In the US, Med Reform seems dead and the Supreme Court upholds free speech big-time. World wide, the modal (log) income, i.e., the most common income level world-wide, has increased by a factor of ten
I agree regarding reform. In the absence of any changes, healthcare will eat up larger and larger portions of GDP. The averted change may not have done any good, but the outlook is still bad. A pretty low standard for "good news".
I agree, good point. Democracy has great potential but capturing the diversity of independent thought and opinion is necessary for full effectiveness. To the extent that corporate/labor donations will harm the democratic process, I'd like to see more public discussion of why and how we allow ourselves to be so influenced by money. Maybe we could raise awareness of this problem and get people to try to be more resistant to manipulation. I don't recall any organized campaign telling people not to allow themselves to be bought. A strong effort along these lines comparable to public health activism could have positive results.
retired phlebotomist ; No wonder they cannot appreciate the really central Kafka joke: that the horrific struggle to establish a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from that horrific struggle.
You can tell them that maybe it’s good they don’t “get” Kafka. You can ask them to imagine his stories as all about a kind of door.
Kafka's jokes; is it humor or just about tickling ones ambivalence?
Students lack of a robust intuition, perhaps.
Sounds like your students dislike the idea that they are the sacrifice and are unable to see the door as a doorway. Go through the doorway and there, where to sought to slay another, you will slay yourself.
Make whatever distinctions you like, but the presence of large concentrations of wealth is dangerous to democracy and the American ideal. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of many of the founders of the country, ie Ben Franklin: "An enormous Proportion of Property vested in a few Individuals is dangerous to the Rights, and destructive of the Common Happiness of Mankind; and therefore any free State hath a Right by its Laws to discourage the Possession of such Property." The law overturned by the Supreme Court was much less radical; it wasn't trying to prevent concentrations of wealth, just trying to keep them somewhat removed from politics.
I'm not sure what the right answer to this question is --- but its pretty obvious that labor unions are in dramatic DECLINE.
I would lean to treating labor unions similarly to corporations, but pragmatically speaking, since they are already losing power due to other forces -- I'm not sure there would be a need to kick them in the butt on their natural way out anyway.
Corporations are not people. They have no inherent rights whatsoever, other than those determined by the laws that create and enable them.
Labor unions are also not people, but their purpose is representing the interests of people.
You could say that corporations represent the interest of their shareholders, who are (sometimes) people. But they only represent the interests of people with money. The more money you have, the more shares you can own and the bigger your voice can be. Labor unions don't have anything approaching the monetary resources of large corporations.
Democracy works on the principle of one man, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote. The intent of the democratic system is to have systems of communication, deliberation, and control that are independent of wealth. This is obviously difficult to maintain. Some people think we shouldn't even try. The Moldbug plan is to convert the government into a giant corporation, issue shares, and replace the democratic process with a structure of corporate governance where your shares determine your voice.
If that's what you are after, then the recent Supreme Court decision is a step in the right direction. We should stop pretending that there are things that money can't buy. If you favor anything like democracy though, then it's a step in the wrong direction.
Following up on my last point, because it may not be clear, the Supreme Court traditionally tries to decide issues which raise constitutional issues on the narrowest of grounds, and also not to depart from precedent. When you create--and that really what this case does--something new, and put it into a constitutionally protected category, you really put it off limits to legislation. The court could have made a more narrow ruling in addressing the case before it, and it did not. That is not typically the way the Court works.
Now, you should have an interest in the court being careful and slow on these issues. If McCain-Feingold has a problem, the court can narrow part of it, or the legislature can change it. But, if you create a constitutional right--like even abortion--legislation is off bounds and is in the hands of the court.
This was a brazen decision. If you want voting to be an aggregating mechanism, you should be concerned.
Well, I think that if people were to look at this more abstractly from its effect on an aggregating system of individual voter input, rather than from converting our voting system into a corporately weighted exercise, they would reach a different conclusion about the likely effect on their lives in the polity. I suppose that is consequential, but it is consequential only in the sense that it tilts the system to money and not voice. We're free to screw ourselves and our system of citizen voting if that is what we want. Its just that when you get into the constitutional hole, its hard to get out if you change your mind and begin to see the horrors of corporate free speech.
Nonsense. Pretending that consequentialism has absolutely no role to play in our morality is ridiculous.
I mean, let's say you are right and he will get screwed up in his thinking. Why is that a "bad" thing?
Why do we treat freedom of speech seriously?
I'm not saying that we can completely reduce right and wrong to tribal politics. But politics is part of life and to pretend that there is some way to "neutrally" decide political disputes is itself a political position that creates winners and losers.
Yes, I'm a troll, but I mean well. As far as I can tell, what I wrote fits in quite well with Robin's beliefs and philosophy -- except, of course, that my targets are not Robin's usual targets.
I would be interested in understanding if I'm misapplying these ideas. Calling me a troll or weird is not very helpful.
Amazon.com What Liberal Media? The Truth about Bias and the News (9780465001774) Eric Alterman Bookshttp://www.amazon.com/What-...
I agree regarding reform. In the absence of any changes, healthcare will eat up larger and larger portions of GDP. The averted change may not have done any good, but the outlook is still bad. A pretty low standard for "good news".
I agree, good point. Democracy has great potential but capturing the diversity of independent thought and opinion is necessary for full effectiveness. To the extent that corporate/labor donations will harm the democratic process, I'd like to see more public discussion of why and how we allow ourselves to be so influenced by money. Maybe we could raise awareness of this problem and get people to try to be more resistant to manipulation. I don't recall any organized campaign telling people not to allow themselves to be bought. A strong effort along these lines comparable to public health activism could have positive results.
retired phlebotomist ; No wonder they cannot appreciate the really central Kafka joke: that the horrific struggle to establish a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from that horrific struggle.
You can tell them that maybe it’s good they don’t “get” Kafka. You can ask them to imagine his stories as all about a kind of door.
Kafka's jokes; is it humor or just about tickling ones ambivalence?
Students lack of a robust intuition, perhaps.
Sounds like your students dislike the idea that they are the sacrifice and are unable to see the door as a doorway. Go through the doorway and there, where to sought to slay another, you will slay yourself.
Make whatever distinctions you like, but the presence of large concentrations of wealth is dangerous to democracy and the American ideal. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of many of the founders of the country, ie Ben Franklin: "An enormous Proportion of Property vested in a few Individuals is dangerous to the Rights, and destructive of the Common Happiness of Mankind; and therefore any free State hath a Right by its Laws to discourage the Possession of such Property." The law overturned by the Supreme Court was much less radical; it wasn't trying to prevent concentrations of wealth, just trying to keep them somewhat removed from politics.
Here's another version of my point, more or less.
I'm not sure what the right answer to this question is --- but its pretty obvious that labor unions are in dramatic DECLINE.
I would lean to treating labor unions similarly to corporations, but pragmatically speaking, since they are already losing power due to other forces -- I'm not sure there would be a need to kick them in the butt on their natural way out anyway.
>Some of these guys lose control of their whole personalities.
Have any of the last four presidents even had a personality?
retired phlebotomist, I have long held that the dramatic recent increase in the world's wealth is the reason Kafka's wit is inaccessible to children.
Labor unions don’t have anything approaching the monetary resources of large corporations.
So should we make a distinction not on corporation vs. union, but on annual revenue?
Corporations are not people. They have no inherent rights whatsoever, other than those determined by the laws that create and enable them.
Labor unions are also not people, but their purpose is representing the interests of people.
You could say that corporations represent the interest of their shareholders, who are (sometimes) people. But they only represent the interests of people with money. The more money you have, the more shares you can own and the bigger your voice can be. Labor unions don't have anything approaching the monetary resources of large corporations.
Democracy works on the principle of one man, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote. The intent of the democratic system is to have systems of communication, deliberation, and control that are independent of wealth. This is obviously difficult to maintain. Some people think we shouldn't even try. The Moldbug plan is to convert the government into a giant corporation, issue shares, and replace the democratic process with a structure of corporate governance where your shares determine your voice.
If that's what you are after, then the recent Supreme Court decision is a step in the right direction. We should stop pretending that there are things that money can't buy. If you favor anything like democracy though, then it's a step in the wrong direction.
Following up on my last point, because it may not be clear, the Supreme Court traditionally tries to decide issues which raise constitutional issues on the narrowest of grounds, and also not to depart from precedent. When you create--and that really what this case does--something new, and put it into a constitutionally protected category, you really put it off limits to legislation. The court could have made a more narrow ruling in addressing the case before it, and it did not. That is not typically the way the Court works.
Now, you should have an interest in the court being careful and slow on these issues. If McCain-Feingold has a problem, the court can narrow part of it, or the legislature can change it. But, if you create a constitutional right--like even abortion--legislation is off bounds and is in the hands of the court.
This was a brazen decision. If you want voting to be an aggregating mechanism, you should be concerned.
God save the United States.
Well, I think that if people were to look at this more abstractly from its effect on an aggregating system of individual voter input, rather than from converting our voting system into a corporately weighted exercise, they would reach a different conclusion about the likely effect on their lives in the polity. I suppose that is consequential, but it is consequential only in the sense that it tilts the system to money and not voice. We're free to screw ourselves and our system of citizen voting if that is what we want. Its just that when you get into the constitutional hole, its hard to get out if you change your mind and begin to see the horrors of corporate free speech.
Nonsense. Pretending that consequentialism has absolutely no role to play in our morality is ridiculous.
I mean, let's say you are right and he will get screwed up in his thinking. Why is that a "bad" thing?
Why do we treat freedom of speech seriously?
I'm not saying that we can completely reduce right and wrong to tribal politics. But politics is part of life and to pretend that there is some way to "neutrally" decide political disputes is itself a political position that creates winners and losers.
If you think of it as an outcome based issue--that it does or does not favor a group you favor--you will get screwed up in your thinking.
Yes, I'm a troll, but I mean well. As far as I can tell, what I wrote fits in quite well with Robin's beliefs and philosophy -- except, of course, that my targets are not Robin's usual targets.
I would be interested in understanding if I'm misapplying these ideas. Calling me a troll or weird is not very helpful.
I'm worried about the ruling because I suspect that it will reduce the power of the groups I'd prefer to have power.