Poll: Republicans reject evolution...

[FarmallMTA]

Which ones are advocating nationalizing industry?

Any and all who are advocating Nationalized Health Schemes. That would be ALL OF THEM.

 

[Ranillon]

Oh, right, you were saying that before - we all got rich by killing Indians and stealing their land and enslaving black people and living off the fruit of their labor. Except that we haven't done either of those for going on 150 years (and even before slavery was outlawed throughout the US, most people lived in states where it was illegal, and the vast majority of Americans owned no slaves at all, even people living in slave states). So what were the "questionable institutions" that have made America rich since then?

You're just offering us a strawman -- It's not as if the effects of those "questionable institutions" just disappear into a haze of justice for all the moment they disappear. If I swindle you out of all your money, use it to build a fortune, but then institute an economic system that is equally fair to the two of us does that mean everything is okay? Does that mean I don't continue to enjoy an advantage because of my previous actions even if I've since learned the error of my ways?

This is a complicated subject. One cannot fairly suggest that all effects of possible past misdeeds are magicaly null and void just because (theoretically) the institutions that promoted them have changed anymore than we can just write off the modern US state as an immoral imperial empire.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Any and all who are advocating Nationalized Health Schemes. That would be ALL OF THEM.

Post a link to their position paper on this and quote the part where they are going to nationalize a company or industry.

 

[BPSCG]

You're just offering us a strawman -- It's not as if the effects of those "questionable institutions" just disappear into a haze of justice for all the moment they disappear. If I swindle you out of all your money, use it to build a fortune, but then institute an economic system that is equally fair to the two of us does that mean everything is okay? Does that mean I don't continue to enjoy an advantage because of my previous actions even if I've since learned the error of my ways?

This is a complicated subject. One cannot fairly suggest that all effects of possible past misdeeds are magicaly null and void just because (theoretically) the institutions that promoted them have changed anymore than we can just write off the modern US state as an immoral imperial empire.

But that wasn't my point. Read again what ImaginalDisc was saying:

The United States became rich from stealing resource rich land from Indians and kidnapping and enslaving Afrcians. I'm sure that there are some rich families who owe their wealth to faultless and industrious inventors and shrewd business accumen. There's far more whose money derives from monstrous insitutous that are a shameful part of our past, no matter how nice the people in those institutions were.

The vast majority of Americans never owned a single slave, period. In 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, slavery had always been illegal in the north, and yet the north was by far more prosperous than the south. How does that square with the claim that the US grew rich on the back of slave labor?

Economically, what slavery stole was the value of the slave's labor (it stole other, non-economic things, such as the slave's freedom and dignity). But that labor was not what made the US rich. If it were, the south would have been the rich part of the country, and the north the poor.

When ID claims that the US grew rich on the backs of slaves, he ignores the fact that theft does not create wealth - it only moves it around. If I steal your car, I am wealthier and you are poorer, but I have not created any wealth. Wealth is created by using human ingenuity to shape the earth's resources to fulfill our needs.

I am not trying to justify theft or slavery here - quite the opposite. But their effects become vitiated with time. Otherwise I would be demanding reparations from you because your Egyptian ancestors enslaved my Jewish ones thousands of years ago.

 

[Just thinking]

You must invite me to the dreamworld you inhabit some day. The United States became rich from stealing resource rich land from Indians and kidnapping and enslaving Afrcians. I'm sure that there are some rich families who owe their wealth to faultless and industrious inventors and shrewd business accumen. There's far more whose money derives from monstrous insitutous that are a shameful part of our past, no matter how nice the people in those institutions were.

This dreamworld is populated by real people -- her, for instance. As for claiming the land was resource rich ... well, that depends on who you ask. Manhattan Island was rather valueless to the American Indians, and they had control over it far longer than European settlers did, even to this day. But look at it now ... just what is an acre going for downtown these days? Did the Indians in the now plain states ever develop agriculture to prosperous levels? Why? For the most part, many tribes were nomadic ... and even wared against other tribes ... in turn taking their land. So who's any different here? Would someone as mentioned above have faired better in a land populated by Native Americans living like they did 300 years ago? -- which is a fair guess as to how they would have stayed to even now given their past.

 

[Tony]

Thesis: Stupid people are more likely to be greedy. Wealth therefore is no indicator of intelligence. Which leaves you pretty much high and dry, Beeps.

I'd also add that stupid people are more likely to unquestioningly fall in line with a pre-establish system and greedily work hard and waste their life chasing wealth in that system.

 

[Tony]

Let me ask you the following:

Now, for about the fourth time, do you believe that there is no more blearg today than there was 100,000 years ago? Do you seriously believe that most of today's blearg was produced by by killing and stealing?

Can you answer that question without knowing what I mean by "blearg?"

Free advice. Stop wasting your time arguing with a nut.

 

[The Painter]

Is that what wealth is?

No

 

[Ranillon]

But that wasn't my point. Read again what ImaginalDisc was saying:
The vast majority of Americans never owned a single slave, period. In 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, slavery had always been illegal in the north, and yet the north was by far more prosperous than the south. How does that square with the claim that the US grew rich on the back of slave labor?

The South didn't exist in an economic vaccuum. You can profit off slave labor without ever actually owning a slave. Likewise, grabbing the West from the Indians hardly only enriched the people who actually settled there.

More to the point, however, is that -- again -- there is not some magical effect where the moment institutions/people becomes more morally acceptable all benefits of their old habits are washed away and are no longer of any moral or economic meaning.

Economically, what slavery stole was the value of the slave's labor (it stole other, non-economic things, such as the slave's freedom and dignity). But that labor was not what made the US rich. If it were, the south would have been the rich part of the country, and the north the poor.

As I am sure that you know (though I wonder why you aren't saying it) it's not that simple. Stealing labor is certainly worth something -- you say so yourself. "Rich" is also something of a subjective term. People certainly made money off slave labor. The possibility that other means might have been even better at generating wealth doesn't somehow negate that.

When ID claims that the US grew rich on the backs of slaves, he ignores the fact that theft does not create wealth - it only moves it around. If I steal your car, I am wealthier and you are poorer, but I have not created any wealth. Wealth is created by using human ingenuity to shape the earth's resources to fulfill our needs.

And it's cheaper to put that "ingenuity" into practice if you don't have to pay your laborers anything. Your argument is sophistry -- no one made money or got "rich" off slavery because in the end the slave is, in effect, just a tool and tools don't create wealth, smarts and risk-taking do? You are relying on what is, at best, a technicality and at worst semantic trickery.

With your logic labor in general really doesn't "create wealth" and does not, by implication, deserve any of the credit for economic success. Problem is that we can reduce pretty much any effort down to "labor" -- whether we are talking about a scientist who comes up with a new discovery or an manager who improves efficiency or just an assembly line worker who puts in that extra effort they aren't really "creating wealth", but just doing what they are paid to do. Of course, that would seem to only leave owners left as the "real" creators of wealth. Is that what you are arguing?

Otherwise I would be demanding reparations from you because your Egyptian ancestors enslaved by Jewish one thousands of years ago.

You are getting ahead of yourself -- we aren't talking about something specific like reparations, but rather general economic cause and effect.

 

[Just thinking]

I don't get it, Ranillion, what BPSCG pointed out is crystal clear and makes perfect sense.

To address your question (or criticism) .... "Your argument is sophistry -- no one made money or got "rich" off slavery because in the end the slave is, in effect, just a tool and tools don't create wealth, smarts and risk-taking do?" That's absolutely correct -- tools by themselves don't create wealth. It's the smarts 100%. No tool will automatically do the right thing to create wealth -- even a slave has to be told what to do and how to do it properly, even at least for the first time. Plus it's smarts that make tools, and keep making them better (the non-human ones, that is). I can have all the best tools in the world, but none will do anything without proper operation -- in fact, they can cause much more harm and damage in inexperienced or untrained hands.

And your second comment ... "With your logic labor in general really doesn't "create wealth" and does not, by implication, deserve any of the credit for economic success." is one of the most obvious strawmen I have ever seen -- it's textbook. How do you ever conclude he is implying this? His assertion (to me) is that proeperly controlled and directed, both inanimate tools and/or labor are what's needed to create wealth.

 

[UserGoogol]

Wealth is created by combining ingenuity with a smaller quantity of wealth. You need stuff to make new stuff. Thus, given any amount of wealth a person has, you can trace that wealth back to some "initial wealth" which was used to bankroll the investment. If that initial wealth was acquired illegitimately, then that casts a pall on the later wealth. Theft does not produce wealth, but it can be used to bankroll future wealth-productions.

Personally, I think such "historical matters" are not really worth getting worked up about (I'm very much a consequentialist; ultimately it doesn't matter how you get to a certain state, it just matters how good that end result is) but it does mean that people who have wealth aren't necessarily all that great.

 

[BPSCG]

...but it does mean that people who have wealth aren't necessarily all that great.

I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise. I believe I was the first one here to trot out Paris Hilton as exhibit A ins support of your claim.

 

[UserGoogol]

Well yes, I originally finished that post by saying something like "but it does present an area for concern," but then I tried to figure out how the hell this tied into the original topic and tried to pull together something at the last minute.

 

[Ranillon]

To address your question (or criticism) .... "Your argument is sophistry -- no one made money or got "rich" off slavery because in the end the slave is, in effect, just a tool and tools don't create wealth, smarts and risk-taking do?" That's absolutely correct -- tools by themselves don't create wealth. It's the smarts 100%.

First, a minor point -- you are contradicting yourself. Your phrase "tools by themselves don't create wealth" only makes sense if they do have some part of creating wealth. But, then you immediately say that is not the case.

As far as "smarts" being "100%" I just need to point this out -- can you make money just being "smart"? That is, just by sitting there coming up with great ideas without putting them into practice in a practical way? This sounds like a sound-bite from the Jeffery Skilling School of Management -- all that matters is the "idea". Anything else is just worthless details.

Problem is that such distinctions are completely arbitrary and suspiciously convenient. Smarts and labor go hand-in-hand -- you won't succeed without both. Cars and skyscrapers don't assemble themselves, after all.

Also, "smarts" is a pretty vague idea. It's the sort of thing that is bandied without much care and with a lot of implied assumptions -- the most obvious of which being that the person supporting the idea of "smarts" being the cause of wealth naturally considers himself a member of the group producing "smarts". However, the definition is so imprecise and vulnerable to reinterpretation as needed I don't see how it is at all useful.

More to the point, this line of reason -- being so open to abuse -- looks suspiciously like just a rationalization for a particular ideology. It allows us to wax poetic about the marvelous "ingenuity" of the modern economic man and just generally feel good about ourselves. At the same time it serves as a sort of smoke-screen against looking at the deeper issues involved. Why argue over confusing shades of grey when you can just offer a sound-bite that leaves your ideology intact and unexamined?

Worse, this line of reasoning has implications that I bet most miss. As I've already said, it only works if one reduces labor to at best a necessary evil, a means to an end that really has no meaningful part in actually success. Even if we assume -- bizarrely -- that is the case that would imply that all wealth creation is the result of those who own. After all, take out "labor" and what is really left? But, in that case you are basically setting up owners as a new nobility, one where ownership is its own justification.

 

[furrod]

I wonder if this is mostly true.

smart Democrats = smart Republicans

9/11 woo Democrats = creationist woo Republicans

...Then people just do a little cherry-picking until their political affiliation is shown to be smarter so they can feel superior and cast derision upon the other guys.

 

[Just thinking]

First, a minor point -- you are contradicting yourself. Your phrase "tools by themselves don't create wealth" only makes sense if they do have some part of creating wealth. But, then you immediately say that is not the case.

As far as "smarts" being "100%" I just need to point this out -- can you make money just being "smart"? That is, just by sitting there coming up with great ideas without putting them into practice in a practical way? This sounds like a sound-bite from the Jeffery Skilling School of Management -- all that matters is the "idea". Anything else is just worthless details.

I thought it became obvious that emphasizing the "smarts" was the critical issue, as I later claimed by themselves the tools are quite worthless unless properly managed.

Problem is that such distinctions are completely arbitrary and suspiciously convenient. Smarts and labor go hand-in-hand -- you won't succeed without both. Cars and skyscrapers don't assemble themselves, after all.

On this we agree.

Also, "smarts" is a pretty vague idea. It's the sort of thing that is bandied without much care and with a lot of implied assumptions -- the most obvious of which being that the person supporting the idea of "smarts" being the cause of wealth naturally considers himself a member of the group producing "smarts". However, the definition is so imprecise and vulnerable to reinterpretation as needed I don't see how it is at all useful.

Then let's use it to mean that which directs tools/effort to create wealth.

More to the point, this line of reason -- being so open to abuse -- looks suspiciously like just a rationalization for a particular ideology. It allows us to wax poetic about the marvelous "ingenuity" of the modern economic man and just generally feel good about ourselves. At the same time it serves as a sort of smoke-screen against looking at the deeper issues involved. Why argue over confusing shades of grey when you can just offer a sound-bite that leaves your ideology intact and unexamined?

Worse, this line of reasoning has implications that I bet most miss. As I've already said, it only works if one reduces labor to at best a necessary evil, a means to an end that really has no meaningful part in actually success. Even if we assume -- bizarrely -- that is the case that would imply that all wealth creation is the result of those who own. After all, take out "labor" and what is really left? But, in that case you are basically setting up owners as a new nobility, one where ownership is its own justification.

Too much assuming on your point -- both on me and industry. Labor may be necessary, but in no way an evil. However, labor is not to be placed up on some pedestal as the be-all and end-all to human achievement. Yes, Edison is quoted as saying success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration -- and in many cases it feels so true ... but through that perspiration is a continuation of thought, observation and perseverance that takes one to the desired end. Looking at pure labor as wealth without any regard to thought however will net no benefit -- just as a waterfall does little even though it's power output is tremendous. The "smarts" needed to direct said power will be what truly makes the difference.

And those who own are the ones in the best position to create more wealth, not because they are owners per se, -- but because it takes something to make something.

 

[Ranillon]

I thought it became obvious that emphasizing the "smarts" was the critical issue, as I later claimed by themselves the tools are quite worthless unless properly managed.

Just as "smarts" are worthless without the proper "tools" (that term being used pretty broadly here).

Too much assuming on your point -- both on me and industry. Labor may be necessary, but in no way an evil.

I wasn't calling it evil, just pointing out the clear conclusion if one assumes that it is not part of the equation for creating "wealth".

However, labor is not to be placed up on some pedestal as the be-all and end-all to human achievement.

No one here said that as far as I can tell. Remember, you are arguing (by agreeing with BPSCG) that labor isn't part of creating "wealth" at all. That is, 100% to 0%. The alternative viewpoint is not only to reverse those percentages to where labor is 100% and ingenuity 0%. I'm the one arguing the truth is somewhere in-between.

Looking at pure labor as wealth without any regard to thought however will net no benefit

Quite so. Good thing I never made that argument.

-- just as a waterfall does little even though it's power output is tremendous. The "smarts" needed to direct said power will be what truly makes the difference.

You seem to be making my argument for me -- demonstrating how labor and ingenuity go hand-in-hand toward success -- only to right at the end as an arbitrary coda insist that in the end "smarts" is what really matters after all. You seem to be wanting it both ways.

And those who own are the ones in the best position to create more wealth, not because they are owners per se, -- but because it takes something to make something.

It also takes labor -- unless someone has come up with a way to just think things into existence and failed to tell me.

 

[Dr Adequate]

One look at the Democrat presidential primary and you can see there's no such thing as evolution physically, mentally, or philosophically. Marx is still among us in the flesh with that crowd.

And there was me thinking we won the Cold War. But no! Congress is controlled by TEH COMMUNISTS OMG!!! I guess that's why they pulled down the Statue of Liberty and replaced it with that enormous bust of Lenin.

By the way, what's the weather like on your planet?

 

[Darth Rotor]

One look at the Democrat presidential primary and you can see there's no such thing as evolution physically, mentally, or philosophically. Marx is still among us in the flesh with that crowd.

WTF? Is it your position that Barrak Obama is a Liberation Theologist? Perhaps the terseness of your post robbed it of meaning.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I wonder if this is mostly true.

smart Democrats = smart Republicans

9/11 woo Democrats = creationist woo Republicans

...Then people just do a little cherry-picking until their political affiliation is shown to be smarter so they can feel superior and cast derision upon the other guys.

I'll bet the over on that position.

DR