markets in aggregating atomized edits (and how that fails) and a half a dozen varieties of right wingers rush in to defend capitalism. Hard to make any progress like that.

Impossible to make progress. What's even more depressing is the way the argument always descends into a box defined by the narrow borders of the USA. There's logic to that at times because Wikipedia is essentially a US entity, but Wikipedia as a symptom of the systemic promulgation of 'falsity' across Web 2.0 is a Global Internet problem and solutions to it will have to be either be multiple and culturally specific, or otherwise Globally applicable. Nostrums that appease Wall Street, or Maddison Avenue or Silicon Valley, or which are acceptable to Fox News (let alone comprehensible to FN's viewers) are very unlikely to ensure widescale inhibition of the promotion of falsity for 7 billion humans.

A.virosa

[Avirosa]

One of the key principles of capitalism is private ownership. One of the key principles of Wikipedia is public ownership of everything.

Given that most elucidations of Capitalism depend on a history that explains Capitalism’s development out of European Judeo-Christian beliefs, and those beliefs provided a strong impetus for philanthropic investment, as well as economic investment (i.e the foundation of churches, schools, hospitals in addition to the purchase of exploitable assets for personal profit) and that the property of philanthropic foundations was seen as a form of ‘held in common’; how do you arrive at Wikipedia being anti Capitalist ?

As far as I can see your Capitalism must follow from some kind of Creationist myth; it appears fully formed and immaculate 200 years ago, only to be spoiled by the sins of the fallen, who have embraced the evils of communitarianism ? communism ? socialism? liberalism ?

A.virosa

[Milton Roe]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

No, the universe is not fair, the question is how much society is to compensate for that. I told the story of the freshman who came back from college fired up with socialism, and her dad asked her what grade she'd made in political science, and was told an "A." And what grade did her dormate make? Answer:"C". So he suggests that they split it and both get B's. "No way, daddy! I worked hard for that grade while Jane went out and partied!" "Welcome to the Republicans."

Here is fairness. You're born with genes to be tall, dark, handsome, strong, and intelligent. Also, you're born rich. I'm born with genes for the opposite, and my parents are poor.

Fairness: I get my fair share of your booty. And I mean boo-teh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Teh community of womens must include teh booty tax.

So, that's sarcasm, right? Fair≇equal.

Define "fair," then.

[Milton Roe]

One of the key principles of capitalism is private ownership. One of the key principles of Wikipedia is public ownership of everything.

Given that most elucidations of Capitalism depend on a history that explains Capitalism’s development out of European Judeo-Christian beliefs, and those beliefs provided a strong impetus for philanthropic investment, as well as economic investment (i.e the foundation of churches, schools, hospitals in addition to the purchase of exploitable assets for personal profit) and that the property of philanthropic foundations was seen as a form of ‘held in common’; how do you arrive at Wikipedia being anti Capitalist ?

As far as I can see your Capitalism must follow from some kind of Creationist myth; it appears fully formed and immaculate 200 years ago, only to be spoiled by the sins of the fallen, who have embraced the evils of communitarianism ? communism ? socialism? liberalism ?

A.virosa

The problem is that "capitalism" doesn't even have a good definition. Marx defined it sort of negatively, as a system in which a few people tend to own everything, and everybody else just slaves away, having their "labor" "stolen" from them.

And I think we agree that people don't call it "capitalism" where the government "owns" all the resources, although I'm not sure why this is. Capital is capital, even if the government controls it. It's just not PRIVATE capital.

"Capital" is from "caput" = "head" (of livestock in this case). It was movable property, as opposed to real property (land and everything that was stuck on the land and couldn't be moved). It is the same root and same idea as its doublets cattle and chattle. A store of wealth easily fungible. Once you have it, you can use it to make larger projects like pyramids or dams or boats or factories or whatever. These act as multipliers for your labor, and increase your capital. That's it. You can do it personally, or the government of China can do it. The principle is no different-- just the scale.

The political arguments have all gone down the separate road of who controls, owns, and plans what to do with capital. That's all indeed an interesting question, but it's completely separate from all the Marxist junk stuff about how large capital intensive projects steal surplus value from "laborers" and indeed the labor theory of value itself (which Marx didn't invent but certainly helped popularize). That's all nonsense. And people who literally believed in it (Pol Pot, who thought there was something evil about industrialization per se) have done a huge amount of damage. And would have done, even if he hadn't also been a mass murderer. Starvation kills people too (as in socialist China, where the government mismanaged the capital).

[Herschelkrustofsky]

One of the key principles of capitalism is private ownership. One of the key principles of Wikipedia is public ownership of everything.

Except, of course, for article content, which is jealously guarded by admin OWNers.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Given that most elucidations of Capitalism depend on a history that explains Capitalism’s development out of European Judeo-Christian beliefs, and those beliefs provided a strong impetus for philanthropic investment, as well as economic investment (i.e the foundation of churches, schools, hospitals in addition to the purchase of exploitable assets for personal profit) and that the property of philanthropic foundations was seen as a form of ‘held in common’; how do you arrive at Wikipedia being anti Capitalist ?

That's a rather lengthy given. I don't think that Capitalism per se has any connection to Judeo-Christian beliefs; ironically, socialism, which claimed to be atheist in theory (though not in practice; Stalin could not have won the Great Patriotic War without the support of the ROC,) would seem to be closer to the teachings of Christ. But... the Renaissance, which blended Christian/Judaic/Islamic ideas with the concepts developed by Plato's followers in Greece, contributed the Idea of Progress, which broke the common man out of the static, socially immobile world of the Middle Ages, and opened the door to individual initiative and entrepreneurship, a key component of successful Capitalism.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Here is a very interesting commentary on contemporary libertarianism by Paul Craig Roberts.

[Peter Damian]

Here is a very interesting commentary on contemporary libertarianism by Paul Craig Roberts.

Agree

[KD Tries Again]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

Did you read beyond the first sentence?

[KD Tries Again]

No, the universe is not fair, the question is how much society is to compensate for that. I told the story of the freshman who came back from college fired up with socialism, and her dad asked her what grade she'd made in political science, and was told an "A." And what grade did her dormate make? Answer:"C". So he suggests that they split it and both get B's. "No way, daddy! I worked hard for that grade while Jane went out and partied!" "Welcome to the Republicans."

A nice story which relates to equality of outcome. But how about equality of opportunity? I am sure anthony would give everyone the freedom to go to college. Strenuous state intervention over the years has been necessary to make it possible for people to go to college; intervention which has gone far beyond simply giving them permission.

[Milton Roe]

No, the universe is not fair, the question is how much society is to compensate for that. I told the story of the freshman who came back from college fired up with socialism, and her dad asked her what grade she'd made in political science, and was told an "A." And what grade did her dormate make? Answer:"C". So he suggests that they split it and both get B's. "No way, daddy! I worked hard for that grade while Jane went out and partied!" "Welcome to the Republicans."

A nice story which relates to equality of outcome. But how about equality of opportunity? I am sure anthony would give everyone the freedom to go to college. Strenuous state intervention over the years has been necessary to make it possible for people to go to college; intervention which has gone far beyond simply giving them permission.

To be fair, it's all depended on voting boundaries. Federal stuff over-rode Jim Crow in the 1950's and 60's, but it all would have happened far sooner if not for the southern states meddling in private schools, and even before that, if not for all states meddling in K-12 education. In Mississippi, even if you wanted to have an integrated private swimming pool or lunch counter or restrooms in your service station, that state wouldn't LET you.

The fundamental problem with democracy is that everybody gets what only the majority deserve, and it's very hard to keep the 51% from sticking their noses into the 49%'s business. Too often this results in a situation where everybody is forced into option A (like it or not) and then not so long after, everybody is forced into option B. Without ever finding out what happens in the intervening period if we let small institutions choose for themselves.

[anthony]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

No, the universe is not fair, the question is how much society is to compensate for that. I told the story of the freshman who came back from college fired up with socialism, and her dad asked her what grade she'd made in political science, and was told an "A." And what grade did her dormate make? Answer:"C". So he suggests that they split it and both get B's. "No way, daddy! I worked hard for that grade while Jane went out and partied!" "Welcome to the Republicans."

Here is fairness. You're born with genes to be tall, dark, handsome, strong, and intelligent. Also, you're born rich. I'm born with genes for the opposite, and my parents are poor.

Fairness: I get my fair share of your booty. And I mean boo-teh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Teh community of womens must include teh booty tax.

So, that's sarcasm, right? Fair≇equal.

Define "fair," then.

free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice? marked by impartiality and honesty? free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism?

These dictionary definitions all seem reasonable.

[anthony]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

Did you read beyond the first sentence?

Yeah.

A society in which some groups of people have major, systemic, unearned advantages over other groups of people when it comes to all forms of competition, including economic, is surely not a society a libertarian should support. Introducing a libertarian political and economic system within our existing society, without first removing sources of systemic inequality, would simply give enormous, unearned advantages to existing powerful groups, allowing inequalities to be perpetuated and magnified. Freedom would simply be freedom for the already powerful to become more powerful still.

Not sure how the "systemic" part fits in, or what you mean by it. Some groups of people are always going to have major unearned advantages over other groups of people. That has nothing to do with the system (in the absence of government interference), it's just a fact of life.

Of course libertarianism - unlike socialism, for all its faults - does not address the removal of those systemic inequalities.

Free market capitalism certainly does address the removal of systemic inequalities. What it doesn't address is the removal of natural inequalities.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[anthony]

I am sure anthony would give everyone the freedom to go to college. Strenuous state intervention over the years has been necessary to make it possible for people to go to college; intervention which has gone far beyond simply giving them permission.

Huh? What intervention? Who couldn't possibly have gone to college without "strenuous state intervention"?

Neither my parents nor the government paid for a penny of my college education, including tuition, room, and board. I worked part time during the school year, I worked during the summers, and I got loans for the rest. Okay, fine, the interest rate on the loans would have been a little higher without government subsidies.

[Peter Damian]

Governments can stop animal cruelty as well

http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/07/28/spains-...s-bullfighting/

Actually this is another case similar to the about about 'truth'. A large number of people have a small amount of sympathy for animals, but not enough to take direct action. A small amount have a passionate belief in torturing animals for pleasure. The voting mechanism allows the large number of people to take action via the government.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[CharlotteWebb]

Governments can stop animal cruelty as well

http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/07/28/spains-...s-bullfighting/

Und vivisektion ist verboten (also sprach der führer). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Governments can stop animal cruelty as well

http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/07/28/spains-...s-bullfighting/

Und vivisektion ist verboten (also sprach der führer). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif)

Correct. Goering banned vivisection in 1933. Since everything the Nazi government did was evil, therefore it was wrong of them to ban vivisection. Ergo all government interference is wrong. Good argument.

[dogbiscuit]

Governments can stop animal cruelty as well

http://www.yalibnan.com/2010/07/28/spains-...s-bullfighting/

Und vivisektion ist verboten (also sprach der führer). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/letsgetdrunk.gif)

Correct. Goering banned vivisection in 1933. Since everything the Nazi government did was evil, therefore it was wrong of them to ban vivisection. Ergo all government interference is wrong. Good argument.

We are, we are starting to realise, going through a massive experiment in the UK to find out if Government interference is a bad thing. Not sure who voted for it.

Perhaps the blind ripping up of legislation without thought for the consequences is also Government interference. Mind you at least we have the Government's permission to call Obesity "fat". Bye, bye PC.

[Moulton]

Fair ≇ equal.

Define "fair," then.

How about "fair play" (as in spielrein)?

[CharlotteWebb]

Correct. Goering banned vivisection in 1933. Since everything the Nazi government did was evil, therefore it was wrong of them to ban vivisection. Ergo all government interference is wrong. Good argument.

I thought maybe you had some sense of sarcasm, but yeah, the Nazis did a handful of other good things too. When the weather's bad enough, that's all it takes.

Unlike vivisection (which may have limited scientific value), bull-fighting is more of a traditional sporting activity, and as such I have to doubt any laws against it would be enforced with more than casual rigor. You know, unless celebrity figures are noted to be involved. Cf. dog-fighting, still hugely popular in the southern U.S.―folks know when and where it's going on but don't do anything to stop it. I'd doubt a third of them knew it was illegal before the Michael Vick thing.

Però sobre els toreros: offhand I'd speculate it has more to do with Teh Catalanzors distancing themselves from Spanish culture (rejecting it in the most conspicuous way possible, even) than saving the livestock. But in politics good things tend to happen for the wrong reasons, if ever.

To this end I'm curious to see how much further they'll go. I figure it will be about as popular as America's attempt to distance itself from German culture (and alienate its largest single ethnic group) circa 1919–1933.

[Peter Damian]

I thought maybe you had some sense of sarcasm

No I really meant that it was a good argument.

[CharlotteWebb]

I thought maybe you had some sense of sarcasm

No I really meant that it was a good argument.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Avirosa]

Given that most elucidations of Capitalism depend on a history that explains Capitalism’s development out of European Judeo-Christian beliefs, and those beliefs provided a strong impetus for philanthropic investment, as well as economic investment (i.e the foundation of churches, schools, hospitals in addition to the purchase of exploitable assets for personal profit) and that the property of philanthropic foundations was seen as a form of ‘held in common’; how do you arrive at Wikipedia being anti Capitalist ?

That's a rather lengthy given. I don't think that Capitalism per se has any connection to Judeo-Christian beliefs; ironically, socialism, which claimed to be atheist in theory (though not in practice; Stalin could not have won the Great Patriotic War without the support of the ROC,) would seem to be closer to the teachings of Christ. But... the Renaissance, which blended Christian/Judaic/Islamic ideas with the concepts developed by Plato's followers in Greece, contributed the Idea of Progress, which broke the common man out of the static, socially immobile world of the Middle Ages, and opened the door to individual initiative and entrepreneurship, a key component of successful Capitalism.

So while for Anthony, Capitalism appeared fully formed and immaculate 200 years ago, for you Capitalism is a rediscovery of a Classical philosphy in the (mythical) Renaissance. The idea that Europe was petrified into some dark age stasis from 500 to 1600 CE is nonsense of scale I find incomprehensible.

But I suppose the glamour of The Renaissaince is hard to break, even it if was little more than Fashion garnered by later commentators with coincidental but unconnected advances in scientific and philosophical thinking - thinking which merely continued a pre existing progress. Notions of the 'Fall of Rome', the 'Dark Ages', the uncivil nature of 'the Barbarians' and the conception of the 'fixity' of feudalistic Monarchic societies in Europe, are all Victorian inventions, which both archaeology and history have disposed of in the last fifty years.

That Socialism developed out of Judeo-Christianity doesn't prevent Capitalism from having developed out the same philosophical base. It's an old adage and probably not true in a literal sense but: "Judaisim produced two great Heresies - Christianity and Communism." Along with technological revolutions in metalurgy, hydrology and agriculture, Capitalism was pioneered by the great Monastic insititutions of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries CE, I can't therefore see how Capitalism can be seperated from Judeo-Christian philosophy.

A.virosa

[anthony]

So while for Anthony, Capitalism appeared fully formed and immaculate 200 years ago

Please don't ascribe beliefs to me which I do not hold. Thank you.

[KD Tries Again]

Not sure how the "systemic" part fits in, or what you mean by it. Some groups of people are always going to have major unearned advantages over other groups of people. That has nothing to do with the system (in the absence of government interference), it's just a fact of life.

Of course libertarianism - unlike socialism, for all its faults - does not address the removal of those systemic inequalities.

Free market capitalism certainly does address the removal of systemic inequalities. What it doesn't address is the removal of natural inequalities.

Oh okay, there's the basic difference between us. It seems to me unarguable that the major injustices in our society are not natural facts but facts created by human agency (including inadvertent outcomes of human actions). To deny this seems to require mounting a defense of the position that prosperity and power are consistently the reward of merit, which I think is challenging in the face of historical facts.

[Jon Awbrey]

I think this belongs in politics and religion.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[anthony]

Not sure how the "systemic" part fits in, or what you mean by it. Some groups of people are always going to have major unearned advantages over other groups of people. That has nothing to do with the system (in the absence of government interference), it's just a fact of life.

Of course libertarianism - unlike socialism, for all its faults - does not address the removal of those systemic inequalities.

Free market capitalism certainly does address the removal of systemic inequalities. What it doesn't address is the removal of natural inequalities.

Oh okay, there's the basic difference between us. It seems to me unarguable that the major injustices in our society are not natural facts but facts created by human agency (including inadvertent outcomes of human actions).

I certainly won't argue with that.

And I'll point out that free market capitalism is not anarchy.

To deny this seems to require mounting a defense of the position that prosperity and power are consistently the reward of merit, which I think is challenging in the face of historical facts.

No, it merely requires mounting a defense that prosperity and power on average tend to be the reward of merit, in a system of free market capitalism. Furthermore, time and time again it is quite clear, and nearly unarguable, that government interventions in the free market invariably reduce merited rewards.

I mean, how could taxing hard earned dollars to pay for welfare programs be seen any other way?

[GlassBeadGame]

Not sure how the "systemic" part fits in, or what you mean by it. Some groups of people are always going to have major unearned advantages over other groups of people. That has nothing to do with the system (in the absence of government interference), it's just a fact of life.

Of course libertarianism - unlike socialism, for all its faults - does not address the removal of those systemic inequalities.

Free market capitalism certainly does address the removal of systemic inequalities. What it doesn't address is the removal of natural inequalities.

Oh okay, there's the basic difference between us. It seems to me unarguable that the major injustices in our society are not natural facts but facts created by human agency (including inadvertent outcomes of human actions).

I certainly won't argue with that.

And I'll point out that free market capitalism is not anarchy.

To deny this seems to require mounting a defense of the position that prosperity and power are consistently the reward of merit, which I think is challenging in the face of historical facts.

No, it merely requires mounting a defense that prosperity and power on average tend to be the reward of merit, in a system of free market capitalism. Furthermore, time and time again it is quite clear, and nearly unarguable, that government interventions in the free market invariably reduce merited rewards.

I mean, how could taxing hard earned dollars to pay for welfare programs be seen any other way?

Thank you Anthony for completely destroying yet another thread with your need to share irrelevant views on the defense of privilege.

[Jon Awbrey]

I think this belongs in political religion.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

I think this belongs in political religion.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Maybe the whole thread. Some relevant posts could saved but at this point the discussion is a total loss even if someone does the surgery.

[Peter Damian]

It began as something specifically about Wikipedia. Read the beginning. The thesis was that the libertarian ethos of Wikipedia will not serve the truth well. This is because those with an interest in editing have the truth far from mind.

I briefly discussed this http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html in another thread but perhaps the general idea belongs in a thread of its own. The gist is that the truth will only flourish if there is a 'tax on falsity'. This is because the vast majority of people who are interested in the truth, are only mildly interested in it. Conversely, those who are interested in error are passionate about their error (there are various categories of these people which I discuss in the post). Thus the people interested in the truth are not interested enough to get in protracted argument with those who are on the side of error. Thus, without any social mechanism to favour the truth, error will always prevail.

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

This is a general argument against libertarianism. At least, versions of libertarianism that hold that all taxation is wrong.

There are libertarians here: what do they think?

* Oh dear I completely mispelled both parts of the title - It should be 'The argument for a falsity tax' and 'Against libertarianism'. (Libertinarianism is something quite different). Could a mod oblige please? - Thanks.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[anthony]

Thank you Anthony for completely destroying yet another thread with your need to share irrelevant views on the defense of privilege.

Sorry. You'd think the others would have learned my views from now, but they keep on keeping on with the same already answered objections.

[Milton Roe]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

No, the universe is not fair, the question is how much society is to compensate for that. I told the story of the freshman who came back from college fired up with socialism, and her dad asked her what grade she'd made in political science, and was told an "A." And what grade did her dormate make? Answer:"C". So he suggests that they split it and both get B's. "No way, daddy! I worked hard for that grade while Jane went out and partied!" "Welcome to the Republicans."

Here is fairness. You're born with genes to be tall, dark, handsome, strong, and intelligent. Also, you're born rich. I'm born with genes for the opposite, and my parents are poor.

Fairness: I get my fair share of your booty. And I mean boo-teh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Teh community of womens must include teh booty tax.

So, that's sarcasm, right? Fair≇equal.

Define "fair," then.

free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice? marked by impartiality and honesty? free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism?

These dictionary definitions all seem reasonable.

Not really. Most of the roots (bias, prejudice, favoritism, justice, partiality) are just as hard to define, so it amounts to defininig "fairness" as being free from unfairness. And justice as being free from injustice. Not helpful.

What do "honesty" and "self-interest" (more easily defined) have to do with "fairness"? Do you think it is unfair (for example) that I'm more interested in myself than I am in you? "Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me." Where is the dishonesty, except when I claim the situation is otherwise?

We actually have a word for the condition in which the welfare of person A is as important or more important to person B than that of person B. It's called "love." But one cannot base a political system on universal love, because it's not practical. Nobody is capable of it, and if they claim they are, they are dishonest (or self-deluded). Consider how many of your posessions and income you could have (in theory) converted to salvation for the starving children of Africa. But didn't. Naturally this also includes what we all paid for our computers, ISP service, electricity, and the time we spend on WR.

In the interests of "fairness" am I supposed to enter into all my human relationships, without any bias, prejudice, favoritism (say what?), partiality, or self-interest? Does this include who I chose as customers, friends, work associates, employees, business partners, sexual partners, adoptees, spouses, and so on? Eh? And the governments' interests in my choices in these spheres is properly WHAT? Suppose I don't like people who whine all the time, or smell like old cheese? Guidance, please.

MR

[anthony]

free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice? marked by impartiality and honesty? free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism?

These dictionary definitions all seem reasonable.

Not really. Most of the roots (bias, prejudice, favoritism, justice, partiality) are just as hard to define, so it amounts to defininig "fairness" as being free from unfairness.

Only if you're a moral relativist. Otherwise it's possible to define fairness, which is not to say that it's easy, nor that it's something I intend to try to do in a Wikipedia Review post.

As I said up above, I think free market capitalism would be "fair" pretty much by definition. But again, that's not something I intend to try to prove in a Wikipedia Review post. If there's a particular part of capitalism you think is unfair, we could discuss that. But WR isn't the place for an entire treatise on the subject, which is what it would take to show that free market capitalism is fair.

[anthony]

What do "honesty" and "self-interest" (more easily defined) have to do with "fairness"?

Not sure. What do you think? (Also, see below. I should have stripped "self-interest" out of the definition.)

Do you think it is unfair (for example) that I'm more interested in myself than I am in you?

No, why would that be unfair? As I said, fair≇equal.

"Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me." Where is the dishonesty, except when I claim the situation is otherwise?

Not sure...even what the question is.

We actually have a word for the condition in which the welfare of person A is as important or more important to person B than that of person B. It's called "love."

That's a strange definition of love. I'd say it's certainly possible to love someone whose welfare you consider (at least slightly) less important than your own.

But one cannot base a political system on universal love, because it's not practical.

Quite true.

Nobody is capable of it, and if they claim they are, they are dishonest (or self-deluded).

If you think nobody is capable of love, then surely you have a bad definition of love.

In the interests of "fairness" am I supposed to enter into all my human relationships, without any bias, prejudice, favoritism (say what?), partiality, or self-interest?

No. Only without bias or unnecessary prejudice. Maybe without partiality. The definition about "free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism" presumably meant that the *system* (i.e., the government) would act without prejudice or favoritism. I should have stripped out "self-interest" before I copy/pasted it. I was rushing.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[KD Tries Again]

To deny this seems to require mounting a defense of the position that prosperity and power are consistently the reward of merit, which I think is challenging in the face of historical facts.

No, it merely requires mounting a defense that prosperity and power on average tend to be the reward of merit, in a system of free market capitalism. Furthermore, time and time again it is quite clear, and nearly unarguable, that government interventions in the free market invariably reduce merited rewards.

I mean, how could taxing hard earned dollars to pay for welfare programs be seen any other way?

I can see how they might be the reward of merit under free market capitalism if the systematic disadvantages under which sections of the community labor were first removed. As matters stand, it's evident that a smart kid from an impoverished background is less likely to get a good education and good job than a dumb kid from a prosperous background, and a system which deterred any kind of social intervention and just let abstract "permission to go to school and get a job" play itself out would exaggerate this effect.

One could obviously give examples related to health too. Anyone genuinely interested in merit rather than entrenched prosperity being rewarded should applaud tax dollars being diverted to welfare.

This post has been edited by KD Tries Again:

[anthony]

As matters stand, it's evident that a smart kid from an impoverished background is less likely to get a good education and good job than a dumb kid from a prosperous background, and a system which deterred any kind of social intervention and just let abstract "permission to go to school and get a job" play itself out would exaggerate this effect.

I completely disagree with the latter half of that statement. A system of free market capitalism would *fix* the situation. The reason the smart, hard working kid from an impoverished background doesn't get a fair shot is that the educational system (especially the educational system where that kid likely lives) is wasting so much money and effort on all the troublemakers, juvenile delinquents, and kids that otherwise don't care.

Anyone genuinely interested in merit rather than entrenched prosperity being rewarded should applaud tax dollars being diverted to welfare.

Welfare for the most part isn't going to kids. It's going to the kids loser parents (or at least the one of them who was slightly less of a loser and stuck around), who in turn spend it on everything but the welfare of their kids. At least, that's the part of the welfare money that isn't going to fraudsters - the IRS estimates that between 27 and 32 percent of earned income tax credits (the largest US welfare program) are due to fraud. A free market system would spend welfare money much more wisely and productively.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[CharlotteWebb]

I completely disagree with the latter half of that statement. A system of free market capitalism would *fix* the situation. The reason the smart, hard working kid from an impoverished background doesn't get a fair shot is that the educational system (especially the educational system where that kid likely lives) is wasting so much money and effort on all the troublemakers, juvenile delinquents, and kids that otherwise don't care.

There's some truth to this. Few kids can reasonably ask the school "guidance counselor" to teach him or her the tricks to qualifying for scholarships and other hand-outs, plus choosing a degree program with economic value outside re-teaching, or anything else that might help prepare teh student for college.

"Ask your ma about that."
"She didn't go to college."
"Go look it up on the internet, then. I'm busy."

True, it's a full-time job begging the other half not to drop out of high school. Telling them they've got so much potential—to wit: [cliché 1], [cliché 2], [cliché 3]—or that they should stick around just to make life hell for the teachers (who deeply resent this, being paid 25–40% less than the counselors).

[Jon Awbrey]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

Yep, all your most difficult social problems are solvable by means of The Right Definition.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[anthony]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

Yep, all your most difficult social problems are solvable by means of The Right Definition.

Jon, WTF is up with you and your useless one-liners?

[Jon Awbrey]

As I've said, I'm not one of those people who claims that free market capitalism would be instantly better for everyone.

That's clearly true, and nor would it be fairer for everyone.

It'd be fair pretty much by definition.

Yep, all your most difficult social problems are solvable by means of The Right Definition.

Jon, WTF is up with you and your useless one-liners?

Economy.

[Jon Awbrey]

It began as something specifically about Wikipedia. Read the beginning. The thesis was that the libertarian ethos of Wikipedia will not serve the truth well. This is because those with an interest in editing have the truth far from mind.

I briefly discussed this http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html in another thread but perhaps the general idea belongs in a thread of its own. The gist is that the truth will only flourish if there is a 'tax on falsity'. This is because the vast majority of people who are interested in the truth, are only mildly interested in it. Conversely, those who are interested in error are passionate about their error (there are various categories of these people which I discuss in the post). Thus the people interested in the truth are not interested enough to get in protracted argument with those who are on the side of error. Thus, without any social mechanism to favour the truth, error will always prevail.

The only way to help the truth (I argue) is to tax everyone a small amount, in proportion to the general feeble interest in truth. Then pay someone independently to establish the truth. Universities are one example of such a tax.

This is a general argument against libertarianism. At least, versions of libertarianism that hold that all taxation is wrong.

There are libertarians here: what do they think?

* Oh dear I completely mispelled both parts of the title — It should be 'The argument for a falsity tax' and 'Against libertarianism'. (Libertinarianism is something quite different). Could a mod oblige please? — Thanks.

I did read the beginning, but there wasn't time to get a word in edgewise before the whole sequel took a steep nose dive into the ordure of Boys' State BS Session that I constitutionally ignore in the Politics & Religion Forum. I have already said why I think this happened, most likely because an across-the-ponder all too politely took some fancy dressers at face value and so failed to realize that there is really no such thing as might be denoted by “the libertarian ethos”, much less any ethos that Wikipediots might be said to carry on with any degree of consistency, only a motley crue of code words on the order of “I Paid For This Microphone”, “Read My Lips”, “Tea Party”, or some equally inane rot.

The consequence of which you have seen …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[KD Tries Again]

As matters stand, it's evident that a smart kid from an impoverished background is less likely to get a good education and good job than a dumb kid from a prosperous background, and a system which deterred any kind of social intervention and just let abstract "permission to go to school and get a job" play itself out would exaggerate this effect.

I completely disagree with the latter half of that statement. A system of free market capitalism would *fix* the situation. The reason the smart, hard working kid from an impoverished background doesn't get a fair shot is that the educational system (especially the educational system where that kid likely lives) is wasting so much money and effort on all the troublemakers, juvenile delinquents, and kids that otherwise don't care.

Anyone genuinely interested in merit rather than entrenched prosperity being rewarded should applaud tax dollars being diverted to welfare.

Welfare for the most part isn't going to kids. It's going to the kids loser parents (or at least the one of them who was slightly less of a loser and stuck around), who in turn spend it on everything but the welfare of their kids. At least, that's the part of the welfare money that isn't going to fraudsters - the IRS estimates that between 27 and 32 percent of earned income tax credits (the largest US welfare program) are due to fraud. A free market system would spend welfare money much more wisely and productively.

Neither of those solutions requires "free market capitalism."

[anthony]

A free market system would spend welfare money much more wisely and productively.

Neither of those solutions requires "free market capitalism."

I suppose an infinitely wise, infinitely powerful, and infinitely benevolent dictator would also do.

[Somey]

The reason the smart, hard working kid from an impoverished background doesn't get a fair shot is that the educational system (especially the educational system where that kid likely lives) is wasting so much money and effort on all the troublemakers, juvenile delinquents, and kids that otherwise don't care.

That's a rather simplistic argument, even for you, isn't it? What would a "free market" system do with all those troublemakers and juvenile delinquents, then - I'd assume it would let them freely develop their talents at criminal activity so that they can simply steal what they need from everybody else? I mean, that would be the kind of system we have now, if we didn't waste all that money on silly, inefficient things like "law enforcement."

...that's the part of the welfare money that isn't going to fraudsters - the IRS estimates that between 27 and 32 percent of earned income tax credits (the largest US welfare program) are due to fraud. A free market system would spend welfare money much more wisely and productively.

Because a free market system would be better able to hire welfare-system administrators who will keep public money out of the hands of "fraudsters" and "loser parents," right?

[anthony]

The reason the smart, hard working kid from an impoverished background doesn't get a fair shot is that the educational system (especially the educational system where that kid likely lives) is wasting so much money and effort on all the troublemakers, juvenile delinquents, and kids that otherwise don't care.

That's a rather simplistic argument, even for you, isn't it? What would a "free market" system do with all those troublemakers and juvenile delinquents, then - I'd assume it would let them freely develop their talents at criminal activity so that they can simply steal what they need from everybody else? I mean, that would be the kind of system we have now, if we didn't waste all that money on silly, inefficient things like "law enforcement."

Why do people so often confuse free market capitalism with anarchy? No, we'd still spend money on law enforcement.

...that's the part of the welfare money that isn't going to fraudsters - the IRS estimates that between 27 and 32 percent of earned income tax credits (the largest US welfare program) are due to fraud. A free market system would spend welfare money much more wisely and productively.

Because a free market system would be better able to hire welfare-system administrators who will keep public money out of the hands of "fraudsters" and "loser parents," right?

No, not right.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I don't think that Capitalism per se has any connection to Judeo-Christian beliefs; ironically, socialism, which claimed to be atheist in theory (though not in practice; Stalin could not have won the Great Patriotic War without the support of the ROC,) would seem to be closer to the teachings of Christ. But... the Renaissance, which blended Christian/Judaic/Islamic ideas with the concepts developed by Plato's followers in Greece, contributed the Idea of Progress, which broke the common man out of the static, socially immobile world of the Middle Ages, and opened the door to individual initiative and entrepreneurship, a key component of successful Capitalism.

So while for Anthony, Capitalism appeared fully formed and immaculate 200 years ago, for you Capitalism is a rediscovery of a Classical philosphy in the (mythical) Renaissance.

I didn't say that. I said that the Renaissance ushered in a period of social mobility that made entrepreneurship possible. Under feudalism, you could take your original idea and stuff it, because you were still going to be cobbler to the end of your days.

The idea that Europe was petrified into some dark age stasis from 500 to 1600 CE is nonsense of scale I find incomprehensible.

But I suppose the glamour of The Renaissaince is hard to break, even it if was little more than Fashion garnered by later commentators with coincidental but unconnected advances in scientific and philosophical thinking - thinking which merely continued a pre existing progress. Notions of the 'Fall of Rome', the 'Dark Ages', the uncivil nature of 'the Barbarians' and the conception of the 'fixity' of feudalistic Monarchic societies in Europe, are all Victorian inventions, which both archaeology and history have disposed of in the last fifty years.

{{fact}} {{fact}} {{fact}} From the Peloponnesian War up until the infusion of Platonic ideas into Andalusia by the Moors in the 8th through 10th Centuries, from whence they began to filter into Italy, the dominant philosophical influence in Europe was Aristotle, who presents a static vision of the universe in which, for example, slavery is part of the natural order. With the revival of Platonism this began to change, and you had interesting developments such as the decision of France's Louis XI to ally with the peasantry against the aristocracy, combined with the efforts of the Brethren of the Common Life and its program of teaching commoners to read and write.

Along with technological revolutions in metalurgy, hydrology and agriculture, Capitalism was pioneered by the great Monastic insititutions of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries CE, I can't therefore see how Capitalism can be seperated from Judeo-Christian philosophy.

{{fact}} Capitalist monks? That's news to me.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

It seems to me unarguable that the major injustices in our society are not natural facts but facts created by human agency (including inadvertent outcomes of human actions).

Me too.

To deny this seems to require mounting a defense of the position that prosperity and power are consistently the reward of merit, which I think is challenging in the face of historical facts.

No, it merely requires mounting a defense that prosperity and power on average tend to be the reward of merit, in a system of free market capitalism.

And/or well organized, feral banditry. I would like the government to protect me from Goldman Sachs.

[anthony]

I would like the government to protect me from Goldman Sachs.

No doubt by forcing Goldman Sachs to give you things you don't deserve.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

We actually have a word for the condition in which the welfare of person A is as important or more important to person B than that of person B. It's called "love." But one cannot base a political system on universal love, because it's not practical. Nobody is capable of it, and if they claim they are, they are dishonest (or self-deluded).

Really? What's your take on the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the Constitution?

[Somey]

Why do people so often confuse free market capitalism with anarchy? No, we'd still spend money on law enforcement.

There you go with the "either-or" again. What I'm saying is that if you allow more kids to become criminals through neglect and/or concentrating resources on kids who are "worth it," you end up either spending more to control crime, or you have more crime that isn't controlled. Either way, society loses. (Not that society isn't losing now, mind you.)

No, not right.

But not wrong either, eh? The fact is, a "free market" does nothing in itself to stop or even curb crime, waste, fraud, dishonest dealing, misappropriation of public funds, and other forms of abuse, financial or otherwise.

[anthony]

Why do people so often confuse free market capitalism with anarchy? No, we'd still spend money on law enforcement.

There you go with the "either-or" again. What I'm saying is that if you allow more kids to become criminals through neglect and/or concentrating resources on kids who are "worth it," you end up either spending more to control crime, or you have more crime that isn't controlled. Either way, society loses. (Not that society isn't losing now, mind you.)

If you allow more kids to become criminals, you have more crime. I agree with that.

What's the most cost effective way to lower crime? That I don't know. And I don't think the government knows either. Nor do I think they care.

No, not right.

But not wrong either, eh? The fact is, a "free market" does nothing in itself to stop or even curb crime, waste, fraud, dishonest dealing, misappropriation of public funds, and other forms of abuse, financial or otherwise.

I guess not "in itself".

I don't claim that free market capitalism would eliminate all world problems, only that it's the best system there is.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Milton Roe]

No, not right.

But not wrong either, eh? The fact is, a "free market" does nothing in itself to stop or even curb crime, waste, fraud, dishonest dealing, misappropriation of public funds, and other forms of abuse, financial or otherwise.

Implicit in the idea of a free market for "trade" at least (we leave politics out) is the idea of security. It's not a "market" at all, muct less a "free" one, where robbers and thieves are everywhere. "Market" implies barter, haggle, trade, free will. These things all require rules, and hence enforcement of rules.

Free market should not be confused with anarchy, which is the state where those with the most firepower make the rules. The word "anarchy" literally means "no government" but that's an oxymoron. There's always a government. The "government" is who makes the rules, and there are always rules. The only difference is that "anarchists" refuse to CALL the government, the government. Which, in my view, is a monumentally stupid philosophy.

A true anarchist might as well decide that the people who call themselves the "US government" are not a government at all, but rather a group of thugs with the most firepower, who enforce their will on the masses by means of this firepower. Okay, fine. We already live in "anarchy." See how useless the idea is? Calling something by a different name changes nothing about reality.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

What I'm saying is that if you allow more kids to become criminals through neglect and/or concentrating resources on kids who are "worth it," you end up either spending more to control crime, or you have more crime that isn't controlled. Either way, society loses. (Not that society isn't losing now, mind you.)

Incidentally, this approach is now officially called Race to the Top.

[Milton Roe]

We actually have a word for the condition in which the welfare of person A is as important or more important to person B than that of person B. It's called "love." But one cannot base a political system on universal love, because it's not practical. Nobody is capable of it, and if they claim they are, they are dishonest (or self-deluded).

Really? What's your take on the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the Constitution?

You had to ask. The Declaration invokes deity as the ultimate authority, which is just silly. God is on the side of the Big Batallions, as even Jefferson must have known.

The Constitution was written after the guns had decided boundary issues, which means it really is an after-the-fact document. "We the people"... Well, we, WHAT people?? Answer: the ones who freed ourselves by means of force of arms, and now have to decide what the hell to do.

Okay, we form a "government" which is "authorized" (basically this means we have more guns) by means of the state of things, and start making up "rules" that everybody has to follow. That's fine. How could it be otherwise? There's always somebody with the most guns at any place, and they always law down the law and make up the rules.

People who are outgunned always talk about God and natural rights, because they're outgunned! What else are they going to whine about, since they're outvoted and outmaneuvered? After these things have been decided, nobody talks about them. The Consitution doesn't talk about them. No need to invoke God when you've won.

If you're outnumbered and probably outgunned, you argue "natural law," and "inalienable rights." OTOH, if you're in the majority, you argue "democracy" and "we the people" and Vox populi, vox Dei. And that's just exactly how the Declaration and Constitution go, respectively.

[KD Tries Again]

Mm. Well exactly what is meant by "free market capitalism" here who knows - it covers a range of policy sets.

I intervened only because I find it interesting that in all the years I've been discussing libertarianism (as opposed to "f.m.c.") with libertarians, I've never found anyone willing even to attempt to answer the obvious point that imposing libertarianism in a society with a long-entrenched power structure will at best solidify and at worst exacerbate inequality.

Not too surprising then that all I see here is that an "f.m.c." system would, well, run things better. That's a terribly disappointing and contingent defense, isn't it?

[thegoodlocust]

I intervened only because I find it interesting that in all the years I've been discussing libertarianism (as opposed to "f.m.c.") with libertarians, I've never found anyone willing even to attempt to answer the obvious point that imposing libertarianism in a society with a long-entrenched power structure will at best solidify and at worst exacerbate inequality.

I'd rather have the inequality of prosperity than the equality of poverty. And under free market capitalism people are more able to raise themselves up, but equal opportunity inevitably leads to unequal outcomes.

No system is perfect, but under the various forms of capitalism we've had in recent centuries a huge portion of the population has finally been raised out of the dirt and are now "unequal" compared to those still in the dirt or those who haven't been raised as far.

Not too surprising then that all I see here is that an "f.m.c." system would, well, run things better. That's a terribly disappointing and contingent defense, isn't it?

Reality isn't as sexy as utopian socialist fantasies.

This post has been edited by thegoodlocust:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

No system is perfect, but under the various forms of capitalism we've had in recent centuries a huge portion of the population has finally been raised out of the dirt and are now "unequal" compared to those still in the dirt or those who haven't been raised as far.

Not under "various forms," but under one very specific form, the Alexander Hamilton/J.Q. Adams/Henry Clay/Abraham Lincoln/Wm. McKinley/Franklin Roosevelt variety. And "capitalism" is too vague a term to describe that variety (since it is often also used to denote very different, antagonistic varieties.) It were better to use the once widely known term, "American System."

[Jon Awbrey]

No system is perfect, but under the various forms of capitalism we've had in recent centuries a huge portion of the population has finally been raised out of the dirt and are now "unequal" compared to those still in the dirt or those who haven't been raised as far.

Not under "various forms," but under one very specific form, the Alexander Hamilton/J.Q. Adams/Henry Clay/Abraham Lincoln/Wm. McKinley/Franklin Roosevelt variety. And "capitalism" is too vague a term to describe that variety (since it is often also used to denote very different, antagonistic varieties.) It were better to use the once widely known term, "American System."

Oh Good Grief !!!

It's like some kind of Airheaded Young Ripofflichen Ronnie Raygun Fan Klub in here.

I s'pose folks who never actually worked in factory, much less a sub-minimum-wage cotton pickin job, think that folks like that get "raised out of the dirt" due to the sheer benevolence of the bosses who are laying up night trying to figure out how to outsource their jobs to even cheaper non-union sweatshops in Real Capitalist Countries.

Mods, can we puh-lease move this Oxycontin Party to the Politwits & Relusion Forum, so those of us over the age of 12 don't have be nearly so embarrassed by it?

To be honest, most of it really belongs in the Annex, where Wikipediots can wallow in the ludicrous levels of massive worldly ignorance they are used to in Wikipukia.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[thegoodlocust]

It's like some kind of Airheaded Young Ripofflichen Ronnie Raygun Fan Klub in here.

You have got to be kidding. You think I'm a Republican just because I think capitalism is the best system humanly possible?

I s'pose folks who never actually worked in factory, much less a sub-minimum wage cotton pickin job, think that folks like that get "raised out of the dirt" due to the sheer benevolence of the bosses who are laying up night trying to figure out how to outsource their jobs to even cheaper non-union sweatshops in Real Capitalist Countries.

What makes you think I haven't? I used to work in a job, when, at the end of a shift, my snot was blackened from all the dust and dirt.

Mods, can we puh-lease move this Oxycontin Party to the Politwits & Relusion Forum, so those of us over the age of 12 don't have be nearly as embarrassed by it?

You are seriously trying to insult the maturity of others? Hey Sunshine, upgrading your nitwit posts using Keith Olbermann's Thesaurus for Super Cereal "Debating" doesn't demonstrate the class or intelligence that you obviously think it does.

[Jon Awbrey]

The Wikipedia Review Management can maintain a fishbowl dedicated to the memory of UseNut Political SoapBoxes if they want, but the General Discussion Forum is not the place for that. Folks passing by who don't know us any better might get the wrong idea.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

You are seriously trying to insult the maturity of others? Hey Sunshine, upgrading your nitwit posts using Keith Olbermann's Thesaurus for Super Cereal "Debating" doesn't demonstrate the class or intelligence that you obviously think it does.

Just when you thought you just nailed that old coot with the brilliance of your argument...welcome to the annex, Babbitt.

Not one in ten post remotely relevant. Another thread ruined by the UseNet Chamber of Commerce. If some other mod wants to parse out Peter's and some of the other relevant post that's fine with me but I think the moment has passed.

[Milton Roe]

Reality isn't as sexy as utopian socialist fantasies.

Reality isn't as sexy as ANY kind of fantasies. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[anthony]

Mm. Well exactly what is meant by "free market capitalism" here who knows - it covers a range of policy sets.

If you have any questions about what it means feel free to ask.

I intervened only because I find it interesting that in all the years I've been discussing libertarianism (as opposed to "f.m.c.") with libertarians, I've never found anyone willing even to attempt to answer the obvious point that imposing libertarianism in a society with a long-entrenched power structure will at best solidify and at worst exacerbate inequality.

I won't attempt to define "libertarianism", on the other hand. Not the political system, anyway.

As for "the obvious point that imposing libertarianism in a society with a long-entrenched power structure will at best solidify and at worst exacerbate inequality", there is no answer. Of course it will "exacerbate inequality". That's what happens when you stop holding people back from reaching their full potential.

Not too surprising then that all I see here is that an "f.m.c." system would, well, run things better. That's a terribly disappointing and contingent defense, isn't it?

No, it's not actually a defense at all. As I've said before (I don't remember if it was in this thread or another), the proof that free market capitalism is the best system (as well as a detailed definition of it) is far beyond the scope of a Wikipedia Review thread.

[Milton Roe]

No, it's not actually a defense at all. As I've said before (I don't remember if it was in this thread or another), the proof that free market capitalism is the best system (as well as a detailed definition of it) is far beyond the scope of a Wikipedia Review thread.

All righty, then! Moulton and I will get right on it.

Er, before we begin, how do you feel about theft-by-deception, and truth-in-advertising laws? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

How about taxing people to pay for public defenders?

[anthony]

No, it's not actually a defense at all. As I've said before (I don't remember if it was in this thread or another), the proof that free market capitalism is the best system (as well as a detailed definition of it) is far beyond the scope of a Wikipedia Review thread.

All righty, then! Moulton and I will get right on it.

Huh?

Er, before we begin, how do you feel about theft-by-deception, and truth-in-advertising laws? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I'm glad we have laws against fraud.

How about taxing people to pay for public defenders?

I'm not glad we have taxes.

[Milton Roe]

How about taxing people to pay for public defenders?

I'm not glad we have taxes.

If it please the court, could the witness be directed to answer the question?

[anthony]

How [do you feel] about taxing people to pay for public defenders?

I'm not glad we have taxes.

If it please the court, could the witness be directed to answer the question?

I didn't answer the question? I feel unhappy about it. "It" being "taxing people", for any purpose.

If your question was how I feel about public defenders, I feel that public defenders are necessary given the adversarial system of law which is used in the United States. Further, while I don't feel that the adversarial system is the only acceptable system of law, I do feel it is acceptable (although, that's not really a topic which I've spent a lot of time thinking about - it's certainly possible someone might be able to change my mind about it).

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

As I've said before (I don't remember if it was in this thread or another), the proof that free market capitalism is the best system (as well as a detailed definition of it) is far beyond the scope of a Wikipedia Review thread.

Au contraire. This subforum also embraces theological matters, and it is clear that the assertion that FMC is the best system is a Revealed truth for which no empirical evidence is necessary or possible.

[Jon Awbrey]

As I've said before (I don't remember if it was in this thread or another), the proof that free market capitalism is the best system (as well as a detailed definition of it) is far beyond the scope of a Wikipedia Review thread.

Au contraire. This subforum also embraces theological matters, and it is clear that the assertion that FMC is the best system is a Revealed truth for which no empirical evidence is necessary or possible.

Wiki-Pangloss Wiki-Preveils —

Hallelujah & Amen.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

PS. Where I come from, “FMC” means “Ford Motor Company”.

P²S. Oh wait, I get it, subtle allusion to BNW. Cute!

[Milton Roe]

I didn't answer the question? I feel unhappy about it. "It" being "taxing people", for any purpose.

Well, I feel unhappy about it, too. But there are many situations involving life and limb where I feel even more unhappy about seeing people suffer the lack of tax-supported emergency relief. So that's where I stand. Taxation is okay when it is the lesser of two evils. Alas, we've gone far, far down the road to a society in which taxes are used for purposes far, far less worthy than the damage they do to the families they originate from.

As we all know, federal and state taxation now puts a bite far, far down into the middle class. In a struggling family, those taxes are such that they can easily be the difference between staying in your home or being foreclosed upon (in which case you'll need public assistance, of course (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) )

And what are those taxes being spent on? A lot of crap. A projected $1.8 trillion on a needless Iraq war, which even after being won, was needlessly turned into a quagmire, by firing the army, the police, and all the high officials who ran everything. Idiocy. I watched this happen.

A couple of trillion here, a couple of trillion there, pretty soon (Everett Derksen rolling in his grave) you're talking about real money. There are struggling underapprectiated artists who work in the medium of feces-on-canvass who need public support from the NEA. How will we pay them, if it all went to making Hellfire missile-equipped Preditor drones?

[GlassBeadGame]

I didn't answer the question? I feel unhappy about it. "It" being "taxing people", for any purpose.

Well, I feel unhappy about it, too. But there are many situations involving life and limb where I feel even more unhappy about seeing people suffer the lack of tax-supported emergency relief. So that's where I stand. Taxation is okay when it is the lesser of two evils. Alas, we've gone far, far down the road to a society in which taxes are used for purposes far, far less worthy than the damage they do to the families they originate from.

As we all know, federal and state taxation now puts a bite far, far down into the middle class. In a struggling family, those taxes are such that they can easily be the difference between staying in your home or being foreclosed upon (in which case you'll need public assistance, of course (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) )

And what are those taxes being spent on? A lot of crap. A projected $1.8 trillion on a needless Iraq war, which even after being won, was needlessly turned into a quagmire, by firing the army, the police, and all the high officials who ran everything. Idiocy. I watched this happen.

A couple of trillion here, a couple of trillion there, pretty soon (Everett Derksen rolling in his grave) you're talking about real money. There are struggling underapprectiated artists who work in the medium of feces-on-canvass who need public support from the NEA. How will we pay them, if it all went to making Hellfire missile-equipped Preditor drones?

Now your all just dancing on the thread's grave.

[thegoodlocust]

There are struggling underapprectiated artists who work in the medium of feces-on-canvass who need public support from the NEA. How will we pay them, if it all went to making Hellfire missile-equipped Preditor drones?

I'd be willing to provide them free material for their art if it means getting them off the public dime.

Personally, I like the idea of consumption taxes the most since people can more-or-less control how much they are going to get taxed. I don't like property taxes because it essentially means you can never really own something.

I'd also like the Federal government to start selling or homesteading the massive amount of land they own in the western united states to pay off the debt (maybe wait until the real estate market recovers a bit). We can import a bunch of chinese people to put that land to good use, strengthen cultural bonds between the two of us (hopefully preventing a major war), and improve the American gene pool/culture.

[Milton Roe]

I'd also like the Federal government to start selling or homesteading the massive amount of land they own in the western united states to pay off the debt (maybe wait until the real estate market recovers a bit). We can import a bunch of chinese people to put that land to good use, strengthen cultural bonds between the two of us (hopefully preventing a major war), and improve the American gene pool/culture.

Putting a couple of million Chinese immigrants in Southern Utah would certainly pay for itself in entertainment. You could put the whole state on ESPN for decades.

[thegoodlocust]

Putting a couple of million Chinese immigrants in Southern Utah would certainly pay for itself in entertainment. You could put the whole state on ESPN for decades.

Well, I was hoping to spread them out a bit (Alaska, Oregon, etc), and ideally give them land with enough rainfall/water for agriculture.

I do like the idea of fusing Chinese and LDS cultures though.

[Zoloft]

I'd also like the Federal government to start selling or homesteading the massive amount of land they own in the western united states to pay off the debt (maybe wait until the real estate market recovers a bit). We can import a bunch of chinese people to put that land to good use, strengthen cultural bonds between the two of us (hopefully preventing a major war), and improve the American gene pool/culture.

Putting a couple of million Chinese immigrants in Southern Utah would certainly pay for itself in entertainment. You could put the whole state on ESPN for decades.

World's longest-running and amusing reality show, and the food in Utah would take a huge leap forward.

[thegoodlocust]

World's longest-running and amusing reality show, and the food in Utah would take a huge leap forward.

On a side note, it should be really easy to convince pro-lifers to go along with such a policy since by accepting young immigrants who already have children and who want to have more the "one-child" policy could be circumvented (perception not reality is important here). This would have the effect of reducing the number of forced abortions in China and would slant our demographics to a younger and economically more favorable one.

It would be amusing if the pro-immigrant (illegal) leftist suddenly became anti-immigrant (legal).

[Zoloft]

World's longest-running and amusing reality show, and the food in Utah would take a huge leap forward.

On a side note, it should be really easy to convince pro-lifers to go along with such a policy since by accepting young immigrants who already have children and who want to have more the "one-child" policy could be circumvented (perception not reality is important here). This would have the effect of reducing the number of forced abortions in China and would slant our demographics to a younger and economically more favorable one.

It would be amusing if the pro-immigrant (illegal) leftist suddenly became anti-immigrant (legal).

I'm a pro-immigrant (fix the damn system), anti-abortion (but don't force my beliefs legally on women), pro-gun (but bring the hammer down on criminals who use them) liberal leftist swine according to my friends (some of whom are legal immigrants).

Controlled immigration of a few million brand new, hard-working, younger Americans could solve a lot of our issues.

[CharlotteWebb]

I'm a pro-immigrant (fix the damn system), anti-abortion (but don't force my beliefs legally on women), pro-gun (but bring the hammer down on criminals who use them) liberal leftist swine according to my friends (some of whom are legal immigrants).

Ouch, this requires a tie-breaker question. How do you feel about controlled substances?

[Milton Roe]

Controlled immigration of a few million brand new, hard-working, younger Americans could solve a lot of our issues.

Sure, that's the Bracero Program (T-H-L-K-D). It works great if you get healthy young people and they send money home. It's not so great if they bring their families and you have to put their sick premature babies into the neonatal ICU (a few months of which wipes out all the economic contribution that family will make for their entire working lives).

One of the reasons nothing much has been done about illegal Mexican workers is that it's a sort of under the table bracero program now. There's a big filter that takes out the ill and unhealthy and very old. Alas, the longer they stay in the US, the more their age-and-health stucture looks like the rest of the country's, and that simply cannot be supported on the educational training that they (on average) show up with. Our H1-B visa program for other countries largely takes care of this issue, and can lead to green cards (after which citizenship, if you want it, is a formality). But getting an H1-B for the average person from Mexico is more or less impossible.

[anthony]

I'd also like the Federal government to start selling or homesteading the massive amount of land they own in the western united states to pay off the debt (maybe wait until the real estate market recovers a bit).

Got any idea how much it's worth? I've been meaning to try to come up with a good estimate of this, to get a good idea just how insolvent the US government is.

Now your all just dancing on the thread's grave.

Yes I believe Jon violated Godwin's Law 9 days ago.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'm a pro-immigrant (fix the damn system), anti-abortion (but don't force my beliefs legally on women), pro-gun (but bring the hammer down on criminals who use them) liberal leftist swine according to my friends (some of whom are legal immigrants).

I'm against all wedge issues.

[Jon Awbrey]

Now your all just dancing on the thread's grave.

Yes I believe Jon violated Godwin's Law 9 days ago.

You're saying I failed to mention the Nazis?

Well, let me Reichtify that Versehen right now —

“Some like it in the Putsch … nine days old.”

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[thegoodlocust]

Sure, that's the Bracero Program (T-H-L-K-D). It works great if you get healthy young people and they send money home.

Ideally you wouldn't want them sending too much money home and I doubt Chinese immigrants would send as much back to China because I imagine family sizes are smaller since they don't have that condom allergy so common among 3rd world Catholics.

There's a big filter that takes out the ill and unhealthy and very old.

I'm going to have to disagree to a certain extent - legal immigration is much better at filtering out the diseased. (1)

East Asians tend to live longer and be healthier, and so the wouldn't be as much of a drain on programs like Medicaid. The Mexican addiction to pan, soda and horchata is not conducive to good health. (2)

Alas, the longer they stay in the US, the more their age-and-health stucture looks like the rest of the country's

I disagree. It is pretty obvious that the huge increase in soda consumption in the US is due in large part to Mexican immigration. The counter to this is to import people from countries with healthier diets (e.g. China, India, etc).

Our H1-B visa program for other countries largely takes care of this issue, and can lead to green cards (after which citizenship, if you want it, is a formality). But getting an H1-B for the average person from Mexico is more or less impossible.

I'm not too familiar with the program. My sister-in-law didn't have too much trouble, but her brother has been here illegally for at least a decade now. My general view on the subject is that we need to regulate it a bit, before the invention of air travel and the automobile it was quite difficult to travel long distances and so America only got the most motivated/able immigrants.

The ease of immigration means we need to preferentially allow immigration based on likely outcome due to education, language ability, IQ, culture, etc. It wouldn't be terribly hard to track immigrants once they get here and figure out which groups are most likely to be successful (net tax benefit).

I suspect that immigrants from India and Hong Kong would do quite well with their knowledge of english.

[thegoodlocust]

Got any idea how much it's worth? I've been meaning to try to come up with a good estimate of this, to get a good idea just how insolvent the US government is.

The land is worth as much as someone is willing to put into it - just look at Israel. We just need people motivated and able enough to do something useful with it - enriching both themselves and the US at the same time.

[Zoloft]

I'm a pro-immigrant (fix the damn system), anti-abortion (but don't force my beliefs legally on women), pro-gun (but bring the hammer down on criminals who use them) liberal leftist swine according to my friends (some of whom are legal immigrants).

Ouch, this requires a tie-breaker question. How do you feel about controlled substances?

I guess this thread couldn't get any more off topic, so why the hell not?

Anti-drug (but believe that non-violent non-dealer offenders should not be imprisoned) weirdo ultimately comfortable with legalized, regulated taxed pot sold to anyone over 21 (states' rights).

[thegoodlocust]

Anti-drug (but believe that non-violent non-dealer offenders should not be imprisoned) weirdo ultimately comfortable with legalized, regulated taxed pot sold to anyone over 21 (states' rights).

Some of the "intent to sell" criteria are pretty ridiculous. I'd rather not allow any "dealer" loopholes other than the ones we have for alcohol (no supplying/selling to minors).

How do you feel about ultra-safe, but still illegal drugs like LSD and most other hallucinogens (sans anti-cholinergics like PCP)?

[Zoloft]

Anti-drug (but believe that non-violent non-dealer offenders should not be imprisoned) weirdo ultimately comfortable with legalized, regulated taxed pot sold to anyone over 21 (states' rights).

Some of the "intent to sell" criteria are pretty ridiculous. I'd rather not allow any "dealer" loopholes other than the ones we have for alcohol (no supplying/selling to minors).

How do you feel about ultra-safe, but still illegal drugs like LSD and most other hallucinogens (sans anti-cholinergics like PCP)?

I've had to take some people to the hospital who ingested these, so I take issue with 'ultra-safe.' I am cautious about messing with the human body's natural cocktail of exotic chemicals.

As for drug laws, they should be based on actual amount of drug sold (and that should use a uniform criminal code) or amount of harm created.

I gots lots of opinions and very few facts. It's really best just to hand me a cardboard sign and a busted hat and let me wander around talking to myself outside.

[thegoodlocust]

I've had to take some people to the hospital who ingested these, so I take issue with 'ultra-safe.' I am cautious about messing with the human body's natural cocktail of exotic chemicals.

Some of what? A lot of people buy things they think are LSD but they end up being something else. LSD has been tested extensively and is safer than aspirin. If you took someone to the hospital for LSD then they were either having a panic attack (psychological) or they weren't really taking LSD.

Some plant/mushroom-based hallucinogens can be toxic (e.g. amanita), but I suspect if the safer ones were legalized then people wouldn't use them as much. There is actually a church near where I live that can legally give out ayahuasca - I think I may convert!

As for drug laws, they should be based on actual amount of drug sold (and that should use a uniform criminal code) or amount of harm created.

I suppose that would be a rational way of doing it. Personally I'm not compassionate enough to want to spend the money keeping drug addicts/dealers in prison - if people want to kill themselves via drugs then I'm not going to stop them (unless they are family/friends) and I'm not going to imprison someone for selling the stuff to adults.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I've had to take some people to the hospital who ingested these, so I take issue with 'ultra-safe.' I am cautious about messing with the human body's natural cocktail of exotic chemicals.

Some of what? A lot of people buy things they think are LSD but they end up being something else. LSD has been tested extensively and is safer than aspirin. If you took someone to the hospital for LSD then they were either having a panic attack (psychological) or they weren't really taking LSD.

Frequent use of LSD erodes your sense of self. And just because damage is psychological doesn't mean mean it's not damage. There is a psychological component to most diseases -- the fact that they have caused cancer to go into remission using placebos underscores that point.

[thegoodlocust]

Frequent use of LSD erodes your sense of self.

Any evidence for that assertion? What sort of ill effects does this erosion cause? And is that erosion bigger, smaller, or equal to the erosion caused by school attendance or television consumption?

I'd suggest that the psychological benefits of LSD far outweigh any potential psychological problems.

[anthony]

I didn't answer the question? I feel unhappy about it. "It" being "taxing people", for any purpose.

Well, I feel unhappy about it, too.

That's a good start.

But there are many situations involving life and limb where I feel even more unhappy about seeing people suffer the lack of tax-supported emergency relief.

Exactly what situations justify using force on one person to extend the life of another? The answer, as you know, cannot be "always". To paraphrase Milton Friedman, if life had an infinite value you'd never cross the street.

So that's where I stand. Taxation is okay when it is the lesser of two evils.

The problem is deciding exactly when it is the lesser of two evils. Well, the first problem. The second problem, if you ever get beyond the first, is how to set a government to implement such a tax system.