And finally, for this evening:
31.) A:) Dan Quayle was right, statistically children are better off with two parents, even
when controlling for income;
B:) The show demonstrated how right he was, by quietly dropping Avery, because he
didn't fit in with Murphy's life.
32.)The basis for inquiry is the workplace locale, and the question of whether or not
coercion or inducements were involved. That is not irrelevant, but a broader inquiry would
be. Was sex or the refusal of sex the basis upon which the job and its rewards depended
(i.e., raises, bonuses, and promotions being given or denied on that basis)? Is there a
pattern in one's dealings with employees of favoritism, and therefore a reasonable basis for
the expectation of retaliation, based upon the bestowal or refusal to bestow sexual favors?
Mr. President, did you have a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers, and subsequently
get her a job in state government? Etc... It may be that the breadth of the inquiry about
pattern is abusable, but it is distinguishable from a vague inquiry into one's sex life, and as
such was allowed by the judge in the lawsuit, at which point it became Clinton's obligation
to answer truthfully, or to decline to answer on 5th amendment grounds.
33.) As I have mentioned in the past, I participate from time to time in conservative
conferences, often sponsored by National Review and/or a think tank. You would
probably be surprised at the diversity of opinion among those who are willing to claim the
title "conservative", despite a "working consensus". The conservative movement is a
coalition, which generally operates politically through the even larger coalition that
comprises the Republican Party. It includes traditional fiscal conservatives, social
conservatives, libertarians, foreign policy "realists" and "idealists", people pro- and anti-
immigration, pro- lifers and pro- choicers, evangelicals, atheists, Jews, Catholics, African-
Americans, and all manner of shades of opinion generated from such a stew. And so far,
teletubbies is not a hot- button issue among these people, nor are they likely to become so.
34.) Someone has to worry about the foundations of civil order and a good society. I
suppose that that may seem to some "otherworldly" or "outside the mainstream", but
about half the electorate worries about these things too, and believes that the Republicans
can best address them, as I pointed out in a previous post based on a recent Washington
Post article. So I guess we are not too outside the mainstream.
35.) A:) Active anti- communism was a consensus position in American politics since
Truman, not the special province of the Right;
B:) Western Europe was prosperous without participation in a ground war, why should
anyone have believed that Vietnam was an economic necessity?;
C:) Since free trade is one of the few things that most economists agree on as a policy
prescription, why are you insistent that support of it is suspect?;
D:) Mercantilism imposed an artificial version of specialization to benefit the Mother
Country, instead of allowing investment to pursue the maximum of economic efficiency.
As I have stated before, in many instances, without the wage differential, there would be
no investment, and everybody would be even poorer. Economic development has to start
somewhere. As China is discovering, eventually countries begin to catch up with the
developed nations;
We are not magicians, able to control all of our neighbors and their policies, and thus raise
them to advanced status. Do you know that before Peronism, Argentina had nearly the per
capita income of the United States? It faltered because of bad economic policies. As long
as the Institutional Revolutionary Party controls Mexico, it will remain stagnant.
Etc.etc.etc.
36.)Although I would certainly have voted for impeachment, and probably voted for
removal, I think that Chris Shays was not wrong in saying that men of good will could
differ on the correct way of handling this, considering factors like gravity and possible
impact on the country. Therefore, while I think that this is nothing to play the bongos
about, I am content that the House did its duty, and that the process went forward, and I
can live without Clinton's removal. I still think that if he were honorable, he would
resign...
Investment flows where there are opportunities. Generally, it depends on the perception
that there is political and monetary stability, and a reasonably friendly attitude towards
business. Investment creates revenue, both for the employed individuals, and for the
government. With that revenue, they are in a position to improve their lot. Wages may be
low, but they are high relative to that locale, or no one would work. Since investment
attracts investment, it is often the case that indigenous capitalists will benefit from the
ripple effects on the economy, through the provision of stores and entertainment. As for
education and the rest, that is the responsibility of the governments involved.
We have invested much in foreign aid, both directly and through the medium of multi-
lateral institutions, and it has not all been military. The problem is not so much the
quantity of aid, as the quality of local institutions. And, yes, perhaps programs like the
Peace Corps or Missionaries are best able to have impact there. I think that we should
bring as many foreign students in to the States as possible, so that they can learn more
about us....
37.) I think there may be a connection between guys like Kennedy and Clinton liking to be
free to run around without consequence, and their support of "women's issues". I have
posted elsewhere about the relationship between easy abortion and the weakening of ties
of paternity. It is very convenient for a guy who might get someone "knocked- up" to say,
"hey, it's your choice, and I'll give you the money to have an abortion". It's also convenient
to have women believing, as lorrie apparently does, that behaving like the worst sort of
men is liberating.
I consider a "radical feminist" anyone who thinks that all gender differences are
"constructed", and that it is the government's responsibility to try to erase gender
differences. I also consider supporters of third trimester abortions to be radical. I consider
those who argue for a gynocentric paradigm in the sciences to be radical, and those who
argue that the government should mandate "comparable worth" salaries to be very radical.
I would not argue that all prejudice is gone, especially in business, merely that the residual
is more a matter for social evolution, not government action
38.) By the way, most blacks agree with social conservatives on issues (because most
blacks are church- going), but they are scared to reduce the federal role in race relations.
If blacks began to vote like Hispanics, giving Republicans 30-40% of their votes, and all
else remained equal, there would never be another Democrat elected to the Presidency.
That is the nightmare that the Democrats face, and the reason that they had no choice but
to move to the center.
39.) Actually, that is a canard that has been thrown around by the Democrats.
Eisenhower's supposed affair was pure speculation. Some had affairs, some didn't, but few
were womanizers, and none were so reckless about initiating an affair with a subordinate
in the White House, with the possible exception of JFK. Even Kennedy was never under
oath about it, or responsible for a cover up. This business about "everyone doing it" is a
pretense at being knowing. For example, the last major sex survey showed that less than a
quarter of men had cheated on their wives. The one before that said about 40%. There
have been claims of as much as 70%. No one knows for sure, and certainly no one can say
that they "all do it". Similarly for presidents: Many have not even been accused of any kind
of illicit affair; of those who have, there is frequently doubt about whether or not it
happened or was ever consummated; and only a handful are known to be womanizers (i.e.,
guys who screwed around alot). But the final point is that none, until Clinton, was in a
position to defraud the court over it.
40.) The reasoning varies, but the hardcore Democrats feel like Clinton broke the
stranglehold of the Republicans on the Presidency. There is a fear that a failed Clinton
Presidency will unleash the "forces of reaction", and therefore Clinton must be defended.
As I have said before, it is ironic that his strongest defenders have been from the party's
left- wing, which doesn't particularly care for Clinton. But they regard him as the "not-
Newt", the bulwark against the Republicans in Congress, who would create even more
mischief if he were not there to finagle. The contempt shown for Gore is stunning,
incidentally.
41.)I don't know that that is the best solution to the Yugoslav problem, although I share
your skepticism about Bill handling it. The tensions involved can easily boil over into a
larger war, and the West has already experienced political strain due to refugee flows from
previous conflicts. The rise of German skinheads was accelerated after about 300, 000
refugees from the Croation conflict became guests of the German government. Besides,
NATO's prestige is on the line to prevent slaughter on its periphery, especially if it has a
whiff of genocide. Finally, there is the fear that inaction will make it more likely that other
hotspots will erupt, particularly in the former Soviet Union, where there are still warheads
floating around. The stupidest thing is that this has been festering for a long time, and as
usual Clinton has a tendency to careen from crisis to crisis, improvising all the way.
42.)Sheesh, most of the world has finally awakened to the quackery of Marxism, but you
are spouting the lamest version of it I have heard in a while.Yes, Capital is evil, and would
grind the proletariat into the dust if only it had a free hand. The standard of living has risen
over this century not because of sheer economic development, but because of the
intervention of the government, which mandates wages... oops, I guess it doesn't... in fact,
only about 17% of industrial workers are unionized, and yet most skilled blue- collar
workers make a very good living... and if it has been worthwhile to raise wages and
benefits to attract and maintain a decent workforce, why not working conditions? In fact,
under the common law, most dereliction on the part of employers would be actionable
(i.e., able to be litigated) anyway, which in itself would provide an incentive for those not
moved by conscience. OSHA is defensible: your speculations about nightmare scenarios
are nonsense. By the way, did you know that the biggest investors in the stock market are
institutional, in fact largely pension plans? A lot of the people pocketing the profits from
labor are---- laborers, in the form of pension benefits. Also, colleges and other non- profits
are heavily invested, through their endowments, that allow them to do things like provide
scholarship money. Also, even those assets which are nominally held by the rich mostly
remain in the market as productive investment, rather than being liquidated for
consumption. Gad, do you know anything at all about economics?
43.)Capitalists are those who own capital; the principal instrument for holding capital in
this country is stocks; there is no mistake. Most people do not work such long hours, and
most owners of businesses run their businesses. In fact, since the corporate form is the
primary means of ownership of sizable companies, most owners are in fact under the
scrutiny of Boards of Directors and shareholders. 60k is a comfortable salary. Are you
under the illusion that it is natural for people to be well- off, and only inequitable
conditions can account for mediocre wages? It is natural for people to be dirt poor, and
even those in relative poverty in this country are rich in comparison to most of the world.
Some improvements probably did come from labor agitation, but much of it came from
prosperity.
44.)For what reason and by what right would an income cap be imposed? Because it is
unfair that some people make more money than others? Well, they either do so because
their skills are more economically valuable than others, or because they are lucky. Suppose
the former: Then why should they forego the advantage and give it to others, and how
would one determine the allocation of limited resources---- by lot? Take Michael Jordan:
the man could command millions because he could draw spectators, and in addition to his
natural talent he spent years honing his skills. Why should he take all of that trouble so
that ticket buyers can get in for pennies? And how does he choose among teams? Should
he be forced to go here or there because someone "won" him. Obviously, it is unfair not to
give people their market value, and it would deplete our supply of doctors, scientists, and
entrepreneurs, anyone who goes through a lot to achieve success.
On the other hand, suppose that someone gets more by luck. Luck is neither fair nor
unfair, it just is. Should we put a cap on beauty and intelligence? Should we not let people
have great parents because not all parents are so hot? And if you say that it is unfair that
rich people get more in life, consider that most of these goodies would be either not be
available without someone who could afford them, or they would be in such limited supply
that they themselves would be doled out by lot, and some people wouldn't get them
45.)Brees, I just wanted to join with you in your disgust. It seems that any amount of
defensive smearing on the part of the Clinton's is okay. Also, I have recently pointed out,
Mr. Doe's standards are not very high when it comes to alleging that most presidents
behave like Clinton, or that all southern Republicans are closet racists, or that Bob Barr is
a nutcase, or that "Capitalists" are so rapacious that were it not for the government and
labor unions, the working man would be ground into the dirt. But he becomes curiously
sensitive about allegations regarding Clinton. Of course, some of these things are not
allegations at all: he did obtain sexual servicing from an intern in the Oval Office, he did
have some kind of an affair with Gennifer Flowers, he did lie under oath, etc. And those
things which were voted down in the Senate because they supposedly did not "rise to the
level of impeachable offenses" were credibly maintained as matters of fact: it is reasonable
to say that he did conspire to obstruct justice, for example. To many of us, Dolly Kyle
Browning and Kathleen Willey seem credible, too. But we are engaged in a mere smear
campaign, and, according to our friend Doe, the Republicans are immoral to boot, being
on the wrong side of tobacco and HMO reform and all. And we are hypocrites: i have not
figured out if that is because we know we are cynically using these smear tactics, but
won't admit it, or because we all fool around and lie under oath. Ah, well, it is sometimes
so hard to scrutinize the mind of the Clintonista...
46.)I deliberately do not deal with "ill- gotten gain". You seem to think that much of what
passes for honest earnings is unrecognized ill- gotten gain. Since we do not ordinarily let
the criminal retain the profits of his adventures, if your premise is granted, the income cap
makes sense. But since the market determines wages and salaries, I do not grant the
premise. Rather, I say that any tampering with the price system, which is the most efficient
means that we know of to determine the allocation of resources, threatens economic
efficiency, and therefore over- all economic well- being. Sometimes, such tampering may
be justified, but not the kind of wholesale regulation that an income cap would entail. We
are rarely in a position to evaluate the propriety of individual negotiations. For example, it
is simply true that the loss of Michael Eisner would cause the value of Disney Stock to
plummet, at least unless there were a well- prepared and publicized succession. Merely
hiring Michael Eisner would cause the stock of another company to rise sharply, even
before he could be credited with doing anything, such is his reputation as a CEO.
Therefore, there is every incentive for another company to try to lure him away from
Disney, and for Disney to increase his compensation to induce him to stay. This is a
reflection of his actual market value.I choose Eisner because he is one of the top paid
executives in the country, and his compensation package would widely be viewed as
exorbitant. But it fits precisely with my Michael Jordan example earlier, and the questions
arising from it... Why shouldn't Eisner benefit from his actual market value, and how
would we allocate him as a resource absent such incentives? Indenture him to Disney?
Raffle him off? Anyway, the relative merit of people's income is usually beyond obvious
calculation, and nobody's business.
47.)Indeed, many issues involve judgment, and are not simple, which is why political
opponents need not be enemies. However, there may be guidelines to aid judgment. For
example, I would not impose the death penalty unless there were evidence of aggravating
circumstances, making the crime particularly heinous. Most states, in fact, have adopted
that guideline. It is up to a particular prosecutor, judge, and jury to apply it. Similarly, I
would say that no governmental decision that can be reserved to a lower level of
government should be made at a higher level of government. Thus, municipalities should
determine health standards for dining establishments, and states should plan the system of
roadways. The federal government, under this system, would do a good seal less than it
does now. Also, I would say that property rights should not be impaired without a
compelling reason. Working out the application of those two guidelines is for the various
governments.
In a more coherent political environment, there would be a greater degree of consensus on
the guidelines, and political disputes would only revolve around the more difficult cases.
In fact, we live in a political environment where the guidelines I just articulated are highly
controversial, and where the level of political dispute is consequently more grave.
48.)An all- out assault on the proliferation of unfunded mandates ought to be in the top
ten of the Republican agenda. Also, we ought to constantly chant the mantra "devolution,
devolution", especially since so many governors are Republicans with high ratings. Use
their popularity! Say, "folks, we are tired of the one- size- fits- all solutions that come out
of Washington. We think that the state governments are run by some pretty fine people,
who know more about the needs of their citizens than Washington. That why Republicans
are proposing the Renewal of Federalism initiative...." etc. With a curtailment of unfunded
mandates, and a major push to end programs that can be returned to the states, in a few
years we might truly have the federal government under control.
49.)1.) What would it mean to strive for the removal of systems, and their incorporation
within each individual? As long as people engage in complex cooperative activities, there
1.) What would it mean to strive for the removal of systems, and their incorporation
within each individual? As long as people engage in complex cooperative activities, there
will be external systems to enable coordination. Therefore, you seem to be calling for the
cessation of civilization.
2.) I will not debate the existence of free- will with you, I will merely say that it is
necessary for us to act as if we are responsible individuals, and to encourage responsibility
as a cultural value, and therefore it is good to hold criminals liable for their actions. If we
ever cease doing so, the notion of personal responsibility goes out the window, and with it
civilized restraint.
3.) Keeping government as local as possible is actually an attempt to make decision
making more rational, as much as anything else. For example, many of our anti- pollution
laws are luxuries, especially when standards are set for large metropolitan areas, but
imposed indiscriminately. In poorer areas, some amount of purity might reasonably be
sacrificed for greater economic growth, and in rural areas, stringent automobile emissions
standards might be irrelevant. In any case, if something were better handled at the federal
level, my dictum only makes the test more stringent, it doesn't shut down the federal
government.
4.) Among other things, the assignment of property rights ensures that someone is
responsible for the maintenance and development of property, and is able to reap the
rewards of taking care of it. This is a formidable incentive to put property to productive
use, and to create surplus value that may be exchanged with others. Thus, property rights
are the cornerstone of economic development.
5.) Loving your job and finding it fullfilling is a blessing, but it is not a realistic expectation
for the foreseeable future. Until we have achieved a degree of economic development and
automation that frees everyone from drudgery and want, we must rely upon simple
necessity as an incentive to work: he who does not work, does not eat.
6.) We will never be perfectly harmonious, because there will always be divisions among
people. Many of the higher order animals manifest the propensity to social competition
and hierarchy, and the same sort of impulses are as compelling within people as the sex
drive. As rational beings, we can ameliorate the worst effects of inequality, but we cannot
eliminate it.
7.) Idealism posits that there are transcendent templates for the things of this world, what
Plato called the eide. Through recollection, a kind of introspection aided by argument, we
can "see" them. Of course, to Plato only a philosophical elite could achieve this state, and
it was their job to rule over the deluded masses. I don't think that idealism will help you...
As for pragmatism, it says that the "metaphysical" truth of things is beyond our
knowledge, but that we can know a good deal as a practical matter, and that utility should
be a test of truth. Of course, one man's utility may be another man's anathema, so as a
practical matter, it is difficult to forge a deep consensus on pragmatic principles...One can
daydream until the cows come home, but reverie is not philosophy.
50.)MacCoy--- First, you have to learn concentration, and the ability to sit still, or at least
do something that does not require attention, for at least an hour at a time (preferably
several hours, but start small). If you can't sit still, try walking. Anyway, whether you
organize in you head, or on paper, you have to shape the data into a usable form, which is
usually suggested by thematic relevance, and then you have to identify problems suggested
by the data, knots, so to speak. Then, you generate hypotheses that might "untie" these
knots. Finally, you treat each hypothesis in order, looking for weaknesses, then trying to
answer your own objections. When you have finished, you may compare the hypotheses,
and discover which one has come out the best, and at least provisionally adopt it, even if
you are likely to revisit the question "down the road". Also, you should make an effort to
re- formulate your results, and the main supporting arguments, in the most succinct terms
possible, trying several times if necessary. All of this represents a description of dialectic,
more or less as Plato understood it.
51.)Although there are certain dubious features of anthropomorphism, it is claiming more
than can be known positively that there is no God, or that God bears no resemblance to
mankind. Perhaps God did "create man in his own image, MALE AND FEMALE
CREATED HE THEM"... I emphasize that the Bible includes Eve in the notion of
"Godlike image". In any case, even if God were a pure invention, and even if tales about
that God were adulterated with some of man's baseness, the major religions have also
poured into their teachings many of man's highest aspirations. The worth of the individual,
the Fatherhood of God, the duty to the helpless, all are promoted by religion. Finally, it is
absurd to call language the "tool of man's pathology", as if it were not also the instrument
by which truth is approached, societies are erected, poems chanted, and tendernesses
exchanged. Life is a good deal more complicated. The relations between man and woman
are a good deal more complicated. And we are fortunate to be living in an age, and a
country, of such amazing prosperity that it makes sense at all to debate such issues,
instead of being involved in the age- old struggle to eke out a subsistence that occupied
most of our ancestors.
52.)I think Weyrich is wrong, for reasons that I have laid out on this thread often enough
that I will not repeat them now. But I wanted to address a couple of things you said:
1.) "They (Evangelicals) should no longer view America as their country." I think that
patriotism is an ethical duty, even when opposed to the existing regime. It would be a
shame if the alienation of Evangelicals became so acute that they failed to play a
significant role in policy disputes;
2.) "The germs of this new country are already in place". I think you are somewhat correct
about that, to the extent that religious people, including Catholics, traditionalist
Episcopalians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and so forth, are more inclined to procreate, and
especially to have large families, and to take some trouble to pass on their heritage to their
offspring;
3.) "I do not support the Republican Party". Parties are coalitions, and coalitions are made
up of people who can unite around common interests, and broker disagreement. As I have
pointed out in earlier posts, even the conservative movement is a coalition. The point is to
fight for common goals, and to use one's leverage to gain consideration for one's own
issues. Do you think that Scalia and Thomas would be on the Supreme Court right now
without pressure from the Right? If you care about the country, or even want to ensure
that your children do not inherit a worse mess, you should learn politics, and engage in the
"game".
53.)"If God had made the world it would not be, a thing so frail and faulty as we see":
Lucretius, 1st century B.C., expounding the Epicurean philosophy in the poem "De Rerum
Natura".
Modern physics is in no position to go beyond that. Since the doctrine of the Fall involves
the corruption of nature, not just man, and since the doctrine of the inscrutability of the
ways of God adjure's us not to be too presumptuous in assuming we understand how
things get done, the case is inconclusive.
Of course, it seems that you admit as much when you say that it can't be proven that all
events are not controlled, which would seem to negate your first point, but let that pass.
Anyway, free- will is not negated if only some events are controlled, so what is the
problem? Kant made a radical distinction between things as they are and appearances, and
argued that it is only appearances that must be subject to the iron law of causality, in the
realm of things- in- themselves, free- will may very well exist. In the post- quantum theory
world, the iron law of causality doesn't even hold in the realm of phenomena
54.)The doctrine of the omniscience of God would seem to militate against free- will,
except that the claim is that God transcends time, and knows everything in one inclusive
act of knowledge, so that He knows how we chose, not how we will choose. If the
doctrine that God is beyond time seems too paradoxical to believe, consider the difficulty
in understanding what might have been the condition of the "universe" before the Big
Bang. Certain things may be inherently paradoxical, and yet not be wrong.
55.)Kant, who believed in a limited degree of providence, a kind of historical guidance,
thought that god did exactly that--- make the past appear as if the effect would happen
anyway. But one of the reasons that I had difficulty taking your point earlier is that I
thought you would see the obvious, that in a "chaotic" universe, with a high degree of
unpredictability and no clear lines of causality, no discontinuity could be definitively
detected. Whatever happens could always be a matter of chance, or of improbably remote
causation. In fact, the very embrace of chaos theory may betoken the discontinuity, and
the unwillingness to explain it as the action of free- wills and divine agency.
56.)The traditional concept of God is that He is uncircumscribed by time and space, and
therefore immaterial. That is not the same as being an "abstract idea", it only seems so
because we cannot quite get beyond our imaginations, which are grounded in sensory
perception.
In any case, you seem not to have gotten the point of the last post. You asserted that it
would make sense for discontinuities to be detected if God interfered with the course of
events. I replied that there was no reason to expect such detection, at least beyond cavil,
insofar as current theory holds that there is an element of randomness in events, and that a
complex system cannot be adequately "mapped", and that remote and apparently
insignificant causes could have large consequences. One could only discern discontinuity
in a well- grasped, predictable system.
Actually, the whole premise is that God effects the internal organization of the universe. I
was only pointing out that it need not be in the direction of entropy, since He could
control ripple effects.
The Thomistic view is that the continued existence of the universe depends on God's will,
the very act of Being is dependent on Him. Thus, the most ordinary and regular of events
are, in that sense, a matter of Divine Providence, and we are wholly dependent upon
realities beyond time and space. If the "wisp of an implication" that preceded the Big Bang
is credible, when it certainly can neither be imagined nor wholly understood, then the idea
of a transcendent God is not so strange. |
