Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Lorentz]

Under socialism, we have evidence some things work well: police, fire, medicine, etc because they benefit the public more than the individual and socialism works best in those industries.

But there's less motivation for some innovations and the problems with corruption are significant (comes back to human nature).

I just realised I do have somewhat more serious thoughts on this subject.

What's rarely addressed when it comes to designing the best political system, is the underlying framework, and that one aspect in particular: corruption. Or its counterpart, how important is it to stand by friends and family, compared to performing what is officially your duty. I've had discussions with some Ugandans, who agree that corruption is horrible, but if you land a plush job, of course you still have to favour members your family with sinecures if you can. They're family!

I'm not a historian, I have hardly any knowledge of the state of political science, but it has repeatedly struck me that societies where the professional classes take themselves seriously and do their jobs with pride and integrity, do well. By professional classes I of course mean the judiciary and law enforcement, but also doctors, notary publics, officials in charge of infrastructure (whether private or public sector) and so on.

I hypothesise that this may be because if there is lack of professionalism or integrity in such functions, that adds to the risk for those who need those services - pretty much everyone. With such extra risk, many options, such as starting or expanding a business, building a house, or even getting married, become less attractive.

When there is professional pride and integrity in those key professions, that lays a solid foundation for the rest of society to build upon.

It is (yet again) my hypothesis, that this more strongly influences overall societal health, than details such as how much of society is public or private sector, or at what rate the top incomes are taxed.

p.s. Apologies for continued derail. Ritual self-flagellation will commence upon request of moderator.

 

[Mr. Scott]

What's rarely addressed in political experimentation is evidence. People just make stuff up and by force of personality and appeals to emotion cause their experiments to come to fruition, too often with disastrous results.

 

[Lorentz]

What's rarely addressed in political experimentation is evidence. People just make stuff up and by force of personality and appeals to emotion cause their experiments to come to fruition, too often with disastrous results.

Evidence? Or are we to take your word for this?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

There is evidence that at least a socialist approach reduces religious belief. We could definitely have a chat about how the destruction of capitalism would affect secular and atheist activism.

I think this is the old "Swedish socialism" talk that liberals like to do. I am going to guess they are referring to the reduced religiosity in other "more socialist" nations compared to to the USA.

At least, that is the most sense I can make of it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fair summary of the current state of affairs in political experiments. Sadly, as yet we lack the resources to perform the Dosadi experiment. Think of what all those superhumans could achieve.

As for what "works", there's a lot of personal preference involved in that, perhaps more of those than there are objective criteria. When it comes to political systems I prefer Norway to the U.S., but ideally maybe something in between continental Europe and the U.S. ... as long as it's not the UK.

You don't know that I'm not looking at objective criteria.

Medical outcomes and cost effectiveness, for example, are better by multiple objective outcome measures in nationalized health care systems than in private ones.

Now if you want to say it's my opinion everyone should have the best heath care vs someone who values the outcome that the richest people get the best health care and the poor don't matter, then you can claim it's opinion. But don't assume I am not looking at objective outcome measures because that would be a false assumption.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just realised I do have somewhat more serious thoughts on this subject.

What's rarely addressed when it comes to designing the best political system, is the underlying framework, and that one aspect in particular: corruption. Or its counterpart, how important is it to stand by friends and family, compared to performing what is officially your duty. I've had discussions with some Ugandans, who agree that corruption is horrible, but if you land a plush job, of course you still have to favour members your family with sinecures if you can. They're family!

I'm not a historian, I have hardly any knowledge of the state of political science, but it has repeatedly struck me that societies where the professional classes take themselves seriously and do their jobs with pride and integrity, do well. By professional classes I of course mean the judiciary and law enforcement, but also doctors, notary publics, officials in charge of infrastructure (whether private or public sector) and so on.

I hypothesise that this may be because if there is lack of professionalism or integrity in such functions, that adds to the risk for those who need those services - pretty much everyone. With such extra risk, many options, such as starting or expanding a business, building a house, or even getting married, become less attractive.

When there is professional pride and integrity in those key professions, that lays a solid foundation for the rest of society to build upon.

It is (yet again) my hypothesis, that this more strongly influences overall societal health, than details such as how much of society is public or private sector, or at what rate the top incomes are taxed.

p.s. Apologies for continued derail. Ritual self-flagellation will commence upon request of moderator.

I took corruption into account, it's also known as adding in human nature to the model. Assumptions that models make about the human nature variable are usually where the economic theorists fail.

 

[Humes fork]

I think this is the old "Swedish socialism" talk that liberals like to do. I am going to guess they are referring to the reduced religiosity in other "more socialist" nations compared to to the USA.

At least, that is the most sense I can make of it.

Let's look up socialism:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation. Distribution would be based on the principle to each according to his contribution.

This is not how the Swedish (or the Norwegian) economic system is organized.

Norway is not as religious as the US, but they are more religious than Sweden is (they have way more organized humanists though).

By contrast, among the Nordic countries, Denmark is the most economically right-wing (except possibly for Iceland), certainly more so than Norway. Yet this and this suggests that Denmark is slightly less religious than Norway. That is, the opposite result of what the plusser theory predicted.

 

[RandFan]

Let's look up socialism:



This is not how the Swedish (or the Norwegian) economic system is organized.

Norway is not as religious as the US, but they are more religious than Sweden is (they have way more organized humanists though).

By contrast, among the Nordic countries, Denmark is the most economically right-wing (except possibly for Iceland), certainly more so than Norway. Yet this and this suggests that Denmark is slightly less religious than Norway. That is, the opposite result of what the plusser theory predicted.

I'm not interested in a debate on semantics but it should be noted that words evolve and this is one word that is most certainly evolving. It's unfortunate that we have to make due with the words that we have but we really don't have one that distinguishes various concepts like social spending (without the intent of spurring the economy) vs little or no social spending. Conservatives have for years labled social spending as "socialism" in an attempt to link liberal social programs to communism or statism.

I don't care so long as people do not equivocate the word. And that is the one sin that most (IMO) conservatives can't help themselves with. Socialism means one thing when it comes to welfare and another when it comes to defense spending.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think this is the old "Swedish socialism" talk that liberals like to do. I am going to guess they are referring to the reduced religiosity in other "more socialist" nations compared to to the USA.

At least, that is the most sense I can make of it.

Well, it's certainly true that America is politically to the right of most European countries and also has a higher proportion of religious believers. There's also been several papers which demonstrate a correlation between birth rates and the size of stork populations. What I've yet to be convinced of is that there's a causal link between the two.

 

[Lorentz]

Now if you want to say it's my opinion everyone should have the best heath care vs someone who values the outcome that the richest people get the best health care and the poor don't matter, then you can claim it's opinion. But don't assume I am not looking at objective outcome measures because that would be a false assumption.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, although of course not in those terms. An alternative phrasing would be: do you value a system that maximises personal choice in how everyone lives their lives, where those who don't produce much don't get free rides, or do you want a nanny state making everyone dependent on it, lowering the incentive to work hard?

You can use objective criteria, but there is disagreement on what those criteria should be. That's what I meant by opinion.

 

[Lorentz]

I took corruption into account, it's also known as adding in human nature to the model. Assumptions that models make about the human nature variable are usually where the economic theorists fail.

I probably didn't express myself clearly. I do not think corruption is something that is a result of a political system. It happens under capitalism, it happens under socialism. East Germany didn't have much corruption under communism, it doesn't have much under capitalism now. Under any political system, Afghanistan is going to remain rife with corruption for the next half century. Disagree?

The amount of corruption is determined culturally and I see it as a primary cause of societal health, rather than as the result of any particular system.

 

[Lorentz]

Well, it's certainly true that America is politically to the right of most European countries and also has a higher proportion of religious believers. There's also been several papers which demonstrate a correlation between birth rates and the size of stork populations. What I've yet to be convinced of is that there's a causal link between the two.

Indeed. I think it's highly unlikely that a political system creates or destroys belief. Culture exists prior to and independently of how you arrange government , industry and health care.

Also, when comparing the U.S. to any other country, keep in mind that IT is the major outlier compared to all other advanced nations, when it comes to both religiosity and how far to the right its politics are. Eliminate that outlier and what's left to discuss?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Also, when comparing the U.S. to any other country, keep in mind that IT is the major outlier compared to all other advanced nations, when it comes to both religiosity and how far to the right its politics are. Eliminate that outlier and what's left to discuss?

The religion of brown people?

 

[Lorentz]

The religion of brown people?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Also, when comparing the U.S. to any other country, keep in mind that IT is the major outlier compared to all other advanced nations, when it comes to both religiosity and how far to the right its politics are. Eliminate that outlier and what's left to discuss?

The U.S. birthrate is 1.89.
The Israeli birthrate is 3.00.
Israel was literally founded on a religion.

Would you suggest that Isreal is not an advanced country or would you rather walk back your claim that the U.S. is "the major outlier"?

 

[Lorentz]

The U.S. birthrate is 1.89.
The Israeli birthrate is 3.00.
Israel was literally founded on a religion.

Would you suggest that Isreal is not an advanced country or would you rather walk back your claim that the U.S. is "the major outlier"?

I hadn't thought of Israel.

So in retrospect I'm glad I didn't say the US was the only outlier.

 

[Humes fork]

Israel was literally founded on a religion.

No.

Would you suggest that Isreal is not an advanced country or would you rather walk back your claim that the U.S. is "the major outlier"?

Well it is compared to many developed countries (perhaps except for Ireland or Poland). Israel is less religious than the US.

 

[Jono]

I suspect it has a similar reason as Nordic blond light-skinned people being called "Aryan", originally meaning from the eastern part of Persia. That is, language evolves in curious ways.

And on that note, still no evolutionary linguist in the room? Noone?

"Aryan" as a term to denote "condensed/pure whiteness" is not to be made wholly interchangable with the lingustic origin and branch of indo-iranian/aryan. The former took off in the later 19th century and early 20th century as a general term for 'teutonic/nordic' sub-races of the old Linnean term "europaeus albus" (white european). Sub-populations included into that spectra were dinaric (with some exceptions), alpine, celtic (with some exceptions) and nordic, from where there even more sub-groupings attached. The reason to incorporate the term "aryan" was perhaps in hindsight obvious because it was sanskrit for "noble" and that, as the writers and anthropologists who inspired the NS doctrines believed, the origin of indo-europeans were of an old vestige in northern India (where the word hailed from as well as the mythos of such a people). This might explain why Hitler sent adventurers and expeditions to India in order to discover more about this mythos, which was regarded as a biological probability.

In a similar yet perhaps mirror-imaged manner, the term "Caucasian" has it roots somewhat based on an indo-european bottleneck/cluster once upon a time, the Caucasus region. It was and is a crude convention, though again through linnean taxonomoy (if I recall correctly) it became a term for people with chiefly indo-european group-ancestry and language (again, as usual, with some exceptions). I.e, it became one of the first terms for one of the, as it was worded, prime-racial groups (which saw additional revision or, more correctly, sub-groupings added as the decades and centuries moved on).

 

[Stout]

I'm not interested in a debate on semantics but it should be noted that words evolve and this is one word that is most certainly evolving. It's unfortunate that we have to make due with the words that we have but we really don't have one that distinguishes various concepts like social spending (without the intent of spurring the economy) vs little or no social spending. Conservatives have for years labled social spending as "socialism" in an attempt to link liberal social programs to communism or statism.

I don't care so long as people do not equivocate the word. And that is the one sin that most (IMO) conservatives can't help themselves with. Socialism means one thing when it comes to welfare and another when it comes to defense spending.

I find it's useful to view the word socialism more as anti-capitalism and treat it as yet another condemnation of our western society.

SJW's have a problem with corporations and, more specifically people who belong to to the investor class. These are viewed as people who produce nothing in society and simply enjoy unearned privilege by virtue of having enough money to participate in investment schemes.

Except of course, if the investment scheme is a union pension fund, then investing is good.

The word may be ill defined however the intent in which it's used conveys the meaning quite nicely.

 

[Stout]

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Take the following poem, copy and paste it into the A+ forum, sign it something like "Bob Smith", sit back and wait for the Aplussers to tear it apart in the way they went ballistic on that limerick last fall.

The SJW fail in reducing people to mere body parts for the enjoyment of the author is obvious ( objectification ) however as an SJW whisperer I'd be interested in seeing what condemnations the Aplussers could come up with if they thought the piece was penned by someone whose super privileged.

At the completely opposite end of the spectrum, we have this post by Ally Mcbeal which is an awesome demonstration that rationality is possible when dealing with topics like feminism and that sentiment follows through in the comments section.