Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Washington Post's Phony "Balance"
If ever you wanted to remind yourself of the deceptively simple logic that leads to open assaults on protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, let me direct you to today's Washington Post editorial on the probably unconstitutional security checkpoints being imposed on residents of violence-scarred neighborhoods in our nation's capitol. "Why," the faux-anguished subhed reads, "are there more protests about a police crackdown in Northeast than about the murders that caused it?" Some excerpts:
Critics of the District's decision to use police checkpoints have reason to question the practice's constitutionality and wonder about its long-term effectiveness. What's wrong is to play down the violence plaguing these troubled neighborhoods. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier are correct to see the crime problem in Northeast as a true public emergency that warrants new thinking and bold action. [...]
Any political judgment must balance the intrusiveness of the checkpoints against the seriousness of the problem they are designed to address. [...]
[T]here was more of an outcry over police efforts to stop the killings than over the killings themselves. And therein lies the real outrage.
The real outrage ... how played out, how elastic-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness, is that rhetorical formula, anyhow? "The real outrage is that Washington has no representation in Congress! The real outrage is that Marion Barry is still on the D.C. City Council! The real outrage is that Washington Post editorial writers care more about the political pieties of ACLU lawyers than the totally legitimate constitutional concerns said lawyers are raising about a crude policing tactic!"
Anyhow, the Post's authoritarian illogic is almost a classic of the form, down to the pulled-straight-from-the-arse "balance" between a measure's constitutionality and the "seriousness of the problem" that it's trying to address (a formula that, if applied to something as "serious" as war, would surely eviscerate the country's basic legal framework). Unfortunately for Fred Hiatt's posse, but fortunately for the rest of us, we "must" balance no such thing at all: Either a policy is constitutional, or it ain't, no matter how publicly you may weep for the victims of crime. That's one very good reason why we still have some semblance of constitutional protections left at all. No thanks to the last two presidents, and no thanks to the Washington Post.
ed|6.19.08 @ 8:50AM|#
To be fair, Official Washington has been so busy this past week canonizing Tim Russert that they might be too distracted at present to think clearly.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 8:53AM|#
What does the author of the editorial care? The checkpoints aren't in his neighborhood. Violating the civil rights of poor people is fine if it's for their own good, Matt. Can't you see that?
|6.19.08 @ 8:54AM|#
Her words reminded us what all of the Washington area felt
during the three weeks in 2002 when two snipers stalked the region.
We don't recall anyone complaining about the inconvenience or
constitutionality of police stops then.
Because clearly there's no difference between a manhunt for
specific criminals and a general police lockdown in the name of
crime prevention.
tarran|6.19.08 @ 8:59AM|#
I'll bet the writer would be singing quite a different tune if a street gang, concerned about the rise in violent crime committed by rival gangs set up similar checkpoints in those neighborhoods.
|6.19.08 @ 9:02AM|#
Anyhow, the Post's authoritarian illogic is almost a classic
of the form, down to the pulled-straight-from-the-arse "balance"
between a measure's constitutionality and the "seriousness of the
problem" that it's trying to address
You can't have a "living" Constitution without "balance".
Fluffy|6.19.08 @ 9:03AM|#
Unfortunately for Fred Hiatt's posse, but fortunately for
the rest of us, we "must" balance no such thing at all: Either a
policy is constitutional, or it ain't, no matter how publicly you
may weep for the victims of crime.
The problem, Matt, is that the notion of a "compelling state
interest" that justifies violating a right is so deeply embedded in
our law now that the guys at the Post are justified in
thinking that any right is up for grabs when considered in
"balance" to any particular problem.
If you'll forgive me, that is the real outrage: the pile
of judicial precedents that enable this kind of thinking.
You and I may think that something either is, or ain't,
Constitutional, but the judiciary has fucked us on that point.
Fucked us good.
"Extremists" like me may realize that the compromise or "balanced"
position between having a right and not having a right is...not
having a right, but unfortunately no one else gives a shit. You may
be able to stop a particular policy - like checkpoints - by
whipping up enough public opposition to it or finding the right
judge to listen to poetry about the absolute nature of
Constitutional protections, but any success you have will be the
luck of the draw and not because our rights are either/or
propositions.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 9:05AM|#
I'll bet the writer would be singing quite a different tune
if a street gang, concerned about the rise in violent crime
committed by rival gangs set up similar checkpoints in those
neighborhoods.
But a street gang *did* set up a checkpoint. The police...
Oh, I see what you did there! Clever man.
;)
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 9:08AM|#
You know, this whole "the cops are a gang" thing is annoying me.
It's hyperbole, and you guys go too far.
The cops are an organized crime syndicate, not a gang.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 9:11AM|#
You and I may think that something either is, or ain't,
Constitutional, but the judiciary has fucked us on that point.
Fucked us good.
You say that, but I don't think the problem is with the *doctrine*
of state interest, but rather in how it is (mis)applied. Holmes was
*Absolutely right* when he said that freedom of speech does not
cover acts of speech intended to get people killed through force of
fraud or panic (i.e. *Falsely* shouting fire in the crowded
theatre). Even most libertarians believe that the government should
regulate action such that force or fraud initiated by one person
against another is proscribed and punished.
The problem has become that the weight of precedent has watered
down to a retarded level what is a "compelling" interest. That,
combined with an utterly ridiculous interpretation of the Commerce
clause has brought us to this point.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 9:12AM|#
The cops are an organized crime syndicate, not a
gang.
You say potato, I say starchy tuber, the idiot republican in the
corner adds a few unnecessary letters...
T|6.19.08 @ 9:12AM|#
"Extremists" like me may realize that the compromise or
"balanced" position between having a right and not having a right
is...not having a right, but unfortunately no one else gives a
shit.
As long as the cable still works and there's food and beer in the
fridge, most people in this country could give a rat's ass if they
have no rights.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 9:15AM|#
You say potato, I say starchy tuber, the idiot republican in
the corner adds a few unnecessary letters...
Freedom Fries?
tarran|6.19.08 @ 9:16AM|#
Episiarch,
Out of curiosity, what qualities differentiate a group that is a
organized crime syndicate from that which is a gang?
|6.19.08 @ 9:16AM|#
Any political judgment must balance the intrusiveness of the
checkpoints against the seriousness of the problem they are
designed to address. [...]
Ahhh - results-based public policy! It's moral because of the
predicted desirable result, as long as we value the
desireable result more than we don't like the predicted (and
frequently underestimated) undesirable effects.
jtuf|6.19.08 @ 9:17AM|#
That's why I speak out against check points and against crime. Ignoring laws puts inner city residents at risk. Check points violate the rights of DC residents. Prosecuting criminals and keeping them in jail protects law abiding DC residents without violating their rights.
|6.19.08 @ 9:18AM|#
Of course, the authoritarian mindset has to frame this as an
either/or proposition. If you're opposed to the checkpoints, you're
all for criminals roaming the streets killing people at will;
there's no middle ground.
Just keep telling yourself: if you're not doing anything wrong, you
don't have anything to worry about.
|6.19.08 @ 9:20AM|#
Out of curiosity, what qualities differentiate a group that
is a organized crime syndicate from that which is a
gang?
Number of tats?
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 9:21AM|#
Out of curiosity, what qualities differentiate a group that
is a organized crime syndicate from that which is a
gang?
When in prison, organized crime syndicate members slice the garlic
with a razor so thin that it liquefies in the pan. Gang members do
not.
robc|6.19.08 @ 9:23AM|#
Elemenope,
Holmes was *Absolutely right* when he said that freedom of
speech does not cover acts of speech intended to get people killed
through force of fraud or panic (i.e. *Falsely* shouting fire in
the crowded theatre). Even most libertarians believe that the
government should regulate action such that force or fraud
initiated by one person against another is proscribed and
punished.
The reason Holmes was right (and I shudder saying that) isnt due to
a "compelling interest" but that a right ends when it violates
another right. In this case, free speech ends because it violates
others' right to life, not due to any compelling state interest to
protect its citizens.
As an aside, I slammed on Holmes the other day for his Baseball
decision. Having finally read that decision since then, it turns
out the quote (that he may have said/written some where else) that
was the reason I thought the decision was horrible isnt actually in
the decision. So I owe an apology to the rightly damned ghost of
OWH. It turns out that decision is awesome and its logic needs to
be applied more more often. Im calling Stare Decisis on that
decision. He said that baseball wasnt under the antitrust laws
because it did not involve interstate commerce. He said the
organization across and travel between states was merely incidental
to the act of playing a baseball game and not enough to bring the
ICC into play. The game itself is purely an intrastate affair.
|6.19.08 @ 9:29AM|#
Remember that the constitution does not grant the judiciary the
right to "balance" an individual liberty against a "public"
interest or against a "compelling" state interest.
The framers were men who wrote what they meant and meant what they
wrote. Thus, all of you control freaks have to deal with the fact
that they deliberately employed absolutes. The Bill of Rights is
not the Bill of Admonitions.
Balancing tests inevitably result in the loss of a particular
liberty. Justice Black wrote,
"If I had ever doubted the 'balancing test' comes close to being a
doctrine of governmental absolutism-that to "balance' an interest
in individual liberty means almost inevitably to destroy that
liberty-those doubts would have been dissipated by this case. For
this so-called 'balancing test' - which, as applied to the First
Amendment, means that the freedoms of speech, press, assembly,
religion and petition can be repressed whenever there is a
sufficient government interest in doing so-here proves pitifully
and pathetically inadequate to cope with an invasion of individual
liberty to plainly unjustified that even the majority apparently
feels compelled expressly to disclaim 'any view upon the wisdom of
the State's action.'"
In Re Anastaplo 366 U.S. 82, 110-111 (1961).
|6.19.08 @ 9:31AM|#
I'll bet the writer would be singing quite a different tune
if a street gang, concerned about the rise in violent crime
committed by rival gangs set up similar checkpoints in those
neighborhoods.
Isn't that what's happening?
/snarky cheap shot at LEOs
tarran|6.19.08 @ 9:32AM|#
How about calling them a mob - as in 'the Winter Hill
Mob'?
I think the word mob encompasses gang-like and syndicate-like
behavior.
economist|6.19.08 @ 9:34AM|#
Wow, I would fucking hate these checkpoints. D.C. cops are total asswipes.
economist|6.19.08 @ 9:37AM|#
robc,
Wouldn't OWH's logic in that case invalidate most federal
regulations?
|6.19.08 @ 9:39AM|#
"Out of curiosity, what qualities differentiate a group that is
a organized crime syndicate from that which is a gang?"
Having Politicians and Accountants on the payroll.
economist|6.19.08 @ 9:42AM|#
"The real outrage is that Washington D.C. isn't represented in
Congress"
We have enough dumb shit authoritarians in office that we don't
need these assholes represented. Remember: they were elected by the
majority of D.C. residents ergo they would probably vote for a
similar candidate for Congress.
robc|6.19.08 @ 9:43AM|#
economist,
Wouldn't OWH's logic in that case invalidate most federal
regulations?
Why, Yes, yes it would.
anarcho-capitalist-type libert|6.19.08 @ 9:56AM|#
@ Elemenope: "Even most libertarians believe that the government
should regulate action such that force or fraud initiated by one
person against another is proscribed and punished."
Numbers, please, showing that "most" libertarians believe that
government, as opposed to private agencies, should regulate
this.
robc|6.19.08 @ 10:00AM|#
anarcho guy,
I dont think he needs to provide numbers for that. Minarchists
clearly outnumber anarchists.
economist|6.19.08 @ 10:00AM|#
anarcho-capitalist-type libertarian,
I don't really give a damn who regulates acts of force and fraud,
but I have a suspicion that your private agencies plan, if applied
to all law enforcement, would lead to chaos. Feel free to excoriate
for my apostasy.
|6.19.08 @ 10:04AM|#
Out of curiosity, what qualities differentiate a group that
is a organized crime syndicate from that which is a
gang?
Snappier outfits?
Not sure where that leaves the cops, though.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Good to see that my Goodfellas reference just blew past everyone. (tap tap) Is this thing on?
robc|6.19.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Epi,
You seething at the fact that it is true, or that I said it? Or did
I typo something really bad?
Other Matt|6.19.08 @ 10:09AM|#
The real outrage is that Marion Barry is still on the D.C.
City Council!
Ok, that one's true, but it doesn't detract from the rest of the
article.
anarcho-capitalist-type libert|6.19.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Well, robc, if so, then that's that.
economist, doesn't an apostate have first to belong to the
orthodoxy from which he defects? Feel free to have your own
aboriginal orthodoxy! Anyway, I suspect that historically it's the
anarchists who radicalized the minarchist goals, making us the
defectors.
Episiarch, take comfort. "The majority is always wrong." Bonus
points for naming the source without looking it up.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 10:10AM|#
You seething at the fact that it is true, or that I said it?
Or did I typo something really bad?
I was joking; in essence, mocking the fact that
anarcho-libertarians (of which I am one) are pissed that most
people don't want our vision of freedom.
robc|6.19.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Bonus points for naming the source without looking it
up.
Im pretty sure Ive said that multiple times, without ever quoting
anyone. How many bonus points do I get?
anarcho-capitalist-type libert|6.19.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Episiarch, uh, no. Say why don't you let them call a vote on it? That's always worked before.
anarcho-capitalist-type libert|6.19.08 @ 10:21AM|#
robc, you just don't get it. Numbers don't count! ;-)
anarcho-capitalist-type libert|6.19.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Thank you. This has been fun. Gotta go immanentize the eschaton. Later, pataters.
|6.19.08 @ 10:25AM|#
So what do you think is going on the writers at all the newspapers get together and agree to work together to use "phony balance" arguments to push forward their agenda of global destruction of individual rights? I swear Welch is coming off as a conspiracy nut here.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Episiarch, uh, no. Say why don't you let them call a vote on
it? That's always worked before.
Dude, get a sense of humor. The Baltar comment was a joke, for
Christ's sake. The answer is Ibsen.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 10:30AM|#
Snappier outfits?
Not sure where that leaves the cops, though.
Here in RI, the staties have uniforms that are countrywide
recognized as *awesome*. They are still, generally, complete
douchebags.
Later, pataters.
And here we learn how an *Anarchist* spells "potato".
Gaius Baltar?
Truly excellent.
|6.19.08 @ 10:31AM|#
Lay off the paranoid delusions, the police are just trying to stop the murders...and the newspapers in this country are the most honest and forthcoming media the world has ever seen.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 10:32AM|#
So what do you think is going on the writers at all the
newspapers get together and agree to work together to use "phony
balance" arguments to push forward their agenda of global
destruction of individual rights? I swear Welch is coming off as a
conspiracy nut here.
It's no conspiracy. Those who have not been properly inculcated
with a *love of freedom* and *hate of authority* in their formative
years naturally gravitate towards the thumbsucking bosom of the
state.
Why would poorly-educated reporters be the exception?
|6.19.08 @ 10:33AM|#
I am so upset that I actually have to defend the Post. I am
going to ignore the jabs against Marion Barry, the ACLU and others
and get to the heart of what seems to be a real flaw. Before you
start reaming the Post for their take on what they report as
unconstitutional, maybe you should take a look at the "reason" and
focus. There is enough information to offer well thought out rant
against the Post. Instead, you took seconds out of my life I will
never get back on something that could have been written between
two Metro stops.
Do better.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 10:34AM|#
...and the newspapers in this country are the most honest
and forthcoming media the world has ever seen.
HA! Hahhahahhaha! [Choke]. Eh. Ehhehehe. HaHAHAHA!
[Collapses in hypertensive crisis]
The fucking British *state-run* media is more honest and
forthcoming than the MSM jokers in this country.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Lay off the paranoid delusions, the police are just trying
to stop the murders...
Yeah. offing people they don't like is *their* fucking job. In a
capitalist society, the competition is the enemy, after all...
|6.19.08 @ 10:42AM|#
"As long as the cable still works and there's food and beer in
the fridge, most people in this country could give a rat's ass if
they have no rights."
T said this, and I have to agree. We have a nanny state because IMO
the gen pop is completely willing to let "the man" take care of
them. Much easier that way.
As far as the checkpoints go, years ago we lived in Portland Or.
Lovely city. When the locals demanded something be done about the
drugs or the gangs or the hookers, there would be this huge
crackdown, roundup, or if you like, War On Bad Shit. Within a few
days, the activities that folks didn't like would pop up in a
different neighborhood. They never stopped it, they just herded it
around.
|6.19.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Economist 10:00 am-
What do we have now?
Chaos is the inevitable result where there is a monopolization of
self defense by the state.
|6.19.08 @ 10:46AM|#
From the US military wikileaked handbook for supporting corrupt
regimes, death squads and quashing rvolutions:
"The PSYOP aspect of the PRC program tries to make the imposition
of control more palatable to the people by relating the necessity
of controls to their safety and well-being."
|6.19.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Stops and feeds the troll...
Lay off the paranoid delusions, the police are just trying to
stop the murders
Ya know, then maybe they ought to try actually arresting the
murderers, instead of just hassling Teh Brown Peoples™ and moving
the crime elsewhere in the city.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 10:51AM|#
There is no "public" interest. It is a phony construct of a
statist mind.
If you prefer, the aggregate interests of the cloud of individuals
outside oneself who are in uncomfortable physical proximity due to
the fact that humans are social fucking creatures.
|6.19.08 @ 10:52AM|#
What do we have now?
Chaos is the inevitable result where there is a monopolization of self defense by the state.
Chaos is a misnomer in this instance.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Chaos is the inevitable result where there is a
monopolization of self defense by the state.
Wha...?! There are many words that could aptly describe the
negative consequences of state monopoly of force. Words like
"oppression" or "inefficiency", or for those prone to neologism,
"nannifying", or for the excessively shrill "fascism".
But "Chaos" is a new one on me.
Russ 2000|6.19.08 @ 10:55AM|#
This shit's happening in other places besides DC:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0619edit2jun19,0,3398655.story
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Hehe. Art-P.O.G., you are appropriating my wavelength w/out due
compensation. Get out of my head!
Or am I in your head? Hmmm....
Russ 2000|6.19.08 @ 10:57AM|#
The above URL is an editorial. This is the original story:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-apartment-checkpoint-web-jun18,0,7435848.story
|6.19.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Whenever the spectre of "chaos" is interposed in a discussion, you know its proponent has lost the debate as its nothing more than a reflexive recitation of a mindless mantra spoon fed to the sheeple by their stalinist authority idols.
TallDave|6.19.08 @ 11:04AM|#
It bears pointing out the illegal security checkpoints are only
necessary because of the violence created by the illegal War on
Drugs.
What a shock, you deny an industry access to the accepted
conflict-resolution mechanisms such as courts and they resort to
violence.
|6.19.08 @ 11:08AM|#
This shit's happening in other places besides DC:
The Chicago implementation may seem similar to the DC
implementation, but I think they are miles apart. According to the
Tribute article, there was no directive in Chicago to forcefully
prevent "unauthorized" access.
Not that I support the Chicago plan either. But I think it's only
comparable at the surface level to the DC lockdown.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Whenever the spectre of "chaos" is interposed in a
discussion, you know its proponent has lost the debate as
it's nothing more than a reflexive recitation of a mindless
mantra spoon fed to the sheeple by their stalinist authority
idols.
Has anyone ever told you that your typing/argumentation style is
strongly reminiscent of the pamphlets of Marxist revolutionaries?
Read the bolded part, especially.
If not, consider it said.
|6.19.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Elemenope-
Blackstone wrote, "the public good is in nothing more essentially
interested than in the protection of every individual's private
rights." 1 Blackstone Commentaries 139, 140.
|6.19.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Whenever the spectre of "chaos" is interposed in a
discussion, you know its proponent has lost the debate as its
nothing more than a reflexive recitation of a mindless mantra spoon
fed to the sheeple by their stalinist authority idols.
In this comment, where does the humor end and the irony
begin?
BTW, its the SPECTRE of KAOS.
Bingo|6.19.08 @ 11:18AM|#
This is near-Godwin, but this line
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier are correct to see the crime problem in Northeast as a true public emergency that warrants new thinking and bold action.
is almost word for word in every piece of dystopian fiction that has been written.
|6.19.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Critics of the District's decision to use police checkpoints have reason to question the practice's constitutionality and wonder about its long-term effectiveness....
Any political judgment must balance the intrusiveness of the checkpoints against the seriousness of the problem they are designed to address.
For the most part, journalists care about no rights but the rights
of free speech and free press and the "right" to vote -- the former
because it is their pet right and the latter because it
lets them use their pet right to influence public policy.
Everything else is negotiable and even worth sacrificing to push
public policy the way they want.
Jerks.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 11:20AM|#
Since Blackstone isn't a deity of any sort (that we know of), I
am not bound to agree with everything he wrote. In this case, for
example, he rests his arguments on the notion that humans are
essentially severable entities...a point of view I'd charitably
describe as "really fucking stupid".
On a slightly more abstract level, Blackstone is simply saying what
I was saying earlier, though with the intent of obscuring the
consequences of the observation that I was attempting to bring to
the fore. Of *course* the public good is simply an aggregate
representation of individual goods. But the simplistic
interpretation of this truth ignores the simple fact that a society
in the aggregate is phenomenologically distinct than the sum of its
parts.
|6.19.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Elemenope-
Does my post at 9:29 am also resemble the style of marxist
revolutionaries?
|6.19.08 @ 11:24AM|#
"The majority is always wrong."
Not exactly the same but...
"I think that when in doubt about the truth of an issue, it's safer and in better taste to select the least numerous of the adversaries...."
...was said by Kira in Ayn Rand's We the Living.
|6.19.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Elemenope-
Do you agree that judges should, as a general proposition, balance
the exercise of one's individual liberty as against the "public"
interest?
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 11:30AM|#
LMNOP, I strongly suspect that "liberty mike" is another of Cesar's (or someone else's) creations. He is too cartoonishly anarcho-capitalist and totally reminds me of Neil in style, form, and persistence.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Does my post at 9:29 am also resemble the style of marxist
revolutionaries?
No. Compared your your "later work", it is remarkably restrained.
;)
Do you agree that judges should, as a general proposition,
balance the exercise of one's individual liberty as against the
"public" interest?
This question: Itsatrap!
But more seriously, the obvious answer is "yes". A judge, much like
a legislator, *should* take into account the indirect consequences
of any action as they reverberate through the social ecology when
determining whether a conflict of rights has occurred or will
occur. Libertarians tend to fetishize the notion that one right
ends where another begins while simultaneously basking in the naive
notion that every action has easily delimitable consequences for
other actors.
|6.19.08 @ 11:34AM|#
The style of Marxist revolutionaries? What's your Engel?
:D Clever.
is almost word for word in every piece of dystopian fiction that has been written.
Too true.
|6.19.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Elemenope-
No, it is not a "fact" that "society in the aggregate is
phenomologically distinct [from] the sum of its parts."
How can the aggregate be distinct from the sum of its parts? 2 is
the same as 1 plus 1, is it not?
Kolohe|6.19.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Wow, the Washington Post I grew up with would never go for this
shit. They would have even gone over the top and call it
racist.
This is the weirdest shift since Nat Hentoff's rightward tack.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Episiarch --
No doubt you are right. What is delightful about 'teh Internets' is
the ability to have fun interacting with fictional personalities
indistinguishable, epistemologically, from "real" ones.
For that matter, does our experience on the Internet not reveal
that all affectations of personality are social masks that are
fairly interchangeable at will? The only reason we can't do it as
easily in meat-space is because our actions are fairly easily tied
to our person.
|6.19.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Elemenope-
Have you read In Re Anastaplo? Tell me what you think of the
"balancing" performed by the majority.
I'm sure that you would assert that Justice Black is/was not a
deity, but what about his views on "balancing"?
|6.19.08 @ 11:40AM|#
How can the aggregate be distinct from the sum of its parts? 2 is the same as 1 plus 1, is it not?
I'd say it's more like a product. Or something more complex. Think thermodynamics.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 11:42AM|#
For that matter, does our experience on the Internet not
reveal that all affectations of personality are social masks that
are fairly interchangeable at will? The only reason we can't do it
as easily in meat-space is because our actions are fairly easily
tied to our person.
I think what it reveals, Poindexter, is that with talk like that
you rarely get laid. To quote Master Shake, good luck with the
casual sex. Seriously, because you're gonna need it.
|6.19.08 @ 11:42AM|#
They would have even gone over the top and call it
racist.
Don't worry...soon they be accusing the ACLU of being racist,
because only a racist would fail to protect black people using any
available option.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 11:45AM|#
How can the aggregate be distinct from the sum of its
parts?
I once wrote a paper on this very topic. No, I'm not posting it
here (it's two hundred pages long). But, the examples of
phenomenological emergence and submergence from syntactical
proximity are fucking legion.
Every water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms. Tell me, oh
liberty mike, what phenomenological characteristics does diatomic
hydrogen gas and water have in common? The short short answer is
"very fucking few". Their proximity and relation of arrangement
with an oxygen atom causes emergent properties that neither
hydrogen nor oxygen alone possess.
If you want to continue to have fun, think about hygroscopic
crystals; what happens to the physical properties of the water
(such as fluidity) that they absorb? They are submerged into the
solidity of the crystal lattice simply through their proximity to
it, in syntactic relation.
|6.19.08 @ 11:47AM|#
Episiarch-
I am not Cesar. Joe, Neil or anybody else's creation. Of course, my
assertion alone cannot prove the point; however, how is citing
Blackstone, Black, Adams. James Otis, natural rights philosophy,
etc. "cartoonishly anarcho-Capitalist?"
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 11:48AM|#
I think what it reveals, Poindexter, is that with talk like
that you rarely get laid. To quote Master Shake, good luck with the
casual sex. Seriously, because you're gonna need it.
Are you kidding? Cruising philosophy depts. for the chicks is *so*
fucking easy. "Hyperreality" is an orgasm-inducing word to
them.
see also: 'epistemological', 'epoche', 'hypostasis'.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 11:49AM|#
I once wrote a paper on this very topic. No, I'm not posting
it here (it's two hundred pages long). But, the examples of
phenomenological emergence and submergence from syntactical
proximity are fucking legion.
See my point about the casual sex?
how is citing Blackstone, Black, Adams. James Otis, natural
rights philosophy, etc. "cartoonishly
anarcho-Capitalist?
It's not the citing, it's the paranoia. Tighten this one up,
Cesar.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 11:51AM|#
"Hyperreality" is an orgasm-inducing word to them
Try inducing their orgasms with your dick, it's a lot more fun. You
should give it a shot.
|6.19.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Elemenope-
Is there some "law" of physics that holds that phenomological
emergence and submergence applies to society being distinct from
the sum of its individuals?
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Verbal orgasms are "foreplay", dude. I know, a foreign concept to most males, but it make the chicks more pleasant to deal with. I swear.
robc|6.19.08 @ 11:57AM|#
what phenomenological characteristics does diatomic hydrogen
gas and water have in common?
This is why I went to an engineering school. In my fluids classes I
never got a single question about phenomenological characterists of
water or gases. And it was good.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 11:58AM|#
it make the chicks more pleasant to deal with. I
swear
I was under the impression that you just used rohypnol.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Is there some "law" of physics that holds that
phenomological emergence and submergence applies to society being
distinct from the sum of its individuals?
Of course not, liberty mike. A usually underappreciated consequence
of the mechanism of emergence/submergence is that science can never
ultimately be reduced and unified as simply "branches of
physics".
It wouldn't, therefore, be a "law of physics". It still seems
unbelievably obvious, after thinking about it for longer than, say,
five minutes.
D.A. Ridgely |6.19.08 @ 11:59AM|#
The real outrage is that Marion Barry is still on the D.C.
City Council!
I know, but it was his own decision not to run for mayor again.
robc|6.19.08 @ 11:59AM|#
elemenope,
A judge, much like a legislator, *should* take into account the
indirect consequences of any action as they reverberate through the
social ecology when determining whether a conflict of rights has
occurred or will occur.
Bzzzt. Wrong.
Either a conflict occurs or it doesnt. What consequences there are
down the road are none of the judges business. If it causes chaos,
so be it.
Hail Eris!
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 11:59AM|#
This is why I went to an engineering school. In my fluids
classes I never got a single question about phenomenological
characterists of water or gases. And it was good.
That's why I left Chemical Enginnering school. It was fucking
boring.
I was under the impression that you just used
rohypnol.
Dude! Unkind.
|6.19.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Episiarch-
Paronoia? Do you think that I am daunted by the propsect of no more
nanny state? Do you think I'm trembling at the thought of a world
without parasites?
economist|6.19.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Elemenope,
Are the chicks in philosophy departments attractive. I didn't go
into the liberal arts departments much in college.
|6.19.08 @ 12:03PM|#
But when you talk about phenomological characteristics are you
referring more to an epistemological or ontological consideration?
Or both simultaneously, because the experience is not
divergent?
Try inducing their orgasms with your dick, it's a lot more fun
Dude, the chicks are just faking...:( Anyway, I wanna write a paper on the ethics of cunnilingus.
robc|6.19.08 @ 12:03PM|#
That's why I left Chemical Enginnering school. It was
fucking boring.
Nuke E was where all the action was.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Either a conflict occurs or it doesnt. What consequences
there are down the road are none of the judges business. If it
causes chaos, so be it.
Uh-huh. So, if the consequences of a certain action are obscured
because they are, for example, delayed significantly (such as slow
poisoning by exposure to a carcinogen, for example), or difficult
to perceive immediately (such as polluting a river thus
*eventually* reducing the fish population or making them
inevitable)...it's simply "tough shit" for the person seeking a
redress of the inevitable grievance?
That seems, I dunno, really stupid to me.
robc|6.19.08 @ 12:05PM|#
economist,
Are the chicks in philosophy departments attractive. I didn't
go into the liberal arts departments much in college.
My school didnt have a liberal arts department. Well, it did, but
you couldnt major in anything in it. Which is why we were also 25%
female, which sucked. Attractive chicks? We just wanted them to
exist.
Russ 2000|6.19.08 @ 12:05PM|#
The Chicago implementation may seem similar to the DC
implementation, but I think they are miles apart.
Yeah, for a start the police in the Chicago areticle are
trespassing on private property.
The implementations are a bit different (one could argue which is
worse) but the justification are exactly the same.
|6.19.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Do you think I'm trembling at the thought of a world without parasites?
Where do you draw the distinction, as far as your fellow
citizens, between symbiote and parasite?
OT, but my bros/friends and I were discussing how far a politician
who was an expert philosophy and used that jargon instead of
legalese and crass populism would get with a given electorate.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Dude, the chicks are just faking...:(
Maybe you're gay?
Dude! Unkind.
The truth hurts?
economist|6.19.08 @ 12:07PM|#
"phenomenological emergence and submergence"
They didn't go into this much for mechE. Dammit.
robc|6.19.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Elemenope,
A slow poison or whatever, is the grievance, not a result. Im
talking about things like drastically changing the ICC rulings and
declaring 90% of all government regulations to be unconstitutional.
If that leads to chaos in the financial markets, so be it.
I saw a Scalia speech where he was opposed to radical overturning
of things like that, even if he thought they were bad decisions,
because of the chaos it would cause in society. I disagree with
him.
economist|6.19.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Art P.O.G 12:06 pm,
Some places out west he might get almost 15% of the vote.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 12:09PM|#
But when you talk about phenomological characteristics are
you referring more to an epistemological or ontological
consideration? Or both simultaneously, because the experience is
not divergent?
Both simultaneously. The point of my paper (the really short short
version) was that the universe is an information-ontological
construct (i.e. the fundamental "stuff" is signal packets), and
that phenomena as they are experienced are primarily consequences
of of the effects that are produced by information being incident
across a spatio-temporal continuum. So, there is both an
epistemolgical consequence to there being emergent phenomena, but
also an ontological consequence.
A short snippet:
"Any child who has played with a microscope at length realizes
quickly that, for example, surfaces which appear and act smooth in
the macro-world are anything but smooth in the micro-world. Most
science teachers, betraying their level prejudice, will tell the
incredulous child that the micro-view is 'really' how the surface
is. The child's incredulity, however, is justified, for the object
is smooth in the macro context. The ridiculousness of the teacher's
statement can be exposed by simply changing magnification; with a
sufficiently powerful microscope, the child would be able to see
that the surface which was smooth to the touch and rough under
modest magnification is in stronger magnification a fairly chaotic
amalgam of molecules that does not easily admit to either
adjectival description, being mostly empty space; the teacher's
assertion that the earlier rough surface is 'how the object really
is' is defeated by the new frame. All three frames, and many others
beside, are all legitimately 'how the object really is'; all that
changes is which frame of the object the child participates
in."
|6.19.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Elemenope-11:34 am
No. Your post is essentially endorsing the proposition that the
judge has the right to deprive one of his liberty becuase the
exercise of that liberty may, might, could be "harmful" to others
in the future.
Thus, if I assert that I have the right to disseminate photographs
of women without headscarves, a judge "should" balance my right
against the public interest and take into account the harm that
this could have upon the muslim community.
robc|6.19.08 @ 12:10PM|#
OT, but my bros/friends and I were discussing how far a
politician who was an expert philosophy and used that jargon
instead of legalese and crass populism would get with a given
electorate.
Not very far. LP type numbers.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 12:12PM|#
I saw a Scalia speech where he was opposed to radical
overturning of things like that, even if he thought they were bad
decisions, because of the chaos it would cause in society. I
disagree with him.
So do I. Admitting that consequences can be dislocated in space and
time from their originating actor does not
automatically mean that judges can willy-nilly decide on arbitrary
standards for applying prinicples, nor can the legislature in
writing those priniciples.
What is required, among other things, is a fairly rigorous
evidentiary standard so that even if the relationships are
*non-obvious*, they are still supportable by sufficient
observation.
Jennifer|6.19.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Why are there more protests about a police crackdown in
Northeast than about the murders that caused it?
Lemme try: Because crimes committed by criminals working outside
the boundaries of the law differ from crimes committed by
badge-wearing goons with the full authority and backing of
government? Because criminals committing freelance murders are not
paid for by taxpayer dollars and acting with the government's
blessing?
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 12:14PM|#
The point of my paper (the really short short version) was
that the universe is an information-ontological construct (i.e. the
fundamental "stuff" is signal packets), and that phenomena as they
are experienced are primarily consequences of of the effects that
are produced by information being incident across a spatio-temporal
continuum.
And I thought that my paper, written years ago, "A Comparison of
the Treatment of Pericles by Thucydides, Herodotus, and Plutarch"
was exciting.
|6.19.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Maybe you're gay?
Naw, me and my buddy were talking about this. Guys like us got
to get at least halfway drunk to get the courage to talk to girls,
but then when the opportunity for some nookie presents itself the
alcohol prevents top performance*.
*and the fact that I hardly ever get laid probably doesn't
help.
economist|6.19.08 @ 12:16PM|#
That there are emergent outcomes in situations involving large numbers of people is a proven fact, and is sometimes referred to as a network externality. The question is really whether the government can/should interfere to encourage/discourage the externality. Being a doctrinaire libertarian, I generally say no, because it would require an infringement of individual liberty.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Guys like us got to get at least halfway drunk to get the
courage to talk to girls, but then when the opportunity for some
nookie presents itself the alcohol prevents top
performance
Try cocaine instead.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 12:18PM|#
OT, but my bros/friends and I were discussing how far a
politician who was an expert philosophy and used that jargon
instead of legalese and crass populism would get with a given
electorate.
With the jargon? Not far at all. For politicians (and really, for
everyone else) a critical skill is the ability to translate their
own occupation's argot into something understandable by those who
are not in that occupation.
Note that, here, I ain't tryin' to do that.
Fluffy|6.19.08 @ 12:19PM|#
But, the examples of phenomenological emergence and
submergence from syntactical proximity are fucking
legion.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up.
[Makes Beep-beep-beep truck backing up noise.]
There may be examples of phenomenological emergence and submergence
from syntactical proximity, but that's not relevant to the question
at hand.
Something called "society" may "phenomenologically emerge" from a
group of disparate individuals, but the question is whether that
which emerges can experience benefit or harm
anthropomorphically.
A group of birds may ""phenomenologically emerge" into a flock, but
you can't help or hurt the flock. You can only help or hurt
individual birds. If you fire buckshot at the flock, you don't hit
"a flock". You hit individual birds. If you throw food at the
flock, you aren't feeding "a flock". You're feeding individual
birds. It is therefore absurd to talk about "the good" of the flock
in any respect separate from "the good" of the individual
birds.
When you talk about social goods you are falsely anthropomorphizing
the emergent noun "society". Society doesn't experience goods
because it doesn't have the equipment or the capacity to experience
goods. Only you and I and the other individuals in society do.
|6.19.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Try cocaine instead.
I don't wanna fail a urinalysis. Plus I'm extremely squeamish about the coca. I've been working on my confidence and really seem to be getting better.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 12:20PM|#
And I thought that my paper, written years ago, "A
Comparison of the Treatment of Pericles by Thucydides, Herodotus,
and Plutarch" was exciting.
I guess excitement is in the, [erm], eye of the [erm], gonads.
|6.19.08 @ 12:22PM|#
translate their own occupation's argot into something understandable by those who are not in that occupation.
Good point, but I'm trying to figure out why what politician's say sounds so awful to me so much of the time (it must be generalized or stereotyped speech. I always have the strange feeling that politicians are talking to "somebody else").
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Fluffy --
And I guess this is the fundamental disagreement. From the quote
from my paper (on the poor incredulous student and his asinine
science teacher) the point is that these different levels of
observation have *actual* and not merely apparent consequential
reality.
You say that society, or "a flock of birds" for your example, is
merely a descriptive coherence with no *real* internality, and I
disagree. That argument could go on for a very long time. ;)
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 12:24PM|#
and by "coherence" I mean "convenience" in that last post.
Damn you, Spooner!
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Good point, but I'm trying to figure out why what
politician's say sounds so awful to me so much of the time (it must
be generalized or stereotyped speech. I always have the strange
feeling that politicians are talking to "somebody
else").
Probably because most of the time they are saying very little, and
their speech patterns are designed to obscure that very fact. For
people with decent bullshit detectors, a politician's speech is the
mental equivalent of nails scratching on a chalkboard.
It's like having your filters get overloaded and clogged by the
sheer quantity that has to be filtered out to get anything
resembling a coherent "point".
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 12:26PM|#
I guess excitement is in the, [erm], eye of the [erm],
gonads.
Yes, you're right. I should have included Aristophanes as
well.
(if you get this joke I will be impressed)
|6.19.08 @ 12:27PM|#
You say that society, or "a flock of birds" for your example, is merely a descriptive coherence with no *real* internality, and I disagree. That argument could go on for a very long time.
I think I understand. The counter-argument would be that the death of the single bird has an effect on the other birds' "conception" of the flock and on the actual flying pattern, therefore "the flock" as a construct is useful for phenomological dialectic.
economist|6.19.08 @ 12:29PM|#
robc 12:03,
So you went into nuke E? Pretty damn cool. If I hadn't slacked off
so much in college, I might have a cooler job. (Started off in EE,
switched to MechE because it was more general/less difficult. I'm
actually in lower management right now, though my engineering
training allows me not to be utterly dumbfounded (unlike some I
might mention) when talking to the actual engineers. Currently
working on MBA so I can move up.
Fluffy|6.19.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Of *course* the public good is simply an aggregate
representation of individual goods. But the simplistic
interpretation of this truth ignores the simple fact that a society
in the aggregate is phenomenologically distinct than the sum of its
parts.
I want to speak to this as well.
A lot depends on what you mean by "an aggregate representation of
individual goods".
If Jesus flew down from heaven on a pterodactyl and handed out
loaves and fishes to everyone, and each and every person in America
got one loaf and one fish, then you could say to Jesus, "Wow,
Jesus, thanks for serving the public good!" and your praise would
correspond to an "aggregate representation of individual goods".
And it would do so in a way that doesn't contradict the Blackwell
quote at all.
If, OTOH, Jesus came down and before handing anything out said,
"Hey everybody, I want to hand out a loaf and a fish to everyone,
but I'm only willing to do that if you let me crush Fluffy's balls
in a vise first. Is that a deal?" you could not say that
Jesus was serving the public good as an an "aggregate
representation of individual goods". Jesus would be serving the
good of some members of the public, and crushing my balls. But
since people use the expressions "the public good" or "the good of
society" all the time to mean situations where some people
get goods and some people get their balls crushed, that means that
it must have some meaning above and beyond mere aggregation.
Guy Montag|6.19.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Art-P.O.G.,
Naw, me and my buddy were talking about this. Guys like us got to
get at least halfway drunk to get the courage to talk to girls, but
then when the opportunity for some nookie presents itself the
alcohol prevents top performance*.
*and the fact that I hardly ever get laid probably doesn't
help.
Four step program for Soldiers like you:
1. Go to flight school (and graduate)
2. Wear a wedding ring.
3. Find the cougar bars and hang out there in your flight suit
wearing a wedding ring.
4. Poontang!
If you really want to tempt the stockade, replace step 1 with
purchasing or borrowing a flight suit and full Aviator
adornments.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Jesus would be serving the good of some members of the
public, and crushing my balls.
This is phenomenal. My god I'd love to hear you debate Gore
Vidal.
Fluffy|6.19.08 @ 12:39PM|#
And I guess this is the fundamental disagreement. From the
quote from my paper (on the poor incredulous student and his
asinine science teacher) the point is that these different levels
of observation have *actual* and not merely apparent consequential
reality.
You say that society, or "a flock of birds" for your example, is
merely a descriptive coherence with no *real* internality, and I
disagree. That argument could go on for a very long
time.
I think I understand. The counter-argument would be that the
death of the single bird has an effect on the other birds'
"conception" of the flock and on the actual flying pattern,
therefore "the flock" as a construct is useful for phenomological
dialectic.
I don't think the levels of perception issue has any bearing on the
case, actually.
Issues of "value" only arise for entities that experience benefit
or harm in the way that we experience benefit or harm at our level
of perception.
Even if you argued that, say, at the next level of perception down
[instead of up], my individual cells or atoms were in some way
experiencing benefit or harm, I would tell you frankly that I
didn't give a shit. They aren't experiencing it in a way that has
anything to do with our existence as human beings, they can't
communicate to us about it in any way, and if the individual
hydrogen atoms in the water in my body wants to negotiate for
"goods" with me as I experience myself at this
level of existence, they can go fuck themselves because I'm not
negotiating.
Similarly, you may postulate that at the next level of perception
up, the level of flocks of birds or "societies" or
"publics", there is some sort of actual entity that comes into
existence as an emergent property. I would counter that, if so, we
know absolutely nothing about what that entity does and does not
experience, and we cannot communicate with that entity in any way,
so it's patently absurd for us to talk about what might be good and
what might be bad for it. We also are under no real obligation to
care.
economist|6.19.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Fluffy,
So, do you think you could say, "Damn, you're breakin' my balls
here."?
Random newcomer|6.19.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Damn you people are weird. Always talking about the breaking of balls.
Fluffy|6.19.08 @ 12:44PM|#
So, do you think you could say, "Damn, you're breakin' my
balls here."?
I think I would say, "Aw, Jesus H. Christ! You're breaking my balls
here!"
|6.19.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Guy,
I appreciate the advice, but am troubled by the lack of a question
mark step. ;) And while my GT score sez I can go (almost) anywhere
I want in the Army (woo hoo!), my heart sez do this deployment and
get the hell out :(. Ah, well...
Fluffy,
Very, very good. I'm impressed.
Fluffy|6.19.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Unfortunately, I think Proposition Bread&Fish would pass by
a landslide.
Lots of you SOB's would vote for it even if you hated bread and
fish, just for the entertainment value.
|6.19.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Lots of you SOB's would vote for it even if you hated bread and fish, just for the entertainment value.
Only if Jesus taped your response and uploaded it to Youtube. ;)
|6.19.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Aw, I go for a burrito and miss "post our academic papers day."
Shit, I guess excerpts from "The Horrorshow: Violence as an
Artistic Medium in A Clockwork Orange" will have to wait
for another day.
I got my BA in bullshit, in case you were wondering.
Episiarch|6.19.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Shit, I guess excerpts from "The Horrorshow: Violence as an
Artistic Medium in A Clockwork Orange" will have to wait for
another day.
Yes, because it doesn't fit with the theme. Your paper sounds like
it might be interesting.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Yes, you're right. I should have included Aristophanes as
well.
(if you get this joke I will be impressed)
The Symposium is a very underrated Platonic dialogue, so
far as these things go. :)
I think I understand. The counter-argument would be that the
death of the single bird has an effect on the other birds'
"conception" of the flock and on the actual flying pattern,
therefore "the flock" as a construct is useful for phenomological
dialectic.
Almost, but a little more radical. The most interesting consequence
of treating everything as information is that one can describe any
complex object as a "standing wave" with a discrete amplitude and
perodicity. The coherence of the object vis a vis incidental
phenomena is a function of its period. The coherence of any complex
object is thus, in a certain sense, tenuous (capable of being
disrupted).
So, one can say, in the example of a flock of birds, that any
incidental phenomena capable of disrupting an individual member of
the complex object (say, one bullet and one bird) can induce a
change in the amplitude of the wave.
If the amplitude of the incidental phenomena is big enough (enough
bullets, for example) it will overwhelm the internal coherence of
the object, causing it to decohere. (i.e. the point at which the
flock simply becomes a disorganized mess of birds.)
One might say that an object can best be defined as the minimal
domain of a standing wave whose individual contributing components
are more informationally relevant to one another than to any other
from outside the boundaries of the object.
economist|6.19.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Just out of curiosity, what does the H in "Jesus H. Christ" stand for?
|6.19.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Ah, I see. I will admit that I wrote most of papers while really
high in college, but always got good grades. That paper was for the
best literature class I had: "20th Century Dystopias."
By the way "Nuke E"? Wasn't that the street drug in Robocop 2?
|6.19.08 @ 1:03PM|#
And there's the classic explanation: "Our Father, Who Art in Heaven, Harold Be Thy Name."
economist|6.19.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Since we're on the subject of our school days, I call myself "economist" because I actually paid attention during ECON101 and even read ahead in the book. I actually seriously considered majoring in economics (my school offered a bachelor of science in the subject). I did engineering instead because I thought physics was cooler (and I already had prerequisites I had taken as AP courses in high school). As mentioned before, I would have gone into electrical engineering, but it seemed like too much work and I was a stupid drunk college kid.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Even if you argued that, say, at the next level of
perception down [instead of up], my individual cells or atoms were
in some way experiencing benefit or harm, I would tell you frankly
that I didn't give a shit. They aren't experiencing it in a way
that has anything to do with our existence as human beings, they
can't communicate to us about it in any way, and if the individual
hydrogen atoms in the water in my body wants to negotiate for
"goods" with me as I experience myself at this level of existence,
they can go fuck themselves because I'm not negotiating.
My point is precisely that we do *not* simply experience or
participate in one level of existence. There are times that
individual entities either much larger or much smaller or with much
greater or shorter periods of oscillation become relevant to us as
human beings. (i.e for a somewhat silly example, Schroedinger's
poor cat is participating efficaciously with a frame that includes
a single radioactive atom, and to that cat, what happens to that
atom is very fucking relevant!)
So, sometimes the society (a very large entity with a very long
period of oscillation) participates in our frame whether we want it
to or not.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 1:06PM|#
"The Horrorshow: Violence as an Artistic Medium in A
Clockwork Orange" will have to wait for another day.
Aww! That one sounds like fun.
|6.19.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier
are correct to see the crime problem in Northeast as a true public
emergency that warrants new thinking and bold action.
I wonder if they've had new thoughts about boldly legalizing
handguns.
economist|6.19.08 @ 1:06PM|#
The last time I saw this much conflation of physics and political philosophy was on an objectivist blog.
economist|6.19.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Chris Potter,
No, but Fenty might boldly start regulating anyghing that could
possibly be used as a weapon. Pure speculation, but look at the
knife bans in London.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 1:08PM|#
If, OTOH, Jesus came down and before handing anything out
said, "Hey everybody, I want to hand out a loaf and a fish to
everyone, but I'm only willing to do that if you let me crush
Fluffy's balls in a vise first. Is that a deal?" you could not say
that Jesus was serving the public good as an an "aggregate
representation of individual goods". Jesus would be serving the
good of some members of the public, and crushing my balls. But
since people use the expressions "the public good" or "the good of
society" all the time to mean situations where some people get
goods and some people get their balls crushed, that means that it
must have some meaning above and beyond mere
aggregation.
Sure you could, since as is clear from the resulting comments, most
of those individuals don't care about your balls. You'd be a blip
in the data, albeit a screaming one.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 1:09PM|#
The last time I saw this much conflation of physics and
political philosophy was on an objectivist blog.
Ah! Unclean! Uncleeeeeeeeeean!
|6.19.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Chris Potter,
No, but Fenty might boldly start regulating anyghing that could possibly be used as a weapon. Pure speculation, but look at the knife bans in London.
Well, in the spirit of the dystopian vibe, perhaps they should just point the Hammer of Dawn at the neighborhoods.
|6.19.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Art-P.O.G.,
Your satellite coverage window has passed. Have fun with that
Berserker.
economist|6.19.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Elemenope,
It's not so bad. In fact, if many objectivists weren't insane, we'd
agree 90% of the time. It's just that they think the 10% is reason
for excommunication.
|6.19.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Have fun with that Berserker.
Fuck. I don't think I'm gonna be able to sweet-talk her.
economist|6.19.08 @ 1:30PM|#
regarding my last post, I had an interesting experience on an
objectivist blog. Post:
"I would say there is a somewhat equal right to unappropriated
natural resources. I think that if someone wants to appropriate
more than his share, there should be a payment to someone else for
access to his 'share'. Whatever he makes of it after that fact is
his own property."
This attitude did not go over well with them.
|6.19.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Art-P.O.G.,
That first one killed me at least 40 times. Coma patients have a
faster reaction time than me.
|6.19.08 @ 1:48PM|#
I pretty much suck at video games. I played through that game co-op with my roommate so I didn't have too hard a time.
PC|6.19.08 @ 1:57PM|#
"The majority is always wrong."
Plato's Laches:
Soc. And for this reason, as I imagine,-because a good decision is
based on knowledge and not on numbers?
Mel. To be sure.
Soc. Must we not then first of all ask, whether there is any one of
us who has knowledge of that about which we are deliberating? If
there is, let us take his advice, though he be one only, and not
mind the rest; if there is not, let us seek further counsel. Is
this a slight matter about which you and Lysimachus are
deliberating? Are you not risking the greatest of your possessions?
For children are your riches; and upon their turning out well or
ill depends the whole order of their father's house.
Mel. That is true.
|6.19.08 @ 1:57PM|#
There should be, but we're talking about Gears of War. You can only kill this one enemy by luring it outside and calling down a satellite strike.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 2:00PM|#
"I would say there is a somewhat equal right to
unappropriated natural resources. I think that if someone wants to
appropriate more than his share, there should be a payment to
someone else for access to his 'share'. Whatever he makes of it
after that fact is his own property."
Sounds fairly reasonable.
This attitude did not go over well with them.
Color me shocked. If I might guess, their counterargument ran along
the idea that the labor that one spends "procuring" and
"developing" the resource counterbalances the perceived debt one
might incur from taking the resource that was theretofore lying
fallow. Not altogether unreasonable either, but I somehow imagine
them being somewhat impolite about it.
Guy Montag|6.19.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Art-P.O.G.,
Then I strongly suggest the borrowing option for step 1 after you
get ALL THE WAY out.
I still have my stuff from when I was a 1LT. if you can wear 46
extra long (IIRC my size from then).
economist|6.19.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Elemenope,
To be fair to the objectivists, when I floated the counter-argument
to some "geo-libertarians" they responded just about the same.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 2:20PM|#
To be fair to the objectivists, when I floated the
counter-argument to some "geo-libertarians" they responded just
about the same.
Also unsurprising. I suppose one would be hard pressed to find a
group that accepts an argument attacking their fundamental
propositions with equanimity and grace.
Zen Buddhists, maybe.
|6.19.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Then I strongly suggest the borrowing option for step 1 after you get ALL THE WAY out.
Shoot, part of me wants to pursue a commission, but something tells me that Reserve Officer status is something Admiral Ackbar would warn me about.
|6.19.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Episiarch,
There should be. I'd like the Berserker game to allow you to play
either side.
I'd also like a Dracula Tape game where you can be Dracula
and bite people's necks and stuff.
Guy Montag|6.19.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Shoot, part of me wants to pursue a commission, but
something tells me that Reserve Officer status is something Admiral
Ackbar would warn me about.
Has not been bad for me and the AC/RC line is pretty blurry up here
in the Beltway anyway.
Anon|6.19.08 @ 3:00PM|#
I had no idea there were neighborhoods in the Capitol. I knew there were some in the capital city, but not that there were some in the Capitol building itself. Wow. :-)
Guy Montag|6.19.08 @ 3:03PM|#
I had no idea there were neighborhoods in the Capitol. I
knew there were some in the capital city, but not that there were
some in the Capitol building itself. Wow. :-)
Sounds like a new book for Erich von Däniken. Perhaps Tom Hanks can
star in the movie?
Fluffy|6.19.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Sure you could, since as is clear from the resulting
comments, most of those individuals don't care about your balls.
You'd be a blip in the data, albeit a screaming one.
No, you couldn't.
Trying to disguise a "social good" as an aggregation of individual
goods only works if everyone in the aggregation is experiencing a
tiny bit of the aggregated good.
If some people are experiencing tiny bits of the aggregated good,
and some people are experiencing harm, you don't have an
aggregation of goods. You have a mixture of benefits and
harms.
It's not a question of whether they care or not. It's a question of
whether it's possible argumentatively to dismiss the
Randian/Thatcherite observation that there is no such thing as
society by saying, "Oh, don't be silly - of course when we talk
about the public good we mean goods that all of us experience a
little bit of!"
If the amplitude of the incidental phenomena is big enough
(enough bullets, for example) it will overwhelm the internal
coherence of the object, causing it to decohere. (i.e. the point at
which the flock simply becomes a disorganized mess of
birds.)
Right, but this still does not benefit or harm anything or anyone
other than individual birds. The flock may "decohere", but it
doesn't experience pain; it doesn't get depressed; it doesn't have
to exert any effort to cohere again [since the individual birds do
all of that]. Its decoherence isn't relevant because it has no
capacity to experience or reflect on it one way or the other.
Elemenope|6.19.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Trying to disguise a "social good" as an aggregation of
individual goods only works if everyone in the aggregation is
experiencing a tiny bit of the aggregated good.
Not that I agree, but in the above example aren't you getting a
fish and a loaf too? ;)
The wider point I suppose has to do with to what extent goods and
harms *are* aggregate. Two examples, that follow from the earlier
discussion:
To lead into our flock of birds paradigm, the presence of the flock
does matter to each bird that participates in it; any ornithologist
can tell you that there are aerodynamic benefits to each bird that
flies in formation such that migrating birds expend much less
energy than they would if they were flying solo (each bird creates
a slipstream for the birds behind them in formation, improving
aerodynamic lift; and of course the birds periodically switch off
being in front. Little commies!).
All social animals are pretty much the same in this way. A pack of
dogs can take down large prey, and all benefit, in the same
environment that one dog would starve for want of prey. So, the
same number of dogs that when organized in a pack may survive
identical conditions that would kill each of they acted merely as
individuals.
Elemenope, Fluffy, economist, et al. Can I get college credit
for this thread?
Welcome to Hit & Run University. Tuition is free, but watch out
for the wandering packs of trolls!
|6.19.08 @ 5:36PM|#
For the first time in a long time, a topic has been covered so well in an H&R thread that I don't see any worthwhile contribution that I can make to the topic. So instead, I will simply congratulate the participants -- also for not letting the thread degenerate into off-topic schoolyard chatter after even more than 150 postings. Even the diversions have been entertaining and sometimes even enlightening. Are there more threads like these at home?
|6.19.08 @ 6:06PM|#
My paper was on tribology.
I think mine was on history-as-storytelling. It was a long time
ago, though, and there were mushrooms.
Michael Ejercito|6.19.08 @ 6:56PM|#
The problem, Matt, is that the notion of a "compelling state interest" that justifies violating a right is so deeply embedded in our law now that the guys at the Post are justified in thinking that any right is up for grabs when considered in "balance" to any particular problem.
If you'll forgive me, that is the real outrage: the pile of judicial precedents that enable this kind of thinking.
Judicial precedents are set in stone.
Kolohe|6.20.08 @ 2:35AM|#
In his 80's sequels to the foundation books (which I know have
been panned here) Asimov covered some of this.
Daneel Olivaw took the 1st law of robotics (don't harm a human nor
allow a human being come to harm) and postulated a 'zeroth law' -
don't harm humanity nor allow humanity to come to harm. (as an
aside, it wasn't until years later that I realized "Zeroth" wasn't
the name of some other robot philospher.)
To Asimov's credit, despite being the most collectivist a person
could get in the 20th century and still be anti-communist, he
recognized that this begged the question. Defining 'humanity' and
especially 'harms to humanity' is well nigh impossible.
Nonetheless, as social creatures, we will invariably have to have
some system of deciding 'what is good for the tribe' - because, at
the extreme (but not on the margin), survival may be potentially at
stake.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245