tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post2241830630269840875..comments2024-02-27T15:47:47.923-05:00Comments on Principled Perspectives: Society’s ‘Lottery Winners’ and ‘Give Back’ vs. Win-Winprincipled perspectiveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-3177367050335472542018-08-03T05:41:49.290-04:002018-08-03T05:41:49.290-04:00congratulations all the lottery numbers, I know th...congratulations all the lottery numbers, I know that this happens because of <a href="https://teertodayresult.com/teer-dream-number/" rel="nofollow">Teer dream numbers today</a> if it is a Teer Shillong game. Yes, that is an awesome game to play nowadays.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-47516641710326990892016-03-08T14:48:00.550-05:002016-03-08T14:48:00.550-05:00Well put, Mike. In reality, we are individuals, no...Well put, Mike. In reality, we are individuals, not collective averages. I didn't respond to Steve's last 2 comments because I would have been repeating myself, so I gave him the last word. Thanks.principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-34920841948909388962016-03-07T23:00:57.991-05:002016-03-07T23:00:57.991-05:00Mr. La Ferrara seems to have lost patience and has...Mr. La Ferrara seems to have lost patience and has decided not to respond anymore. Not sure I blame him. But, lemme try this:<br /><br />Even if you're a semi-retard with some physical inabilities, you can still function productively within your field of awareness and physical abilities. And such people usually want to. Nothing saying they'll choose crime or terrorism. 'Software' determines that. Totalitarian statism leaves then NO room to function. Under statism they'll die by age 30 or sooner unless the state feeds them so they can live longer as basket cases. But individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism leaves the whole field of human action (minus initiatory physical force) wide open for the most unable to do what they can. They'll usually do what they can. The market will buy it. Due to the productivity of those who produce the most(countless times more than they would or ever could consume)the productivity of the semi-retards just might be enough to earn them a reliable income above and beyond their subsistence needs. If not always, how about charity in a laissez-faire system to fill the shortage? Laissez-faire enables the 'least' among us to live comfortably, respectably and happily for a full natural lifespan rather than die young and miserable.Mike Kevittnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-56386843449867874372016-03-02T16:27:21.239-05:002016-03-02T16:27:21.239-05:00madmax;
“Objectivism ignores one of those . . .”
...madmax;<br /><br />“Objectivism ignores one of those . . .”<br /><br />Wrong. The point is not that natural endowments—which nobody has any control over— don’t matter, but that people should be judged according to what they make of their natural endowments, which they do have control over. This is not ignoring the hardware for the software. It is putting each in its proper place. As far as justice—that is, what people deserve—goes, “the hardware” is irrelevant. I spent 46 years in the construction trades (actually, 2 trades), mostly as employee but also as self-employed. I think I did pretty well for myself. Obviously, I couldn’t have exceeded my natural limits. But did I even reach them? Maybe, if I put my mind to it, I could have invented some new kind of plumbing tool, and made a fortune. Who knows? Who cares? Statistical group correlations between biology and economic outcome are irrelevant. The reality is, I <em>as an individual</em> made of my potentialities what I made of them, by my own choices—and by grace of the people who valued my services and paid me accordingly. And so did the guy at the top of the pyramid. We’re both entitled to our economic rewards, however unequal—and for whatever unequal reasons—those rewards.<br /><br />Modern egalitarians ignore free will and individual character and assume all outcomes are the result of natural endowments (as well as other factors beyond the individual’s control). Since they see differing natural endowments as inherently unfair, as if nature could be unfair, it follows for them that differences in economic outcomes are all a matter of luck, like playing the lottery—and thus unfair and in need of corrective action through coercive government intervention. This view fits their statist politics just fine. But my view is that aggressive government coercion, not human diversity, is what’s unfair.<br /><br />(And by the way, the pyramid of ability does not necessarily correlate to economic rewards. People of lesser ability but brimming with entrepreneurial energy often make fortunes by turning the knowledge discovered at the top into mass-market products.)principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-47907994178744586512016-03-02T13:34:00.658-05:002016-03-02T13:34:00.658-05:00Here's another reason why you need biology to ...Here's another reason why you need biology to explain the differences in economic outcomes. Look at what this leftist group has to say:<br /><br />“how do we explain persistent disparities among groups, and disproportionate levels of poverty, incarceration, unemployment, etc. in communities of color. We can’t. Not without a structural racism analysis" (Grassroots Policy Project)<br /><br />Their egalitarian assumptions are based on a view of human nature that starts from neurological uniformity of all races and ethnicities of humanity. That is wrong. There is a significant degree of genetic variation. With racial hereditarianism we can show that differences in outcome are due to differences in biology. Thus leftism can be discredited empirically in addition to moral / philosophically. <br /><br />Think of it this way. Who were at the top of Rand's "Pyramid of Ability"? That's right, the top of Rand's pyramid would be the high IQ contingent of any society. IQ does not make you rational but it is a really good place to start. Necessary but not sufficient to use Aristotle's language. Also Google up "smart IQ fraction" to see good arguments that a society needs a significant portion of its population to be above 106 IQ for it to have any realistic chance of economic advancement. <br /><br />I know you are going to come back with philosophy and ideas and freedom and reason and Rand and .... But the point I am making is that you need more than good software (which is all that Objectivism stresses). You need good hardware too. Without powerful enough hardware you can not install the liberty software. It won't take, as depressing as that is.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-70477293637624009872016-03-02T10:17:00.340-05:002016-03-02T10:17:00.340-05:00SJ, don’t you think the government’s coercive domi...SJ, don’t you think the government’s coercive dominance of education is a bigger barrier to good schools than any supposed “genetic wall?” <br /><br />Genetics, like when and where you are born, is only an unchosen starting point. What the individual makes of his genetic inheritance is what matters when it comes to his economic achievement. Genetics don’t determine success. Genetics won’t give you better ideas, the right values, the best choices, or get you up off the couch and out to work. Genetics won’t give you as a parent the freedom to choose your child’s school or you as an educator the freedom to choose a new educational method, philosophy, or curriculum when a government throws a tax supported, compulsory education establishment in your way. principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-83056762891780777662016-03-02T07:29:46.892-05:002016-03-02T07:29:46.892-05:00I think it's important to attack the philosoph...I think it's important to attack the philosophical issues here, such as "giving back," altruism, and the like.<br /><br />But there is another way to approach this. According to Obama, we need to spend more money on teachers, teacher salaries, and inner city schools.<br /><br />What reason is there to believe that any of this will improve education? We've been trying this since the Great Society and it's been a failure. This is why I think The Bell Curve is the most important book in my lifetime. Thanks to it (and all sorts of research since then) we know that an individual's intelligence and to some extent his success are largely determined by genes (maybe as much as 80%). As Charles Murray said recently, once you have "merely OK" schools and parents, you are pretty much up against a genetic wall.<br /><br />The black IQ is 85. Even if that's not genetic (and the genes for intelligence will be found in a few years) we don't know how to increase IQ. <br /><br />-SJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com