Oh, I do see it very well. What I see is that poverty reduction, hunger reduction, freedom, and every positive societal development has arisen from the free market. Giving people the freedom to buy and sell with minimal government interference has led to great wealth for everyone. — Hanover

A Marxist analysis of history would agree with you. Capitalism has produced a great deal of wealth, not all of which has been hoarded up in boxes of gold. Workers create all wealth to start with***, and many of the "capital" improvements in society--which working people built and payed for, add to the collective wealth.

Collective wealth includes roads, parks, canals, dams, factories, skyscrapers, airplanes, railroads, ships, books, plays, films, music, and so on. Through capitalism a tremendous amount of productive capacity has been created and expressed. One upshot among several is that some people have hoarded up a lot of gold. We'll distribute all that at some convenient time.

The important question is "where do we go from here?" Do the rich just keep accumulating more and more wealth while the workers gradually become poorer and finally reach destitution? OR do we reorganize society and eliminate the rich?

We can do without the rich. The rich provide no useful services. Coordination of production? Coordination of production is now done by technically trained workers -- aka "managers". Trump didn't sit down and figure out how many tons of steel a new hotel needed; what kind of concrete should be poured for the footings, pylons, or floors; where to order large window glass from, what kind of sheets to put on what size of bed, etc. All that was done by workers. Did Trump design his hotels? Most likely (99%) he didn't. What did he do? He met with bankers (other rich men) and they decided to hire workers to build the hotel (from mining and farming activities all the way up to staffing the front desk and providing bell hops. Speaking of which, there's a job I think Trump would be good at -- a bellhop in a hotel which once belonged to him and the banks before their wealth was liquidated.

*** When you read "Workers, or labor, creates all wealth" you probably dismiss that as marxist cant.

But... where does wealth come from?

Wealth comes from the ground. It either grows in the ground or it is mined. There isn't any other source of wealth. Plant matter and minerals are the only stuff we have to work with. (OK, there's the fish in the sea and kelp.) Who extracts minerals and grows crops? The rich? No. Laboring people do all that. Do wealthy people make it possible to grow crops and dig up jewels from the dirt? Not really. Workers have, can, and will grow it and mine it without the interference of expropriating rich owners.

The only contribution rich people make to the creation of wealth is to establish a system by which they expropriate the wealth of labor. In a nut shell, the Marxist idea is to expropriate the expropriators. Strip them of their ill-gained wealth and join them to the rest of laboring people.

They can work as menials, like bellhops, if they have few useful skills. "Hey Trump, carry the man's bags!." "Marco Rubio: Clean up in Aisle 5." "Hillary, make 15 copies of this, and staple them together--neatly, this time." "Cruz: Get back in your cell."

"Dear Mr. Hanover: The People's Press has decided to publish your book of clever philosophy comments. You will be allotted a small bonus of credits, but your basic support payment will stay the same regardless of how many people read your digital book (sorry, no paper copies) since your needs are not greater now than they were 30 years ago. Should you require space to hold court with the fans who probably won't be showing up to shower you with praise, please contact your local commissar of meeting spaces. The People's Press will graciously provide two 2.75" Satisfactory Cookies (any flavor) per fan and 10 ounces of Quite Good Fair Labor Coffee (grown by formerly wealthy former land owners) per fan for your quota of two post-publishing celebratory events that you may wish to schedule."

In some societies, newborns are not considered "persons" the moment they are born. The reluctance to grant personhood earlier may be a response to high infant mortality. A baby who is 1 year old is more likely to make it. Or, perhaps they see a baby as not having the necessary attributes of person hood -- too unformed. At 1 year, personhood is much more specific and definite.

I'm not recommending this approach, just mentioning it.

It's no odder to wait a year to establish personhood than to establish it the moment a sperm happens to meet an egg, move in, and set up housekeeping together.

I don't approve of this approach, again just mentioning it.

Are you arguing that we can't know whether an action is free as soon as the claim regarding its motive is open to challenge, of if we can't be certain what the motive is. What kind of epistemology is at play here? — Pierre-Normand

I believe we have free will and I believe that we can be subjected to coercion and be forced to act against what we wish to do. I believe that there are some impersonal (and no so impersonal) determinative factors that powerfully shape our behavior. This is the compatibilist position, as I understand it. I am not at all sure I can prove that I freely willed something, decided to perform an act without influence.

Will I buy Hunt Tomatoes or Del Monte Tomatoes? I might respond to one label more favorably than the other; I might have happy memories of one brand over the other; brand recognition might be better for one label than the other. Can I identify how any of these influences might have come into play? Perhaps; perhaps not. Suppose my metabolism, unbeknownst to me, requires more salt than the average person; based on this biologically determined feature, I might prefer the saltier tomato, without knowing what was driving the preference. If I was born colorblind (thanks to genetics), one label might not look much more appealing than the other one.

In fact, I prefer Del Monte. I choose their can over Hunt's, or some other brand's tomato. I make a freely willed choice, even if it is influenced, even if determinative factors are in play. Some people don't even like tomatoes. We were fed tomatoes a lot when I was growing up -- homed canned ones. Commercially canned tomatoes seemed special and exotic. I suppose that's why I prefer Del Monte -- it was the label on the cans that were available at the time.

I decided it would be good for my 70 year old brain to learn a language. I was influenced in this decision by reading articles in the New York Times (and elsewhere) on aging. What language should I learn? Had Spanish and I don't like the sound of the language. French or German, then? The part of the country I live in has lots of Germans and Scandinavians, and few French. I probably know more about some periods in Germany's history than France's. As far as the French and German people go, I have both positive and negative feelings about each, with maybe an edge of positive feelings for the Germans.

I decided to learn French. First, it fits into my long-term interest in the history of early English. English is a "Germanic language" but it isn't very German. The French donated far, far more words to English than the Germans did. Secondly, I thought French would be a bit easier to learn. Whether I learn it at all remains to be seen. I decided to buy Rosetta Stone. Nobody pointed a gun at my head and said "buy it or else". I was influenced by the fact that Rosetta Stone was 50% off at Barnes and Noble.

I don't think there were any coercive factors at play in this decision, either. Influences, yes; but not determinative or coercive ones.

It is probably a waste of time to try to convince TGW that life isn't continually coercing us to act, and that life isn't all suffering. I was trying to undercut his certainty that everything is pre-determined.

I just dozed off. I did not choose to fall asleep. A part of brain decided that a short-term shutdown would be a food idol fddd;;;;;;;;;;;d""""""""""""

Dozed off again. Not a choice. The choice would be to post this and go get a cup of tea, which is what I shall now do forthwith.

Sure, gun pointed at your head, "Your money or your life", we can pause to decide. Is this determinism or free will? Damned if I know -- but you don't know either. The discussion is a waste of time.
— Bitter Crank

You do not give up your money freely when someone points a gun to your head and demands it. To claim that one can 'never know' whether this is so is ludicrous. — The Great Whatever

Oh, that was at least 50% flippant -- that's why I included the Jack Benny bit -- "I'm thinking it over."

The serious point: we can't know whether a behavior is determined or freely chosen. No matter what I claimed, or you claimed, the claim would be open to challenge.

"Deterministic factors forced me to eat the whole quart of Hagen Dazs ice cream." "I freely chose to eat the whole quart of Hagen Dazs ice cream." I can't finally be certain myself, you can't be certain as an observer, whether this dessert debauchery was freely chosen or whether I was compelled (by learned behavior, by insatiable hunger, by an unpleasant desire to make sure nobody else got so much as a spoon full).

But just because we can be sure, doesn't exclude determinism, it doesn't exclude free will. What it excludes is certainty that we can tell the difference.

For purposes of "justice", we make the assumption that the person found guilty of a crime voluntarily, of their own free will, decided to pull the trigger and kill the victim. The defense may suggest that the crime was determined (couldn't be a free choice) by insanity. During the sentencing phase the defense will bring out all sorts of relevant factors showing that determinism was in play from infancy foreword. The prosecution will stick with free will.

We reward scientists who make important discoveries with large prizes, and praise them for all the ideas they invented in their freely operating minds. We don't respond to a wonderful discovery by sneering at them. "Well, of course you discovered a new planet. With your very big telescope and large staff, you were practically forced to discover something. Congratulations, but no cigar."

We make these assumptions, because they "make sense". But we don't know, and that cuts both ways: Neither determinists nor free will advocates can claim proof in the area of human behavior.

Any discussion which begins with "I didn't ask to be born" is highly unlikely to profit anyone. Talk about suffering! Reading this sulky adolescent crap is a pain -- that's for sure. You have defined life as one long wrong involving undue amounts of suffering which is a result of your untimely, unfortunate, and unrequested birth.

No doubt the first words out of your mouth after you emerged from your mother's vagina, all covered with blood and gore, was "How could you do this to me?"

How many decades have you been in this snit about your unfortunate birth and wretched existence?

The issue of "free will vs. determinism" seems to me pointless--not because either side is so obvious, but how can we, in a world which might be deterministic or which might allow for free will, know whether our thoughts are determined or free? If there is ubiquitous determinism, then everything we might do or think is a result of predetermined causes. Why would a deterministic universe include the concept of free will?

In the end, does free will matter? We do what we do, never knowing for sure how we were moved to act. Sure, gun pointed at your head, "Your money or your life", we can pause to decide. Is this determinism or free will? Damned if I know -- but you don't know either. The discussion is a waste of time.

People are always confusing private property (the basic collection of stuff with which we conduct our domestic affairs--coffee pot, couch, broom, shirts, shoes, etc.) with 'capital' property -- factories, railroads, mines, etc. So naturally they assume their favorite blanket and pillow will be nationalized.

Sigh.

But motivations motivate action, and bad motivations can lead to bad actions, and are more likely to do so. — Sapientia

You are right. Good motivation tends to lead to good action and bad motivations tends to lead to bad action.

That was basically my point in the discussion with Hanover. If you're being generous soley as a means for self-advancement, and you're unscrupulous, then the means only matters in terms of efficiency; and therefore, if you were to find a more efficient means, then it would be reasonable for you to replace the means of being generous with this newly found alternative - even if it's morally reprehensible. — Sapientia

Yes. My construction was sloppy. What I should have said was, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." The food shelf that is the recipient of a large gift need not concern itself with motivation to a great degree. They could, of course, dither over the giver's motivation but they don't need to. "Beggars can't be choosers."

A political campaign treasurer, however, does need to look gift horses in the mouth, and are not so beggarly that they can't choose what to accept. A contribution from a hostile party might be a poisoned gift. A college might reject money from a known criminal, for the same reason. Not only the motivation is suspect, but the money itself is suspect.

Why do I care? That is why. And you should too. Actions are important, morally speaking; perhaps more so than other considerations. But they are not the be-all and end-all of morality. Motivation, intention, principles and character are also important. It would often be too little too late if we only cared about actions. What about guidance? Don't wait until the immoral act has already been committed. Try to prevent it. Look for the warning signs. — Sapientia

You are right again, and I do care.

Strict behaviorists (like B. F. Skinner) were uninterested in motivation because, they said, the brain is a black box. We don't know that much about what goes on between sensory input and behavioral output. The output is what we are interested in. One could imagine a good society by following this view, which Skinner did in his utopian novel, Walden Two. It is a nice, orderly, well-behaved society, but monochromatic and morally flat.

I never liked behaviorism, but it has it's virtues. Sometimes motivation is less important than setting up a reward schedule so that people behave well despite themselves.

Most of the time, though, we ought to think in terms of motivations and consequent behaviors. One could say that Donald Trump emits absurd statements because he has been rewarded with excellent polling results. That behavioral model doesn't explain why the other candidates are emitting equally absurd statements and not getting good polling results. Something more complicated is going on.

The motivations of all politicians, all ambitious bureaucrats and churchmen, all aggressive business people, all social climbers, to pick on a large and annoying group, can be examined. One's motivation in doing so is, of course, above reproach (cynical jokey statement). John Henry Cardinal Newman (recently beatified) experienced a rather meteoric rise from evangelical Anglican cleric to Roman Catholic prince. He was, evidently, a very capable fellow and quite ambitious, one supposes. (An American evangelical choir director friend divined that there is a seed of megalomania in the heart of every priest, pastor, and minister of the church. Seems to be true from my experience.)

Motivations matter, certainly, but sorting out motivations and behavior is sometimes a bit like sorting out entrails in a slaughter house. It's a messy smelly business.

I think personhood begins at birth. However, an 8 1/2 month old fetus is a viable infant, probably without any help. Under the circumstances, it would seem like a viable fetus (like 8 1/2 months) is too close to count as a non-person. The closer to the 36th month, the more justification that would be needed to proceed with an abortion. 12 weeks? No justification at all. 28 week viable?? Substantial justification. 34 weeks? If labor can't be induced, do a C-section.

Surveillance-----Surveil the surveilors — Bitter Crank

Surveillance has a long history; everybody does it. I surveil my neighbors all the time. What are they up to today? Three unrelated men and one woman in one house... who's sleeping with whom? Inquiring minds want to know. My neighbors surveil me, as well. "Oh, where have you been?" It's normal.

I assume my government has good reason to practice surveillance. They will tap wires, open letters, put up micro-cameras to keep watch, have people parked across the street with electronic listening gear, and so on. I just don't want one part of the government deciding to do all the surveilling they want without other parts of the government being quite aware of what they are doing, and having the wherewithal to effectively say "NO." There needs to be both legislative authorization, judicial oversight, and citizen awareness.

There also needs to be just cause. Deciding to suck up the entire traffic of the Internet and then sort through it, looking for... something... without telling anybody that this is going on, is a violation of citizens' trust and is flatly inappropriate.

That's what I meant by 'surveil the surveillors'.

The CBC (from Canada) interviewed a conservative religious talk show host about Trump. Trump. Trump Trump Trump. He was remarkable thoughtful.

He said that his constituency (conservative religious talk show listeners) feel so betrayed and alienated, that they do not care what Trump has done in the past. They don't care what sins or crimes he may or may not have committed. They just don't like "politicians" and in their minds, Trump is not a politician.

The broadcaster concluded by saying, "If people don't care about the morality of the people they want to vote for, then this country has bigger problems than who wins the next election."

Generalized label-----Hint: "Workers of the world, you have nothing to lose but your chains."
Form of government-----Decentralized democratic economic government, much smaller state (Hint: "The state is a committee for arranging the affairs of the bourgeoisie.")
Form of economy-----Socialist, worker council controlled; (To become rich is not glorious; it's antisocial)
Abortion-----Legalized, routine medical procedure
Gay marriage-----Personally, don't care. More interested in nurturing happy, long-lasting heterosexual marriages and families, from which healthy society is produced
Death penalty-----No death penalty
Assisted suicide-----Strictly voluntary, person-initiated only, for terminal diseases
Campaign finance-----in existing system, vacate Citizens United, no corporate donations, no PACs, cap private donations at $1000, require free time on broadcast, internet, cable media
Surveillance-----Surveil the surveilors
Health care-----Socialized medicine, single payer
Immigration-----Controlled immigration
Education-----Very good idea; let's try it.
Environmental policy-----Reduced energy consumption, renewable energy production
Gun control-----Made Necessary by arms manufacturers and 2nd Amendment charlatans (Advisory: ArguingWAristotleTiff is neither an arms manufacturer nor a 2nd Amendment charlatan)
Drug policy-----Safe and effective when used as directed
Foreign policy-----Active, much less (but not no) military involvement

If you would like to watch something really dull, watch the House and Senate in session on C-span (the house/senate cable feed). BORING. Clearly, the real action is happening some place other than in the two chambers. In fact, there may be only a few people present listening to whoever is speaking -- except when votes or major confrontations are taking place. But even then, the members behave with a great deal of dignity -- the dignity of undertakers perpetrating some sort of fraud.

I'm opposed to publicly funded popcorn.

But otherwise, I agree with you 100%. Actually I don't think very many American politicians dueled. Hamilton and Burr did. Sadly, Hamilton lost. And Congressman Preston Brooks assaulted Senator Charles Sumner in the Senate chamber, causing what is now termed 'traumatic brain injury'. Sumner never fully recovered. Sumner was an eminent progressive from Massachusetts, and Brooks was a South Carolina pro-slaver. Figures. He felt his cousin had been insulted by a Sumner speech. Otherwise, there hasn't been a lot of bloodshed between American politicians. Getting shot or assassinated is another matter.

A number of states have "sunshine laws" which require all meetings of the legislature (and some of the governor) to be open to the press and/or public. That includes committees and sub-committees as well as the whole body. In Minnesota a plain cup of coffee is about the most a legislator can accept from a constituent or lobbyist.

If the public wants to watch sausage and law being made, they should prepare themselves. Even if the sausage is a quality product, it's still kind of a messy process, fermenting meat and all -- and politics is much the same. They actually make deals, trading off one group's benefits for somebody else's benefits. Don't know how it can be otherwise. One neighborhood wants the road, the next neighborhood hates the road. Something has to give.

Your suggestion has merit. Permanently attach a transmitting video camera to their foreheads. Make it available on broadcast and cable. Put the soundtrack alone on radio. Some of them would benefit from having a ball and chain attached to their ankle, too. Oh hell, just put them into prison once they are sworn in. Either that or the public has to elect honest, less corrupt and corruptible representatives.

My goodness! This is ridiculous. What a sorry state of affairs. — Sapientia

Indeed, but the sorry state of affairs has been brewing for quite some time.

There is a long tradition of political debate being closer to a brawl than Oxford-style debate, and it isn't just in the United States (though, in fairness, the US has brawled more than most).

The cheap seats in the galleries tend to respond more than the expensive box seats do, so politicians tend to play to the 'peanut galleries'. I don't think this is limited to the US either.

The US system makes the political race closer to a sports event, because it is a winner-take-all system.

The dirty old working class "political machines" that made a lot of 'smoky back room' political decisions in the past have been supplanted by non-smoking penthouse canapé-snacking martini sipping types who pull strings from behind the curtain--like the Koch Brothers. Cruz, Rubio, and Trump don't have deep roots in the canapé snacking martini-sipping milieu, like say Carly Fiorina or the elder George Bush had. So their behavior is less refined.

For example, the Pendergast machine in Kansas City, the Tammany Hall machine of New York City or the Chicago machine of Mayor Richard J. Daley (not the later Richard M. Daley) came out of working class immigrant communities that used a 'bare-knuckles' approach to persuasion. The machines weren't all bad -- they could capably deliver good results (for their constituents) and they were able to get civic projects done without excessive dithering. Bridges and tunnels take longer to get built in cities without strong political machines.

There is an inconvenient correlation of machine politics with the usual and customary corruption we have come to know and love--your basic perjury, embezzlement, bribery, and vote-counting errors--that sort of thing.

In the past the sort of thing that is now on TV for the whole world to watch would have taken place in a private bar room among cigar-smoking political bosses.

Like making sausage and law, some of these things are just not fit to be seen by the public.

Why were the Luddites wrong in the 19th Century? — ssu

The Luddites are irrelevant here. Talking about the limitation of techno-optimism has nothing to do with Luddite-ism. I'm not a Luddite. I'd love to have a robot that would be both my auto and my chauffeur (I can't drive). I think a lot of people would like that. I look forward to intelligent appliances like cooking stoves. Why can't a stove tell when something is too hot and reduce the heat? This isn't a rocket science problem -- its a matter of sensors and processors. But a smart stove or a clever refrigerator isn't a revolution.

Hence the question about techno-optimism is a lot more about economic-optimism than usually acknowledged. — ssu

Yes, absolutely. Which is why Gordon is pessimistic about techno-economic optimism. His prediction for the next 25 years is slow growth, but growth none the less--maybe 1.1% - 1.3% annual growth (and this is for the US/Europe/Japan -- not China or India). He believes that one of the 'headwinds' that will keep growth low is the highly disproportionate pile-up of wealth in the very rich that top 1, 2, or 3%. They can't and aren't going to consume enough to create a lot of demand, and they have so much of the wealth tied up under their control that the rest of the population does not have enough wealth to spend a way to higher growth rates.

There will be demand, of course, but the kind of innovations that are likely are not the kind that recast society and generate tsunamis of new wealth -- like broadcasting, railroads, electricity, telecoms, autos, and so forth did. A new car that can back itself out of the garage, drive you to the office, and then come back home to deliver children and spouses during the day (all by itself) is still a car. It's not the revolution that moving from horses and foot traffic to autos was. Yes, robot cars will require some new infrastructure, but it will be much more modest than building the superhighways, roads, streets, and parking ramps in the 20th century.

The other reason he sets a fairly low limit on growth is that it takes around 50 years for a really important innovation to mature economically. The huge innovations of the late 19th century have matured. The personal computer has matured. (It has gotten smaller too, and been integrated with telephones). The Internet is still fairly new, and there aren't any huge innovations on the horizon that are going to mature in the next 25 years. That might happen in the 25 years beyond his predictions. But then there is global warming to factor in.

I haven't finished reading his book, but I think the upshot is that both pessimism and optimism should be guarded. Holding our own in the next 25 years might be THE major achievement.

I have always been opposed to gambling, nor do I like to gamble. I would imagine that gambling has always operated pretty much the same way -- make bets until you lose whatever you have to lose -- whether it was at a mafia run joint, an ad hoc back room operation, the first class casino with hotel and restaurants attached, a high-end luxurious casino, 'charitable' pull tab operation, or state operated lottery. In all cases the name of the game is exploitation of human vulnerabilities.

Running any kind of gambling operation is unethical (unless one is playing for chips without value). It doesn't matter to me whether it is the local AIDS charity, the state, or Murder Incorporated. It's all bad, all the time, in all ways, everywhere.

I think American states got into the business of being the citizen's bookie because it was becoming more difficult to collect sufficient taxes in the face of conservative opposition. Gambling appealed to legislatures because it is sort of voluntary, has relatively low overhead, and the take can be adjusted as needed. Minnesota devotes some of the the "legacy amendment" income from gambling to arts and conservation. Everybody likes getting grants of course, but generally speaking, this is a pretty regressive tax. There's no definite connection between buying a lottery ticket (or a hat full of them) and benefitting from either arts grants or conservation programs. Those least able to afford gambling suffer disproportionately. I don't know that the wealthy are any more resistant to gambling's seduction than the poor, but they have more resources to lose.

If people always lost, or always won, gambling wouldn't be very attractive. The strongest method of reinforcing a behavior (and generating excitement) is a variable schedule of reinforcement (VSR) -- sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, on an unpredictable basis. VSR works on pigeons, rats, and PhDs alike.

The best way for the state to obtain the funds it properly needs to provide services citizens want is progressive taxation without loopholes for wealthy people to escape the taxman with.

There's no distinction between revolution and refinement. — Hanover

Semantics.

I also question anyone who says that human ingenuity has largely run its course. When I was a kid, we had a complex network of cans and kite strings to communicate — Hanover

Nobody said anything about human ingenuity having run it's course. What I said was there have been revolutions in human activities that can't be repeated, simply because they were done and were successful. There is no point in extending electricity to 99.9% of households in the USA because they have been hooked up to the electric grid for 50 to 100 years, already. There is nothing unhappy about the successful technical revolutions like we have seen in communications, sanitation, and transportation, etc. Those revolutions are over, and that's great.

Even someone with a rotary phone can understand that. At least, people with rotary phones used to be able to understand. Apparently there is something about the old rotary phone that is unhealthy -- sort of like lead poisoning.

What do you know about fields of innovations that are needed that would be revolutionary and haven't already seen a great deal of progress?

it might make sense for all you bleeding hearts to contribute (if you aren't already) instead of just gripin — Hanover

Absolutely, voluntary contributions above and beyond non-voluntary contributions help. Bleeding hearts of all makes and models should definitely contribute and get beyond bitching and carping. I give, but I haven't gotten beyond bitching and carping, but my b. and c. is much calmer now than it used to be.

My position is that (1) fairness dictates that those who have earned their money should keep their money — Hanover

Shifting ground here a bit, from social and economic justice to long range estimates of economic activity...

Robert J. Gordon argues in his book, The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War (Princeton University Press, 2016) that the disproportionate wealth controlled by the 1% "is a headwind which will lessen the benefits of innovations..." This is so, he thinks, because this pool of wealth is not circulating, not investing in new products and services in the manufacturing sector, not buying new products and services in the domestic sector. The wealth is not entirely idle, but it is not working productively, either.

If you like economic and social history, Gordon's book has some good stuff in it. Aside from various headwinds, he is the opinion that the major, non-reproducible, great inventions have been made, and new, great inventions are unlikely to be made in the next 25 years, at least. Why?

Because the great inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries transformed life in such fundamental ways. Once people ride in machines and not on their own feet or on the feet of horses, that transformation is finished. Even if future cars rest on anti-gravity devices instead of wheels, it's a refinement, not a revolution. Once houses are connected to the network of gas, electricity, telecoms, water, and sewer, the transformation of shelter is largely over. Putting satellite dishes and solar panels on the roof is a refinement, not a revolution. Once you have developed effective sanitation, antibiotics, cancer treatments, and other effective medical procedures, the rest is, again, refinement.

Boosting economic activity for the billions of people in the world, or the millions in the developed world, requires not innovation but a greater volume of money moving through the economy, and that means loosening up a substantial portion of the wealth locked up by the 1%. (BTW, "loosening up" doesn't require "us" taking it away from "them"; it could mean inducing them to invest in manufacturing and consumption rather than financial instruments.)

I would rate the likelihood of loosening up a few hundred billion or a trillion dollars as unlikely.

Did you go to Ash Wednesday services? Where the priest dips his forefinger in a mixture of oil and ashes (burnt palm leaves from the previous years Palm Sunday service) and pronounces the momento mori over you: "Mortal man, remember you will die; from ashes you have come and unto ashes you will return..." as he makes a large black gross on your forehead. You know, Christians are reminded rather regularly that death is their guaranteed destiny, and at the same time, they are reminded of the possibility of salvation. As Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for everything. A time to be born, a time to live, and a time to die. It just doesn't frighten me. Sorry.

I am totally unafraid of dying. (I just don't want to be there when it happens.)

So Darth, how are you doing with your ever-present terrified fear of death these days?

"It's getting late, so I'll take a crack at the text at the link provided in the morning.

If, that is, I live through the night. I might be dead by morning. Oh my god, how can I sleep knowing that I might die at any minute?" Screams, runs howling into the night, accidentally falls off a bridge and dies in the Mississippi River. "See, you just never know. Well, it's all over now. I'm dead. Fortunately, the dead are able to see the futures of the living. I now know when you, Darth, are going to die. And how, where, and when. Surely you want a hint or two, to relieve your desperate fears of dying? I could tell you, of course, but then... OK. I'll give you a hint. Yes. You're definitely going to die. That's the good news. The bad news is that long before you die, you will grow tired of Terror Management Theory. You will, however, fall in love with 583 additional crackpot theories and abandon them in due time.

There are several heroes in the Middle Earth Trilogy. To my way of thinking, heroes have to be mortals--their lives must be subject to loss. Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel are not mortal. Elves are not mortal. Hobbits, dwarves, and men are mortal. Only those three are potentially heroes.

Aragorn and Frodo are the two great heroes in LOTR, and of the two, Frodo is the greater hero. What elevates their heroism from minor to great is their struggles aim, duration, and intensity. Aragorn endured a lifetime of lonely hardship in service to Sauron's containment and defeat. Frodo, whose peril in relation to his potential gain, was the most disproportionate, had his role thrust upon him. He was "meant" to bear the ring into what might be everlasting suffering, and his fate didn't include a guarantee of success. Further, there was no great reward promised. Aragorn had the reward of marriage and rule of the united kingdoms if he succeeded.

There are numerous minor heroes: Arwen for one. Arwen did not serve in battle, but she surrendered immortality in order to marry the man she loved, Aragorn. (Take that, Edward VIII, you ain't got nothing on Arwen -- you abdicated your figurehead throne for a two-time loser, Wallace Simpson. It isn't like you saved England from the Huns, or something.)

Samwise, Merry, Pippin, Gimli, and Boromir are all minor heroes. Sam is in between great and minor hero. He shared Frodo's trials most intimately, and he had chosen to go with Frodo. Even though it wasn't his fate to complete the task, he helped Frodo all the way to the end. The remaining mortals all advanced the cause of the Ring bearer (even if Boromir caved in to temptation, he did recover his senses after he failed.) There are several characters from the Mark who are minor heroes, too. Not that they weren't brave, but the plot didn't give them the role of Great Hero.

All of the heroes feared death and had to resist the terrors of death nearby.

Can the LOTR be said to model heroism for human beings in the 20th or 21st century?

First, in Tolkien's view, heroism is not a flight from death, not a triumph of the ego. It's the triumph of sacrifice over ego, and the offer of death for victory. The military and the Church both look at heroism the same way: Military heroes and religious martyrs give up their lives (and not by blowing themselves up in a concert hall). Saints spend their lives devoted to the homeless, the hungry, the dying, the sorrowing, the imprisoned; they give up the comfortable lives they could have led. Soldiers get medals -- often posthumously -- for leading the charge against the enemy, or for selflessly covering a grenade with their body and dying, but saving their comrades.

As for the glory of heroism enduring beyond death, many people perform acts of heroism and are forgotten, or are never named because the witnesses are dead. The hero didn't first calculate, "Let's see, how many people are going to notice this magnanimous sacrifice on my part? It has to be at least 300, or it's just not worth it." Or, there is evidence of people saving others, even though their efforts would be lost to history, as far as they knew. (Nobody reported it, it was surmised from the evidence.)

When Becker says humans are narcissistic, I don't think he means that we are inevitably selfish pricks. — darthbarracuda

Well, some people are dead ringers for "inevitably selfish pricks", as they repeatedly demonstrate. SOBs. Trying to steal my inestimable glory, they are.

He means that every single action we do is processed in the first-person perspective. Things in the environment around an agent are seen as tools or nutrients for the person, for the self. The self is one of those ever-present phenomenons that we are so fearful to letting go of (death). — darthbarracuda

What about all those mirror neurons one hears so much about these days?

Becker can think what he wants; I just don't agree with him that we are quite as narcissistic (in the way you used it, not that we are all selfish pricks).

It's for that reason that I keep asking "what have you done to correct the problem"? — Hanover

"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that anything I might say in response is likely to be seized upon and deliberately misconstrued by devious agents who are known to be operating in these parts..."

As I see it, we're an army of millions of people fully capable of resolving this problem, but instead we turn on each other and point to others and ask why they're not doing enough. — Hanover

Right! "Hanover: Here's your volunteer activities for the week -- only 1 hour each day! What a deal!"

Monday -- patch potholes on Broadway. Bring a shovel. Be there 15 minutes early.
Tuesday -- feeding hospice patients - bring a clean spoon this time. There were complaints.
Wednesday -- bailing out a backed up sewer -- bring a bucket and some hand sanitizer (about a gallon)
Thursday -- police duty at a riot -- bring an assault rifle.
Friday -- cooking at a shelter -- bring a pot.
Saturday -- more patching potholes -- no rest for the wicked. Bring some asphalt.
Sunday -- janitorial duty at the food poisoning clinic - bring a mop.

If it was just the homeless or just food insufficiency, voluntary efforts could conceivably solve the problem. But it isn't. Governments and NGOs at all levels provide an array of essential services which make life reasonably pleasant and secure and which cost more than workers could conceivably pay for collectively--since they don't keep much of the value they create in their work. We have to reach into the assets of those who accumulate wealth without working--that 1% again. Karl Marx, Value, Price, and Profit

Much of what you said I agree with — Hanover

That is a problem I can fix.

I think you have to make a leap, though, to suggest that Christianity suggests that the government is properly empowered by God to seize assets of the rich and to redistribute them. I'm generally opposed to any attempt to equate political positions to religious positions. Your post hints at "God is on the Democrats' side," which is as dangerous as saying God favors the Republicans (which is no doubt preached in certain churches). That seemed to be what was intimated in your post, but I could have over-read it. — Hanover

I wasn't trying to weasel government-managed redistribution of wealth out of Christian theology. The very early church shared everything in common -- supposedly -- a communism of consumption. They could afford to do this because they thought the Kingdom of God was about to arrive, so their earthly goods were of no concern. My guess is that this happy party came to a screeching halt as soon as they figured out that the world wasn't becoming heaven.

No, the idea of government redistribution of wealth (as opposed to a charitable distribution) seems to be a contemporary secular concept. As far as I know, the idea doesn't come directly from Marx either. Marx's writings don't seem to back up reforms like a government managed redistribution of some wealth from the capitalist to the working class. Marx was interested in the complete reorganization of society. Marx didn't wish capitalists to be more generous, he wished for their disappearance (as a class and as a function).

Social amelioration through wealth redistribution is an idea that comes from reform minded marxists--a group that hard core marxists are forever deploring and castigating. This kind of social democratic reform is much more common in European countries, and has not been firmly established in the United States. That is why single payer health insurance is such a horror here, and Obamacare is nigh unto the end of the Republic, in some quarters. Roosevelt's new deal reforms, enacted partly to forestall potential uprisings and partly as humanitarian programs, were challenged in the courts, and are still under attack (like transferring Social Security to the stock market). Medicare and Medicaid were also fiercely resisted after their enactment.

Wealth, concentrated or as evenly distributed as frosting on a cake, is a social product. The rich can not generate wealth alone. It is the activity of the 99% that creates the wealth of the 1%. The social production of wealth is what justifies the social redistribution of wealth through high rates of taxation.

Distribution of wealth is a reform, not a revolution. It's practical: the only way enough resources can be obtained to make significant improvements in society is by taxation, and it is appropriate that very wealthy people should pay taxes at a much higher rate than poor people. It is appropriate that the government should take a substantial share of deceased rich people's wealth (like the richest 1%) to compensate the producing class for the wealth they created but did not proportionately benefit from.

High rates of taxation do not cause rich people suffering (they remain rich after they pay their higher rate of taxation) and it benefits the entire society -- everyone from the lumpen proletariat to the haute bourgeoisie. How does high taxation benefit the haute bourgeoisie? Simple: Idle money redistributed from the enormous stores of the rich and given to working people stimulates economic activity--immediately, which ultimately (and fairly quickly) benefits the rich. Economic stagnation is hell for poor people and means a poor growth rate for the rich.

The rich do not have an absolute right to the socially created wealth which they would like to have under their exclusive control, free of any tax obligation.

Many Christians like to focus on intention, or contemplated but not completed actions. For instance, if you are thinking about screwing your neighbors wife, you are an adulterer. If you covet your neighbor's new weed whacker, you are a thief. If you hate Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, your are a murderer. By this set of moral standards, we are all not only sinful, but rather depraved sinners.

I favor another set of moral standards: You either did it or you didn't. The standard for the final judgement (Matthew 25:31-46 is "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." You either did or you didn't. Thinking about it doesn't count.

We should not worry about other people's motivations (within the context of morality). What are they actually doing? Are they being generous for tax purposes? What do you care--the food shelf is able to buy all the food they need. Were they being generous to the hospital because the new wing would bear their name? What do you care -- the expanded mental health unit is now open and helping people. Did they give you money to go to college just so you would get the hell out of town and leave their daughter alone? What do you care? You now have a BA in English Literature--ring a ding ding. Did the rich woman give a hand full of jewelry she would no longer care to be seen dead wearing? What do you care? The homeless shelter now has a new furnace, new roof, and beds for everybody to sleep in.

By the same standard (Jesus' preaching) rich people have a major problem: their wealth.

The rich young man knelt down, and asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good. 19 But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.’[a]”

20 “Teacher,” the man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”

21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 At this the man’s face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

By this standard, the rich can not get into heaven unless they part with their wealth. ("A rich man can no sooner get into heaven than a camel can get through the eye of a needle.") Jesus takes this position because salvation and wealth are incompatible: "Where your treasure is, there also is your heart." Of course, one doesn't have to be in the top 1% to have moral problems with wealth. One can be a small-practice lawyer, for instance, or a used car dealer or a burger flipper and fall into the sin of avarice (the love of money).

Nobody is under any obligation to concern themselves with Jesus' views unless they are baptized Christians, of course -- and many baptized Christians don't spend too much time concerning themselves with Jesus' views either. Nonetheless, What Jesus taught is the principle foundation for viewing wealth getting and wealth having as a moral problem.

This from The Guardian about the discomfort of a meritorious tech unit, Justin Keller, an entrepreneur, developer and the founder of some measly startup.

The residents of this amazing city no longer feel safe. I know people are frustrated about gentrification happening in the city, but the reality is, we live in a free market society. The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city. They went out, got an education, work hard, and earned it. I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted. I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day. I want my parents when they come visit to have a great experience, and enjoy this special place.

The poor dear! After doing whatever he does in well-lit, air conditioned, clean, comfortable surroundings, he get's off the bus after work and what does he see? Suffering humanity! The fucking nerve of these people, displaying their wretchedness where he might see it. maybe smell it.

The Very Hungry Caterpillar. Michael recommended it, and although very thick in parts (because the pages were made of sturdy cardboard), I really enjoyed it. — Hanover

If you liked The Very Hungry Caterpillar you'll love it's sequel, The Very Busy Bee.

Just finished a book on Charlemagne.

We have different definitions of fairness, with yours weighing toward equality and mine merit. That would be my guess if this discussion will follow all others I have had like it. — Hanover

I was going to say that "the question is a matter of how terms are defined", but then, no. It isn't a matter of how terms are defined. Fairness, merit, and equality are cover stories. The real story is about which economic class has enough power to impose its will on other classes, and secondarily, with which class does one identify? It has been said that "Most Americans expect to be rich someday, even if at the moment they find themselves in a rather embarrassing financial situation--flat broke."

Those who are better off also identify with the most exclusive class -- the 1 percenters. The are relatively much better off that most of the people in the country, and even if they are not rich relative to the top 1%, they are comfortable. Together this group represents around 5% - 10% of the population. The top 11% have the wherewithal to impose their will on the remaining 89%.

They're all fat cats, every last one of them, Dem or Republican. Ordinary folks do ordinary things, which doesn't include running for president. — Hanover

This is true, for the most part. Some fat cats are more loaded than others. I suspect that Trump or Bush have rather a lot more money than Sanders, but Sanders no doubt has a lot more money than I do. (If he doesn't, then there is probably something seriously wrong with him.) The Clintons have been working on their Original Accumulation for quite some time. They're not poor.

Trump is too volatile, too 'full of shit', too much a comedian to know what exactly he would do as president. Most of the other candidates, R and D, are pretty predictable. Their predictability is what makes either Democrat a better choice than whoever the Republicans come up with. Why? Because we are likely to get another conservative congress led by Roll'm Back Reactionaries who want to dismantle just about everything progressive since FDR. With an ally in the White house, they would be an unmitigated disaster for the country.

I don't like Hillary, don't like this business of little dynasties like the Bush and Clinton one, and if Hillary was as good a candidate as Obama in 2008, her shelf life hasn't aged well. Still, she has enough progressivity to be an effective plug in the bowels of bad legislation.

I like Bernie Sanders most. Sanders, as a socialist Jew in the White House, might be even scarier to conservatives than a progressive black Muslim born in Kenya serving as POTUS. Sanders might drive Republicans mad. They might all go crazy and run into the Potomac River and drown. At any rate, Sanders would be as effective a plug in the rectum of Republican Policy as Clinton. The conservatives would need a collective colostomy.

It is likely that with either Democrat--or if Jesus Christ were elected for that matter--that gridlock will continue -- which is better than the Republicans having a plug free rectum and dumping their whole program on us.

Not necessarily at the exact same time, but the fact that there were widespread religions and cults surrounding gods that went into the underworld and returned. Orpheus, Herakles, Jesus, Mithras, Gilgamesh, etc all went into the underworld or had experiences that made them face death and survive and become immortal (except Gilgamesh I believe). — darthbarracuda

Mithraism seems like the most competitive of the bunch. The Gilgamesh epic was as remote from Jesus as Jesus is from you (about 2000 years BC). Orpheus, I think (wouldn't swear on it) is fairly far back in Greek legend. There was an Orpheic mystery cult. Herakles is a character in a play by Euripides (and Homer). Which Heracles are you thinking of?

We don't know a lot about any of the mystery cults, like the mystery religion centered around Eleusis, and the two goddesses Demeter and Persephone. In the Eleusinian cult drugs of some sort were used to achieve ecstatic states, probably ergot (a mold that grows on rye). Ergot produces... guess what: lysergic acid.

Christianity was unique, however, in welding the Jewish prophetic and moral tradition to itself, and for it's missionary activity, and Gospel. The Roman gods, mystery cults, old Greek cults, Egyptian cults, and so on didn't provide an avenue to a new life through Christ-like behavior. I'm not knocking them, but they were quite different than Christianity. Plus, Judaism and Christianity were rigidly monotheistic. (the trinity is not three gods. It's a monstrosity which was created to solve one problem and left another one in its wake).

This is a tangent, I realize, but it bugged me.

Thus the resurrection, and the creation of Jesus as a subconscious existential hero. He symbolizes hope, a future, in the face of annihilation, because of his resurrection. — darthbarracuda

I don't know why Jesus would be a "subconscious" hero; I think he's very much a hero of the conscious, decision making, mind.

Suppose there is no precedence of a second term POTUS appointing a JOTSC. I don't know if it ever happened before or not. I don't care, either. Had George II had the unfortunate opportunity to appoint someone in the 2nd month of his last year in office, that would have been just too bad and we would have had to suck it up. Precedence is useful for guidance but no more than that.

As for Trump, I'm disappointed that you would prefer a schlockmeister Trump to any, perhaps very superior, Democrat. As Martin Luther said, "It's better to be ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian."

Haven't read the book, so can't really say too much about his theory. The theory you are presenting, however, is open to fairly sharp criticism.

1.) humans are hopelessly narcissistic — darthbarracuda

Did Becker declare that humans are hopelessly narcissistic, or is that your spin? Are humans hopelessly narcissistic? I don't think so. Most people (out of the 7 billion plus) do not have the option to fulfill many narcissistic fantasies. Most people will be lucky to make it to the grave reasonably old. A lot of people aren't successful in this endeavor.

Most people, parents, working people, etc. forego the pleasures of narcissistic gratification to fulfill the needs and wishes of spouses, children, employers, communities, etc. When they get done doing that at the end of the day, they are tired and go to bed and sleep soundly.

2.) death is the ultimate threat to the ego — darthbarracuda

Yes. Indisputable.

3.) heroism is the ultimate triumph of the ego — darthbarracuda

I'm assuming this is straight out of Becker. I disagree. Per #1, the kind of heroism that most people in the world engage in is a heroism of thankless labor, or alternatively, not very well paid labor. I'm not suggesting that their lives are, end to end, one misery after another, but for Christ's sake, look at what real people actually do: they work rather hard to hold life together, to make the center hold, to keep things from falling apart. Most people do not have the opportunity to be heroes (if "heroism" actually means something).

4.) therefore, one of the prime motivators of human activity is that of heroism. — darthbarracuda

It doesn't follow. It's absurd to say that "one of the prime motivators of human activity is that of heroism". It's reductionistic -- it tries to boil human behavior down to one simple syrup: heroism. The theory is itself is a kind of second rate heroism. "That's it! It's what makes the world go round! I'm a hero! I'm a genius genius! I've discovered the basic mainspring of civilization that nobody had previously noticed! I am the greatest! Gloria to me!" Becker says.

All theories that reduce human behavior to one thing are probably wrong. Humans, like al creatures, are thrust into the world. We, more that most species, have to figure out how to exist in the world. This involves a wide range of strategies. People pursue multiple goals, driven by diverse motivations. Life is complicated.

Christianity fought against the various other mystery religions at the time, who all exhibited demigods who passed into the realm of the dead and came back. Jesus was an existential hero! — darthbarracuda

I don't wish to be rude, but would you kindly name the mystery religions with whom Christianity was allegedly completing, and reveal something about the lives of their demigods.

If Jesus wanted to be a hero, he would have taken Satan up on temptation offered in the desert. He would have accepted the offer of power and glory that Satan was offering. If Jesus had wanted to be a hero, he would not have deflected the disciples when they became overly enthusiastic about Jesus' power (like, he would say after a miracle, "tell no one about this"). Jesus wouldn't have said, "Why do you call me good? Only God is good." Finally, if he wanted to be a hero, he could have tried a little harder to avoid getting crucified. (Obviously God Incarnate didn't need to mess around with human heroism, since once he died he would resume his residence in heaven as the all powerful judge.)

And here I thought you were feeling the Bern BC, but it turns out you're on Cruze control! — photographer

I am feeling the Bern, decidedly, Photographer, but I must say, Cruz's ad is one of the best pieces of poli-advert I have seen in years. It should win a Clio award.

So what? Even if a second presidential term is coming to an end in 10 months, there is PLENTY OF TIME for a nomination, confirmations hearings, and a vote. If the Senate votes no, they vote no -- but there is no reason to not consider the candidate fairly. Give the electorate a chance to choose? They did have a chance to choose, and they chose Obama--a second time.

The ONLY reason the date is an issue is that Republicans hate Obama, and if they could hold back the sunrise and then blame it on the president, they would. They're just being spiteful. Wasn't the Supreme Court's slipping George W. Bush past the 2000 vote count enough of a break for Republicans?

Plus they'll probably lose in November anyway — Baden

Pray that they lose -- big time.

If you think the GOP appears to be in chaos now, just wait. — Cavacava

While you're at it, pray for more GOP chaos.

Well, actually, while you're at it, pray that they all follow their belovéd's precedent and just drop dead.

But see, I can tell from this post of yours that you are intent on arguing with me for its own sake. — Thorongil

There's a lot of that going around these days.

The world is indeed screwed up, and your list of diagnosed conditions is on target. I'm not quite sure that any of that is explained by quantum reality. It seems to me there are simpler ways of getting at this, like, "the golden rule" -- them with the gold make the rules.

My guess is that the Republicans in Congress will do everything they can to not confirm whoever President Obama nominates. They are the party of obstruction and destruction. (Ronald Reagan nominated a Supreme Court Justice in Reagan's last year, and the Democratically controlled Congress managed to confirm the appointment.)

Republicans are obsessed about Obama. Scalia's demise will raise their hysteria a notch or two. Supreme Court nominations are always an issue in elections. In my youth it was the Warren Court, after Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1953–1969 that the conservatives hated. It was a solidly liberal court, and the right wing absolutely despised the court for Brown vs. The Board of Education (desegregation); Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, one man one vote which dealt with reapportionment and the over-representation of rural voters and under-representation of everybody else; Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, establishing the rights of indigent defendants to representation and to the rights of people being taken into custody (the Miranda warning); First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rulings expanded bill of rights coverage to the states, expanded the right to privacy, and laid the groundwork for Roe Vs. Wade; mandatory school prayer was ruled unconstitutional.

A lot is at stake. The liberals now have a court that justly deserves loathing for rulings such as Citizens United and for future rulings that may further harm the rights of the people, and may further enshrine the privileges of the plutocratic, cleptocratic, antidemocratic class.