So in a bit more of an exposition on my ideas I posted here, I think that perhaps Dogs might be the cause of Liberalism. Let's define a term a bit more first...the Monkey Sphere, which essentially was a postulate that humans and other primates have evolved finite limits to the number of other people that they can have stable relationships with. But, at the same time we can form an emotional bond with non entities like corporations, the government, God, etc.
There is a series of interesting documentaries on Dogs lately, but they all go back to this experiment run by a Russian exile in Siberia which recreated the evolutionary process by which Dogs were bred from Wolves. But Symbiosis is a relationship between entities. What if we didn't merely breed dogs, but they bred us?
What if our ability to have an emotional bond with a non human species was created as a result of selective advantage from tribes with Dogs vs those that didn't? It's plausible, and more importantly, it would allow us to use the principal of the Monkey Sphere to abstract concepts like "the City" or "The Clan"...that flexibility of abstract thought was absolutely necessary in allowing us to have a larger society than the one we immediately and personally know.
So what if...what if...the problem we have with conservatives is a recessive empathy gene? I've gone over this a number of times, but certain disorders such as Asburger's Syndrome essentially involve a disfunctional part of the brain involving social interaction. It has already been observed that conservatives have a larger fear center, what if they also don't have as developed a portion of the brain to allow abstract loyalty and/or empathy to people they don't know?
I'd like to take as an excellent example, the most conservative group in America, Libertarians. There are as many types of Libertarians as there are Libertarians. But they share a combined dislike for government. But they also share a sharp dislike for the federal reserve, not JUST because it allows the government to get larger, but also because it is ...abstract. The idea of non defined currency drives libertarians nuts. Listen in detail on their discussions on the matter, and you'll find that the reason they like gold is because it is finite. It is also a reason many of them like Bitcoin. Bitcoin is deflationary. There will only be a certain amount of Bitcoins EVER. A bitcoin, even though it is only a bit of code, is a DEFINED thing. It is not abstract. It is not 'loose' and thus in their mind the numbers add up.
I would honestly be really interested to see the political breakdowns by profession of developers, engineers and accountants. I would also really be interested to see the breakdown by party of those on the Autistic Spectrum, of which Asburger's is a part. And finally, this will sound truly offensive to some...
I'd be really interested in a genetic examination of manifested recessive traits in libertarians, conservatives and liberals. If the empathy gene is a dominant gene, purely by the Mendelian population, then it does make sense that roughly 25% of our population would lack it. Conversely, in certain populations where a large amount of inbreeding as taken place, it makes sense that populations where this has taken place are going to have a lack of empathy and an increase in conservative thinking.
Whether or not that means we should return to the more 'natural' days of non empathy or whether conservatism is a genetic disorder may depend on what your political perspective is...
Friday, January 24, 2014
Monday, January 13, 2014
[Phil] Work Smarter, Not Harder
Scrooge McDuck had it right. The phrase from Christ, "The Poor will always be with you," recognizes human nature. Even in a post scarcity utopia, there will still be an economy. And where there is an economy, there will the rich. Since democracy is the likely form of most future governments until the state can directly control thought (and desires to do so), then the rich will always, or at least generally always have more influence than everyone else.
Granted, I can't see any future society worth a damn tolerating the level of stratification we have now. A second gilded age should be all we need...if we have a third we're morons as a species. But if the rich, and the rich influencing democracy are inevitables...how can we turn a liability (the rampant corruption of our current legislature) into an asset? Because even in direct democracy, I assure you, there will be flaws in the system, and they will find someone to bribe. Bribery means corruption. Corruption means greater stratification. Stratification means instability...which means war.
How to fix?
Two fold.
1) Change the paradigm by which prosperity is thought of, to what it actual is. GNP per capita doesn't mean crap. Inflation reduces its value as a barometer over time. And in cases of psychotic stratification, you might think that 50,000 per year sounds like a lot right? Bullshit. Real people are hurting. You know it. I know it. Change the value of the economy to Real GNP Growth for the Median 80% Per Capita, call it the Prosperity index. Real GNP means adjusted for inflation, so you can measure good years vs bad years a century ago. Growth per capita means how much money did you take home? 80% means the middle class in a nice safe hedge...the vast majority of folks. In other words, regular folks with regular pay checks, how much more did they see in their pockets?
2) Set the highest income tax bracket and adjust it to the prosperity index. In other words, if the economy does well, so does Draco Malfoy the trustfund baby. Draco isn't going to waste money bribing congress if he can get lower taxes by making jobs. Do you realize how much money was wasted bribing congress? How about that money creating good paying jobs.
Tie all the crazy schemes of Draco and Lucius to get rich to how rich the rest of us get.
Watch our economy bloom. Simple. And I guarantee it would work.
Granted, I can't see any future society worth a damn tolerating the level of stratification we have now. A second gilded age should be all we need...if we have a third we're morons as a species. But if the rich, and the rich influencing democracy are inevitables...how can we turn a liability (the rampant corruption of our current legislature) into an asset? Because even in direct democracy, I assure you, there will be flaws in the system, and they will find someone to bribe. Bribery means corruption. Corruption means greater stratification. Stratification means instability...which means war.
How to fix?
Two fold.
1) Change the paradigm by which prosperity is thought of, to what it actual is. GNP per capita doesn't mean crap. Inflation reduces its value as a barometer over time. And in cases of psychotic stratification, you might think that 50,000 per year sounds like a lot right? Bullshit. Real people are hurting. You know it. I know it. Change the value of the economy to Real GNP Growth for the Median 80% Per Capita, call it the Prosperity index. Real GNP means adjusted for inflation, so you can measure good years vs bad years a century ago. Growth per capita means how much money did you take home? 80% means the middle class in a nice safe hedge...the vast majority of folks. In other words, regular folks with regular pay checks, how much more did they see in their pockets?
2) Set the highest income tax bracket and adjust it to the prosperity index. In other words, if the economy does well, so does Draco Malfoy the trustfund baby. Draco isn't going to waste money bribing congress if he can get lower taxes by making jobs. Do you realize how much money was wasted bribing congress? How about that money creating good paying jobs.
Tie all the crazy schemes of Draco and Lucius to get rich to how rich the rest of us get.
Watch our economy bloom. Simple. And I guarantee it would work.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
[Phil]Conservatism = A Philosophy of Lying
This treatise is not about the morality (or lack thereof) of American Conservatism that pretends to be about small government, but rather about the inevitability of global conservatism as a whole to embrace lies and lying. It is not a postulate in this work that liberalism (new ideas) is inherently superior to conservatism (resistance to change); though it is my personal observation that this often seems to be the case. Rather, it is a basic observation of human nature and the consequences thereof.
Humans are tribal; we divide ourselves into groups. Within groups, there are sub groups. One of the most common divisions in all human spectra is old vs new. All races, creeds, colors, religions, parties, nations and philosophies have their own individual internal spectrum of folks who embrace change and those who hold to traditions of the past.
Humans are imperfect. Humans do good and bad. No one, generally, considers themselves evil. However, people do have vastly different ideas about the good of the individual vs the good of the whole or group; and expectations vary widely within each group as to what the expected norm is to be. Lying is a universal human trait and tactic; everyone is tempted to do it, and nearly everyone succumbs to that temptation.
Lying, as a rule, is usually only effective in limited doses, unless everyone wants to share in the lie. If people care more about the truth more than they care about a lie, then they avoid lying. Generally, moreover, if people do not have a reason to want to believe a lie, they will take offense to being lied to.
In most groups, the dynamics of the group form a bell curve between extremes. That is, in the embrace of the new or the old; both ends try to convince the center that they should go in their direction (or lack thereof). People often resist change. Nostalgia for the past is universal; and not usually logical. Even those from horrific pasts will generally find something there that they embrace, sometimes that simply isn't true.
Thus, the burden on those with new ideas is heavier. They must do more to convince the middle to embrace their idea than give up the old ways. As such, over the long run, a lie told by a liberal is more likely to be found out, with the new idea rejected. For a conservative, however, a lie might live a long time. Indeed, a culture might grow so accepting about lies woven from nostalgia that it is accepted, and a drastically different standard of truth is applied to liberals than to conservatives.
This is a nice theory, but what about proof?
In Japan, conservatives are rewriting textbooks...again...to declare that the Rape of Nanking never happened and that "comfort women" were happy in their role.
In Saudi Arabia, conservative clerics are announcing that women driving hurts their babies.
A conservative president in Iran stated that there were no LGBT individuals in Iran. He also said the holocaust didn't happen.
Conservatives in Europe say the holocaust didn't happen.
Chinese conservatives are pretending nukes don't exist as they extend their sphere of influence to the South China sea.
In Texas, conservatives try to rewrite textbooks to say slavery didn't happen and that evolution doesn't exist.
In Europe, conservatives are pretending austerity measures are good for the economy.
In Malaysia, conservative native parties deny more liberal groups rights by making up lies about crimes that do not exist.
In Pakistan, conservative Taliban try to prevent women from getting a proper education and lie about every agreement or treaty they ever make.
And American conservatives? Lie after lie after lie.
They elected Mitt Romney, the most dishonest politician in generations as their champion to represent their ideals; until he was defeated, in which case many of them claimed they never supported him. I could post a thousand lies but anyone not a conservative or a meembly bother knows how much they lie, so no need to rehash tht.
It isn't that liberals don't lie. They do. In the Falklands, Argentina is claiming sovereignty over islands they haven't owned for 200 years but at the same time claim to believe in democratic self determination. And all of South America is behind them because it costs them little to do so. There are plenty of examples.
But conservatives have human nature behind them. Conservatives get away with lying so easily that it becomes second nature to them. In fact, sometimes, it becomes so big that even they believe their own lies. In the soviet union, the conservative old guard thought themselves invulnerable and lost to the liberals that toppled them.
The lesson here for conservatives is that you need to work twice as hard to find the truth because those around you will lie, and due to loyalty and tribalism you're going to work twice as hard to believe your friends who are probably lying.
The lesson here for liberals? Don't think victories earned by conservatives shooting themselves in the foot forever due to lying will last forever. No one likes to lose, and enough losses will cause conservatives to be honest....for a while....
Oh and Libertarians? What is more conservative than believing in 200 year old ideas? Gold? Conservative. Enlightenment ideals? Conservative. Anarchy? Back to caveman times. Conservative. Libertarians are the most conservative group in America...and the most dishonest.
Humans are tribal; we divide ourselves into groups. Within groups, there are sub groups. One of the most common divisions in all human spectra is old vs new. All races, creeds, colors, religions, parties, nations and philosophies have their own individual internal spectrum of folks who embrace change and those who hold to traditions of the past.
Humans are imperfect. Humans do good and bad. No one, generally, considers themselves evil. However, people do have vastly different ideas about the good of the individual vs the good of the whole or group; and expectations vary widely within each group as to what the expected norm is to be. Lying is a universal human trait and tactic; everyone is tempted to do it, and nearly everyone succumbs to that temptation.
Lying, as a rule, is usually only effective in limited doses, unless everyone wants to share in the lie. If people care more about the truth more than they care about a lie, then they avoid lying. Generally, moreover, if people do not have a reason to want to believe a lie, they will take offense to being lied to.
In most groups, the dynamics of the group form a bell curve between extremes. That is, in the embrace of the new or the old; both ends try to convince the center that they should go in their direction (or lack thereof). People often resist change. Nostalgia for the past is universal; and not usually logical. Even those from horrific pasts will generally find something there that they embrace, sometimes that simply isn't true.
Thus, the burden on those with new ideas is heavier. They must do more to convince the middle to embrace their idea than give up the old ways. As such, over the long run, a lie told by a liberal is more likely to be found out, with the new idea rejected. For a conservative, however, a lie might live a long time. Indeed, a culture might grow so accepting about lies woven from nostalgia that it is accepted, and a drastically different standard of truth is applied to liberals than to conservatives.
This is a nice theory, but what about proof?
In Japan, conservatives are rewriting textbooks...again...to declare that the Rape of Nanking never happened and that "comfort women" were happy in their role.
In Saudi Arabia, conservative clerics are announcing that women driving hurts their babies.
A conservative president in Iran stated that there were no LGBT individuals in Iran. He also said the holocaust didn't happen.
Conservatives in Europe say the holocaust didn't happen.
Chinese conservatives are pretending nukes don't exist as they extend their sphere of influence to the South China sea.
In Texas, conservatives try to rewrite textbooks to say slavery didn't happen and that evolution doesn't exist.
In Europe, conservatives are pretending austerity measures are good for the economy.
In Malaysia, conservative native parties deny more liberal groups rights by making up lies about crimes that do not exist.
In Pakistan, conservative Taliban try to prevent women from getting a proper education and lie about every agreement or treaty they ever make.
And American conservatives? Lie after lie after lie.
They elected Mitt Romney, the most dishonest politician in generations as their champion to represent their ideals; until he was defeated, in which case many of them claimed they never supported him. I could post a thousand lies but anyone not a conservative or a meembly bother knows how much they lie, so no need to rehash tht.
It isn't that liberals don't lie. They do. In the Falklands, Argentina is claiming sovereignty over islands they haven't owned for 200 years but at the same time claim to believe in democratic self determination. And all of South America is behind them because it costs them little to do so. There are plenty of examples.
But conservatives have human nature behind them. Conservatives get away with lying so easily that it becomes second nature to them. In fact, sometimes, it becomes so big that even they believe their own lies. In the soviet union, the conservative old guard thought themselves invulnerable and lost to the liberals that toppled them.
The lesson here for conservatives is that you need to work twice as hard to find the truth because those around you will lie, and due to loyalty and tribalism you're going to work twice as hard to believe your friends who are probably lying.
The lesson here for liberals? Don't think victories earned by conservatives shooting themselves in the foot forever due to lying will last forever. No one likes to lose, and enough losses will cause conservatives to be honest....for a while....
Oh and Libertarians? What is more conservative than believing in 200 year old ideas? Gold? Conservative. Enlightenment ideals? Conservative. Anarchy? Back to caveman times. Conservative. Libertarians are the most conservative group in America...and the most dishonest.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
[Humor] RandGoldOwl
Matt Stone and Trey Parker did a rather skillful job of making fun of Global Warming with their parody, "ManBearPig." This mysterious creature is half pig, half bear and half human. Of course, the sad thing is, that much like Pen and Teller, these otherwise intelligent individuals have through the grace of smelling their own farts, made themselves holders of the super super secret libertarian knowledge known as RandGoldOwl.
What is RandGoldOwl you say? It is a terrifying creature that walks the earth, that is Half Galt, Half Gold and Half Owl. The Galt half looks like a man, the perfect image of John Galt, super secret ninja messiah of the Libertarian party. Who is John Galt? John Galt is a man who believes that if you stop building it, it will all fall apart. The super secret rich people who really make everything work are the only thing that is keeping society from falling apart, and if they stop what they're doing, we will all be forced to follow the super secret special libertarian way of less government.
Gold. What is gold? It is a metal. This golem has magical metal properties and is the only basis for an economic system. Never mind that every nation on earth uses Fiat currency (including...by the way, North Korea and the libertarian paradise, Somalia) Gold is special. When the Fall comes from too much government spending, then only Gold will save us. There's gold in them hills, gold I tell you! Buy gold. Buy gold! Glen Beck says to buy gold. Sure he may be spouting off stuff about Obama being a ninja turtle mutant kenyan, but it is better to doubt your doubt than doubt your faith.
Gold.
And owl? Why owl? Because this owl represents the super secret knowledge that only Libertarians have. Only Matt Stone and Trey Parker and Penn and Teller can see the TRUTH. They know more than climate scientists. They know more than all the scientists. They know the secret of LESS government. They have read it in the tea leaves of the SECRET US Constitution. You might read the constitution and see one thing but in the SECRET SECRET SECRET US Constitution, the Chosen, those who are wise, can see the truth.
Thank God we have these special people to constantly remind us of RandGoldOwl. Without them, we might believe that government could be the solution, that the federal reserve stops economic collapse, and the actually obvious interpretation of the constitution were correct.
They know the secret. They know the way. They can see....RandGoldOwl.
What is RandGoldOwl you say? It is a terrifying creature that walks the earth, that is Half Galt, Half Gold and Half Owl. The Galt half looks like a man, the perfect image of John Galt, super secret ninja messiah of the Libertarian party. Who is John Galt? John Galt is a man who believes that if you stop building it, it will all fall apart. The super secret rich people who really make everything work are the only thing that is keeping society from falling apart, and if they stop what they're doing, we will all be forced to follow the super secret special libertarian way of less government.
Gold. What is gold? It is a metal. This golem has magical metal properties and is the only basis for an economic system. Never mind that every nation on earth uses Fiat currency (including...by the way, North Korea and the libertarian paradise, Somalia) Gold is special. When the Fall comes from too much government spending, then only Gold will save us. There's gold in them hills, gold I tell you! Buy gold. Buy gold! Glen Beck says to buy gold. Sure he may be spouting off stuff about Obama being a ninja turtle mutant kenyan, but it is better to doubt your doubt than doubt your faith.
Gold.
And owl? Why owl? Because this owl represents the super secret knowledge that only Libertarians have. Only Matt Stone and Trey Parker and Penn and Teller can see the TRUTH. They know more than climate scientists. They know more than all the scientists. They know the secret of LESS government. They have read it in the tea leaves of the SECRET US Constitution. You might read the constitution and see one thing but in the SECRET SECRET SECRET US Constitution, the Chosen, those who are wise, can see the truth.
Thank God we have these special people to constantly remind us of RandGoldOwl. Without them, we might believe that government could be the solution, that the federal reserve stops economic collapse, and the actually obvious interpretation of the constitution were correct.
They know the secret. They know the way. They can see....RandGoldOwl.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
[Cons] Article I, Section 7
Electronic Democracy: If we have a pure electronic democracy with time locks of varying degrees, I think the key to moderation via time is basically allowing funds for established programs to raise or lower by up to 20% per year. This also encourages stability in budgets and helps popular programs get more funds.
And yes, exceeding income should, with all emergencies require a 2/3rd majority. If a war, disaster etc, can't get 2/3rd of a legislature, you probably don't need to be doing it. Whereas, as California has shown us, creating a budget only works if it is ONLY 51%. Anything else lets too much crazy in.
Tax rate adjustments up could be 60% but personally I like 55%...just past the whim of the mob, just short of allowing the crazy segment in most populations to totally block everything...
Legislatures: So...this might be read much later without all the historical context of what is going on right now in Congress. However, the brokenness of the American system is likely a legend that will live on a very very long time.
A bicameral legislature does stop some stupid stuff. But at the same time, in an emergency, when you NEED the budget to work, then having the government shut down is just plain stupid. In a parliament, you just hold new elections. England has two houses, but one holds the power of the purse. If you MUST have a legislature, have regulatory laws require both houses, but leave fiscal matters to just one.
For example, if for some entirely unknown reason you must retain something similar to our existing system, let the house control ONLY the purse. Crazy right, given the nuts running it? But if you make the other house simple veto only, it puts the responsibility clearly on one, and means if you can't come up with a budget, you just use the last one you had. Allowing any system to allow government to HALT just because you have opposing parties is just crazy.
Yes, that means the crazy can destroy a lot. That's why you don't elect them or vote them out.
Better yet....just don't have a legislature.
And yes, exceeding income should, with all emergencies require a 2/3rd majority. If a war, disaster etc, can't get 2/3rd of a legislature, you probably don't need to be doing it. Whereas, as California has shown us, creating a budget only works if it is ONLY 51%. Anything else lets too much crazy in.
Tax rate adjustments up could be 60% but personally I like 55%...just past the whim of the mob, just short of allowing the crazy segment in most populations to totally block everything...
Legislatures: So...this might be read much later without all the historical context of what is going on right now in Congress. However, the brokenness of the American system is likely a legend that will live on a very very long time.
A bicameral legislature does stop some stupid stuff. But at the same time, in an emergency, when you NEED the budget to work, then having the government shut down is just plain stupid. In a parliament, you just hold new elections. England has two houses, but one holds the power of the purse. If you MUST have a legislature, have regulatory laws require both houses, but leave fiscal matters to just one.
For example, if for some entirely unknown reason you must retain something similar to our existing system, let the house control ONLY the purse. Crazy right, given the nuts running it? But if you make the other house simple veto only, it puts the responsibility clearly on one, and means if you can't come up with a budget, you just use the last one you had. Allowing any system to allow government to HALT just because you have opposing parties is just crazy.
Yes, that means the crazy can destroy a lot. That's why you don't elect them or vote them out.
Better yet....just don't have a legislature.
Monday, October 7, 2013
An article worth reading
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/10/juan_linz_dies_yale_political_scientist_explains_why_government_by_crisis.html
Presidencies suck.
The constitution sucks.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
The National Punishment Act
Whereas, we of Congress recognize our failure to the American People to perform our congressional duties, we pass this legislation as penance for our failures, and further to allow future congresses to suffer if they fail in the same manner. We are not the first congress to fail, but we shall endevore to be the last.
1. Every year this act shall be law, an attempt shall be made to make its provisions an amendment to the constitution of the United States. This shall override all other parliamentary procedures and trump all considerations save a direct threat to the security of the United States.
2. Congress shall receive no pay of any kind when the government is shut down due to the failure to pass a budget.
3. Failure to raise the debt ceiling after passing a budget that exceeds the income of the United States shall be considered Treason against the United States of America and punishable by death. Legislatures may cut spending or raise taxes but they may not threaten the Full Faith and Credit of the United States.
4. While attempting to resolve a shut down, Congress may pass no legislation save a budget. The budget may not contain anything but funding procedures.
5. Any member of congress who fails to pass a budget is barred from seeking employment by any government contractor. This shall be enforced in that any private or public company hiring a budget failure member of congress shall have all funds within the jurisdiction of the United States immediately placed in escrow until they release the budget failure member of congress from their payroll.
Territorial Punishment
1. If, after failing to pass a budget, a district composed of the same geographic space reelects a congressman who failed to pass a budget; upon passage of a continuing resolution, all federal spending in the district of the reelected failure causing congressman shall be delayed an additional 30 days.
2. If, after voting to assault the full faith and credit of the United States, the members of the same district reelect the traitor or elect a second traitor within the span of 10 years, all federal funds shall be prohibited from being spent within that district saved for Earned Benefits such as Social Security, health care, etc.
Equality
1. Congress shall be forced to accept all benefits that it creates by legislation for the American populace. Any pensions, retirement benefits, salaries, perks, gifts or other paraphernalia of any kind that is regarded by the public at large as a benefit shall henceforth be forbidden if not available to the public at large as well.
2. All elected or appointed (ie confirmed by the senate) Federal officers in the legislative, judicial and executive branches shall maintain a public view of all financial assets and transactions at all times, updated, to the extent realistically possible in real time. All transactions must be posted within 60 days.
1. Every year this act shall be law, an attempt shall be made to make its provisions an amendment to the constitution of the United States. This shall override all other parliamentary procedures and trump all considerations save a direct threat to the security of the United States.
2. Congress shall receive no pay of any kind when the government is shut down due to the failure to pass a budget.
3. Failure to raise the debt ceiling after passing a budget that exceeds the income of the United States shall be considered Treason against the United States of America and punishable by death. Legislatures may cut spending or raise taxes but they may not threaten the Full Faith and Credit of the United States.
4. While attempting to resolve a shut down, Congress may pass no legislation save a budget. The budget may not contain anything but funding procedures.
5. Any member of congress who fails to pass a budget is barred from seeking employment by any government contractor. This shall be enforced in that any private or public company hiring a budget failure member of congress shall have all funds within the jurisdiction of the United States immediately placed in escrow until they release the budget failure member of congress from their payroll.
Territorial Punishment
1. If, after failing to pass a budget, a district composed of the same geographic space reelects a congressman who failed to pass a budget; upon passage of a continuing resolution, all federal spending in the district of the reelected failure causing congressman shall be delayed an additional 30 days.
2. If, after voting to assault the full faith and credit of the United States, the members of the same district reelect the traitor or elect a second traitor within the span of 10 years, all federal funds shall be prohibited from being spent within that district saved for Earned Benefits such as Social Security, health care, etc.
Equality
1. Congress shall be forced to accept all benefits that it creates by legislation for the American populace. Any pensions, retirement benefits, salaries, perks, gifts or other paraphernalia of any kind that is regarded by the public at large as a benefit shall henceforth be forbidden if not available to the public at large as well.
2. All elected or appointed (ie confirmed by the senate) Federal officers in the legislative, judicial and executive branches shall maintain a public view of all financial assets and transactions at all times, updated, to the extent realistically possible in real time. All transactions must be posted within 60 days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)