patrick.net

...and, when addiing in teenage minor dependents, unmarried pregnancies in the US were 50% in 1998, according to the CDC. It appears that this variable is uncorrelated to the underlying economic system of choice. (Most US statistics exlcude minor pregnancies, which dramatically reduces the aggregate statistic).

tsusiat, your post contains some URLs. As a result, it was put into moderation. Try replacing links with tinyurl and it will be fine.

I would love oil to go up in price. $120/barrel if necessary. It is time to put focus on alternative energy sources.

Randy H,

thanking you for pointing out the obvious variety of compatibilities between political and economic systems, and that there is not a right and wrong combination.

After all, a "communist" China is now the new capitalist titan of asia.

Personally, I feel we live in a capitalism clothed in the ritual trappings of democracy, and that is in "socialistic" Canada!

tsusiat

It appears that this variable is uncorrelated to the underlying economic system of choice.

Very true. Family values are going down the drain. Or perhaps I am too conservative?

After all, a “communist” China is now the new capitalist titan of asia.

There is a name for their system - Market Leninism!

OTOH, isn't it ironic that wealth, resource, and democracy are prerequisites for "socialism"? ;)

Very true. Family values are going down the drain. Or perhaps I am too conservative?

Maybe the nature of what consitutes a family is changing. I don't like this conclusion, but I"m forced to accpet it as a possibility as a rational thinker. That said, I prefer a "traditional" family for my own personal choice. That doesn't mean I'm better, just excercising my own freedom of pursuit of happiness.

"TW, society and civilization at all stages of development from ancient times until now are all about pooling resources for the advantage of all."

I disagree. Civilization is about creating a virtuous and free citizenry, which, as its end, allows people to lead well-lived lives.

Clearly many societies have been formed, and continue to be formed, in which resources are not pooled for the advantage of all. Consider radical sharia, or slave-owner societies in africa. I think you are confusing why you *think* societies should be formed with the rather uglier reality of why they are.

Cheers,
prat

God. You bubbleheads are always negative. Bunch of losers.

_smile_

Kisses,
prat

I would love oil to go up in price. $120/barrel if necessary. It is time to put focus on alternative energy sources.

Would you support next-generation nuclear power? When you look at the real, absolute energy consumptions needs of the US it is the only viable "alternative" in the near-term.

Hey Marina, how you been?

Randy H -
THe US number you quote is misleading. A large % of that number is minority/urban culture. The better comparison is to US folk in the same socio/economic level as the Swedes. Compared to that number, the Swedes are high. I'd argue that it's a product of their rotten system, and I'd argue it's bad in the long term for the society.

I didn't follow why you were discussing US WWii stuff.

Randy wrote "A Libertarian would not be concerned about their chosen family structure, so long as it is not coerced."

I don't agree. A libertarian doesn't want the government or his neighbors to dictate terms on things like family structure, true enough, but he certainly can care.

For example, I would never vote for a system that made my neighbor work harder, but I care that he will not be well taken care of in his old age.

I would never want a system that forced an abortion on a 17 year old who was not married, but I care that she is not married because I know that that condition is causative, in many cases, of a poor outlook for the child.

Would you support next-generation nuclear power? When you look at the real, absolute energy consumptions needs of the US it is the only viable “alternative” in the near-term.

I would definitely support that if there is a sustainable way to handle nuclear waste. Nuclear fusion would be the ideal solution.

Randy,

I note that you approach everything from a rational/libritarian position. I find this position very admirable, but I'm wondering how you deal with the philosophical difficulty of rationality being turned on itself. In particular, I tend to think than any value, when held under rational scrutiny, will fall apart as merely contingent. If blue is no better than red, then why should being good, or free, or a slave with no choices, be any better than anything else?

This is what partially drove me out of the libertarian/rationalist camp, and to Chesterton. Your thoughts (and anyone elses) on the matter would be very much appreciated.

Oh, wait, right. Housing bubble. So, housing will crash 50% by the end of the month. Guaranteed.

Cheers,
prat

I didn’t follow why you were discussing US WWii stuff.

My point is that the current US economic system has only been around since roughly 1948. Pre WWII, it was an altogether different flavor of capitalism which only resembles the current system superficially. So making comparative statements about sustainability based on longevity are not useful. My reasons for believing the US is sustainable are altogether different.

"Would you support next-generation nuclear power?"

To butt in: absolutely.

"When you look at the real, absolute energy consumptions needs of the US it is the only viable “alternative” in the near-term."

Bio-diesel. Algae-based bio-diesel. Please, for the love of pete, algae-based bio-diesel.

http://tinyurl.com/2sbbf

Faster, please.

Cheers,
prat

So making comparative statements about sustainability based on longevity are not useful. My reasons for believing the US is sustainable are altogether different.

I am starting to think that perhaps no system is infinitely sustainable. History has always been in flux and there is no reason why it will not continue to be in flux. We may have to accept the evolutionary nature of the global social-economic system.

Bio-diesel. Algae-based bio-diesel. Please, for the love of pete, algae-based bio-diesel.

You should meet my wife. She is very interested in bio-mass energy sources.

find this position very admirable, but I’m wondering how you deal with the philosophical difficulty of rationality being turned on itself.

As has been revealed in this thread, this is why I don't count myself a Libertarian. But, I am a rationalist; in particular an Objectivist. You are right there are philosophical trappings to this line of thought, but I find that Objectivist rigor, although hard to practice, yields a consistent approach to these things. The problem with most Libertarians is that they wrap economic conservatism, and often social conservatism, in rationalism; which generally leads to hypocritical inconsistencies.

Peter P:

I completely agree with you, no system or society has ever proven infinitely sustainable up to now. The best historical antecedent I can see for the present political-economic situation is the collapse of the Roman Republic, and the rise of the fascistic Roman Empire.

Ironic so many of the symbols adopted by the American founding fathers have their roots in Roman civilization, neh?

I completely agree with you, no system or society has ever proven infinitely sustainable up to now.

Perhaps my views are Hegelian?

Bio-diesel. Algae-based bio-diesel. Please, for the love of pete, algae-based bio-diesel.

I support this, along with new-tech solar and wind. But, I disagree with the hardcore enviornmentalist types who preclude nuclear. I don't see any practical way to elminate the bulk of fossil fuels short of nuclear. Then, we can work on the mix with the other "exotic" sources, hopefully offloading nuclear over the next hundred years or so. After all, uranium is also fininte (short of mining asteroids).

I also think nuclear energy is a must, at least as a temporary measure before we can tinker with trilithium, gold pressed latinum, or whatever.

Bio this and Bio that won't work. Not enough energy. Unless we radically change what we need.

Dirty uranium is all that there is, for now.

Hey Randy H, please point out my inconsistencies as you see them!

Praet, good to see you bub. Although not directed at me, I'll answer . . .

There is no point to anything if blue is no better than red.

I guess I was born with the sense that good was better than evil, and so blue is better than red. Sounds silly, but it's all I got.

Isn't there some evidence that there are dilithium crystals on Mars? that might be the answer.

How can a libertarian be socially conservative? Then you're not a libertarian, you're a republican.

There is no point to anything if blue is no better than red.

Excellent point! Technology is no more than a gizmo if the social-economic system is not well.

Hey Randy H, please point out my inconsistencies as you see them!

I wasn't directing my point at you; your arguments are definitely more consistent than many of Libertarian I've argued with. I'm just debating your facts and premises (which means this is a good discussion).

"Besides, you cannot expect a virtuous citizenry when the majority of people cannot meet basic needs."

I most certainly can. And I do.

"but if you look at societies that are relatively stable, certainly there is a lot less advantage taking than in the types of societies some posters on this board seem to believe will lead to social, or at least personal improvement."

My observation is that what makes societies stable are strong cultural, religious and, usually, racial ties. The U.S. is rather unique in this sense, if you consider it stable. Sweden would fall apart if it filled with non-swedes. Germany and France are falling apart as we speak.

In any event, we have a core disagreement. If I may summarize: you think society is created for mutual benefit first, and perhaps the production of virtuous citizens second. I reverse that and claim that by focusing on producing virtuous citizens as an end, we may mutually benefit (which is a nice side benefit, but, again, emphatically *not* the end of society). You have the advantage of being correct in the purely socio-evolutionary sense: it seems likely to the point of obviousness that the first group of humans ganged together to pool resources for hunting food and killing other humans. But I think I am correct philosophically.

I should say, I am arguing for what *I think* the ends of society should be, not what they actually are.

Cheers,
prat

Isn’t there some evidence that there are dilithium crystals on Mars? that might be the answer.

Ah... this is why NASA is going to Mars. Same reason as the war in Iraq.

How can we fight the Martians?

Well, if I don't wrap this up and go to bed then my rationally consistent, traditional, self-chosen, objectively preferential, comparatively better family will be in jeapordy (that is, listen to your wife when she says quit fooling around with the damned blog and come to bed).

How can a libertarian be socially conservative? Then you’re not a libertarian, you’re a republican.

I am not a true social conservative because I am open-minded about the behaviors of others, so long as they do not affect me. I just care about certain things. ;)

(that is, listen to your wife when she says quit fooling around with the damned blog and come to bed).

I am sure your wife and my wife could become good friends.

"There is no point to anything if blue is no better than red."

As funny as it sounds, this is essentially the conclusion that I've come to: there is no way of proving it, but being good is better than being evil. It sounds trite, and it is, but I think that's perhaps the most important philosophical statement you can think about. It's almost embarrassing to type, but I keep going over it again and again.

In grad school, it was delightful to come across incompleteness theory/halting problems. There are simply some things that are true that are unprovable, and entirely rational sounding things that are impossibilities. And God set it up that way from the get-go. Further evidence that He has a sense of humor.

Cheerio,
prat

Prat:

Exactly, I agree with your stated goal of a virtuous citizenry - producing it in a free society is the rub.

Myself, I was describing the actual purpose of society, versus the responsibilities of its citizenry. A certain amount of virtuousity among the citizenry will certainly help social order and harmony, and it is an admirable personal goal we all should share. However, if there is nothing in it for the citizens, they will NOT be virtuous.

Besides, who defines what is virtuous? How inclusive or exclusive is that definition? Is the definition in harmony with the society in which it has taken root?

For example, was the US society as a whole more virtuous 100 ago than today? 200 years ago? 50 years ago? Any changes and fluctuations in the virtuousity of the citizenry in those periods?

Food for thought - if people didn't care about the greater good, where did all those soldiers come from to fight the Japanese and the Nazis back in the 1940s? Some of those guys obviously at least in part willingly made self-sacrifices for the common good - and the people who survived benefited. Should they have benefited from those sacrifices of their colleagues and comrades, if they didn't pay the price themselves?

Finally, racial homogeneity in any country is a myth. Take the english. Racial components blended in the english language and people in the last 2000 years would include celts, germans, scandinavians, french and other groups. do any of these english identify ethnically with their discrete forebears?

The same process is now happening in the US at an accelerated pace.

Good night all!

Anyway, enough embarrassingly bad philosophy from me. How about I end the night making fun of MP? All in favor?

My God, would ya look at the size of that kid's head! It's the size of a planetoid and it has it's own weather system! It looks like an orange on a toothpick! I'm not kidding, that boy's head is like Sputnik: spherical but quite pointy at parts!

Aye, that was offsides, now wasn't it? He'll be crying himself to sleep tonight, on his huge pillow.

HEAD! PANTS! NOW!
prat

Yep praet. Yep.

Hey Randy H, I think you misunderstood me. I really, really mean . . .
"Hey Randy H, please point out my inconsistencies as you see them!"

I loathe my own inconsistencies. The ones that I can't find, they're the devils.

Sputnik: spherical but quite pointy at parts!

LOL :lol:

Prat, you are too funny.

_rolling on the floor_

GOod nite

Gah. Last post.

"However, if there is nothing in it for the citizens, they will NOT be virtuous."

Exactly the wrong attitude. By adopting it, you guarantee it will be true.

"Besides, who defines what is virtuous?"

Me, of course. _wink_

"How inclusive or exclusive is that definition?"

Well, people who think it's OK to plan weddings during college football season can pretty much kiss my ass.

"Is the definition in harmony with the society in which it has taken root?"

Most definitely, positively, absolutely no. What fun would it be if it was?

Cheers,
prat

Should we resume the discussion on Piety? Who is Socrates?