American's Selfish Nature Towards Other Americans

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]dhickey wrote:

yep. Most scientific principals and methods don’t apply to politics or economics. Way too many variables.[/quote]

I think that it is because there are too many variables that we should search for objective means to quantify the measure by which our policies accomplish their intended effect, or if their enactment at least coincides with this accomplishment.

The unfortunate part is I don’t think the intended effect of any legislation made these days is to help people anymore, but to placate the masses and distract them from our real problems which aren’t political at all.

[quote]orion wrote:

And it cannot be tested unless you find a way to quantify and compare utility.

Or, to put it another way, you cannot measure happiness.

The whole premise of the welfare state is flawed.[/quote]

If we can measure values that are shown to correspond with high scores on a census of “satisfaction” then I believe we can get some kind of picture of “gross domestic happiness” if you will (not that I was the first to think of this).

The question is really if the “whole” premise of a welfare state is flawed. Surely the premise of every idea is in some way flawed, to not admit so would be to suggest that we live in a period of history unlike any before where our ideas will not be eventually replaced by more advanced ideas.

Perhaps it could be tweaked to make it a better idea to the point at which it is found to be effective in the application of it’s intended outcome, if not, then the social experiment can advance. But at the moment these questions are clouded because there are those who believe absolutely either that it works or it doesn’t regardless of our history that suggests that human ideas are advanced and replaced over time.

I don’t care what kind of new system we use, it doesn’t have to be perfect (because it can’t), but it’s application should be in some way determined by a measure of it’s ability to create an intended positive effect as determined by the satisfaction that coincides with it’s implementation. If the government as it is now is working in such a way to accomplish it’s real directives, then it is tyrannical.

We have to stop looking for the perfect package or wait for it to come from people who are not even qualified to determine an approximation of a system that accomplishes it’s directives. The people who do this should be at the forefront of the study of human behavior, engineering and science, or at least employ the findings of those who are. Otherwise everything is pure speculation being tossed back and forth using colorful and inaccurate language.

82

[quote]orion wrote:
Gumpshmee wrote:
The problem appears to be that everyone thinks they’re armed with the “one truth”. And with all the schizmatic “belief groups” you can guarantee that 99 percent of the world is out to convert you.

People expect their politicians to enact the “right” motions. Therefore politians are by definition firm “believers” in the ideals they are elected to represent.

Nobody admits that what a lot of these ideas lack is a foundation in empiracle evidence. Science tests it’s ideas to approximate the mechanics of a system. Much of what politicians do relies on “anecdotal” evidense or faith plain and simple.

For example, taking young delinquents to see the inside of prisons it was thought would attenuate the chance of repeated offenses later in life. Statistical analysis demonstrates the inverse.

Refusal to engage in self analysis, and the unwillingness to embrace personal uncertainty sustains a climate in which collective uncertainty can thrive.

Do I believe that a system like this targeted at improving a measure of collective satisfaction would work? I don’t know, it hasn’t been tested.

And it cannot be tested unless you find a way to quantify and compare utility.

Or, to put it another way, you cannot measure happiness.

The whole premise of the welfare state is flawed.

[/quote]

Precisely. Bentham and Mill failed in this regard.

83

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
A long post[/quote]

GOOD %&#%# GRIEF!!!

Do you approach weight training with the same level of superfluous mental masturbation that you bring to this arena? If so how much progress have you made?

This shit ain’t quantum physics pal. If allowed or even worse, encouraged to do so, a sizable % of the human race of any ethnicity will let you take care of them. A sizable % of them will take care of themselves if you make them. A very small % actually REQUIRE somebody else’s help (legit physical/mental disability and some even rarer hardship issues) in which case the families, if we still had those, are responsible for them and the last option is private voluntary charity at the discretion of the giver.

To the rest I say eat shit. Swim or drown.

There is no new super neato ultra far out research required to learn this if people would just open their eyes and face the truth about human nature. We have an entire underclass we have trained in expert victimhood and dependence. It must stop if this nation is to survive.

84

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Gumpshmee wrote:
A long post

GOOD %&#%# GRIEF!!!

Do you approach weight training with the same level of superfluous mental masturbation that you bring to this arena? If so how much progress have you made?

This shit ain’t quantum physics pal. If allowed or even worse, encouraged to do so, a sizable % of the human race of any ethnicity will let you take care of them. A sizable % of them will take care of themselves if you make them. A very small % actually REQUIRE somebody else’s help (legit physical/mental disability and some even rarer hardship issues) in which case the families, if we still had those, are responsible for them and the last option is private voluntary charity at the discretion of the giver.

To the rest I say eat shit. Swim or drown.

There is no new super neato ultra far out research required to learn this if people would just open their eyes and face the truth about human nature. We have an entire underclass we have trained in expert victimhood and dependence. It must stop if this nation is to survive.[/quote]

Umh, x2.

I insist on using bigger words though, because they do tend to impress people.

85

[quote]orion wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Gumpshmee wrote:
A long post

GOOD %&#%# GRIEF!!!

Do you approach weight training with the same level of superfluous mental masturbation that you bring to this arena? If so how much progress have you made?

This shit ain’t quantum physics pal. If allowed or even worse, encouraged to do so, a sizable % of the human race of any ethnicity will let you take care of them. A sizable % of them will take care of themselves if you make them. A very small % actually REQUIRE somebody else’s help (legit physical/mental disability and some even rarer hardship issues) in which case the families, if we still had those, are responsible for them and the last option is private voluntary charity at the discretion of the giver.

To the rest I say eat shit. Swim or drown.

There is no new super neato ultra far out research required to learn this if people would just open their eyes and face the truth about human nature. We have an entire underclass we have trained in expert victimhood and dependence. It must stop if this nation is to survive.

Umh, x2.

I insist on using bigger words though, because they do tend to impress people.

[/quote]

x3

BTW, RIP Haider.

86

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Gumpshmee wrote:
A long post

GOOD %&#%# GRIEF!!!

Do you approach weight training with the same level of superfluous mental masturbation that you bring to this arena? If so how much progress have you made?

This shit ain’t quantum physics pal. If allowed or even worse, encouraged to do so, a sizable % of the human race of any ethnicity will let you take care of them. A sizable % of them will take care of themselves if you make them. A very small % actually REQUIRE somebody else’s help (legit physical/mental disability and some even rarer hardship issues) in which case the families, if we still had those, are responsible for them and the last option is private voluntary charity at the discretion of the giver.

To the rest I say eat shit. Swim or drown.

There is no new super neato ultra far out research required to learn this if people would just open their eyes and face the truth about human nature. We have an entire underclass we have trained in expert victimhood and dependence. It must stop if this nation is to survive.

Umh, x2.

I insist on using bigger words though, because they do tend to impress people.

x3

BTW, RIP Haider.
[/quote]

Whatever anyone else might think of him, not entirely without good reasons, that was a great Austrian, and we owe him a lot.

Joerg, Lebwohl.

87

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Gumpshmee wrote:
A long post

GOOD %&#%# GRIEF!!!

Do you approach weight training with the same level of superfluous mental masturbation that you bring to this arena? If so how much progress have you made?

This shit ain’t quantum physics pal. If allowed or even worse, encouraged to do so, a sizable % of the human race of any ethnicity will let you take care of them. A sizable % of them will take care of themselves if you make them. A very small % actually REQUIRE somebody else’s help (legit physical/mental disability and some even rarer hardship issues) in which case the families, if we still had those, are responsible for them and the last option is private voluntary charity at the discretion of the giver.

To the rest I say eat shit. Swim or drown.

There is no new super neato ultra far out research required to learn this if people would just open their eyes and face the truth about human nature. We have an entire underclass we have trained in expert victimhood and dependence. It must stop if this nation is to survive.[/quote]

The discussion of well-fare is separate from what I’m talking about, but was used as an example to represent a more general point.

The question is, is it possible that there are certain things we believe that may not be true? Are these beliefs falsifiable? Are there things we do that do not have their intended effect because of our beliefs?

An example:

People of a certain country are against immigrants flowing into their country and snatching up labor so a law is passed to lower the wages of migrants. The intention being to deter migrants from relocating to that country. In reality the lower wages of migrants is incentive for employers to hire them and despite the intention of the law the reverse effect is achieved.

When in reality raising the wages of migrants would be a disincentive for employers to hire them and would have the intended effect though at face value appears to be the opposite of what we want.

Another example is prohibition. Does prohibition accomplish it’s desired effect? Is there a better alternative? Will we allow ourselves to entertain the possibility that what we do may not be serving our best interests or accomplishing our directives?

If we go back to wellfare, surely there are some things that are wrong with it, but there is still the intention to do good through it. How do we accomplish that directive? Perhaps we don’t know yet, perhaps we need to try a set of reconfigurations. Perhaps the ultimate solution looks nothing like the one we keep trying to implement.

This isn’t an attack on anyone. I’m just trying to express concern that there doesn’t seem to be that much innovation in our social system due perhaps to the misconception by many different groups that they each have it absolutely right and that every other group has it dead wrong, and not for empiracly sound reasons.

Addressing the portion in bold:

Not that I want to create an arguement, but perhaps this line of thinking that it is the “others” that have to “open their eyes”, “wake up”, “see things the way we do”, “come around to our way of thinking” understand “human nature” the way we understand it, does not serve us the way we would have it.

Perhaps this intellectual materialism, the tendency toward thinking of oneself as utterly correct is part of the problem. Because if it’s true that it is up to the “others” to come around, then while we are “right” we are powerless. Perhaps there is a way for us all to communicate that isn’t hindered by the effect of intellectual materialism.

Can we discuss and think about many different ideas while dissociating our identity from them?

88

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
<<< Can we discuss and think about many different ideas while dissociating our identity from them?[/quote]

No. Not the way you appear to be saying.

We have a constitution and history to teach us the major principles on every major issue we are facing.

I make no pretense to post modern open mindedness about the things that matter. It’s called conviction and regardless of the “nuanced” bullshit foisted on us in our institutes of alleged higher learning I believe in right and wrong.

My views were settled years ago and at the risk of sounding arrogant I had heard every conceivable argument designed to prove them false long before I joined this site. No new ones have been raised since I’ve been hanging around this forum.

Arguments contrary to those settled principles are not options for me. Arguments presenting innovative methods of implementing those settled principles might be depending on what they are.

I don’t see the deep mystery in most of this. The causes of our ills are almost mathematically discernible to me. The real kicker is all you have to is read our founding fathers as they express the principles we must never abandon and the ones we must never entertain and the consequences involved both ways.

We are abandoning the ones they warned us not to and adopting the ones they warned us to avoid and the very consequences they also warned about X10 are sitting in our laps while we wring our hands and sponsor study after study to learn what was handed to us already for free.

89

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
dhickey wrote:

yep. Most scientific principals and methods don’t apply to politics or economics. Way too many variables.

I think that it is because there are too many variables that we should search for objective means to quantify the measure by which our policies accomplish their intended effect, or if their enactment at least coincides with this accomplishment.
[/quote]

quite true but this will never happen. Not unless it does not buy votes or pad campaign bank accounts. many have tried to little avail.
[/quote]
The unfortunate part is I don’t think the intended effect of any legislation made these days is to help people anymore, but to placate the masses and distract them from our real problems which aren’t political at all.
[/quote]
Uhhh…yeah. Quite obvious to those that take the smallest interest in politics and have half a brain. Problem is there aren’t enough of us.

Nobody cares. Unfortunatley.

[quote]
I don’t care what kind of new system we use, it doesn’t have to be perfect (because it can’t), but it’s application should be in some way determined by a measure of it’s ability to create an intended positive effect as determined by the satisfaction that coincides with it’s implementation.

If the government as it is now is working in such a way to accomplish it’s real directives, then it is tyrannical.

We have to stop looking for the perfect package or wait for it to come from people who are not even qualified to determine an approximation of a system that accomplishes it’s directives. The people who do this should be at the forefront of the study of human behavior, engineering and science, or at least employ the findings of those who are.

Otherwise everything is pure speculation being tossed back and forth using colorful and inaccurate language.[/quote]

We can’t even stop the regression into socialism and policies that have proven disasterous. Don’t try and bring obvectiviity and logic into politics. The voting masses are not interested. Not yet anyway. If things get bad enough this may change.

90

Unfortunately this may be the case, and it would be a product of an environment that may have been designed this way.

I remember Charles Staley wrote something to the effect that he’d really love to have a clean of 375 (or whatever it was) but he obviously didn’t truly “want” it cause if he did then he would do what he needed to get it. Truth was that he was satisfied with where his clean was and didn’t have a high enough level of “dissatisfaction” with it to improve. Then he went on to say that successful athletes usually have a high level of dissatisfaction with their own performance.

While the people at large don’t appear to be dissatified to the point of inspiration for action, it seems to be on its way. While we nap the turkey in the oven is smoking, and we may soon awake in a burning house (unless you’ve tested your smoke detector battery… of course).

When this will happen it is not clear, but I think we may have less time than the roman empire.