hello

@farmerman,

I'm sorry you posted that picture, fm, because now we're going to have to kill you.
Our thoughts are with your wife and family at this time.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Question for you, my good man. You put forward the notion that liberals/progressives/the left are guilty of a conceptual error in presumptions about the true nature of humans. I'm unclear as to what exactly you are arguing.

Your idea seems to be that we on the left suppose a good-heartedness that is not actually present, or that human nature determines a regime of social organization which will inevitably default to a red in tooth and claw environment, or something like that.

Could you clarify this and could you point to any particular voice that lays out your philosophy (Hobbes, whomever).

1 Reply

@blatham,

I have deeply immersed myself in the study of human nature for the past several decades, achieving a level of understanding that renders you incapable of communicating with me in a meaningful way.

How do you like that answer?? Offensive and asinine isn't it? You should recognize it: it's yours.

I simply observed that human nature is a very complex thing - far more complex than the systems so far designed by mankind for controlling, governing pr even modeling it. Even the best computer codes eventually get hacked. Even the most skillfully developed systems of rules and means for enforcing them, eventually become cooped and evaded by ordinary humans acting in pursuit of their self-interest.

Related to this are questions involving what mathematicians call chaos and the sensitive dependence on initial conditions. This really is a complex body of ideas not widely understood. It is usually the problem that causes most efforts to model complex non-linear systems to fail. Our ability to make accurate long term predictions of the weather hasn't increased much in the last 40 years despite staggering increases in the computing power available to us. The problem appears to be that, from a mathematical perspective, absolute precision in the description of any initial state is required to accurately calculate any long term prediction of a future state, and absolute precision simply can't be achieved. Without such precision, the predictions look plausible, but wander quickly very far from what actually transpires. What we are left with is a crude ability to make fairly reliable gross predictions of average conditions - sort of an improved Farmer's Almamac. That's about it.

Absolute precision or even merely very accurate descriptions of the influences acting on human behavior are far, far more complex than those affecting heat transfer, and fluid motions.

Lenin and his followers invested a great deal of energy, acting with virtually unlimited power and control over the Russian population, and wiping out any and all existing civil or cultural institutions that opposed them, in an effort to create a "new socialist man" who would follow their vanguard to the creation of a perfect state that would fulfill the (legitimate in the eyes of the masters) needs of all. Soon enough they discovered those who would not accept their strictures and rationalized the extermination of millions in pursuit of their noble goals (the "elimination of the irreconcilables"). Even this did not get them success and their system quickly degenerated into venality and criminality. The result was tyranny, poverty and near universal cynicism ("we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us").

This is a common enough idea, and examples of it can be found throughout recorded history - even, for example in the "Tower of Babel" parables that can be found in multiple cultural histories. We see endless examples in everyday life, Closed form systems are simply not an effective way to govern human behavior. Freedom, competition and markets work far better, but often with identifiable bad aspects. The irony, of course it these bad elements are usually far less onerous an harmful than the results attendant to the collapse of the various Towers of Babel created by those who try to govern human behavior through some system of their design.

I think there were some largely ignored lessons here for the creators and executors of the 11 thousand page health care law that Nancy Pelosi didn't read as well. Those who remain convinced by the presumed nobility and virtues in their aims and intentions, and are still able to rationalize constant extra legal adjustments and unending new subsidies to put bandaids on gaps, omissions, and earlier bandaids, are merely repeating Lenin's folly.

"The Left" isn't the only category of people who have succumbed to these errors. They appear throughout history from a variety of perspectives on human affairs, having only a penchant for authoritarianism as a common element.

The ability to visualize or imagine a presumed ideal future state does not ensure even the existence or stability of such a state and certainly does not give the one entertaining such ideas the ability to get there. Examples abound throughout history and in contemporary politics.

Hubris is a very old concept.

Does that answer your question?

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

. . . their system quickly degenerated into venality and criminality. The result was tyranny, poverty and near universal cynicism . . .

While we're talking about the vagaries of human nature, let us not fail to acknowledge just how accurate a description of common, institutionalized capitalism this is.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

This discussion seems out of my league...but I am following it because each of the people participating seems to be making interesting points.

Something you just said, George, rings a warning bell with me. It is the kind of thing that so often comes into discussions of this sort...and seems totally self-serving.

Quote:

Freedom, competition and markets work far better, but often with identifiable bad aspects.

One, I would ask: "Far better" than what?

Far better than a capitalistic/free enterprise system with strong elements of the aspects socialist societies deem necessary for a functioning society?

Two, I would ask: "Whence comes this information?"

Or is it just an essentially unsubstantiated opinion?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I could take offense at your first two graphs but I don't. I wish you wouldn't take offense so quickly. I like and respect you and I can grant, with no qualms, that there are areas of knowledge through study and experience where I can't match you (or Setanta or Farmerman or Tea or Beth, etc) But the converse is going to be true as well.

Quote:

Does that answer your question?

Not very well.

Humans are extremely complex - yes. True at the individual level and increasingly at the group level. Predictive models aren't going to encapsulate such complexity other than roughly, yes.

You say that what happened in Russia after the Tsar was overthrown had/has a lot of ugly. Yes. But from this observation, you cast out a net so wide that, for example, you liken the ACA to what happened in Russia. Lenin instituted universal health care so therefore any instance of the thing later or elsewhere is Leninism and hell will descend, inevitably. That's far too careless a leap (and as I've detailed earlier, it is countered by obvious evidence in the real world where the nations which are clearly the most free and prosperous all have some form of universal healthcare). I could observe that Stalin's regime was tightly hierarchical then conclude that, therefore, hierarchical organizations like the military or business must inevitably lead to totalitarianism.

Quote:

The irony, of course it these bad elements are usually far less onerous an harmful than the results attendant to the collapse of the various Towers of Babel created by those who try to govern human behavior through some system of their design.

Every sytem of or design for governance is someone's design. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are precisely this. "Here's how we think the place ought to be run". How does your following sentence not apply to the founding of America?

Quote:

Those who remain convinced by the presumed nobility and virtues in their aims and intentions

Human groups inevitably and necessarily organize themselves in some manner.
But your point is that the push towards conformity can be or will be oppressive. Sure. There is a non-resolvable tension between the individual and the group (even so small as a marriage or family) wherein we each must subsume some degree of "liberty" the moment an association with another or others comes about.

Quote:

The ability to visualize or imagine a presumed ideal future state...

Why toss in "ideal"? It is rhetorically handy or ideologically agreeable but it has no place in a careful discussion of what motivates any nation or group to legislate. You will have put rules into place in a ship in your command without any presumption that an "ideal" would result. You would have been reaching for improvement of an existing condition.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

While we're talking about the vagaries of human nature, let us not fail to acknowledge just how accurate a description of common, institutionalized capitalism this is.

Yes. There are now some 6 million people in the US who have medical insurance who did not have it before. That number will increase.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

If I can speak to your post, frank. George is doing a thing here that isn't uncommon for him, in my view, and it is perhaps what frustrates me most often when I'm discussion politics with him. That is, he steers away from the grey areas and defaults to black and white extremities with presumptions or statements that look like axioms.

When I've talked with people over at National Review, this sort of framing comes up all the time. The observation that the successful and relatively free and prosperous nations of the world are mixed economies is not well received. There seems to be a deep reluctance to move into that sphere because of, perhaps, a "thin edge of the wedge" concern - if I allow that progressive policies can and do have positive results, then what the heck am I left with?

George is easily bright enough and honest enough to acknowledge that the grey areas are what matter. But in giving up territory here, he's as miserly as Scrooge, pre-ghosting.

2 Replies

Peripheral anecodte...

A few weeks ago, at National Review, Kevin Williamson (who also stands in for Limbaugh regularly) wrote about watching a black youth and said...

Quote:

He glances slyly from side to side, making sure his audience is taking all this in, before raising his palms to his clavicles, elbows akimbo, in the universal gesture of primate territorial challenge.

Aside from the ease in which he likens the gesture of a black child to primate behavior, here's an example of somebody who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and, later, didn't have the integrity to admit it.

I've done primate studies with one of the three women that Leakey sent out to study the great apes. There is no such "universal" territorial gesture.

I'm not comparing this twit to george. I like george. I despise Williamson. The point here is the value of actual study in a subject area.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I am almost sure it is "essentially unsubstantiated opinion" on George's part, Bernie...and, as you point out, on the part of so many who take it as axiomatic. Frankly, I think the facts speak to the exact opposite conclusion...that a mixed bag seems to offer the best outcome.

Glad you share that sentiment with regard to it.

I hope George responds also.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Freedom, competition and markets work far better, but often with identifiable bad aspects.

One, I would ask: "Far better" than what?

Far better than a capitalistic/free enterprise system with strong elements of the aspects socialist societies deem necessary for a functioning society?

Two, I would ask: "Whence comes this information?"

Or is it just an essentially unsubstantiated opinion?

The comparison for "Far better than ..." was very clear in my post, and the implications of it were equally clear. I also believe there is ample, obvious and widely known historical information that supports the argument I was making. I can't prove my point in a mathematical sense, but there is indeed ample substantiation for it.

It appears to me that you are offering a relatively far more unsubstantiated thesis. Namely that;

Quote:

...a capitalistic/free enterprise system with strong elements of the aspects socialist societies deem necessary for a functioning society?

"Totally self-serving" was a bit much when so promptly followed by your own hypocritical example. Can you offer us an example of such a society? Greece perhaps? or France? the EU?? The facts are not with yiou there

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

It appears to me that you are offering a relatively far more unsubstantiated thesis. Namely that;
Quote:
...a capitalistic/free enterprise system with strong elements of the aspects socialist societies deem necessary for a functioning society?

"Totally self-serving" was a bit much when so promptly followed by your own hypocritical example. Can you offer us an example of such a society? Greece perhaps? or France? the EU?? The facts are not with yiou there

Neither Greece nor France are such a society- (Both are EU-countries but to think that the population of 28 countries are one society ... I have my doubts.

(Germany, btw, is a "social federal state".)

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Freedom, competition and markets work far better, but often with identifiable bad aspects.

One, I would ask: "Far better" than what?

Far better than a capitalistic/free enterprise system with strong elements of the aspects socialist societies deem necessary for a functioning society?

Two, I would ask: "Whence comes this information?"

Or is it just an essentially unsubstantiated opinion?

The comparison for "Far better than ..." was very clear in my post, and the implications of it were equally clear. I also believe there is ample, obvious and widely known historical information that supports the argument I was making. I can't prove my point in a mathematical sense, but there is indeed ample substantiation for it.

Actually, there were several avenues you were travelling in that commentary, George...and although I suspected you were dealing primarily with the "capitalistic/free enterprise" versus "socialism"...I could not be sure. In any case, it was not at all "very clear."

Be that as it may, the "capitalistic/free enterprise" versus "socialism" paradigm is about as unappealing to me as the "dead or red" one. More on this when I respond to the remainder of your response.

Quote:

It appears to me that you are offering a relatively far more unsubstantiated thesis. Namely that;
Quote:
...a capitalistic/free enterprise system with strong elements of the aspects socialist societies deem necessary for a functioning society?

I honestly did not offer a thesis, George...I was a question...and I WAS, as you noted, using a hypothetical in the question that I considered appropriate. Sorry you think it to be "hypocritical" in your next remark.

In any case, I suspect a capitalistic/free enterprise system with strong elements of the aspects socialist societies deem necessary for a functioning society will eventually eclipse whatever it is we have going right now here in the United States.

Fact is, I hope it happens. And I hope it happens sooner...rather than later.

Quote:

"Totally self-serving" was a bit much when so promptly followed by your own hypocritical example. Can you offer us an example of such a society? Greece perhaps? or France? the EU?? The facts are not with yiou there

China.

When I have argued this point...which I have done many, many times over the years, I often suggest that it seems more likely that the amalgam will most likely best be achieved not by capitalistic/free enterprise economies making concessions in the direction of a capitalistic/free enterprise system with strong elements of the aspects socialist societies deem necessary for a functioning society...but rather by essentially socialistic societies making concessions in that direction.

Such as appears to be happening with China...who may be the new top dog at some point.

Don't know for sure...but we will see.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Where to begin ?

Of course we're talking about differences of degree. Of course all societies involve some elements of rules and restraint. That some rules are desirable and even necessary is not proof that more rules and top down prescriptions are therefore better or justified. Indeed it is the very difference between more and less that we're talking about here. In essence my proposition is that over time "solutions" based on individual freedom, choice and action, almost always achieve better results than those designed by some ambitious and even well-intentioned rule maker, and that the reasons for this are found in the nature of human beings.

The essence of our political "system" is (1) strictly defined and bounded powers for the central government and (2) defined individual rights that cannot be violated. (3) Local government is more fundamental than central government and has broader powers. That's a system based on limiting systems.

I've had a lot of experience in my life leading organizations of various sixes, some quite large, and I've learned a bit about human nature in the process.

You made references to authoritarian organizations like the military. Perversely I've found that in important ways the military was a lot less authoritarian than many business organizations or the civilian organs of the government (like the Energy Dept. the EPA or the Justice Dept). No one in the navy gave much of a damn what I thought about issues at hand. However they were very concerned about my ability to deliver certain stipulated outcomes while conforming to certain bounds on my actions in doing so. For me as well I learned early that I was much better off defining the outcomes I wanted from those under my command than in stipulating their methods or telling them how to suck eggs. My best deputies were those who could inspire their men to achieve the goals in question without attempting to control all their actions in doing so. Power is composed of influence and control, and of the two, influence is far more important. That understanding has helped me a great deal in subsequent business ventures.

There's a general principal here. Systems based on control of human behavior break down, requiring ever more control to achieve ever declining results.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Where to begin ?

Of course we're talking about differences of degree. Of course all societies involve some elements of rules and restraint. That some rules are desirable and even necessary is not proof that more rules and top down prescriptions are therefore better or justified. Indeed it is the very difference between more and less that we're talking about here. In essence my proposition is that over time "solutions" based on individual freedom, choice and action, almost always achieve better results than those designed by some ambitious and even well-intentioned rule maker, and that the reasons for this are found in the nature of human beings.

The essence of our political "system" is (1) strictly defined and bounded powers for the central government and (2) defined individual rights that cannot be violated. (3) Local government is more fundamental than central government and has broader powers. That's a system based on limiting systems.

I've had a lot of experience in my life leading organizations of various sixes, some quite large, and I've learned a bit about human nature in the process.

You made references to authoritarian organizations like the military. Perversely I've found that in important ways the military was a lot less authoritarian than many business organizations or the civilian organs of the government (like the Energy Dept. the EPA or the Justice Dept). No one in the navy gave much of a damn what I thought about issues at hand. However they were very concerned about my ability to deliver certain stipulated outcomes while conforming to certain bounds on my actions in doing so. For me as well I learned early that I was much better off defining the outcomes I wanted from those under my command than in stipulating their methods or telling them how to suck eggs. My best deputies were those who could inspire their men to achieve the goals in question without attempting to control all their actions in doing so. Power is composed of influence and control, and of the two, influence is far more important. That understanding has helped me a great deal in subsequent business ventures.

There's a general principal here. Systems based on control of human behavior break down, requiring ever more control to achieve ever declining results.

Where does this come from, George?

Honestly.

You obviously are very intelligent...and make persuasive arguments...but then you lapse into slogan by fiat kinds of things.

This is little more than an over-sized bumper sticker for people who do not want to think things through.

Are you actually saying that history will show more and better results from "solutions" based on individual freedom, choice and action...than on "solutions" imposed by dictators and strongmen...or from an elite group in power?

History???

I'm interested in what Bernie replies to this...but your contention in this area borders on the ludicrous.

2 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

I could take offense at your first two graphs but I don't. I wish you wouldn't take offense so quickly. I like and respect you and I can grant, with no qualms, that there are areas of knowledge through study and experience where I can't match you (or Setanta or Farmerman or Tea or Beth, etc) But the converse is going to be true as well.

Well I didn't like it very much when you gave me essentially the same answer. However, I kept it to myself until you gave me the opportunity to return the favor. Even there I only stuck my finger in your eye with a taste of it.

I don't think this is a contest between different areas of supposedly superior knowledge. No one is above having his ideas questioned or challenged about anything . Refusing to deal with such challenges is a good way to go off the deep end.

blatham wrote:

Humans are extremely complex - yes. True at the individual level and increasingly at the group level. Predictive models aren't going to encapsulate such complexity other than roughly, yes.

I think you may have that one backwards. Group behavior is often (not always) predictable, as any consumer product marketing director can tell you (although even there not for long and ultimately it is variable). It is individual behavior that is thoroughly intractable and unpredictable.

blatham wrote:

You say that what happened in Russia after the Tsar was overthrown had/has a lot of ugly. Yes. But from this observation, you cast out a net so wide that, for example, you liken the ACA to what happened in Russia. Lenin instituted universal health care so therefore any instance of the thing later or elsewhere is Leninism and hell will descend, inevitably. That's far too careless a leap (and as I've detailed earlier, it is countered by obvious evidence in the real world where the nations which are clearly the most free and prosperous all have some form of universal healthcare).

My point about Lenin and the Soviets was an extreme that beautifully illustrates a key point. No I don't think the ACA is its equivalent, but I do suspect there are some applicable insights available from the Soviet experiment. I believe your leap from universal health care to "... the most free and prosperous nations" was a shameful and incongruous leap that totally obscures any cause and effect analysis. The UK was free and prosperous before Clement Atlee and the Socialist party took power. Moreover there is substantial demographic and economic evidence that suggests that the futures of the EU nations will not be as bright in many cases as their pasts.

[quote="blatham]

Quote:

The irony, of course it these bad elements are usually far less onerous an harmful than the results attendant to the collapse of the various Towers of Babel created by those who try to govern human behavior through some system of their design.

Every sytem of or design for governance is someone's design. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are precisely this. "Here's how we think the place ought to be run". How does your following sentence not apply to the founding of America?[/quote]
It does, but as I've described elsewhere the essence of our "system" is strict bounds on the powers of central government; involable individual rights and a preference for local government, more directly aces sable and accountable to the people.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

In essence my proposition is that over time "solutions" based on individual freedom, choice and action, almost always achieve better results than those designed by some ambitious and even well-intentioned rule maker, and that the reasons for this are found in the nature of human beings.[/size]

There's a general principal here. Systems based on control of human behavior break down, requiring ever more control to achieve ever declining results.

Where does this come from, George?

Honestly.

You obviously are very intelligent...and make persuasive arguments...but then you lapse into slogan by fiat kinds of things.

This is little more than an over-sized bumper sticker for people who do not want to think things through.

Are you actually saying that history will show more and better results from "solutions" based on individual freedom, choice and action...than on "solutions" imposed by dictators and strongmen...or from an elite group in power?

History???

I'm interested in what Bernie replies to this...but your contention in this area borders on the ludicrous.

In the first place I labelled the statement to which you reacted as a "proposition", i.e. an opinion offered for discussion. That should enable you to get your breath.

As for the long term efficacy of tyrants and strong men consider Shelly's words;

Ozymandias
Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1792 - 1822
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”;

Yes, I am saying there is very little left of the conquests of Hugalu or Tamerlane, but a lot from Athens.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

In essence my proposition is that over time "solutions" based on individual freedom, choice and action, almost always achieve better results than those designed by some ambitious and even well-intentioned rule maker, and that the reasons for this are found in the nature of human beings.[/size]

There's a general principal here. Systems based on control of human behavior break down, requiring ever more control to achieve ever declining results.

Where does this come from, George?

Honestly.

You obviously are very intelligent...and make persuasive arguments...but then you lapse into slogan by fiat kinds of things.

This is little more than an over-sized bumper sticker for people who do not want to think things through.

Are you actually saying that history will show more and better results from "solutions" based on individual freedom, choice and action...than on "solutions" imposed by dictators and strongmen...or from an elite group in power?

History???

I'm interested in what Bernie replies to this...but your contention in this area borders on the ludicrous.

In the first place I labelled the statement to which you reacted as a "proposition", i.e. an opinion offered for discussion. That should enable you to get your breath.

As for the long term efficacy of tyrants and strong men consider Shelly's words;

Ozymandias
Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1792 - 1822
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”;

Yes, I am saying there is very little left of the conquests of Hugalu or Tamerlane, but a lot from Athens.

I'll assume this was a joke. And I will wait to hear Bernie's reply.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'll concede you don't have much to work with there, but is that the best you can do??

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I'll concede you don't have much to work with there, but is that the best you can do??

I've got plenty to work with, George...and have offered lots.

You seem to be more interested in putting me down than actually discussing what has been raised.

You spout platitudes...as though they are revelation from on high...and when it is called to your attention...your reaction is bizarre...not at all in keeping with the intelligence you often show.

Waiting to see what Bernie has to say may seem insignificant and "not much"...but I know Bernie pretty well...and I think the move is a good one on my part.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know