Split Thread Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

[RandFan]

Randfan's explanations are explanations. Mine are "explanations".

No, I've provided data, facts and a robust scientific model. That is a fact. You cannot point to a scientific model for your beliefs. Nor can you provide a single index of wealth and well being that demonstrates your ideal to be the best for increasing wealth and well being. All you can do is attack my data and theory which you have not as yet done.

Randfan presumes the conclusion.

Patronizing and smug as usual. And an argument by assertion. I don't need to conclude a damn thing. The Index of Economic freedom speaks for itself. Your index? Crickets.

Randfan's data does not imply what he claims.

According to the Heritage Foundation's report published by the WSJ social programs do not lead to less economic freedom. That is a FACT. According to the Heritage Foundation your utopian ideas have failed every time they have been tried. Succesful nations are demonstrably those who balance the needs of the individual, the business owner and society.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No, I've provided data, facts and a robust scientific model. That is a fact.¹ You cannot point to a scientific model for your beliefs. Nor can you provide a single index of wealth and well being that demonstrates your ideal to be the best for increasing wealth and well being.² All you can do is attack my data and theory which you have not as yet done.

Patronizing and smug as usual. And an argument by assertion. I don't need to conclude a damn thing. The Index of Economic freedom speaks for itself. Your index? Crickets.

According to the Heritage Foundation's report published by the WSJ social programs do not lead to less economic freedom. That is a FACT. ³ According to the Heritage Foundation your utopian ideas have failed every time they have been tried.⁴ Succesful nations are demonstrably those who balance the needs of the individual, the business owner and society.⁵

1. Where's this "robust model"? If Randfan "provided" it, where's the link to a comment in this thread that contains it?
2. We can agree to use the Heritage index of economic freedom.
3. I'll accept a correction, but I doubt this assertion. It looks more like Randfan's extrapolation to me. How 'bout a quote from the WSJ or Heritage in support?
4. Here we differ. It seems to me that the Heritage index supports a relation between economic freedom and the good life for the vast majority of citizens. It also supports the deduction that perfection is not of this world and that some politicians in any society succumb to corruption.
5. The term "society" names a group of individuals. The term "government" names a group of individuals. NOT (society = government). Individuals have needs (or, wants). Business owners are a subset of "society". Their "needs" (or, wants) differ systematically from the needs of individuals in general (e.g., greater use of legal services and financial services). "Society" does not have needs or wants aside from the needs or wants of the individuals who comprise it.

 

[RandFan]

If Randfan "provided" it, where's the link to a comment in this thread that contains it?
2. We can agree to use the Heritage index of economic freedom.
3. I'll accept a correction, but I doubt this assertion. It looks more like Randfan's extrapolation to me. How 'bout a quote from the WSJ or Heritage in support?
4. Here we differ. It seems to me that the Heritage index supports a relation between economic freedom and the good life for the vast majority of citizens. It also supports the deduction that perfection is not of this world and that some politicians in any society succumb to corruption.
5. The term "society" names a group of individuals. The term "government" names a group of individuals. NOT (society = government). Individuals have needs (or, wants). Business owners are a subset of "society". Their "needs" (or, wants) differ systematically from the needs of individuals in general (e.g., greater use of legal services and financial services). "Society" does not have needs or wants aside from the needs or wants of the individuals who comprise it.

I've posted it over and over and over and over. Obviously you refuse to read what I right. That's fine. I'll post it one more time.

1. Evolution in general, sociobiology more specifically, altruism and game theory specifically. We are in fact an evolved social species. Reciprocal altruism holds that social species, like humans are successful because we as individuals are willing to temporarily give up some individual fitness for the over all fitness of the group. Animals from ants to antelope have been among the most successful of species because of this genetic trait.
2. How about you follow my links? I've posted them over and over and over and over. What good is it for me to post the data if you refuse to look at it. Index of Economic Freedom Human Development Index.
3. Your retort is similar to theists and creationists. The problem you have is that the data fits the scientific model and fulfills the predictions made by the model. In short, the model predicts that nations highest in economic freedom and or human development will be those nations that have generous social programs. What does YOUR theory predict? Where exactly is the data to support your model.
4. The problem is that your "explanation" is just ad hoc. It is a just so story. It's simply a rationalization to justify your interpretation. I don't simply interpret the data. The data supports the predictions made by the scientific theory. What is your theory and why aren't libertarian\laissez-faire capitalism\anarcho-capitalistic, etc, nations even on such indexes? Why have the failed so utterly?
5. In a representative democracy the government is a representation of society.

 

[Niche Geek]

He just cannot resist the descent into ad hominem.

Malcolm,

I fail to see the ad hominem. In this case it is the stories that are on the dung heap. No comment was made on the storyteller and there was no statement that the stories were suitable for the dung heap because they came from the storyteller. Saying that the story is excrement is not, in and of itself, an ad hom.

Moving to another topic, I'm curious, do you base your views on praxeology or on inductive reasoning?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I've posted it over and over and over and over. Obviously you refuse to read what I right. That's fine. I'll post it one more time.
...

Waving in the direction of Sociobiology and game theory is a "model" only in the loosest sense. I've no dispute with E.O. Wilson or game theorists. If agreeing with these people qualifies as having a model, Randfan and I share the same model.

How about you follow my links? I've posted them over and over and over and over. What good is it for me to post the data if you refuse to look at it.Index of Economic Freedom Human Development Index.

Where in the Heritage index of economic freedom does any support for the intrusive State appear? As I read it, the opposite is the case. Heritage supports a minimal State (consider the comments on the minimum wage, free trade, and free flows of capital).
What I take away from this is the opposite lesson that Randfan draws. Even the most free countries have not fully assimilated the advantages of economic freedom, and the US has been regressing in recent years as labor laws and commerce regulation have become more oppressive. Randfan called a FACT "According to the Heritage Foundation's report published by the WSJ social programs do not lead to less economic freedom. That is a FACT." Readers will find no such "fact" in the Heritage study.

Your retort is similar to theists and creationists. The problem you have is that the data fits the scientific model and fulfills the predictions made by the model. In short, the model predicts that nations highest in economic freedom and or human development will be those nations that have generous social programs.

Again, "the model". What model?

What does YOUR theory predict? Where exactly is the data to support your model.

The Heritage study. Nations with the most economic freedom (rule of law, protection of title and contract, minimal State intrusion into trade, investment, and labor markets) are the most prosperous. As Chicago school and Austrian school economists would predict.

In a representative democracy the government is a representation of society.

In a representative democracy, elections influence who makes policy. No system of democratic decision making guarantees that even a bare majority gets what it wants. Imagine the outcome of a nationwide vote on the one size and style of shoes we all must wear. Add the problems of rational ignorance, influence peddling, and incomplete information available to decision makers about consumer preference and "representation" is a fond hope at best.

 

[RandFan]

Waving in the direction of Sociobiology and game theory is a "model" only in the loosest sense. I've no dispute with E.O. Wilson or game theorists. If agreeing with these people qualifies as having a model, Randfan and I share the same model.

The overriding theory theory is "evolution", we evolved to be a social species. As such most of us suffer when we are surrounded by suffering..

Where in the Heritage index of economic freedom does any support for the intrusive State appear?

Man, that is so missing the point and so arguing of a straw man, it also begs the question.

The index of economic freedom is a data point. You've made claims that can clearly be refuted by scientific data. Even scientific data underwritten and published by conservatives. Modern liberal democracies with a mix of social programs and regulated capitalism are shown to work far better than any other system... unless you've been holding back on me. In which case it's time to put up your evidence. I expect crickets.


{red herrings and irrelevancy snipped}

Let's not get beyond what I'm claiming and what I'm asking you to do.

I'm claiming that the wealth and well being of nations is negatively correlated to poorly regulated nations and nations that offer little if any social programs.

As proof of that I ask again, and again, and again, and again, and again for counter examples and all I get is crickets (aka the droning on and on of philosophical negative arguments sans any scientific theory or model and lacking any evidence that in the very least establishes a correlation between laissez-fair capitalism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, whatever. It just doesn't exist.

 

[RandFan]

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

Just one of many similar statements. They are so popular because they are so true. As you move up and down any scale of moral, social and the economic health of nations you will find a correlation of increased social welfare for the disadvantage is a strong predictor of that nations wealth and well being and nothing has been provided in any of these pages to change that fact.

We've had plenty of explanations and attributions to socialists like Orwell and Einstein (cherry picked, by a hack pundit, to put intentions and sentiments they do not hold into their mouths). I don't know which is worse, that or the droning on of explanation abscent any objective data that demonstrates that significantly gutting social welfare harms nations.

If significantly reducing social welfare would improve a society one would think it would show up in the various indexes that measure the health and wealth of a nation.

My go to index was the Human Development Index, but that is blamed for being a liberal based index, so I now rely on the IoEF. It's a bit hard to attack that for being liberal.


But I will continue to wait for anything substantive to show that Malcolm's ideas have any influence in the real world.

Human Development Index

Index of Economic Freedom - Heritage Foundation

Malcolm, if your claims were more than speculation intended to keep the rich rich then you could provide real world solutions. They would show up somewhere. Thing is, they don't.


Nations that provide universal health care, state run compulsory school, food and shelter are by far the wealthiest and healthiest of nations. And it's not simply happenstance. It's because as social species it's in our best interest to care for the vulnerable and those who are disadvantaged.

So, for fun, let's grant your premise, social programs certainly don't harm nations and it helps lots of our friends, neighbors and loved ones, for an evolved social species that can only be a good thing.

 

[Border Reiver]

In a representative democracy, elections influence who makes policy. [/url]

And if the electorate realizes they made a mistake, they correct it the next time around by electing someone else, however the system is based on the idea that people will make their vote based on a rational decision.

No system of democratic decision making guarantees that even a bare majority gets what it wants.

I may be mistaken here, but in the US the winners of elections or any democratic vote is the candidate or policy that gets the most votes? Modifiying a position to account for differing POVs is what we call compromise, and it usually allows for a better representation of a larger portion of the group.

Imagine the outcome of a nationwide vote on the one size and style of shoes we all must wear.

Imagine the national thought process that made your fallacy a reality. The reality of life would make that as likely as a factory owner deciding that he or she will only manufacture shoes of a single size and style.

Add the problems of rational ignorance, influence peddling, and incomplete information available to decision makers about consumer preference and "representation" is a fond hope at best.

All of which also affect your rational actors when making decisions in the marketplace about goods and services.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

Just one of many similar statements. They are so popular because they are so true.

Not in dispute. We differ over the assignment of responsibility for the provision of charity. The standard argument for State assumption of responsibility for the provision of charity (including various social insurance programs and schooling) turns on "public goods" considerations. The "public goods" argument depends on the "free rider" argument. The usual conclusion, that State assumption of responsibility for the provision of public goods will enhance aggregate social welfare, ignores a flaw in the argument: corporate oversight is a public good (e.g., if one shareholder exposes insider corruption, all shareholders gain, while the one who expended the effort gets no additional compensation) and the State itself is a corporation. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of the public good of charity (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Food Stamps) transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

As you move up and down any scale of moral, social and the economic health of nations you will find a correlation of increased social welfare for the disadvantage is a strong predictor of that nations wealth and well being and nothing has been provided in any of these pages to change that fact.

"Moral" and "fact" are very uneasy partners, seems to me. Let's make a welfare index out of death from prostate cancer and heart disease per 100,000 of population. Let's plot that index against economic freedom or per-capita GDP. I expect you'd find a strong positive correlation, since heart disease and prostate cancer rates rise with age and economic freedom enhances GDP and so enhances longevity. Yes, a high incidence of prostate cancer is a mark of a wealthy society, but it's not something to which any normal person would aspire.

We've had plenty of explanations and attributions to socialists like Orwell and Einstein (cherry picked, by a hack pundit, to put intentions and sentiments they do not hold into their mouths). I don't know which is worse, that or the droning on of explanation abscent any objective data that demonstrates that significantly gutting social welfare harms nations.

We agree; there's no objective data to indicate that significantly gutting social welfare programs harms nations.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Malcolm, if your claims were more than speculation intended to keep the rich rich then you could provide real world solutions. They would show up somewhere. Thing is, they don't.

Tuition vouchers and similar policies that expand parent options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy beyond schools operated by State (government, generally) employees operate in many countries. Compulsory attendance at State-worshipful indoctrination centers is a feature of totalitarian States and the USA.

...
Nations that provide universal health care, state run compulsory school, food and shelter are by far the wealthiest and healthiest of nations. And it's not simply happenstance. It's because as social species it's in our best interest to care for the vulnerable and those who are disadvantaged.

That's one explanation. Another is that a career in the political hierarchy disproportionately appeals to predators, parasites, and control freaks.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

According to the Heritage Foundation's report published by the WSJ social programs do not lead to less economic freedom. That is a FACT.

I'll accept a correction, but I doubt this assertion. It looks more like Randfan's extrapolation to me. How 'bout a quote from the WSJ or Heritage in support?

How about you follow my links? I've posted them over and over and over and over. What good is it for me to post the data if you refuse to look at it.

Where in the Heritage index of economic freedom does any support for the intrusive State appear? As I read it, the opposite is the case. Heritage supports a minimal State (consider the comments on the minimum wage, free trade, and free flows of capital).
What I take away from this is the opposite lesson that Randfan draws. Even the most free countries have not fully assimilated the advantages of economic freedom, and the US has been regressing in recent years as labor laws and commerce regulation have become more oppressive. Randfan called a FACT "According to the Heritage Foundation's report published by the WSJ social programs do not lead to less economic freedom. That is a FACT." Readers will find no such "fact" in the Heritage study.

Man, that is so missing the point and so arguing of a straw man, it also begs the question.

The index of economic freedom is a data point. You've made claims that can clearly be refuted by scientific data. Even scientific data underwritten and published by conservatives. Modern liberal democracies with a mix of social programs and regulated capitalism are shown to work far better than any other system.

So what Randfan claimed as "FACT", "(a)ccording to the Heritage Foundation's report ... social programs do not lead to less economic freedom", was Randfan's inference, hardly a fact.

 

[RandFan]

We agree; there's no objective data to indicate that significantly gutting social welfare programs harms nations.

Actuallly, we have A.) A scientific theory for why it would harm nations. B.) We can predict which nations will have low or high wealth and development based on the degree of social services.

• We have a robust scientific theory (evolution) that combines different fields including sociobiology, reciprocal altruism, game theory) .
• Using the theory we have made predictions of animal behavior and these predictions were confirmed through field research of animals that backs up the theory.
• Using the theory we can make prediction of human behavior and the results of that behavior. We have anthropological data that confirms the theory.

Summary, we have a robust scientific theory that has both explanatory and predictive power.

It's the exact same with creationists. We have the science. We have the data.

Game set match.

 

[RandFan]

So what Randfan claimed as "FACT", "(a)ccording to the Heritage Foundation's report ... social programs do not lead to less economic freedom", was Randfan's inference, hardly a fact.

I see that you are looking for a "gotcha" rhetorical advantage. I'll stand by the statement. The data is clear. Providing generous social programs does not, in and of itself harm a nation. If it did all of those nations at the top of the Index would not be there.

Is that your best? A quibble in semantics and inference? Where's your data that shows that social programs harms societies? Where is your evidence that gutting social programs in America would make us better than nations that are already ahead of us and offer more generous social programs?

You can claim all I have is correlation. It's not true but let's go with that for just one moment. What correlation do you have?

I have a robust scientific method with both explainable and predictive power. Scientists have attempted to falsify the theory and have thus far only confirmed it.

 

[RandFan]

Tuition vouchers and similar policies that expand parent options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy beyond schools operated by State (government, generally) employees operate in many countries. Compulsory attendance at State-worshipful indoctrination centers is a feature of totalitarian States and the USA.That's one explanation. Another is that a career in the political hierarchy disproportionately appeals to predators, parasites, and control freaks.

My explanation is backed up with data. The nations I'm referring to score high in contentment, well-being, wealth, freedom, economic freedom, etc., etc..

Show me otherwise.

If you want to characterize economic freedom, high standards of living, high GDP, high per capita GDP as parasitic behavior then I'll take that as a win and go home. I call it sociobiology/game theory/reciprocal altruism, etc, in short, we are a social species and the best *societies are those who take care of the disadvantaged.

*"The word “society” comes from the French société, which is based on the Latin words, “societas,” meaning “a friendly association with others, and “socius,” meaning “associate or companion. So, we can see that the word society is closely related to the term social, and that the two are related by definition as well."

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I see that you are looking for a "gotcha" rhetorical advantage. I'll stand by the statement. The data is clear. Providing generous social programs does not, in and of itself harm a nation. If it did all of those nations at the top of the Index would not be there.

No. Again, consider the health analogy. Everybody dies of something. Plotting cause of death against wealth, one will find characteristic wealth-related causes of death. This does not mean that those illnesses cause wealth.

Is that your best? A quibble in semantics and inference? Where's your data that shows that social programs harms societies? Where is your evidence that gutting social programs in America would make us better than nations that are already ahead of us and offer more generous social programs?

The Heritage study that relates economic freedom to wealth.

You can claim all I have is correlation. It's not true but let's go with that for just one moment. What correlation do you have?

The Heritage study that relates economic freedom to wealth.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If you want to characterize economic freedom, high standards of living, high GDP, high per capita GDP as parasitic behavior then I'll take that as a win and go home.

If Randfan wants to so misrepresent my argument, I'll take that as win and go home.

... I call it sociobiology/game theory/reciprocal altruism, etc, in short, we are a social species and the best *societies are those who take care of the disadvantaged.

We agree. That's why organized violence (the State) is not necessary for social support networks to work.

*"The word “society” comes from the French société, which is based on the Latin words, “societas,” meaning “a friendly association with others, and “socius,” meaning “associate or companion. So, we can see that the word society is closely related to the term social, and that the two are related by definition as well."

True. NOT(society = government).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In a representative democracy the government is a representation of society.

In a representative democracy, elections influence who makes policy.

And if the electorate realizes they made a mistake, they correct it the next time around by electing someone else, however the system is based on the idea that people will make their vote based on a rational decision.

The mistake is assigning to aggregated decision making processes control over decisions best made at the individual level. Such as shoe size and the pace and method of instruction.

No system of democratic decision making guarantees that even a bare majority gets what it wants.

I may be mistaken here, but in the US the winners of elections or any democratic vote is the candidate or policy that gets the most votes? Modifiying a position to account for differing POVs is what we call compromise, and it usually allows for a better representation of a larger portion of the group.

No compromise will generate the one size and style of shoes that fits a majority of feet.

Imagine the outcome of a nationwide vote on the one size and style of shoes we all must wear.

Imagine the national thought process that made your fallacy ...

"Fallacy" in this context means a point Reiver cannot rebut.

... a reality. The reality of life would make that as likely as a factory owner deciding that he or she will only manufacture shoes of a single size and style.

And that's what we see in uniform school curricula. Brains vary more than feet.

Add the problems of rational ignorance, influence peddling, and incomplete information available to decision makers about consumer preference and "representation" is a fond hope at best.

All of which also affect your rational actors when making decisions in the marketplace about goods and services.

Not at all. Please google "rational ignorance". Google "revealed preference". Please read Hayek, "On the Use of Knowledge in Society". This is my basic text:...
Eduardo Zambrano
"Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications"
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138.

Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

 

[RandFan]

No. Again, consider the health analogy. Everybody dies of something. Plotting cause of death against wealth, one will find characteristic wealth-related causes of death

I'm sorry but this simply will not fly. It's not just a correlation. It's a scientific theory that predicts precisely what we see in both the wild and human anthropology. There is also a negative correlation, societies high in mortality rates and poverty are negatively correlated to public social services.

This does not mean that those illnesses cause wealth.

I'm sorry but once again this is a fataly flawed analogy. There is no scientific theory with explanatory and predictive power to back up the science. You also lack a negative correlation. I'm sorry but this is not a valid argument against what I've provided.

You cannot even show a correlation between reducing social programs and an increase in wealth and well-being. You have no science. You have no model. You only have your philosophical dogma,

 

[RandFan]

If Randfan...

If Malcolm would learn a little civility....

That's why organized violence (the State) is not necessary for social support networks to work.

Yet you cannot provide substantive evidence that societies without governments flourish. I on the other hand have the Index of Economic Freedom, The Human Development Index, Index of GDP and Index of Per Capita GDP. All fail to falsify the theory of reciprocal altruism and the advantage of evolved social species to benefit from individuals temporarily reducing some of their fitness in order to increase the overall fitness of the group. The scientific theory involves multiple lines of studies from multiple fields including game theory and sociobiology.

And the data, be it the study of social animals in the wild or humans living in large societies all support the explanations and the predictions made by the theory.

You've yet to provide any scientific theory or data. You still have squat.

 

[Niche Geek]

Compulsory attendance at State-worshipful indoctrination centers is a feature of totalitarian States and the USA.

Malcolm,

I'm not sure if this is serious or counter-productive rhetorical flourish. Can you please explain to me how the schools of the USA are "State-worshipful indoctrination centers" while those of the following countries are not?

• Canada
• New Zealand
• Australia
• UK
• Sweden
• Norway
• Denmark
• Holland
• Germany
• Singapore

If there is no distinction you must be claiming that they are totalitarian states.