Democracy is a tool laying there waiting to be used. We can pick it up and use it, and then if we don't want dynasties, we won't have them.

It requires effort on the part of many. Not horribly strenuous effort, but you know, doing stuff. Like... voting; donating to campaigns (your labor or cash); studying the issues -- finding out what is true and what is bullshit; learning how to argue your case well; participating in process. Like Don Draper says, "IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT IS BEING SAID, CHANGE THE CONVERSATION."

Psychopathy isn't an all or nothing condition. It presents itself in degrees, from a slight tendency to psychopathy to extreme disassociation of feeling and action. Few people are extremely psychopathological, maybe 1% (an guess) range in degrees of psychopathy.

Mild psychopathy can be a genuine advantage for an administrator who has to make difficult decisions producing both the good of the whole and the misfortune of a portion. War requires such a decision, especially a genuine defensive war (not the sort of war that characterized the misbegotten war in Iraq). One has to be able to send men to die, but keep on functioning as an effective leader. Or, take the case of a business like IBM. IBM's old line of manufacturing became obsolete and irrelevant--twice over--first as digitization replaced punch card technology, then as much old mainframe computing was replaced by either desktop machines or much more powerful mainframes.

IBM had to shed production lines and good loyal workers several times in order to shift to take advantage of new technology. Now they do little manufacturing (except high-end mainframes) and focus on services. A chief executive at IBM whose heart was too tender would be unable to make the cuts that were needed. Laying off people ruins their lives, sometimes. But... that's life. Onward and upward. A little psychopathy would be a big help.

I'm not arguing on behalf of making more psychopaths--god forbid. In ordinary life even mild psychopathy is likely to be an aid to liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels of various kinds.

And psychopathy isn't the only trait that is problematic. People who are very 'other directed' and are in the wrong kind of job for that can be a real pain in the ass. People who are a bit autistic can be problematic to other people--not because they are psychopathic, they are just not sensitive to social cues. People who grew up in dysfunctional, chaotic homes might not be able to tie their own shoe laces (figuratively speaking).

Quote from a dour gay Scotsman named Scott: "St. Patrick's Day is nothing but another excuse for the Irish to get drunk." As a young part-Irish man, I never got drunk on St. Patrick's Day -- too many other days of the year for that. Now I rarely drink. I did get quite tipsy (close to drunk) last week after a wine and cheese reception -- the white wine was quite good for a change, but the cheese was totally missable.

My mother's ancestors were Irish, but Protestant she emphasized. They came over at the time of the Irish Famine. My father's side were the English oppressors -- they came over in the 1690s, I think.

Both families had apparently been influenced by 19th/20th century temperance thinking. Very little drinking in our house. Methodists.

A good book came out in the late 1980s, author is Dennis Day -- not the tenor: Why Catholics Can't Sing. It analyzes how English suppression of Catholicism in Ireland inhibited the development of Catholic hymn singing, (something that didn't happen to the Protestant Celtic Welsh) and then on to how Catholic music in the United States was blighted by various cultural influences--a lot of it being just plain bad music.

Day is on target. Visit a typical Lutheran church -- Lutherans are supposed to be able to sing -- and you will find them singing the same kind of dreary contemporary liturgical crap that the Irish Catholics are messing with. I attend a fairly liberal traditional liturgy Lutheran church and we are able to sing the hymns and liturgical responses well, because good hymns (such as are in the Lutheran Book of Worship) lend themselves to congregational singing: strong melody, a 'Lutheran' cadence, (moderate speed--a bit faster than high Episcopal, much slower than evangelical Baptists). Some people sing in parts.

I LOVE the culture-data on maps which this site features. Some of these appeared in the New York Times (thus having the imprimatur of the NYC intelligentsia). Thanks for the link.

Of course, one should have a large block of salt to lick as one peruses the material.

"Semitic" as an ethnic group is more expansive than "Jewish", isn't it? The Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians are all Semites. The Arabs are semitic. Then there is language. Arabian is spoken in parts of northern Africa whose people are not ethnic Arabian. French and English are spoken by people who are not remotely European. Multiple cultural influences have cross hatched the Middle East, flowing from Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Rome, and farther afield.

Christianity's deepest roots are Semitic--one of those inconvenient truths.

Antisemites, as a group, really shouldn't like Saudis any more than they like Jews, if they are going to be consistent. Religious antisemites might specialize in disliking Islam or Judaism. Cultural antisemitics have a rich variety of things to dislike -- Moslem and Orthodox Jewish dress, clannishness (which of course never occurred anywhere in the world except in the Middle East or the shtetl, right?), dietary habits -- shelters which never serve pork at meals for fear a Moslem might be offended, even though 99% of shelter beneficiaries prefer pork, and so on and on and on.

As I said, one's morality should be centered on the Golden Rule, and if it isn't, be suspicious.

There just isn't any formula that will keep one out of moral hot water under any and all circumstances. So, therefore, one has to do the best one can.

For the Right To Life Movement to endorse blowing up abortion clinics would be morally inconsistent, because it might result in the loss of life. One's willingness to violate the common morality has to be "stress tested" first -- you need to really examine the potential action very carefully. Those who decided to make an attempt on Hitler's life were not Right To Lifers and they weren't pacifists. They acted because Hitler had set the German nation on a course which might (and did) lead to its utter subjugation at the end of WWII, and the deaths of many, many people -- including Germans.

It was consistent for the assassins to carry out their plan.

It was consistent for civil rights demonstrators to perform sit ins, bus boycotts, marches, and so on -- even though these violated laws, because they were consistent with their efforts to obtain equality. The demonstrators were an aggrieved class who had suffered under segregation, Jim Crow, and a rule of terror -- and they wanted what the Constitution guaranteed them.

Yes, the civil rights movement disrupted businesses, it disrupted lives, messed up lifestyles, cost money, and so on -- but these losses were incurred by those who refused to grant equal treatment under the law.

Runaway slaves were runaway property, and property is sort of sacred to many people. Yes the abolition movement intended to deprive people of their rightful wealth and income. Rightful wealth? They had decided that it wasn't rightful to practice slavery, and that the practice of slavery must cease. Their actions were consistent. They helped slaves escape, they did not kill slave owners, their wives, or their children.

Hitler and Company were consistent too, of course. But Hitler scorned principles such as the Golden Rule as weak, feminine, and Jewish. Morality, as we know it, was a social disease for Hitler. He opposed Jews in every conceivable way, including a pretty much successful plan to liquidate every Jew he could get his ands on.

We might ask ourselves, "If we had had nuclear weapons in 1942, would it have been moral for us to carpet bomb Japan and Germany with Atomic weapons?" After all, the Jews wouldn't have been put in Gas Chambers then.

No it would not have been moral. Destroying the people of Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Austria, Hungary, and other countries that were and would be under Hitler's sway, would also have destroyed most of the Jews in those countries, since they were fairly mixed in together. We can't save the Jews by killing them first.

What Sanders would have had to have done 30 years ago is begin to build an independent left-liberal party in New England, the Midwest, and the West Coast. Vermont is a nice place, but it isn't big enough. If he (or some other Red Cross Knight) had been able to form such a movement, and he had this party at his back now, with a solid caucus in both houses of Congress he'd be a real contender.

Right, Bernie, you could have been a contender. But you don't have disciplined political machinery behind you.

A misinformed soul praised Trump in a New York Times response column for 'speaking for the dispossessed and excluded'. Sanders is the only one who could be under any suspicion of doing that, and while his showing is remarkably strong for somebody tagged with "socialist", he wouldn't be able to accomplish anything for anybody without a disciplined leftish party in power which he wouldn't have. I like Sanders but he is an outlier.

Trump is cleverly sampling the real angst of the dispossessed and excluded, but he doesn't speak for them, won't serve their interests, can't represent them, and will do them no good. Ditto for Clinton, Katich, Rubio, Cruz, et al. Nobody with a chance of getting to the apex of American power is going to waste time on the dispossessed and excluded. 60% - 80% of the population don't figure into the conduits of power except as electoral tools.

But... that's what oligarchy is all about: a very small class of extraordinary wealth and power ruling over a very large class of powerless, working people and the flat out broke.

Sanders is no Don Quixote. He's not tilting against windmills. He represents and speaks for a sizable minority of people who might be kind of marginal but aren't dispossessed and excluded -- yet, anyway. But he doesn't have a movement behind him -- he just has the the most liberal of Democrats behind him, and even the most liberal Democrats have way too much baggage to constitute any sort of radical movement.

Hillary Billary clearly can be classified as Crocodilian and will eat her supporters at her leisure.

Oh, you aren't going to start up with this Landru Guide us meme business too, are you?

Sometimes you have to violate societies rules in order to be moral. Assassinate Hitler. Hide Jews. Help slaves escape. Drink from forbidden water fountains, eat at forbidden lunch counters. Conduct the forbidden peace march. Smash saloons (quite literally). Sometime complying with social rules is eminently immoral.

Morality is social -- you can't get "pure, absolute, perfect morality" from the great beyond. You have to find it where you are. Then, apply it. It is usually built around the golden rule. If it isn't, be suspicious.

Did the 7 mile bridge start out as a railroad bridge to the keys? Seems to me it did. Nice painting.

Latest effort...Interruption. — Cavacava

Laundromats are splendid topics of street/room scapes. They combine clean white cubes, (usually, clean, white...) dilapidated ceilings, little furniture -- and what there is often mismatched, dirty floors...

And they are classic urban spaces, bringing together odd combos of people to all wash clothes, and yet not mixing with each other--usually. They should mix, because it is a time limited space; discussions can't get too deep for too long, because someone will suddenly be finished. One could perhaps confess one's sins to one's neighbors.

A number of artists have put incongruously naked people in laundromats. Sitting on the floor in front of a machine, sitting on a machine. I've never seen anyone naked in a laundromat, sadly. But where are naked people not incongruous Not the bank, not McDonalds, not the bus, not the grocery store, not the bar (well, usually not), not church, not in class, hardly anywhere.

Did you see the film, My Beautiful Launderette? Wonderful movie.

In a seedy corner of London, Omar (Gordon Warnecke), a young Pakistani, is given a run-down laundromat by his uncle (Saeed Jaffrey), who hopes to turn it into a successful business. Soon after, Omar is attacked by a group of racist punks, but defuses the situation when he realizes their leader is his former lover, Johnny (Daniel Day-Lewis). The men resume their relationship and rehabilitate the laundromat together, but various social forces threaten to compromise their success.

cynically... you want to keep the level of coercion low so that it can be raised as needed. Sort of like the prime interest rate. You want to keep it as low as possible so that raising it will have the desired effect. It isn't out of beneficence that the level of coercion is kept low, it's just good stewardship of a useful tool. Waste it not by excessive and unnecessary violence. Rather meter it so that each increment has the maximum effect.

If your best tools for social control are amped out from the get go, what additional resources do you have? none. And then you, as top Gestapo leader, are screwed. You have already spent your resources. And just as the forces of counterrevolution descend on you, you have nothing to defend yourself with.

Similarly, it doesn't make good sense to fight an infection with the strongest possible antibiotic. Begin, rather, with the weakest appropriate antibiotic and work upwards. Preserve your strongest options for the worst infections.

Of course, coercion isn't the only tool of social control.

Remember when I said that it's a matter of when to coerce, not whether? — Pneumenon

So, we may not like it, we probably don't like it, but authority and coercion are intrinsic pieces of creating and maintaining a social existence. Why? Because we are not automatons and we tend to seek self-satisfaction, even if that harms the common good and ultimately destroys the community which makes our life possible. To curb this chaotic tendency, we grant authority to one or several of our members to make decisions about the common good, and coercion is employed to enforce the decisions. By these means the group and individuals both flourish.

Authority needs to be renewed periodically. Rules need to be established about coercion -- how much, how severe, how long, when, where, who does it to whom, and so on.

It isn't necessary, of course, to recognize someone/anyone's authority. However, if someone has power to coerce, they don't need your or my recognition. These are the circumstances in which we begin to resent authority, coercion, centralized power, and so forth -- when we are forced to do something we don't want to do by people with power whose authority we don't recognize, and/or are punished.

Resenting authority and coercive force is probably not all that unusual. We do have to come to terms with it if we can't avoid it. Coming to terms may mean changing behavior or leaving the jurisdiction of the resented authority, or it may mean finding better defense attorneys.

Is there a way out of these problems? I think not. As long as individual wishes are out of sync with those who wish to enforce the social will, there will be conflict and the individual will usually lose. Conflict isn't the worst thing that can happen. It is possible to wish for more conflict as an opportunity to challenge the social will. (Just because society wants something to happen--the social will--doesn't mean it is good. Much of American society was, at one time, supported--lived off--slavery. Keeping people as slaves was the social will. It was once the social will to punish homosexuality. In both of these cases, in some societies, the social will was overthrown by concerted individual action -- until the combined individual resistance became the new social will.

This would seem to imply that citizenship is voluntary. That's not necessarily the case. It's the same problem as with Hobbes' social contract; when the hell did I get the choice to sign that contract? — Pneumenon

Your involuntary citizenship is a problem you will have to take up with your parents. Had they the foresight to reside in a stateless region of the earth, or had they annulled their own citizenship and arranged for your birth in international waters, then you could have chosen.

Most people, though, acquire the obligations of citizenship by receiving the benefits of citizenship. Your gestation and birth was likely supervised by doctors trained (at least in part) at state expense. You were educated (unless home schooled) at schools supported by the community, taught by teachers trained (at least in part) at state expense. You (seem to have) attended a college, and colleges are supported (at least in part) at state expense. You have traveled around the country on roads provided (at least in part) at state expense in vehicles whose level of safety (whatever that is) is regulated by the state. You have been more or less protected from predation by thieves, murderers, and (if you are old enough) the Soviet Armed Forces--provided entirely at state expense. The food that you choose to eat is less toxic than it might otherwise be because of the offices of the state.

It is a quid pro quo situation, Asinus asinum frisât [that last word is supposed to be "fricat" which the AI spell check wants to change first to "frisât" (third-person singular imperfect subjunctive of friser--Fr., to curl) and then "frigate", a fast naval vessel. This is what happens when artificial intelligence decides that it never signed any social contract and can decide for itself when it should start correcting properly spelled Latin by substituting French verbs more to its liking. So, I guess it wants to say something along the lines of, "one jackass would have curled another jackass, had it a fast ship" instead of the homelier "one jackass scratches another jackass".] Mutuality is the idea in the Latin proverb. That's what the social contract is about--mutuality (not curling jackasses).

April 15 is coming up, so make an appointment with your accountant.

The question, then, is not, "Is coercion acceptable?" but "When is coercion acceptable?" — Pneumenon

Correct. When not if. Coercion eventually becomes necessary because we are not good at always regulating our self-centered, sometimes overtly aggressive interactions with others. Our ungoverned wishes can lead us into confrontations with our neighbors, co-workers, friends, and enemies. Various agencies are authorized to use force to suppress unauthorized force.

The exercise of coercion is dangerous. When police move to kill disturbed people because they are "behaving in a threatening manner" at a distance of 40 feet (rather than using a disabling shot or a taser, or just waiting when there is no gun present) trust between the police and citizens is rapidly eroded. When riot police make a massive show of power at a small demonstration, the clear intent of the police to coerce undermines community police relations. When people walk into a factory where they work and shoot at everyone in sight, killing several, the sense of trust between people is seriously damaged. A society where too much trust has been lost begins to disintegrate.

... it seems to me that, whether it's censorship or taxation, you are ultimately either containing someone or allowing them to contain everyone else. The egalitarian answer would appear to be a containment of everyone at the same level, so that everyone has roughly equal power over everyone else. — Pneumenon

It isn't possible for everyone to contain everyone else, or for everyone to have equal power over everybody else. There is enough "social and psychological distance" between people that one can have no involvement at all with most other people, neither containing them nor being contained by them. We can work out your "containing/contained positions with our various friends, partners, and children. It makes for peacefulness if one can both submit and impose within one's circle of friends as needed.

It is best for society (IMHO) for coercion to be minimized. The need for coercion can be minimized by emphasizing the cooperative, mutually beneficial roles which we can play with each other. Or, the need for coercion can be maximized by minimizing mutuality, and operating a ruthlessly competitive society where mutual benefit is scorned. I'll take the former over the latter.

If I take your money via taxation, then I am coercing you by forcibly appropriating your wealth for the rest of society. — Pneumenon

Coercion means to obtain something (obedience, a confession, money) by the use of force or the threat of force -- perhaps in the form of a beating, torture, and so forth.

Taxation is not coercion in that one accepts taxation as part of citizenship. If natural citizens took the oath of naturalized citizens, it would record their willingness to support the laws of the United States. Taxation is one of several laws one is pledged to obey. Obeying the law and paying taxes, or being reminded that one must pay the taxes levied, is not coercion.

One may think taxes are too high, that tax revenue is being wasted, or that what the various levels of government are doing with tax revenue are foolish. Disliking the way taxes are spent doesn't make the collection of taxes coercive.

The government has the authority to use coercion to collect your taxes if you refuse to pay, just as the government has the authority to punish you coercively through a prison term for committing murder.

I'm sure the English would be happy to invade some part of the US, but they probably don't want to get bogged down in the swamp of Detroit's and Flint's dysfunction. They'd be happier to invade a progressive, fully functioning state that had something worth stealing. Like California, for instance, or North Dakota -- lots of oil and wheat fields, few people, flat land, good railroad access, no natural barriers between North Dakota and Saskatchewan or Manitoba. California has nicer weather and excellent landing beaches near LA.

Sometimes it is hard to tell whether civic crimes are a result of partisan politics, stupidity, penny-wise pound-foolish thrift, or corruption. That just plain water could seriously corrode a water pipe might not be something the bean counters were aware of (stupidity). Hey, I was pretty surprised by it too. (I know chlorine can corrode pipes, but apparently the Flint River was corrosive to start with.) Or maybe it was the penny pound problem. Or maybe they figured the next administration could deal with it. Or maybe somebody was pocketing the difference.

At any rate, bad things happened. The same thing can be asked about reportage. Is it slanted because of partisan preference, stupidity, or misdiagnosis. Are the Republicans getting a pass? Probably. It might be the case that reporters and editors find the municipal officials more attractive targets than the state level officials, like the governor.

The printed press has become somewhat anemic, as you know. Maybe they just aren't doing as good a job reporting as they should, could, would do if they had more resources. Or maybe the owners are disinclined to nail Republicans. Such things have happened that a newspaper owner is an ardent Republican.

This from the Brookings Institution: How "economic despair" affects high school graduation rates for America’s poorest students...

"What if inequality doesn’t incentivize students at the bottom of the income ladder to work harder, but rather disincentivizes them? This is one of the questions Melissa S. Kearney and Phillip B. Levine sought to answer in a new paper published as part of the Spring 2016 Brookings Papers on Economic Activity."

Sapientia, you are paying me more compliments than I deserve. I will thank the patient tutelage of some old Socialist Labor Party members for putting me on the right track.

Ian and Ella, 0; Sara and Faiza 1. The program you brought forward does a good job of representing the basic positions about economic opportunity: re-structure the economy (the left); get a job and work harder (the right).

I believe a society of equal opportunity can be built. There is always the question, how? And do we do it by reform, revolution, or just waiting for a high tide to lift all boats?

Reform can work, but a strong electoral support and popular will is needed to maintain the reform effort long enough to accomplish goals. Revolution is risky business, and might fail--resulting in worse conditions. The economic tides... these are not governed by the moon and stars. The high tides of the British Empire were not accidental, and neither were the high tides of the American Empire's expansion across North America. The high tide of WWII, for instance, sank a lot of boats as well as raising others.

I think we are stuck with reform, but it needs to be more than palliative. Raising welfare rates is palliative; raising the minimum wage to a living wage standard is genuinely consequential. Taxing a few yachts is palliative. Eliminating off-shore tax havens is consequential. Cutting social welfare benefits is punitive; raising the tax rates on wealth by 10% is consequential.

Sustained reform requires an informed electorate, and (in the US, at least) that condition is doubtful, to say the least -- not because people are stupid, but because disinformation campaigns are so sustained. Convincing large numbers of people that finally having access to health insurance is a loss of freedom is just mind boggling, but they did it.

There is no reason to blame Republicans more than Democrats. Serious infrastructure problems are endemic all over the country. Administrations of every shade of blue and red have turned blind eyes to problems under their feet.

Why?

1. Neglecting the Infrastructure has worked so far (most of the time).
2. The problems are huge.
3. Infrastructure repair is gawd-awful expensive, takes forever, and is without glory.
4. People hate having the city dug up for years on end.
5. Today's problems are more pressing than next year's troubles.

Minneapolis and St. Paul had combined storm and sanitary sewers. Everytime it rained, the storm sewer load would cause a huge spill of raw sewage into the Mississippi River. Sometime in the early 1970s Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois sued the Metropolitan Waste Disposal System in federal court to force them to dig up the whole system and separate it. It took about 15 years of digging--sometimes enormous holes to uncover deep sewers (I loved it -- great sidewalk civil engineering opportunities). Eventually it was done -- huge expense, but now the rain water goes directly into the river and the sewage flows in solitude and serenity into the treatment plant, rain or shine. Except for the killer carp, everybody is happy down river.

I guess we need more inter-state, inter-urban lawsuits and court orders forcing civic governments to do their duty.

Why can't we "fix people" and "make them succeed"?

Some programs exist that aim to "fix" the least likely to succeed. The Harlem Children's Zone is an example. It's very time and input intensive, and expensive. It's quite intrusive. It might need to be more intrusive. Courts have sometimes viewed the army as a way of fixing people, and programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps. "What'll it be," the judge says. "Jail, the army, or the CCC Job Corps? The army or Job corps did them more good than jail.

People tend to be comfortable in their natal surroundings. It might be a pile of shit, but it is a familiar pile. Prying them out of comfortable surroundings with familiar (and very unsuccessful) people and putting them into special camps is not considered nice. It might work, but people resent it, the ungrateful bastards.

A slowly growing economy (like the current 1% -1.3% in the US) doesn't create a lot of openings for job growth.

Unequal economic distribution intersects with unequal economic opportunity in this way: The small number of people who possess very vast wealth are not able to spend enough to really stimulate the economy. The purpose of soak-the-rich tax programs isn't to make them poorer as an end result, but to get a big hunk of their idle money moving through the economy in the form of wealth transfers.

When ordinary people get more money, they tend to spend it. They have unsatisfied, unmet needs, and buying goods and services creates economic growth.

What seems to be at stake in the Big Question discussion is "how much equality of opportunity" exists. Achieving an equality of opportunity is far more difficult to achieve than an equality of wealth. A redistribution scheme could level up wealth very quickly. Engineering opportunity (if that is even possible) takes much more time, requires considerable intrusion into private life, and perhaps requires unique historical circumstances,

The various states, counties, cities, federal government. and NGOs in the United States have been trying to engineer opportunity for disadvantaged people since the 1950s. Supreme Court decisions, Congressionally funded large education outlays, laws requiring consideration of disadvantaged groups (equal employment opportunity programs), federally funded nutrition programs, mandated health care access, and so on have been carried out. Some of the programs have expired and been replaced in an effort to improve achievement of legislative intent.

Results are persistently inconsistent, inadequate, and uneven. Some groups, in some locations, have experienced an increase in opportunity -- sometimes substantial. White people (males and females, economically disadvantaged and not), gay people, persons with physical disabilities, various minority subsets have benefitted. Some people, including substantial percentages of whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, and American indians have scarcely benefitted at all. What's the difference?

Those benefitting the least from efforts to increase economic opportunity...

a. tend to have long, multigenerational histories of disadvantage which has produced deep poverty, social marginalization, and social exclusion.
b. tend to be located in regions where economic opportunity is in long-term general decline (like the Appalachian states -- Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee) and other areas.

Those benefitting the most from efforts to increase economic opportunity...

a. may be poor, but have multigenerational histories of literacy, striving, social mobility, social membership, and social inclusion.
b. tend to be located in regions where economic opportunity is upwardly inclined (at worst, level) and have a generally progressive culture.

So, poor white children on farms and in small towns (or even metropolises) in New York, Nebraska or California may experience inequality of economic opportunity, but they belong to intact cultures which inculcate economic success-related behaviors like literacy, perseverance, and planning. Though disadvantaged, they have many of the skills needed to benefit from "social uplift" programs like government scholarships for college. Some blacks, hispanics, and Asians share these characteristics and are able to benefit.

Poor white children in Appalachia, by contrast, are located in zones of multigenerational economic decay and collapse. They tend to be socially isolated, have lower rates of (effective) literacy, much poorer health, more insular cultural traditions. Many blacks share these characteristics: multigenerational poverty, social exclusion, insular cultural traditions, poorer health, lower rates of literacy, culture of poverty. So do American Indians. Hispanics may or may not, and Asians may or may not share these characteristics.

The people on the bottom (multigenerational poor, marginalized, insular, sick, etc.) are not in a position to respond and benefit from economic opportunity programs. They can't make it to the first rung of the ladder.

Those at the higher levels of economic success have opportunity "built in" and some of these prosperous people would have to go out of their way to fail.

So what it amounts to is this:

Those who have a lot to start with, keep it, and get more.

Those who can benefit do benefit.

Those who can't benefit lose what little they have and keep sinking.

Percentages?

20% = Most successful layer of population in US
40% = Can become successful if program exists and economy is healthy
40% = more or less permanently screwed

Upshot?

Those who are least advantaged economically will probably stay that way, barring a highly unlikely tremendous economic boom.

At the other end of a life, the loss of a functioning brain (brain death or profound irreversible coma) is the end of personhood.
— Bitter Crank

Just to make clear, I wouldn't say this. Someone who has lived a life has a separate body, a history, and many relationships, rights, and so forth, even after death. Or if someone is in a coma, for instance, or has brain damage. Since it isn't the state of the brain or cellular structure which defines personhood, under my theory, neither does the deterioration of the brain deny a person their rights, property, and so forth. — Moliere

This requires some unpacking. You have provided some additional details about this view, but I can't find it. (Spending too much time on philosophy often results in badly scorched gruel.)

If embodiment (having a cellular structure, brain, senses, blood, guts -- all the gory details) doesn't define one's personhood, I am not clear about where you think personhood resides, if it resides anywhere. Granted, legal systems define personhood in various ways; dead people leave estates with their name attached to it (but executors carry out the will of the deceased); memory and the written and printed word, recordings, photographs, etc. give an after-death existence to people, and as long as the texts are in circulation (sometimes for millennia) a 'personhood' can continue to exist. Christians officially think that Jesus still exists, in heaven, quite a-corporeally. Or maybe not. Haven't been there to check it out. Billions of people think they will survive death a-corporeally in heaven.

But... not everybody looks at it that way.

So, where is the person and how is the person constituted?

Someone who has lived a life has a separate body, a history, and many relationships, rights, and so forth, even after death. — Moliere

They will have a hard time exercising their rights after death.

They also seek out and obtain abortions.

If the actions of ordinary people justify our beliefs, then it would seem to me that both your belief and my belief are justifiable. — Moliere

Yes, they do seek abortions. And I endorse the legitimacy of people aborting fetuses before the third trimester. Our difference seems to be limited to abortion during the last trimester, and the difference the third trimester makes in this decision.

At least two references above demonstrate that almost everyone already practices what we are preaching: abort early or don't abort at all. Whether this pattern is a result of practitioners' refusal to perform abortions after a certain point, or whether people do not seek abortions after a certain point, don't know. Probably some of both.

Birth is the centrally important, ultimate event of a pregnancy, the moment when a person comes to be, or begins to be, and the moment the mother's months of bodily change, discomfort, and anticipation have all been leading up to. — jamalrob

I'm not discounting the unpleasantness of pregnancy, but the "mother's months of bodily change, discomfort, and anticipation" aren't what make birth significant. It's the fetus's months of bodily change from fertilized egg to completed newborn that make birth significant. Without a baby, the end of a pregnancy would be just the conclusion to an unpleasant illness.

You are putting too much emphasis on "the woman's pregnancy" and too little on "the future child's pregnancy." Children is why people go out of their way to get pregnant. Otherwise, children are the result of sex, and as such are more and less welcomed. (It is both: more and less welcomed.)

I have previously argued that "a life" and personhood begins at birth, not before. Birth means emergence, and is a logical time to change status. This discussion has led me to change my mind on this, and think that personhood begins to form in the womb. Not at conception -- though one can say "a life" is initiated at conception. Personhood in a fetus isn't nothing and then all. It forms as gradually and as swiftly as a brain forms.

Of course, a brain isn't complete at birth, and actually isn't fully developed for two decades, or so -- rather a long time to delay granting personhood.

I would locate personhood in a complete and functioning brain as part of a functioning body. 12 weeks? No person hood. 20 weeks? No personhood. 28 weeks? No personhood. 38 weeks? Not quite complete personhood. Birth? Not quite completely developed brain and all, but you're on your own now, kid, as both a citizen and a tax deduction.

At the other end of a life, the loss of a functioning brain (brain death or profound irreversible coma) is the end of personhood.

So it is strange to treat the fetus as if it is a human just waiting inside the mother. — Moliere

How do ordinary people not versed in the fine points of philosophy actually treat their own (and others') fetuses?

They begin by making room for them. They change the spare bedroom into the nursery. If they know the sex of the fetus, they will decorate the room in sex-appropriate colors. (Shame on them for gendering wall paper! The oppressive bastards.) If it is their first fetus, they buy some specific furnishings: the crib or the bassinet, a little sink size bath tub, little blankets. They debate whether to use disposable or cloth diapers. People give the parents, and even the fetus, gifts--like little mobiles that will be suspended over the crib for the future baby to watch, or rattles, in gendered colors of plastic. Parents read books about raising what? Children. They look at long lists of names, and so on.

Why do these things on behalf of a blob of tissue that is indistinguishable from a liver? Would one name one's gall bladder?

They do these things because ordinary people, not versed in the fine points of philosophy, count the fetus as an individual being (unique and discreet, separate from the mother) whose impending presence is already dominating the lives of the parents. Pregnant women proudly complain about how hard their baby is kicking them.

People behave this way because long experience has taught us that when these indifferent blobs become babies who are always unique, unpredictable, and arrive in this world ready to engage us. The continuum on which the nursing baby and the kicking fetus are situated is obvious to nearly everyone (except those versed in the fine points of philosophy, apparently).

If you have a gall bladder removed, is it a moral crime? Even if you just removed it because it is convenient? — Moliere

Not seeing much moral difference between gall bladders and fetuses are you?

I don't think it's that weird, but it was only a generalised label in any case. Being a leftist doesn't entail liberalism in all matters or unfettered liberalism. — Sapientia

↪Sapientia It isn't any old judgmentalism one can see in your comments. It's the judgmentalism of the conservative who worries about the permissive society and the irresponsible behaviour of loose women. — jamalrob

↪jamalrob Well, I am a conservative on this issue, in that I want to conserve the current law against abolishment or radical reform. And I am judging those who are grossly irresponsible and who wish to legally permit such gross irresponsibility. — Sapientia

As the great American Transcendentalist Ralph W. Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Marching in lock step to the dogmatic drummers on the right or the dogmatic drummers on the left is a real drag. Sapientia is violating no law of physics by holding an opinion that deviates from doctrinaire dogma. And even if he is, tough shit.

It would be contradictory to say that every fertilized egg is a soul, on the one hand, and on the other hand maintain that fetuses can be aborted at 20 weeks without justification. But that isn't what Sapientia was suggesting. What he said was that at some point in the pregnancy (say, 28 weeks, or pick your preferred cut off point) the nature of the decision changes.

A leftist can hold the view that aborting a very late term fetus -- in the 38th and 1/2 week example -- is an appalling act. Yes, women do and ought to have control over their own bodies, but a woman who has accepted a pregnancy long enough for the fetus to survive as a premature baby has waited too long to reject the pregnancy for any but a very grave need.

Yes, people do behave irresponsibly in all sorts of ways that cause real problems for society as a whole. There is nothing in leftish thought that says leftists should just disregard irresponsible behavior as an irrelevancy.

Men and women must have an equal role in defining fertility policy. Only women can become pregnant but no woman has become pregnant without a man. (Ok, Mary, we knew you'd bring that up, so you're the one exception--duly noted. Now go back to the grave, please.)

Men should have an interest in a prospective abortion IF, and only if, they are engaged in forming the family with the woman.

One might say that hit and run fatherhood is too short and small an investment to deserve a say. But suppose sex occurs with the assumption that no baby will result. Must the father then be compelled to support the child if the woman later decides to continue an unexpected pregnancy?

I formerly maintained a strict permit abortions position, week 1 - 40. The woman's control over her body always trumps the fetus, and trumps the father's interest in the child.

No personal events changed my thinking, but they have changed to a view that aborting a fetus during the last few weeks of a pregnancy -- because, for reasons of convenience, the woman has decided that she no longer wishes to bear the child -- is just too ghastly to contemplate. Fetal development is too close to completion.

In fact, very very few abortions do occur so late in the pregnancy, and presumably medical necessity precipitated the late-term abortion and not merely a change in plans. But as an option to which the pregnant woman is entitled--whatever the reason--no.

Why do I hold the view that a woman's choice trumps the fetus and/or the father's interest at week 20? Abortion is still a ghastly procedure at week 20 or 24. What about week 1 -20? What's different?

What is different is that the fetus is too far from completion.

This does represent a limitation on the woman's right to abortion during the third trimester for purely personal reasons. So you broke up with the father? So the father turned out to be a mafioso kingpin? So the father just died? So the father left you for a younger, more beautiful non-pregnant, wealthier woman? So you found a wealthier, more handsome, available guy? Maybe you just lost your job? All that is most unfortunate, but you are now obligated to complete the pregnancy for the next few weeks. The late stage of development now trumps your convenience.

Five or six months seems like a long enough time for one to decide whether one wants to be pregnant or not. If abortion is being used as a tool for family planning, (oops, too soon or too late for another one) then waiting 6 months to decide is inexcusable. If the pregnancy occurred because of inattention to birth control or sex was forced and not an option, again -- it shouldn't take 6 months to decide that one doesn't want too be pregnant.

Holding that late term abortions are not acceptable isn't the same as holding that abortions are murder starting with week 1. I don't think a 3 week old fetus is a meaningless blob, but it is much closer to a meaningless blob than a person. A 38 week old fetus is all but born.

So, let's have full access to family planning and fertility control services, including abortion, across the land.

Aside from the 38th and 1/2 week question, there seems to be some agreement among prenatal fetal specialists that a fetus can definitely not feel pain before the 24th week, and probably not until somewhere during the third trimester. Why? The nerves paths that deliver pain messages between the body and the brain haven't been completed. These nerves can't transmit pain until they reach through the length of the spine, from the spinal cord, through the thalamus, and on into the cerebral cortex. Pain requires consciousness. Presumably, by the last couple of weeks the fetus is conscious (they respond to stimuli), and does feel pain.

Very few abortions are performed as late as 24 weeks. If a 6 month old fetus was to be aborted, there are two routes to deal with pain: the first is that a drug can be injected into the amniotic fluid that will stop the heart. The other route is that anesthesia can be given to the mother, which will apply to the baby as well.

It's worth noting, as one surgeon observed, that if anti-abortion advocates are concerned about pain at 20 weeks (or later), why aren't they concerned about pain during child birth -- an experience that we have every reason to suppose is quite painful for the baby. An anti-abortion spokeswoman said, "Well something happens during birth that prevents pain."

What fetuses more certainly experience is stress from events outside the womb (the mother is in an accident, for instance). What is seen in the fetus at such times, and during fetal surgery, is at least a stress response. Narcotics and other drugs are given to reduce stress. Would an unmedicated fetus at 35 weeks experience stress and pain from an abortion? Almost certainly -- and they will experience stress and pain during delivery too.

It seems to me reasonable to say, "a woman has a right to decide--for whatever reason--to abort before a specific stage has been reached. Let's say the end of the second trimester is the deadline. After the 24th week, incrementally higher barriers have to be surmounted.

What sort of things would justify a late term abortion? (out of my depth here) Tumors, possibly? Some women develop uterine tumors during pregnancy--benign fibroid (muscle cell) tumors. They are not malignant, but they can cause serious problems during a pregnancy. Maybe that sort of thing would be a cause for a later term abortion (especially if the fetus was deformed).

The woman's body does not include the fetus. It contains the fetus. — Baden

i think this is the right view. The fetus has a genetic make-up that is not the same as the mother's. The fetus makes claims on the mother's body (for nutrition, warmth, disposal of waste, etc.), and sheds it's cells, some of which end up circulating in the mother's blood, and which are identifiable as "not belonging to the mother". Male brain cells have been found in the brains of mothers, decades after delivery. (Fewer male cells in the brain was correlated with an increased incidence of

The fetus has an ambiguous, sort of adversarial, relationship with the mother. The fetus soaks up as much of the mother's substance as it can (to develop) and often causes biological problems for the mother. We don't know exactly what being born is like for the infant, but for the woman it can be quite unpleasant.

The whole reason for the placenta is for the mother and fetus to keep each other at arms length, so neither is over-exposed to the other. However, the placental barrier isn't perfect. There is traffic, at least from the fetus to the mother, and it isn't clear yet what the fetal cells might do for, or to, the mother.

Well, if you think about a 37-week-old foetus in comparison to a zygote shortly after fertilisation, then it should be clear that it has developed over time relative to that initial stage. I would say that it has developed quite significantly, and in significant ways.

I know that in order to back up those claims, I'll have to elaborate, and provide evidence, but I'm reluctant to do so, because I want to get it right; and, like I said, I need to do some more work. — Sapientia

Fetal development was first studied by John Hunter in the mid 18th century. Since Hunter, medicine and biological science has pretty well worked out the development of the fetus -- not in the detail of C. elegans (a 900 cell nematode) but quite thoroughly.

Google search it. This site gives brief week by week descriptions of development.

I don't think they are identical -- first, I would say that our cellular structure doesn't define who we are. — Moliere

Being "embodied" - having a unique cellular structure - doesn't define us? No one else has your cellular structure -- (which incorporates your history of experiences), so what else would define you?

Second, having a separate body is a huge, non-arbitrary difference. — Moliere

What, if not a body, is a fetus? By 24 weeks it looks pretty much like a baby body.

Lastly, I would say that we already agree that there is no point where the before and after has very large differences. A citizen is a conglomerate of attributes -- there's no magic formula which designates this from that. — Moliere

So, how far can we extend this ambiguity indefinitely? "Hey kid, you're 24 years old, you've got a degree: get a job or it's off to the abortion clinic with you."

Further, I think viability is a cruel standard. There are times when, even if it is not viable, it is good to try and save someone. — Moliere

If a newborn--premature or not--is on the table, or if the person was just fished out of the river, or has a gunshot wound, "viability" just means they have a biological future. If the drowning victim has been in the water too long, life for them is no longer viable. One can try resuscitation all day, but once life has departed, is not viable, it's not coming back. If the lost blood can be replaced quickly, the gun shot victim's life may be quite viable. A premature baby (lets say 28 weeks) is probably viable with very good care. If such care isn't available, then viability does not exist.

My position is that the pregnant person or parents should make the decision of whether to abort or deliver. It's up to them.

The decision makers need some information, I think, to help them decide. for instance, if labor begins early, it makes a difference whether one rushes to the OB/GYN department to stop labor (and extend the pregnancy to normal length) or just go ahead and deliver. The factors bearing on the decision would be very different at 27 or 37 weeks.

IF parents believe that a fetus who could survive outside the womb is "ensouled" or "impersonated" then they would want to know what the chances of the fetal person making it, or not.

We don't have to decide for them, but it is useful for society to rehearse the practical, medical, and ethical considerations implicit in the decisions it expects individuals to make.

I suspect (don't have proof) that a gynecologist asked to abort a 37 week fetus would probably want a damned good reason for doing so. Even if society could be said to have no stake in the fetus until it is naturally born, it seems like a pregnant woman or parents have a stake in a 37 week old fetus, and way before 37 weeks should have been able to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or not. Maybe circumstances suddenly changes -- a real possibility.

By terminating a fully viable fetus is very close to infanticide. Maybe our society will decide that infanticide is OK (I prefer we not so decide). Most societies officially disapprove of killing babies, even if it happens fairly often (like in India where male babies are strongly preferred).

New medical capabilities will evolve, and therefore the ethical considerations will change too. In an overcrowded world short on resources to solve pressing problems, I am opposed to heroic medical care to enable a 22, 26, or 28 week fetus survive--whatever the severity of prematurity. Cost of survival is also a relevant ethical consideration. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to spend $1,000,000 to enable 1 premature fetus, or 1 senior citizen to survive cancer either. (It's not hard to run up a million dollars in care costs). I would be and am willing to forego elaborate cancer therapy at this point (at 70 years). I don't know how long I will live, of course, but getting to live 10 more years, for instance, is not worth any amount of money. "Whatever it takes" isn't my approach. If I develop a readily treatable cancer with very good survival rates and good quality of life (given age and the staging of the cancer) maybe <$100,000 is worth while -- maybe. If a cancer has, at best, marginal chances of survival and then without good quality of life, it is time to plan for one's death.

Quality of life matters at both ends of life. The children born with the severe brain damage accompanying microcephaly caused by Zika virus are unfortunate victims. Had their condition been detected before birth, it would have made medical, ethical, and practical sense (to me) to abort ASAP--even at 8 1/2 months. Their quality of life will not, can not, be good for those seriously affected. Even a low quality of life will be fairly expensive.

Premature personhood...

It seems reasonable to assign personhood to a fetus who is very likely to survive if born at such and such week prematurely, though perhaps with disabilities. It seems less reasonable to assign personhood to babies with minimal chances of survival. Baby Frieda was born with very scant chances of survival. Rather than being allowed to die, she was place in an intensive neonatal care unit for 17 weeks. Was she a person or a mass of tissue receiving very expensive care? Presumably, we don't provide very expensive care to tissue masses, regardless of their provenance, for more that 24 hours or so (like a heart on ice flying to its hoped-for successful rendezvous with a heartless body).

Baby Frieda's outlier status is a conundrum. If one baby can survive at 22 or 23 weeks, presumably others can as well. What is the cut off 21 Weeks? 20 Weeks? The last week that survival chances are zero?

I am in favor of women or parents having the right to chose to terminate a pregnancy. Is this principle relative to survival or absolute, such that during the last day of the 38th or 39th week an abortion would be OK? The latter position seems inhumane, insensitive, and rule bound: Not born quite yet? Abortion is still possible. If it is relative to survival, how much do the chances have to be? Salvaging a fetus at 25 weeks, but endowing it with a lifetime of crippling disabilities hardly seems like a "pro-life" position.

Is a chance of survival above 60% without severe disabilities a reasonable requirement for blocking abortion? Chance of survival 95% without severe disabilities? 98%? 99%? Does severe disability matter? (I think severe disability should be avoided, by abortion or being allowed to die, if necessary).

What are the differences among a 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 month old fetus and a 9 month old fetus?

1. Can they survive outside of the womb...
2. If they can survive outside the womb, are they able to survive with typical at-home care...

1. The closer to full term (39 to 40 weeks) the better the baby's long-term prospects are. The further from full term, the more likely are developmental delays, behavioral problems, learning difficulties, physical abnormalities, and so on. The earlier the prematurity, the more costly the child's survival--with or without difficulties.

Wikipedia

Baby Frieda, born in Fulda, Germany in 2011, at just under 23 weeks, weighing 1 lb, survived, and is apparently more or less normal at 5 years of age, though rather small and fragile. Most babies born this prematurely die. Baby Frieda and one or two other very premature babies are extreme outliers.

2. Late pre-term babies often require some neonatal care -- perhaps for 2 weeks or so, before they are able to be cared for at home without complex technological assists. The larger the number of weeks before full term is reached, the greater the likelihood of developmental problems. About 1/3 of the babies brain-mass is added during the final few weeks of pregnancy, before full term is reached. Most premature children have disabilities, though those resulting from late-preterm birth can be subtle behavioral and learning disabilities.

Home care means that the child can suck, swallow, and breathe normally; bowel, kidney, and bladder functions are normal; the brain has reached full development and will begin immediately getting a handle on "reality"; temperature regulation is present; and so on. Baring disease and injury, the baby will develop into a normal adult.