tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post3347960561278797618..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: Aristotle's politicsWilliam M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-41129382325295097452019-07-11T23:37:41.141+00:002019-07-11T23:37:41.141+00:00Mr. Stoat - If you think 16% of the stock in a tri...Mr. Stoat - If you think 16% of the stock in a trillion dollar corporation means you have 16% control over it, you clearly understand nothing about corporate control. I think that also shows why you seem not to understand the implications of your vote/dollar notion.CapitalistImperialistPighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17523405806602731435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-34514107634938247222019-01-30T01:03:15.317+00:002019-01-30T01:03:15.317+00:00The example I gave above was also more about the O...The example I gave above was also more about the ODOV issue than 'Freedom'.<br />Clearly when you give dollars more of a voice, the outcomes can be catastrophic. The Federal Govt here gave voice to the wealthier irrigators and watered-down the original regulation (The Murray-Darling Basin Plan). <br /><br />In this example they've actually worked to reduce Freedom - so the irrigators protect their freedom, which in turn reduces the freedom of people living downstream. <br />The fish were merely an easy example, as they died. Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-45456164762479170992019-01-29T22:23:40.213+00:002019-01-29T22:23:40.213+00:00"Freedom is well defined. "
So, define i..."Freedom is well defined. "<br />So, define it.<br /><br />"Without constraint, you are completely free (Hobbes, SoN, and so on). "<br />And this has no morality, because my actions being 'truly free' could be incredibly awful.<br /><br />"Nonsense. I give up the freedom to my neighbours property, for example. That has no impact on wildlife whatsoever. Ditto almost all laws."<br />In these cases the wildlife already lost out to 'our freedom' in centuries past.<br /><br /><br />"Could it be that you're somewhat myopic about what cases you're considering?"<br />No, I am using the easiest examples at hand. <br />I could use the freedom to fly drones in your backyard, to drive a bulldozer down through my neighbours houses. <br /><br />"Freedom *is* necessarily a good thing - for you. " well, yes, the issue is that it comes to conflict. It has to. We can't all be without restraint.<br /><br />"Balancing freedoms of different entities requires - balance."<br />Oh God... This is just mental. I explain the requirements for regulation and how everyone being completely free is not necessarily always good. And in the end, after all this you agree with me. <br /><br />The problem you have is that this "Freedom" you speak of doesn't really mean anything, nor exist, because it needs to be balanced with the needs of others. We can't live together without it. This ability to negotiate balance is a uniquely human trait; so let's not rubbish our ability to make laws and regulations, because that's what gives us peace and the ability to live in large groups. <br /><br />It's trivially easy to grumble about Big Govt, and the awful nation of regulation and loss of Freedom, but these are Human innovations that deserve credit. <br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-57110936615866728192019-01-29T12:58:30.527+00:002019-01-29T12:58:30.527+00:00Freedom is well defined. I have read no Mrozek, an...Freedom is well defined. I have read no Mrozek, and you aren't making it sound appealing. But, feel free to link to some if interested.<br /><br />> zealotry<br /><br />The comment you made seems zealous to me. Is it possible that not everyone agrees what amounts to zealotry; and that if you're strongly partisan in a debate you may fail to see your own?<br /><br />> The Freedom we gain<br /><br />You cannot gain freedom, only lose it. Without constraint, you are completely free (Hobbes, SoN, and so on). We voluntarily give up some freedom in return for the benefits this brings.<br /><br />> in almost every case it's wildlife<br /><br />Nonsense. I give up the freedom to my neighbours property, for example. That has no impact on wildlife whatsoever. Ditto almost all laws.<br /><br />Could it be that you're somewhat myopic about what cases you're considering?<br /><br />> 'Freedom' is not necessarily a good thing<br /><br />Freedom *is* necessarily a good thing - for you. And in the opinion of any other individual or entity, is always a good thing for them. Balancing freedoms of different entities requires - balance.<br />William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-3530451181137878852019-01-29T12:17:01.525+00:002019-01-29T12:17:01.525+00:00Freedom is a poorly defined concept. You obviously...Freedom is a poorly defined concept. You obviously haven't read enough Mrozek.<br />What I object to is zealotry.<br /><br />The Freedom we gain is always at the expense of something - in this case wildlife. In fact in almost every case it's wildlife. There are countless examples of the problem with idealizing 'Freedom' - whether it's your neighbours starting a piggery, or chicken farm or car wash. Or the frredom to hunt animals for trophy or sport. <br /><br />'Freedom' is not necessarily a good thing, it's just 'A' thing that can be good and bad like everything else. <br /><br /><br />Yes, drought... nothing to do with the vast water storages up stream. Hmmm seems highly unlikely. In fact with no regulation the situation would be far worse - why would irrigators in Queensland let any water flow down the river?<br /><br />The issue here is the interaction between surface water and groundwwater. During flood the river is a 'losing' river. During drought it would be a 'gaining' river. But the upstream diversions have been depriving the river of this bank-storage. So now the aquifers either side no longer support the river during drought. It has literally been starved of water.<br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-38292140899541321372019-01-29T08:48:33.851+00:002019-01-29T08:48:33.851+00:00Your contempt for freedom is an error. Freedom is ...Your contempt for freedom is an error. Freedom is what we all want.<br /><br />Some kind of regulation is necessary, but it isn't obvious that lack of regulation is the problem in this instance, and your uninformative link makes no case. Even the somewhat more informative <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/28/menindee-fish-kill-another-mass-death-on-darling-river-worse-than-last-time" rel="nofollow">Graun</a> makes little case; most of the problem appears to be the weather.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-82782306478172405742019-01-29T02:20:57.207+00:002019-01-29T02:20:57.207+00:00It's great when business teams up with Govt to...It's great when business teams up with Govt to reduce those pesky 'regulations' and awful green tape.<br /><br />Just think of the Freedom enjoyed by those cotton irrigators, free of Govt intervention.<br />Freedom is so good.<br /><br />https://twitter.com/cokeefe9/status/1089997741143482370<br /><br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-73927403231409322192019-01-14T07:53:18.999+00:002019-01-14T07:53:18.999+00:00If only we had a system where those with money had...If only we had a system where those with money had more power and influence... And we were rid of accursed Govt Regulation.<br /><br />"https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/14/this-fish-kill-is-a-tragedy-but-it-is-no-surprise?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other"<br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-89394146027004507482019-01-13T23:33:36.033+00:002019-01-13T23:33:36.033+00:00This i s the problem with Libetarians: They can...This i s the problem with Libetarians: They can't define their own philosophy, yet complain that everyone else has it wrong... Booger booger "BIG GUBMT" Boo hoo... It's just rubbish.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-80164791954210147862019-01-13T23:32:23.974+00:002019-01-13T23:32:23.974+00:00Errm, you weren't really under the impression ...<br />Errm, you weren't really under the impression that the scheme was to be anything as primitive as Total_Votes = Votes_By_People + Votes_By_Dollars, were you?"<br /><br />OH GOD<br /><br />You refused to define what you mean, then disparage those that don't understand your 'true meaning.... That's real cute.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-58433844093907429132019-01-13T18:34:33.925+00:002019-01-13T18:34:33.925+00:00Do you not recognise our old friend Averroes? Sham...Do you not recognise our old friend <a href="https://www.wga.hu/html_m/g/gozzoli/5various/8aquinas.html" rel="nofollow">Averroes</a>? Shame on you.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-53601495772137157002019-01-13T17:52:48.679+00:002019-01-13T17:52:48.679+00:00RS Who's the dude in the foreground? Andy ...RS Who's the dude in the foreground? Andy Mitchell said...<br />Thomas Aquinas, who wrote a blog commenting on Aristotle way back.<br /><br />Andy, I meant the man at Aquinas' feet who seems to be lecturing an an ant.THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-88480395992341524732019-01-13T17:24:05.377+00:002019-01-13T17:24:05.377+00:00I'd agree with this:
"democracy...the lea...I'd agree with this:<br />"democracy...the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose."<br /><br /><br />I'd disagree with this:<br /><br />"It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem."<br /><br />What government is <i>entitled</i> to do must be based on the situation at hand. A government limited to correctly handle a simple society of mostly small farmers will fail badly when faced with an industrial society and even more badly when faced with an Internet connected world. It will not have the powers to limit pollution, and so on. A government scaled to handle an industrial society will fail badly with a simple society of small farmers because it will be far too expensive and intrusive. And so on.<br /><br />There is no method of determining the correct size and powers of government without reference to the situation that the government is facing. As that situation changes with time, so must the scope and powers of government.<br />Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-32121474079442116612019-01-13T15:35:53.371+00:002019-01-13T15:35:53.371+00:00"0.1 % * 100/16 ~ 0.7%"
The young peopl..."0.1 % * 100/16 ~ 0.7%"<br /><br />The young people and their arithmetic these days...Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-46531782136984341502019-01-13T14:09:35.060+00:002019-01-13T14:09:35.060+00:00> a bit more than 0.1% of the of the US nationa...> a bit more than 0.1% of the of the US national wealth, but Amazon, which he controls, has more than 1% of US national wealth<br /><br />That doesn't make sense. Arithmetically, because Bezos owns 16% of Amazon; and 0.1 % * 100/16 ~ 0.7%. But more factually, because 16% of Amazon does not give you total control of it.<br /><br />> still have great personal and political power<br /><br />Of course. And that is exactly what I'm trying to say. Have you read the "update"; is it really so difficult to understand? I'm not sure how to say it any plainer. People with dollars already have power. I'm not proposing to *give* them anything more, as I've already explicitly said. Indeed I don't think you can meaningfully "give" people political power.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-66393602937144747352019-01-13T13:22:26.685+00:002019-01-13T13:22:26.685+00:00@Dr WC - Even if all billionaires were automatical...@Dr WC - Even if all billionaires were automatically disenfranchised, they would still have great personal and political power. If you gave them more political votes by any plausible wealth formula (keeping in mind that the richest 100 people have more wealth than the poorest 40 or 50%)- and you were the one who came up with the ODOV formula - that would only increase their already dominant control.<br /><br />You can errm away, but I think you are the one who needs to explain why your ODOV means something significantly different from the obvious.CapitalistImperialistPighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17523405806602731435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-67386045003535439142019-01-13T13:14:22.227+00:002019-01-13T13:14:22.227+00:00@Tom - I don't think that you are right. The ...@Tom - I don't think that you are right. The Bezos family may only personally own a bit more than 0.1% of the of the US national wealth, but Amazon, which he controls, has more than 1% of US national wealth. Apple and Microsoft have similar shares.CapitalistImperialistPighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17523405806602731435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-24072937756175981492019-01-13T09:23:54.866+00:002019-01-13T09:23:54.866+00:00> ODOV, it quickly overwhelms OMOV
Errm, you w...> ODOV, it quickly overwhelms OMOV<br /><br />Errm, you weren't really under the impression that the scheme was to be anything as primitive as Total_Votes = Votes_By_People + Votes_By_Dollars, were you?William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-56107991361705607592019-01-13T02:14:08.652+00:002019-01-13T02:14:08.652+00:00Tom,
So show the maths.
If you have ODOV, it quic...Tom,<br />So show the maths. <br />If you have ODOV, it quickly overwhelms OMOV - there's trillions of Dollars, and only millions of people. Votes from individuals will effectively be worthless. <br />Maybe it would hard for an individual initially, but there's a possibility for wealthy groups to take over and then remove a whole lot of laws that currently re-distribute wealth. Then they will have the power.<br /><br />It also raises the question of when do you count the dollars to compute who gets the votes. Dollars are constantly in motion. <br /><br />It's a mad idea with no way of being implementedNathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-30605918753500605672019-01-12T20:52:39.396+00:002019-01-12T20:52:39.396+00:00The net impact of individual wealth on society at ...The net impact of individual wealth on society at a national level has disappeared in the OECD. While Rockefeller actually had a significant portion of American GDP at his disposal (and he did dispose of much of it), the combined wealth of Bezos, Gates and Buffett don't amount to even an asterisk in our national accounts.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-51384711505349721842019-01-12T10:33:41.474+00:002019-01-12T10:33:41.474+00:00I didn't say that had it all, or even a majori...I didn't say that had it all, or even a majority, just that there is a risk that someone with 'sufficient' could change the laws to increase their own wealth. And from there seek to gain control.<br /><br />And Phil and I saw that risk immediately and independently. Seems pretty obvious.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1429843772083490652019-01-12T08:32:21.020+00:002019-01-12T08:32:21.020+00:00> someone (or a group)... called a Monarchy
Yo...> someone (or a group)... called a Monarchy<br /><br />You've been listening to too many "the Koch's have all the money" fools. No one person or group has a majority of money.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-77230417940570038732019-01-12T01:53:47.673+00:002019-01-12T01:53:47.673+00:00"other than minimising the influence of govt&..."other than minimising the influence of govt"<br /><br />This is independent of the OMOV vs ODOV vs mixed.<br /><br />Also there are obvious potential problems with ODOV, if someone (or a group) has sufficient D, they can change the laws to increase their own D, and then run the Govt for themselves. It's called a Monarchy Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-23280859074212622772019-01-11T23:51:40.630+00:002019-01-11T23:51:40.630+00:00There are other ways of deciding things other than...There are other ways of deciding things other than governments. Clans and tribes and extended families. La Cosa Nostra. Various one person has all the power schemes... which can work out ok if the person is both very sane and very interested in the future's judgement, and not so well all most all of the time.<br /><br />I don't see how a mostly democratic government is a problem that needs to be corrected. Not ideal, of course, but a realistic option. The alternatives are far worse.<br /><br /><br />ODOV means that a very wealthy person can "vote" to change the rules to give him more wealth, and thus more power. I don't see how that ends, other than badly. <br />Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-53338964446710069482019-01-11T22:20:25.527+00:002019-01-11T22:20:25.527+00:00> don't offer a different solution
Yes, th...> don't offer a different solution<br /><br />Yes, that's true. I don't feel obliged to offer a solution. To avoid doubt, I say that I don't have a solution, and can see no path towards providing a theoretically satisfying solution, other than minimising the influence of govt.<br /><br />I don't see that as a problem, though, to the initial task of deciding if there's an issue there or not. There's no point in expending effort on designing a solution until a reasonable number are convinced of the problem.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com