Climategate; ManBearPig dead?

[retro-man]

I have more faith in one million men acting in their own self-interest than I do with one man acting in the interest of one millon.

 

You mean anarchy:

 

Main Entry: an·ar·chy

Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-

Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

3 : anarchism

 

Main Entry: an·ar·chism

Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-ˌki-zəm, -ˌnär-\

Function: noun

Date: 1642

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

 

The above definitions from Merriam Webster, bolds mine. One man acting in the interest of many, on the other hand, would seem to be a good functional definition of representative democracy. Provided that the many chose that one man based on the policies he espoused.

Edited December 29, 2009 by retro-man

[RangerM]

You mean anarchy:

Not really. Anarchy is evidenced by lack of government authority or rule of law. I never said anything about my disdain for the rule of law. It is our own government showing little or no deference to it.

 

"Rule of law" has been corrupted into "rule of man". If it feels good, it is good, until it goes bad.

The above definitions from Merriam Webster, bolds mine. One man acting in the interest of many, on the other hand, would seem to be a good functional definition of representative democracy. Provided that the many chose that one man based on the policies he espoused.

Consider.......

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. - Alexis de Tocqueville

 

I'd like to know your opinion on that quote as it applies to our government. Do you think we are there now? If not, why not?

 

There is a happy medium between absolute liberty (read: anarchy) and absolute tyranny, but given the choice between the two, I'll take liberty every time.

Edited December 29, 2009 by RangerM

[suv_guy_19]

I would say every country is always there if you look at it with that kind of cynicism. Every generation thinks that the world is going to hell underneath them, and both you and Retro view that as happening in your own ways. In America, I would say that one of the principle problems lies with your political donation laws. Some of the limits are high and people seem to find ways around the rules based on numbers I've seen in the past.

Edited December 29, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[RangerM]

I would say every country is always there if you look at it with that kind of cynicism. Every generation thinks that the world is going to hell underneath them, and both you and Retro view that as happening in your own ways. In America, I would say that one of the principle problems lies with your political donation laws. Some of the limits are high and people seem to find ways around the rules based on numbers I've seen in the past.

 

To agree with you, would be to say that peoples' ability to make up their minds is derived from the size/volume of the megaphone directed at them, rather than their ability to discern the truth.

 

To disagree with you, would be to deny reality.

 

Is it any wonder that (overall) cynicism is growing?

Edited December 29, 2009 by RangerM

[retro-man]

"Rule of law" has been corrupted into "rule of man". If it feels good, it is good, until it goes bad.

That's because "Rule of Law" is infinitely corruptible. There is no end to man's ingenuity when it comes to finding loopholes - hence my (and many others) constant appeals to common sense and decency. "Common sense and decency" might be uncharitably characterized as "If it feels good, it is good, until it goes bad." That acknowledges that things change over time. You will never - I repeat never - be able to create a civil society based on laws alone. The attempt to do so is precisely the cause of a tax code that runs some 17,000 pages long, and a proposed healthcare bill that is 4,000 pages (and will surely grow over time as loopholes are found and plugged). There is nothing wrong with "rule of man" - or rather men - as long as they are decent men, and good checks and balances are in place. Again, I appeal to human reason, rather than abject reliance on some abstract system - which is after all, devised by men. The fact is we need both: rule of law, and common sense, the glue that holds society together - to interpret and apply those laws, and to fill all the yawning gaps between them.

Consider.......

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. - Alexis de Tocqueville

 

I'd like to know your opinion on that quote as it applies to our government. Do you think we are there now? If not, why not?

 

There is a happy medium between absolute liberty (read: anarchy) and absolute tyranny, but given the choice between the two, I'll take liberty every time.

As stated by suv_guy_19, we are certainly already there, and have been for ages - not just since November of '08. Certainly the seeds were already in place to stimulate de Tocqueville's observation. Rule by men is corruptible too. Certain liberties - like free exchange of ideas - need to be jealously guarded, and abuse of those liberties not tolerated, excused, or apologized for. We probably agree on that point. As for your remark about the "size / volume of the megaphone", the first recollection that came into my mind reading your words, is my occasional experience listening to AM talk radio, though you probably had something else in mind when you wrote that. One man's information is another man's noise. Edited December 29, 2009 by retro-man

[jpd80]

See, I believe the truth lies between unrestricted freedom and regulation.

 

If you have willing parties on both sides, it is possible to have a mildly regulated market

that knows to play within set boundaries for the safety of all but there's an awful lot of

latitude there for creative investors to make lots of money and for everyone to benefit.

[RangerM]

I could write a thesis in response, but I don't have the inclination or the time.

That's because "Rule of Law" is infinitely corruptible. There is no end to man's ingenuity when it comes to finding loopholes - hence my (and many others) constant appeals to common sense and decency. "Common sense and decency" might be uncharitably characterized as "If it feels good, it is good, until it goes bad." That acknowledges that things change over time. You will never - I repeat never - be able to create a civil society based on laws alone. The attempt to do so is precisely the cause of a tax code that runs some 17,000 pages long, and a proposed healthcare bill that is 4,000 pages (and will surely grow over time as loopholes are found and plugged). There is nothing wrong with "rule of man" - or rather men - as long as they are decent men, and good checks and balances are in place. Again, I appeal to human reason, rather than abject reliance on some abstract system - which is after all, devised by men. The fact is we need both: rule of law, and common sense, the glue that holds society together - to interpret and apply those laws, and to fill all the yawning gaps between them.

I'm trying to understand your thought process here, Retro.

 

On the one hand, you seem to acknowledge that trying to control human behavior using the law is a lesson in futility, and other times you advocate the government pass laws to punish certain people or prevent certain behavior, based on certain priorities. Am I missing something?

 

I agree that you cannot simply legislate away human vice, but I see it from the standpoint that you can never have good without bad. I accept there is evil in this world, and I see Government's attempt at controlling this evil (though tax code, healthcare bills, etc) as simply displacing where the evil originates. What was formerly Bernie Madoff's realm, is now Harry Reid's. All I want is to be left alone. I can watch out for myself, and will gladly help my brother if I believe him repentant of his ways.

 

From a decency standpoint, I'm far more worried for my country because of people like this (Video Link), than I am because of a Wall Street banker. When you watch that video, I ask you keep in the back of your mind what Barack Obama said during the campaign, "I don't want them punished with a baby. (referring to his daughters) Interesting (don't you think?) that to the President a baby is a punishment, and the man in the first video celebrates that the child is not his. Could you call them "birds of a feather"? There are far more people like the man in the video than there are "evil rich" people. It's the prevalence of attitudes like that (and not specifically that), that explains how people vote for politicians based on what they promise to take from others, and give to them.

As stated by suv_guy_19, we are certainly already there, and have been for ages - not just since November of '08. Certainly the seeds were already in place to stimulate de Tocqueville's observation. Rule by men is corruptible too. Certain liberties - like free exchange of ideas - need to be jealously guarded, and abuse of those liberties not tolerated, excused, or apologized for. We probably agree on that point. As for your remark about the "size / volume of the megaphone", the first recollection that came into my mind reading your words, is my occasional experience listening to AM talk radio, though you probably had something else in mind when you wrote that. One man's information is another man's noise.

I was actually thinking more of the collective blindness that seemed to permeate the Democratic electorate when actually considering who they were voting for. Can you honestly say that B-O received the same scrutiny as a certain female presidential candidate? All it took was a symbol and a slogan repeated over and over again, and absolute control of the majority of media, who were all too happy to go along. The same tactic worked in the general election as well, although his opponent was weaker.

 

Keeping in mind your thoughts on common sense and decency brings to mind another Tocqueville quote, "It is the dissimilarities and inequalities among men which give rise to the notion of honor; as such differences become less, it grows feeble; and when they disappear, it will vanish too."

 

We should be equal under the law, not "equalized" by man.

Edited December 30, 2009 by RangerM

[stephenhawkings]

how does the bear fit in?

[Trimdingman]

Unless you are prepared to go to war with China or India to force them to agree to something they've already said they won't, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

 

Let the free market, and the Earth's natural thermostat, do exactly what they are meant to do.

 

I was not talking about CO2. I think that is a red herring. In a free market world, we would have a better source of energy by now. Unfortunately, special interests will use any means possible, including governments to maintain the status quo and prevent their own downfall. Now our dependence on an energy source that is in danger of having supply shortages may have caused the downfall of our whole civilization.

[Dale143]

Truly a man of faith: You speak as though these things (the free market and the natural environment) have conscious intent and inherent wisdom - that they are "meant" to do something, rather than that they are capricious and unknowable left untended. Like I said once before: I believe in a lot of things, but the unerring wisdom of an invisible hand isn't one of them. Abdicating human responsibility doesn't seem, well, responsible to me.

 

[Bored of Pisteon]

Ok then one dog = 12,400 miles per year in a gas guzzler. How many dogs must you eat to match a Prius?

 

Better yet... Take some dog turds and wrap them up in plastic, and label them "organic" and sell them for $10 at Whole Foods. These Prius driving douchebags will gladly pay that much for an "organic" Tootsie Roll because it's says "organic" on it!

[RangerM]

I was not talking about CO2. I think that is a red herring. In a free market world, we would have a better source of energy by now. Unfortunately, special interests will use any means possible, including governments to maintain the status quo and prevent their own downfall. Now our dependence on an energy source that is in danger of having supply shortages may have caused the downfall of our whole civilization.

Before we assess blame for "the downfall of our whole civilization", perhaps it's best to wait for the catastrophe to happen first.

 

The only peak we (may) have reached is refining capacity, not raw material. The limitation of refining capacity is easy to fix, were the willingness there to implement it.

 

Even if you don't believe me, please...PLEASE look for yourself. Do a Google Search for "oil discovery in 2009" (Click this link, since I've done it for you)

 

The alarm of "peak oil" and "the downfall of our whole civilization" is simply NOT supported by the facts.

Edited December 31, 2009 by RangerM

[Trimdingman]

Before we assess blame for "the downfall of our whole civilization", perhaps it's best to wait for the catastrophe to happen first.

 

The only peak we (may) have reached is refining capacity, not raw material. The limitation of refining capacity is easy to fix, were the willingness there to implement it.

 

Even if you don't believe me, please...PLEASE look for yourself. Do a Google Search for "oil discovery in 2009" (Click this link, since I've done it for you)

 

The alarm of "peak oil" and "the downfall of our whole civilization" is simply NOT supported by the facts.

 

Have you done the math? We need to discover new oil to make up for increased demand plus depletion of old wells. We don't even have an accurate picture of how much oil these wells contain. If, as you say, we should wait for a catastrophe to happen, then it will be too late. The government is not going to tell you the truth if a major catastrophe is imminent. They will save themselves first.

 

The reason why new refineries are not being built could be because they know that there are enough refineries right now to handle any amount of oil that we are capable of producing.

 

The US's oil production peaked over 30 years ago, and has been in decline ever since. US oil wells are the same as any oil wells. The more you take out, the less there is left. The lower the level, the harder it is to pump. Experts say that our present rate of production is not sustainable long term. This is ruling out a disastrous tailing off if presumed future oil discoveries fail to pan out.

 

I would like to have a little more assurance than the band playing "Roll out the Barrel" on the Titanic. I want to know why my drink keeps sliding away.

[retro-man]

George Carlin is entertaining. However, we have known at least since the time of Malthus that species are perfectly capable of over-stressing their own habitats and driving themselves out of existence (among other causes for extinction like competing species, asteroids, etc.). The major difference between us and all those other species that have come and gone is (debatably) our brains. We have the ability to self-reflect on our situation and to assess our options. As far as we know, no other species does. I will admit to a little arrogance (to use Carlin's term) when it comes to that particular distinction between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. Either we use these brains of ours or we don't, in which case exactly as Carlin said, the planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. Shrugging our shoulders and saying "whatever", though it might make for provocative stand-up, is an abdication of our responsibility and a rejection of our potential.

Edited December 31, 2009 by retro-man

[stephenhawkings]

still wondering about the bear.

[suv_guy_19]

It's half man, half bear, half pig...or is it half pig, half man, half bear?

[stephenhawkings]

sounds like 150% BS when you try and tie the bear in, maybe the anti climate change crowd should take a basic math class.

[suv_guy_19]

You have watched South Park, right?

[retro-man]

It's half man, half bear, half pig...or is it half pig, half man, half bear?

I woke up half man half beer yesterday morning. What a way to start the year.

[retro-man]

I could write a thesis in response, but I don't have the inclination or the time.

 

I'm trying to understand your thought process here, Retro.

 

On the one hand, you seem to acknowledge that trying to control human behavior using the law is a lesson in futility, and other times you advocate the government pass laws to punish certain people or prevent certain behavior, based on certain priorities. Am I missing something?

I said we need both rule of law and common sense. Can't run a society with only one of those two. I don't see any contradiction in my position - just a matter of where we draw the line. I believe (you'll have to dredge up old posts if you want to contradict me) that the vast majority of the time I speak about laws, I am speaking of enforcing or interpreting differently the ones we have (trade, anti-trust, immigration), or replacing them with more sensible ones (health care, tax) rather than new laws.

All I want is to be left alone.

Ted Kaczynski's tar paper shack may still be available.........

if I believe him repentant of his ways.

As is Jerry Fallwell's vacant ministry if I'm not mistaken....

From a decency standpoint, I'm far more worried for my country because of people like this (Video Link), than I am because of a Wall Street banker. When you watch that video, I ask you keep in the back of your mind what Barack Obama said during the campaign, "I don't want them punished with a baby. (referring to his daughters) Interesting (don't you think?) that to the President a baby is a punishment, and the man in the first video celebrates that the child is not his. Could you call them "birds of a feather"? There are far more people like the man in the video than there are "evil rich" people.

Yes, the Jerry Springer guy is a pathetic lowlife (as is most of the audience evidently). I agree that there are far more examples of that type of idiocy than there are Bernie Madoffs. It is debatable which do the more damage - those with the greater number, or those with the greater capacity to do harm. It is debatable which are the more "evil" - those whose ignorance is borne of limited and stunted circumstances, or those who had and have every advantage and still fail to grow a conscience. However, Barack Obama is entirely correct when suggesting that bearing a child as a teenage girl can amount to "punishment". To suggest otherwise is absolutely naive and unrealistic (in the vast majority of cases). That is not to say that I advocate abortion as a method of birth control. I do not. But to naively celebrate the wonder of "babies" (what kind of a monster wouldn't like babies?) in any and every circumstance, is to deny the awful and permanent life limiting effects unwanted pregnancy can have for some people. You may find that particular "punishment" more than fitting for the dissolute and "unrepentant" who get themselves into that situation, but it is life-changing, life-limiting punishment nonetheless, if the pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted. Usually if somebody says something like "You made your bed, now sleep in it.", punishment is exactly what they have in mind.

It's the prevalence of attitudes like that (and not specifically that), that explains how people vote for politicians based on what they promise to take from others, and give to them.

You seem to believe that the 7 or 8 figure executive, who funnels corporate moneys to lobbyists and PACs, who exploits tax loopholes, who suppresses workers rights to organize .... never votes in his own self interest - or that it is somehow less wrong when he does so: that he is somehow less of a "taker" than the minimum wage WalMart worker who "greedily" votes for someone who promises to get health coverage that she can afford. If that's what you believe, you would be wrong.

I was actually thinking more of the collective blindness that seemed to permeate the Democratic electorate when actually considering who they were voting for. Can you honestly say that B-O received the same scrutiny as a certain female presidential candidate? All it took was a symbol and a slogan repeated over and over again, and absolute control of the majority of media, who were all too happy to go along. The same tactic worked in the general election as well, although his opponent was weaker.

It is true that Hillary got more than her share of scrutiny earlier in the campaign, precisely because she was regarded by the Republican smear machine as the shoe-in nominee - and for that matter all through the 90s, thanks to Republican hatchet-men out to get her husband and anything associated with him, whether there was any merit to it or not. In fact, one of the reasons I (and a few other people I talked to during the primaries) favored Obama over Hillary was the fact that she had many times proven herself a lightning rod for right wing hate mongers. I assumed that Obama would be less of a target. I think I was right about that. But it is not fair to say that he got no scrutiny. We all heard - ad nauseum - about Jeremiah Wright, Acorn, Obama's senate record (or lack thereof) and of course the whole birth certificate thing (which I will credit you with being reasonable about). As for his policies, I read all of them (and Hillary's and McCain's), and knew exactly what I was voting for. There hasn't been as much "change" as I had hoped, but we haven't kept our heads buried deeply in the sands of failed policies either (and anybody who can see Bush's 8 years as anything but failed should not be lecturing about "collective blindness"). One year in, I remain guardedly optimistic about the long term, and as convinced that we'll be better off than if we had gone the other way - even if the economy continues downward - as Bush supporters were that we were better off after 8 years of him than we would have been if Gore had been elected. Tortured sentence, but I think you get my drift.

Keeping in mind your thoughts on common sense and decency brings to mind another Tocqueville quote, "It is the dissimilarities and inequalities among men which give rise to the notion of honor; as such differences become less, it grows feeble; and when they disappear, it will vanish too."

 

We should be equal under the law, not "equalized" by man.

I agree with Tocqueville, however I think he was talking about differences of experience, politics, character and opinion - not advocating that a few should have limitless capacity to gather all wealth to themselves. We need both law and common sense ("man") - the human element. Our forefathers were nothing if not humanists - no matter how fervently some would wish to amend that part of our history. Edited January 3, 2010 by retro-man

[RangerM]

I said we need both rule of law and common sense. Can't run a society with only one of those two. I don't see any contradiction in my position - just a matter of where we draw the line. I believe (you'll have to dredge up old posts if you want to contradict me) that the vast majority of the time I speak about laws, I am speaking of enforcing or interpreting differently the ones we have (trade, anti-trust, immigration), or replacing them with more sensible ones (health care, tax) rather than new laws.

Is there any law that you would advocate that would reduce the power/size of government (or at least not grow it) over all people? If so, I'd like to know what it is. If not, is that sensible?

Ted Kaczynski's tar paper shack may still be available.........

As is Jerry Fallwell's vacant ministry if I'm not mistaken....

Why did you omit/ignore the phrase I wrote between those words?

Yes, the Jerry Springer guy is a pathetic lowlife (as is most of the audience evidently). I agree that there are far more examples of that type of idiocy than there are Bernie Madoffs. It is debatable which do the more damage - those with the greater number, or those with the greater capacity to do harm. It is debatable which are the more "evil" - those whose ignorance is borne of limited and stunted circumstances, or those who had and have every advantage and still fail to grow a conscience. However, Barack Obama is entirely correct when suggesting that bearing a child as a teenage girl can amount to "punishment". To suggest otherwise is absolutely naive and unrealistic (in the vast majority of cases). That is not to say that I advocate abortion as a method of birth control. I do not. But to naively celebrate the wonder of "babies" (what kind of a monster wouldn't like babies?) in any and every circumstance, is to deny the awful and permanent life limiting effects unwanted pregnancy can have for some people. You may find that particular "punishment" more than fitting for the dissolute and "unrepentant" who get themselves into that situation, but it is life-changing, life-limiting punishment nonetheless, if the pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted. Usually if somebody says something like "You made your bed, now sleep in it.", punishment is exactly what they have in mind.

If someone jumps off a building, takes drugs, spends himself into debt, gets pregnant how am I the person punishing them; because I do nothing to bail him out from his self-destructive ways? It seems to me that if there is punishment involved, it is self-inflicted.

 

Even the person who merely suffers tragedy, through no fault of his own, is not being punished by me regardless of my actions. It is up to me to judge my actions regarding helping someone in dire straits, and the same applies to you.

You seem to believe that the 7 or 8 figure executive, who funnels corporate moneys to lobbyists and PACs, who exploits tax loopholes, who suppresses workers rights to organize .... never votes in his own self interest - or that it is somehow less wrong when he does so: that he is somehow less of a "taker" than the minimum wage WalMart worker who "greedily" votes for someone who promises to get health coverage that she can afford. If that's what you believe, you would be wrong.

You've missed the point. I said what is harmful is the prevalence of attitudes like that. And yes, there are far more people on the bottom who vote than on the top.

 

Too many people, at the top AND the bottom are looking to short-circuit the system to their personal advantage; whether they do it with "creative tax filing", or taxing the rich (and only the rich).

It is true that Hillary got more than her share of scrutiny earlier in the campaign, precisely because she was regarded by the Republican smear machine as the shoe-in nominee - and for that matter all through the 90s, thanks to Republican hatchet-men out to get her husband and anything associated with him, whether there was any merit to it or not. In fact, one of the reasons I (and a few other people I talked to during the primaries) favored Obama over Hillary was the fact that she had many times proven herself a lightning rod for right wing hate mongers. I assumed that Obama would be less of a target. I think I was right about that. But it is not fair to say that he got no scrutiny. We all heard - ad nauseum - about Jeremiah Wright, Acorn, Obama's senate record (or lack thereof) and of course the whole birth certificate thing (which I will credit you with being reasonable about). As for his policies, I read all of them (and Hillary's and McCain's), and knew exactly what I was voting for. There hasn't been as much "change" as I had hoped, but we haven't kept our heads buried deeply in the sands of failed policies either (and anybody who can see Bush's 8 years as anything but failed should not be lecturing about "collective blindness"). One year in, I remain guardedly optimistic about the long term, and as convinced that we'll be better off than if we had gone the other way - even if the economy continues downward - as Bush supporters were that we were better off after 8 years of him than we would have been if Gore had been elected. Tortured sentence, but I think you get my drift.

"Collective" refers to the group as a whole. Obviously there are true-believers such as yourself.

 

Do I believe the Bush years were all positive? No. Do I believe that Obama's first year has been a positive? No. Do I believe that it's all Obama's fault? No.

I agree with Tocqueville, however I think he was talking about differences of experience, politics, character and opinion - not advocating that a few should have limitless capacity to gather all wealth to themselves. We need both law and common sense ("man") - the human element. Our forefathers were nothing if not humanists - no matter how fervently some would wish to amend that part of our history.

I don't believe you got my point. I'm not saying all wealth (and certainly not all power) should be held by a few. My point was that we are better off allowing FOR disparity among people. It makes it easier to identify the saints from the scoundrels, and serves as an encouragement to those with ambition (to better themselves and their station in life).

Edited January 4, 2010 by RangerM