Galileo Blogs
-
Posts
400 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Galileo Blogs
-
-
There are two Revolutionary era quotes that capture my thoughts on the inherent risk of any government becoming dictatorial. I may have it wrong, in terms of who said what [i welcome corrections!], but what I remember is this:
Benjamin Franklin, after leaving the Constitutional Convention, was asked by a bystander, "So, what kind of government do we have, a monarchy?" He answered, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Thomas Jefferson: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
There is no "iron-clad" governmental structure or constitutional document that can prevent with 100% certainty a future abuse of power by a government official. That is why all free or semi-free peoples everywhere, in whatever historical period, must heed Jefferson's advice as the only way to remain free. Furthermore, the only way to be truly vigilant is if we are armed with the correct philosophy. That way we can correctly identify when government is exceeding its limits.
In any case, it is incumbent to devise the best possible governmental structure, which will make it less likely for future abuses to occur. I do think that the American system got most, but not all, of the details right, with the particular form of its Constitutional Republic.
-
This reminds me of a time, when a friend inquired of my behavior vis a vis traffic laws, I mused half-jokingly that public roads were in fact terra nullius, the whole concept of "public property" being invalid.
I'll have to try that one next time I'm pulled over for speeding.
-
I like the Gold quote as it is. Many people understand the quantity theory of money. This is a simple statement of the essential virtue of gold.
-
The issue of Western settlers appropriating portions of tribal lands in order to make them productive raises an interesting comparison. What is the proper way to convert a Communist society into a capitalist one? I am thinking specifically here of the former Soviet Union and the so-called "oligarchs" who "stole" the "people's property" in a variety of shady schemes in the 1990s.
My contention is that "the people" cannot own anything. Ownership is a function of individuals or their delegated entities, such as corporations (thank you, David Odden, for making that clarification above). Essentially, all of the land, factories, equipment, etc., that were operated by the Communist government, is the equivalent of the open prairie of the American West. It is "found goods" for anyone who desires to find them, possess them and make them productive, much like a farmer who tills virgin prairie and makes it productive gains ownership of it.
My observation is that many of these oligarchs, once they acquired the property, used it to produce values. They became capitalists (albeit with lots of corruption surrounding them). In particular, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is one of those oligarch-capitalists. He formed the Russian oil company Yukos from a base of former "state property" and made into a very productive enterprise. For that, he was put into a Siberian jail. Now, it turns out Putin is adding more trumped-up charges against him, so that it is likely he will stay in jail many more years.
It is interesting and sad to see a former KGB officer (Putin) put someone in jail on charges that he "stole" from the "people". I can only imagine what actual crimes Putin is guilty of.
In any case, apart from the specific case of Khodorkovsky, I am interested in what everyone thinks on this issue, of how Communist "property" should be converted into capitalist property. I am also interested in the case of Khodorkovsky, in case anyone wants to comment.
-
I agree with the reasons cited for having elections. I would go a little further and say they are necessary for reasons of selection and removal. Government officials work for all citizens. Therefore, the citizens must appoint them. I cannot think of a method other than elections to accomplish this whereby it would reflect the citizens' wishes in the best possible way.
The problem with appointing government officials is how do you decide who gets to do the appointing? Then who appoints the appointer? Etc. There is an infinite regress. Unfortunately, in that type of situation, the appointer typically ends up becoming a family member or close associate of the person. That is how monarchies are born.
An election has a drawback in the sense that the losing side's wishes are not respected. However, that is why the correct system of government must be a constitutional republic and not a democracy. Constitutionally defined and delimited rights, and clearly enumerated and delimited governmental powers make sure that whatever government does, it is highly unlikely to violate an individual's rights. In a constitutional republic, it is likely that most people wouldn't vote. They wouldn't have to, since the range of actions of government officials would be so delimited. Fortunately, in a free society, politics would become a very minor concern among the populace, since government's influence on our lives would be so minimal.
The even more important reason for elections is removal. They are a superb check on government power. Let's say a government official does somehow become bad. Vote him out of office or impeach him. That is also the benefit of term limits, which prevent against a populist-type politician from staying in power (e.g.: Franklin Roosevelt).
Finally, appointments of many government officials, including judges, is entirely consistent with elections. As long as the key governmental "first movers" are elected, other officials could be appointed. I suspect a legislature, as the enactor of laws, would be elected. After that, conceivably even the executive and most or all of the judges could be appointed. In our system, the President is elected. I do not think that is a necessary feature of a constitutional republic, although it has its advantages.
The American system of checks and balances was carefully devised by the Founding Fathers after studying the failures of other representative systems, particularly those of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. I am impressed by much of the logic of the system, including such features as lifetime appointments of Supreme Court judges so that they are removed from the day-to-day political fray. The three-part system we have -- an executive, a legislature and a court system -- sums up all of the governmental institutions there should be in a free society.
-
My Fifteen Favorite Stories From Leviticus
Yay, I give praise and thanks to my preacher, for his sermon from Leviticus! I will study and learn the universal lessons from these great stories of the Good Book!
-
As far as I can determine, the big problem with American Indians is their tribalism. Whatever "claim" they had to patches of land were tribal claims. Tribes don't own land; individuals do. This problem meant there would be a conflict when an individual non-Indian farmer came along and began farming a plot of land.
Individual rights are the basis of an advanced capitalist society. The Indians had little, if any, concept of such rights. Given their lack of knowledge of such rights, it seems that conflict with non-Indians was inevitable.
Interestingly, some Indians lived in permanent villages, or even cities, and farmed. The Pueblo Indians of New Mexico lived in a dozen or so permanent villages and survived by farming. The more advanced Aztec, Mayan and Incan civilizations of Mexico, Central and South America sometimes lived in rather large cities (e.g.: Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztecs, population: 200,000 in the 15th century) and engaged in extensive farming.
These more advanced, stable societies would seem to have had some justification for exhibiting a right to property. However, they were incredibly mystical, collectivist, and devoid of individualism (e.g.: human sacrifices). Conflict with the relatively more individualist West was inevitable, even if the Spaniards were incredibly brutal in their own ways.
-
well, GB, I'm afraid I can't agree with you there. If Viet Nam is any indicator, Democratic congresses are great at leaving our allies high and dry after our troops have been pulled out. I see nothing that would indicate to me that this would be any different.
An Iraqi civil war would be terrible for the Iraqi people, but it would also be a distraction and resource drain for those who would wish us harm. Since we're unwilling to actually take care of the problem it seems this is the only course left.
If Republicans don't have enough influence to get the proper policy executed when they are in power, I have no idea how they would be able to get it executed when they are out of power (which is essentially how I read your assertion). Almost by definition any sort of half measures will be more effective, not because they will do so much, but because they will cost so much less, than the current cash burn on a war that is not accomplishing anything.
I could be wrong. I hope I'm not since the Democrats have a good chance of gaining the Presidency.
Regarding the issue of leaving allies high and dry, I do not think any political party has a monopoly on that. After all, Eisenhower left the Hungarians high and dry after initially supporting their rebellion against the Soviets. Pres. Bush Sr. left the Shiites and Kurds high and dry after publicly calling for them to rebel against Saddam Hussein.
Of course, the Democratic record is also very sordid in this area: the Nicaraguan rebels, the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs, etc.
As for Iraq, a civil war there does distract the enemy, but it also demoralizes Americans, and makes Americans less willing to confront true enemies such as Iran and North Korea. That is the lasting damage that is being done by the Republican half-war against the terrorists.
As for Democratic pacifism, I would argue that Republican timidity has actually emboldened it. Many Democrats initially supported a strong fight against the terrorists, but as the Republicans bungled the effort and failed to name and confront the larger enemies, the pacifist side of the Democrats gained strength. Would the Democrats retain such pacifism if they held the executive branch? That is the question I am considering.
-
I didn't mean I wanted to be immortal. I was using JMeganSnow's definition of "living indefinitely" from the last page (Post 2): that I had the choice to live as long as I found value in living.
I would also want to live indefinitely. Keep replacing my body parts as they wear out. Use stem cells to replace dying brain cells. Hook me up to artificial hearts, kidneys and livers. Replace my knee joints and hip joints. I am in favor of the maximum deployment of biomechanical and medical technology to allow me to live longer.
That is a lot different from being immortal, which is an impossible concept for living creatures. I wouldn't want it; I couldn't get it; it is a metaphysical impossibility. The Twilight Zone had an episode that made that point. The immortal person repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to kill himself. Ironically, once he became immortal, he found his life was no longer worth living.
-
I concur with SoftwareNerd's recommendation above to read this series. I just finished it and it is excellent. It reports on well-respected scientists who have alternative explanations for global warming (or even foresee global cooling!). It also shows how the politics of the global warming issue have stripped the honesty out of the scientific debate. Here are a few random quotes I pulled from the articles. Reading the full articles in the series is worth the effort:
Svensmark and his colleague had arrived at their theory after examining data that showed a surprisingly strong correlation between cosmic rays --highspeed atomic particles originating in exploded stars in the Milky Way -- and low-altitude clouds. Earth's cloud cover increased when the intensity of cosmic rays grew and decreased when the intensity declined.Low-altitude clouds are significant because they especially shield the Earth from the sun to keep us cool. Low cloud cover can vary by 2% in five years, affecting the Earth's surface by as much as 1.2 watts per square metre during that same period. "That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square metre estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution," Dr. Svensmark explained.
The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.Throughout his report, in fact, Sir Nicholas [a believer that man causes global warming]not only assumed worst possible cases, he also assumed that humans are passive creatures, devoid of ingenuity, who would be helpless victims to changes in the world around them. Such assumptions underpinned Sir Nicholas's claim that "the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever," and led Tol to view Sir Nicholas's conclusions as "preposterous." Tol's conclusion: "The Stern review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent."More important, Tol [an economist who is a global warming skeptic] is a student of human innovation and adaptation. As a native of the Netherlands, he is intimately familiar with dikes and other low-cost adaptive technologies, and the ability of humans in meeting challenges in their environment. To assume that humans in the future would not use their ingenuity and resourcefulness in sensible ways defies the history of mankind and ultimately serves no one.
I am beginning to conclude that the quote below is the bottom line description of the whole global warming frenzy. It is a religion for true believers:Despite such obtuseness Lindzen fights on, defending the science at what is undoubtedly a very considerable personal cost. Those who toe the party line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them from a funding pot that overflows with US$1.7-billion per year in the U.S. alone. As Lindzen wrote earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, "there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer. -
Kendall,
Nice post. I agree with what you say.
When I think about the political parties, I focus primarily on what they do. In terms of actions, the parties are identical on economic matters. In terms of religion, the Republicans are far more willing to violate the separation of church and state than the Democrats, despite whatever recent religious declarations the Democrats are making.
In terms of foreign policy, I agree with what you say, Kendall, that a war half-fought is worse than no war fought at all (pardon me, if I am mis-characterizing your position). In this sense, I am becoming convinced that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats on security matters. Let's look at what Republican President Bush has done so far. He ejected the Taliban from Afghanistan, only to see the Taliban regroup and regain their strength in off-limits Pakistan. He deposed Saddam Hussein from Iraq only to see a terrorist-affiliated Shiite religion-dominated government take hold there. The country is in a state of near-anarchy, and Iran is biding its time until it can take over the country completely or turn it into a vassal state.
So, at the end of the day, was our security heightened by Bush's timid, incomplete, and self-delimited actions in the Middle East?
Contrast this with a Democratic administration. I think a Democratic administration would do better for one principal reason. Democrats would be so afraid of appearing "soft" on terrorism, especially with a loud Republican opposition yelling in their ear (hopefully), that a Democratic administration likely would have taken more effective steps.
Consider this also. When it does come time to militarily confront Iran and remove the nuclear threat, it will be a Democratic administration that will accomplish this. Bush, who had the public will behind him in the first few years after 9/11, will leave office having failed to accomplish this most important of self-defense actions.
Focus on the actions, not so much on the words. If words could win a war, all of Bush's hot air for all these years would have already vaporized the enemy.
-
Another great source for Bible amusement is The Brick Testament, where many of the bible stories are acted out with legos! I have cross-referenced many of the passages. The content seems to be pretty accurate.
I concur on the recommendation for The Brick Testament. Legos were always my favorite toy. Now they are also my favorite marriage counselor.
-
Here's the first installment of a series of posts listing my favorite stories from the Bible.
MisterSwig, you are my preacher. I humbly await your next sermon.
-
Two words: Barack Obama.
Barack Obama on the Left and Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Right. Between the two of them, we can get government-funded Bible study sessions to attend while we wait for government-provided heart surgery. That way, when we die because we couldn't get the surgery in time, at least we can be sure to get into heaven!
-
The Democrats definitely talk a more socialist line than the Republicans, but I question if they walk a more socialist one. In actual practice, the Republicans end up giving us Medicare prescriptions, socialist health care in Mass, socialist Healthcare (possibly) in California, Sarbanes-Oxley (a serious but under-reported problem for US business). In comparison to these, the minimum wage law (in the form it passed) does not have as large an impact. As for Barney Frank's anti CEO pay bill, the impact is minor, and anyway Bush agrees in principle.
So, I'd question the idea that the GOP is less likely to move the country closer to socialism.
I completely agree. In my blog here I say, "Republicans are often worse enemies of capitalism than Democrats." I mean it.
I also make the point here that Republicans are essentially the same as Democrats when judged on economic matters, with the only key difference being the Republicans' greater willingness to violate separation of church and state.
And in foreign affairs, I contend here in a piece entitled, "President Bush--Big Talk and Little Action, a Dangerous Combination," that the Republicans may actually be worse than Democrats.
These views may not be controversial to many readers of this forum, but I am thoroughly convinced that Republicans, on balance, are no better for the economy than Democrats. They promulgate destructive policies with about the same frequency as Democrats, and relatively minor good policies with about the same frequency. However, within this pattern, there are big-time statists such as Republican President Richard Nixon, who massively expanded government power. So far on economic matters, I would call Bush a "Nixon-lite", although he is moving in the "Nixon-heavy" direction.
Politically, I think the Republicans are at their best when they are not in power. As the party of opposition, it is easier for them to be principled and pressure Democrats into adopting moderate positions. Remember when Bill Clinton said, "The era of Big Government is over."?
-
I am thinking about what creates wealth...
Mweiss,
Could you use a regular font and regular paragraph spacing for your post? With all due respect, your post is virtually unreadable with that particular font and spacing.
Kindly,
GG
-
I saw most of this documentary on HBO yesterday: Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi. I highly recommend it as up-close anecdotal evidence regarding the intensity of religious belief in the Bible Belt. It is not a statistical survey and excludes (I believe) heathen parts of the U.S. such as my hometown, New York, but the real-life portrayals and spontaneous interviews are disturbingly interesting.
What struck me the most is just how intensely these people believe in Christian doctrine. (Of course, they are all hypocrites; one funny juxtaposition shows a strip club next door to a gigantic cross. Certainly, those two behaviors need each other. Without the strip club there can be no cross and vice versa.)
I wasn't an adult before the 1980s when the Christian Right attained political ascendancy, but my impression is that in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, secularism was on the rise, and religion was looked on as something that was largely private and personal. Proselytizing and public displays of religiosity seemed to be relatively dormant, or directionally flat or declining in strength. Of course, I welcome the opinions of those "older and wiser" than me for their thoughts on the status of religiosity in those earlier decades compared with today.
My bottom line on the type of people shown in this film is that they're scary. Their mentality really does seem like the precursor to the type of mentality that commits terrorist acts. After all, a segment of these people blow up abortion clinics. They see themselves as "soldiers of God" and believe that they have a holy mission to make America Christian. As for politics, they preach from the pulpit which candidates to vote for, and they all seem to be Republicans.
-
Another key avenue for spreading environmentalist propaganda is the public education system. It's extremely disturbing the way children are taught right from kindergarten on up that we are "stewards of the earth". Environmentalist ideas are implanted at a very young age and so they go unchallenged by most people. It is almost universally accepted as fact among school-age children in this country that man and "corporate polluters" are destroying the planet.
That is a very good point. I was in elementary school in the early 1970s when the famous crying Indian ads were aired against pollution. That kind of propaganda is mild compared to the incessant propaganda kids receive today, yet that ad was very effective in making me emotionally receptive to the environmentalist argument. It is kind of like the brainwashing one gets in church as a young child.
Of course, a good dose of Objectivism, knowledge of economics, and my own observations of the world have thoroughly counteracted what the "crying Indian" did. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that we have a huge brainwashed cadre of people out there who do not question the environmentalist Gospel.
-
I know I'm in late on this thread, but global warming is much ado about nothing. It's a movement that comes out of postmodernism. Postmodernists are basically shill, anti-capitalist, anti-Western, anti-reason, anti-man zealots. They are extreme nihilists. They are bitter, backward, dishonest advocates of man destroying ideas. They work by an insidious code of dishonesty.
This is what they are, and they are the people behind the movement. Keep in mind that postmodernists don't care about the truth. They could not care less about facts. They are driven by their ideology.
I agree. Environmentalism is essentially a religion of nihilism. Their positions are taken on faith, nature is their God, and it is characterized by a hatred of man and his technology.
I have not had many conversations with ardent environmentalists, but I suspect they are as (un)reasonable as born-again Christians.
However, the crazy environmentalists aren't the only voters, fortunately. It is important to explain the facts behind environmentalism to all of the thoughtful people out there. They need to understand that environmentalism seeks to make man's environment a hell on earth.
-
Even if the burden on nuclear energy by the government is ten times whatever tax break or subsidy they decide to throw at it, and even if that burden is proportionally larger than that of any other industry, the very fact that there is any kind of tax break or subsidy will allow ignorant and dishonest leftists to claim that "Big XXX" is "subsidized."
You make a good point. That is why I asked the previous poster what are the subsidies to the oil companies. I think the answer is none when measured against their level of taxation vis-a-vis other industries.
Another somewhat different example of your point happened here recently in New York. Mayor Bloomberg raised property taxes 23%, then a few months later he handed out a $400 property tax rebate to all property owners in the city. Figure out the math on that one and the philosophical principle behind who got taken and who got back on that little maneuver.
-
Can anyone clarify further on the governmental ostracism of the ancient Greeks, or present any benefits/hazards that might come up if this method existed today?
Well, I recall that Athens tended to ostracize their most successful generals. Of course, it wasn't ostracism, but a similar concept (the collective punishing the individual) that was applied to Socrates, who was made to drink hemlock.
The best protection against bad actions by Congress will be a rational culture that values individual liberty, and a rational Constitution that would be the result of that culture. Such a Constitution would be similar to the one we have now, but would contain no "loopholes." If the state were circumscribed to its policing function (including the courts and armed forces), there would be essentially no scope of action for Congress to pass bad laws, since any bad laws (those that violated individual rights) would be unconstitutional.
-
Going back further [church] can be traced back to "Circe" which is a goddess in greek mythology who cast spells on their enemy to cause amnesia, hallucinations and delusions...
Yes, that is an accurate description of what happens in a church.
-
I really think that the goverment subsidy/regulation tangle is the single most salient point about this whole mess. As long as subsidies are given to big oil, no "green" technologies can compete.
What are the subsidies given to "big oil"?
-
Of course, sometimes people use the term "subsidy" to mean that they are relaxing their regulations or taxes... so you have to beware when you hear that term.
That is a very important distinction. In the case of nuclear energy, it is both getting subsidized and benefiting from special tax breaks.
These are some of the subsidy and tax break provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (source: Wikipedia).
Quote:
* Authorizes cost-overrun support [GB: i.e., a cash subsidy] of up to $2 billion total for up to six new nuclear power plants;
* Authorizes a production tax credit of up to $125 million total per year, estimated at 1.8 US¢/kWh during the first eight years of operation for the first 6.000 MW of capacity[3] ; consistent with renewables;
* Authorizes $1.25 billion for the Department of Energy to build a nuclear reactor to generate both electricity and hydrogen;
End quote.
Although the tax break is not a subsidy, it is destructive because it amounts to industrial planning. By taxing some companies more or less than others, the government involves itself in picking "winners and losers." That is the essence of socialist planning, which never works. Government must simply stay out of the way and let winners and losers emerge in the market economy. Of course, by doing so, all of us win from a rapidly rising standard of living.
As an example of the statist mentality, it is quite interesting that private activities such as nuclear energy production are often either banned or subsidized, with state planners alternating between the two actions. Planners want to control and cannot tolerate simply laissez faire.
****
Edited by GB: To clarify, the "cost-overrun support" kicks in if a project to build a nuclear plant is delayed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulators. So, it is a bizarre case of the government offering subsidies to pay for the potential cost of regulation! It never occurred to Congress to just repeal the regulations, thereby saving all of us from having to pay for the subsidies.
Elections and government
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted · Edited by Galileo Blogs
Well, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were the Bill of Rights. I can go along with that one.
Slavery was also outlawed through an amendment.
The problem isn't whether the Constitution can be amended, but it is in how it is interpreted. With the wrong philosophical base, our Constitution has been interpreted as if there are no individual rights and unlimited governmental powers. That interpretation is made despite clear language in our Constitution to the contrary.
If people accept the right philosophy, a Constitution will serve us well. But, no matter how well written a Constitution might be, if the dominant philosophy is irrational, it will offer no protection.