Question from a libertarian friend: Why honor soldiers who’ve fallen in unnecessary wars?
Answer: This is where Rothbardianism ends– Survival is not a individual endeavor and honoring martial virtues (duty/honor/courage) ensures a society’s continued ability to solve the acute prisoners’ dilemma of facing physical danger.
The parable begins with a simplifying assumption. This is that it takes exactly two workers to make a vase: one to blow it from molten glass and another to pack it for delivery. Now suppose that two workers, A1 and A2, are highly skilled—if they are assigned to either task they are guaranteed not to break the vase. Suppose two other workers, B1 and B2, are less skilled—specifically, for either task each has a 50% probability of breaking the vase.
Now suppose you are worker A1. If you team up with A2, you produce a vase every attempt. However, if you team up with B1 or B2, then only 50% of your attempts will produce a vase. Thus, your productivity is higher when you team up with A2 than with one of the B workers. Something similar happens with the B workers. They are more productive when they are paired with an A worker than with a fellow B worker.
So far, everything I’ve said is probably pretty intuitive. But here’s what’s not so intuitive. Suppose you’re the manager of the vase company and you want to produce as many vases as possible. Are you better off by (i) pairing A1 with A2 and B1 with B2, or (ii) pairing A1 with one of the B workers and A2 with the other B worker?
If you do the math, it’s clear that the first strategy works best. Here, the team with two A workers produces a vase with 100% probability, and the team with the two B workers produces a vase with 25% probability. Thus, in expectation, the company produces 1.25 vases per time period. With the second strategy, both teams produce a vase with 50% probability. Thus, in expectation, the company produces only one vase per time period.
The example illustrates how workers’ productivity is often interdependent—specifically, how your own productivity increases when your co-workers are skilled.
A bit of advice for all my leftist friends (if any of you still read my FB wall):
If you’re serious about being a leftist, you should get with the program — poverty is out, because it’s just too RIDICULOUS, and equality is in. Your peers made this pivot long ago and you should too.
Signal your moral superiority regarding inequality and you’ll still get a few suckers to admire you. Signal your moral superiority with “poverty”, and you’ll just look stupid.
I know what poverty looks like. I’ve seen it in Afghanistan and Tanzania. And I live in Ukraine which is far poorer than ANY american demographic. Officially, among the people designated as “poor” in the US —
76 percent have air conditioning.
66 percent have more than two rooms of living space per person.
97 percent own at least one color television.
62 percent have either cable or satellite television.
Almost 75 percent of households own a car (30 percent own two or more).
73 percent own microwave ovens.
More than 50 percent have stereos.
33 percent have automatic dishwashers.
99 percent have refrigerators.
Virtually none lack running water or flushing toilets.
46 percent own their own home, the average of which is a three bedroom house with 1.5 baths
This is why the LYING left has abandoned the poverty argument. The left murdered millions of people in their defense of the poor, and then capitalism solved poverty. Your messiah has come. But the lying, power-hungry left, has no use for a messiah who actually shows up.
So, poverty is out. Inequality is in. Inequality is better because it has been around among humans for 50,000 years, and eradicating it is impossible — so you can have your “permanent revolution” as Lenin advised.
If academics were intellectually honest, they would have fallen prey to their own logic long ago.
“Is your pain real? This is a question for people who think there is no such thing as meaning. You try to argue yourself out of pain and see how far you get. You might think ‘well that’s not the sort of meaning I meant.’ But you know, a negative meaning is a place to start. If there is something negative and it’s real that does imply there is something positive that’s real. It might be harder to get ahold of. At least it’s not pain.” – Jordan Peterson
Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 – they were wrong
Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.
Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.
As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.
Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.
The arguments are so obvious, the evidence is so overwhelming. The leftist program so disastrous to the very people in whose name it is promoted. What do leftists think when they hear an interview like this? I can’t imagine. I really can’t.
I am tired of pointing out leftist hypocrisy. It’s too easy. My new interest is underlying causes. Here are a few theories, and after writing them, they all seem like restatements of the same theory:
1. Thomas Sowell’s paradigm that conservatives see the world in terms of trade offs, while the left sees it in terms of good vs evil. If you believe yourself to be fighting evil, lies are more acceptable.
2. Haidt’s morality chart showing Harm-Care and Fairness as the ONLY positive dimensions of morality for radical leftists. (Sanctity, Authority, Loyalty are not only less important, but in fact, negatives.) Perhaps they are on one hand, desperate to exercise Harm-Care, and on the other indignant toward the “Sanctity” and “Authority” of the rules of debate: truth telling, consistency, precise meaning.
3. Evolutionary biology as the consilient field of all social sciences: The left is intuitively female, the right is intuitively male. If you’re exercising the moral instincts that evolved with childrearing, it makes perfect sense that you treat every impulse and whim as if it were a universal principle. We want mothers to care for babies and families in such a devoted, uncompromising way. But this moral intuition cannot be allowed to govern all of society because it’s so inconsistent and impulsive. It needs limits. The male moral intuition evolved to solve the prisoners dilemma of facing danger as a group (duty, honor, courage), and therefore, much more readily embraces “no matter what” type rules and principles.
It would be difficult, honest, and helpful for Sam Harris to identify and compare moral frameworks.
Instead he does what is easy, dishonest, and damaging.
1. Rely on emotional arguments and analogy
2. address the most literal interpretation of scripture (shooting fish in a barrel)
3. completely ignore the role of tradition and sanctity in society’s survival
4. conclude with a blatant lie: “if there is a less moral, moral framework, I have not heard it.”
Has he not heard of atheistic communism which is not only indifferent to the suffering of the unfortunate (the charge for which he condemns Christianity), but actively creates and justifies such suffering???
That thing at the end is the slight of hand you often see. You get hooked on the emotional arguments he feeds you, and then boom, the subject changes. All of sudden it isn’t that literal religion does correspond to our moral intuition, but rather, religion is the WORST THING EVER. Study Haidt for the role of sanctity and tradition in a society’s survival.
So I had to eventually listen to this Sam Harris – Jonathan Haidt discussion:
(It starts at 27:00.) If anyone has already read some of Haidt’s work, this discussion reveals more about the participants than the subject.
Harris seemed out of his depth. His shtick seems too much like Frankfurt School “deconstruction” — using partial explanations to ridicule and condemn a whole social framework while applying no scrutiny whatsoever to the vague plan you have for improvement.
I think he’d do great work if he did comparisons instead of criticisms.
Harris gets no traction with his usual emotional appeals and analogies, and a couple of times, when Haidt introduced new ideas, it seemed like he responded with “word salads” — basically saying, “Look! I know things too! I’m relevant!”
In the end, Harris does the gentlemanly thing and relegates himself to the role of interview.