patrick.net

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?

Escape

Yup, I'm female. Is that relevant?

tsusiat

I took your posts out of moderation, for everyone else you can go back through the thread and read them.

Prat

Just look at the size of that noggin!

Peter P

I can't help but agree with you that there is probably no "correct" form of government/society. It's really about what works at any given time for any given people.

I do think that we as American's are influenced greatly by the views of our forefathers. The constitution was written with self-determination in mind, and I think it has been bred into us ever since. Obviously there are those in our society who take a different view on how much we should ask for from our government, but I am not sure that switiching to a socialist form of government is going to go over big anytime soon. But in the future... we'll see won't we?

SactoQT - "Escape - Yup, I’m female. Is that relevant?"

Only if you invite me out for drinks.

Obviously there are those in our society who take a different view on how much we should ask for from our government, but I am not sure that switiching to a socialist form of government is going to go over big anytime soon.

All I know is that education and democracy should work well together in creating whatever form of ideal government. Education is to be emphasized.

Lol

Weeeeeeell, married w/kids. :)

All I know is that education and democracy should work well together in creating whatever form of ideal government. Education is to be emphasized.

You're preaching to the choir here. Frankly any ideal government should emphasize education.

Escaped from DC, aren't you married as well? Don't your wife read this blog? :)

He didn't say he'd accept.
;)

Hmm... where is Jack?

I'm not only a libertarian, I'm also a polygamist.

Tsusiat wrote . . .
"It’s easy to pull stuff off the internet from some right wing think tank."

I quote a Canadian Supreme Court decision from Summer 05 and you accuse me of cherry picking information?

You asked me what I meant by the U.S. subsidizing your medicine . . .

When Phizer develops a new drug that wouldn't exist without it's capitalist motivation, it sets a price of X$ in the U.S.. Because the Canadian government will only pay Phizer .6X for the drug, the net effect is the subsidation of Canadian drug costs by U.S. consumers. As the U.S. consumer has started getting drugs outside of the country, the U.S. drug companies have moved to stop the practice. Why? Because if we all get the drugs at Canada's subsidized rate, then Phizer doesnt' make [enough] money.

When the U.S. population gets tired of letting Phizer use U.S. dollars to pay for Canadian drug discounts, one of two things are going to happen . . .
1. The cost for drugs will be spread evenly, with Canada's costs going up and the U.S.'s going down; or
2. We'll stop selling to Canada.

Tsusiat, your response is telling. You discard all of the verifiable numbers I provided on Canadian health care and the Supreme Court decisions by guessing that I got them from a "right wing think tank." Does it matter where they came from? If a frog told me, would that make the numbers something other than what they are?

Here are some more numbers.

After you read them Tsusiat, post some more U.S. numbers of your own, and then ask all of the Americans on this blog if they want to switch to your system.

By the way, if you think any of these numbers are wrong, please do tell.

in 2003 the average Canadian waited more than four months for treatment by a specialist once the referral was made by a general practitioner.

A simple MRI requires, on average, a three-month wait in Canada.

10,000 breast cancer patients who had to wait an average of eight weeks for post-operative radiation treatments over the past seven years have brought a class action suit against Quebec's hospitals.

Terry Salo, a Canadian resident of Victoria, British Columbia, availed himself of hip replacement in Madras, India after waiting more than a year for the "free" service in his home province.

Prior to the Supreme Court Decision in June . . .
"Canada is the only nation other than Cuba and North Korea that bans private health insurance"
That's some fine company you keep there Tsusiat.

Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments (that's about 4.5 months).The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn't have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve.

This is the same court that last year unanimously declared gay marriage constitutional.

And of course, Tsusiat, let's not forget that the very rich in Canada have a very good solution to your system - they come here! Isn't that great? The rich use the U.S. system, the well-off negotiate the system in Canada, and the poor canadians get screwed.

And all for about 50% of tax revenue.

Not too shabby sir.

Now, any Americans want to swap systems?

Women with breast cancer in the family?

Anybody want to put their kids in this system?

I have no more experience or knowledge about economics than the classes I had in college, and I do remember that Keynes was the source of most of our education on the subject. It's good to read so many posts by people who are so well read and can offer different viewpoints. I really do check in on the blog to read other opinions and learn about the economy. How lucky for me that this site attracts so many who can intelligently discuss some fairly esoteric theories.

Randy H

I inadvertantly deleted one of your posts. It was the one where you reprinted what the troll wrote, and as I was scrolling through I mistook it for one of his posts and didn't realize it was yours until I hit delete. Sorry.

This is interesting:

http://tinyurl.com/an4f2

So we have Evolution and Intelligent Design. Why do they want to stop children from learning an alternative theory?

Better yet, subject both theories to Darwinism and we shall have a winner: Intelligent Evolution perhaps?

So I think the current PC craze of diversity is nonsense and I have heard it SO many times repeated by supposedly intelligent people, yet I have never heard their logical reasons.

You are probably right. Diversity for the sake of diversity is perhaps questionable.

On the other hand, what do you think about "economic-driven diversity" mentioned by Randy?