Comments on: Mixing Science and Politics (and Economics)

By: Atlas Shrugged

Atlas Shrugged — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 06:00:21 +0000

I’m a huge fan of Ayn Rand’s work, and the objectivist philosophy. Free markets, and free will lead to growth and prosperity. More government and regulation leads to less growth and prosperity.

By: fascination

fascination — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:13:23 +0000

I agree that competition would make our schools better. I hope that we can get a voucher program implemented where I live. From what I have read, where vouchers have been implemented ALL the schools in the area improve, including the public schools.

By: fascination

fascination — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:07:17 +0000

By the way, the book was titled, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism”.
Even if you want to shrug off the data on charitable giving, Mr. Haines, do you really think that Michael Shermer is a greedy and selfish person?

By: fascination

fascination — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:59:37 +0000

Its interesting that so many people on the left see conservatives and liberatarians as greedy and selfish. Arthur C. Brooks is a professor at Syracuse University and a social scientist. He is also reportedly a liberal. Brooks published a book about the differences in charitable giving among conservatives and liberals. The findings were very interesting.
For example, even though liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed-households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed-household ($1600 per year vs. $1227). Conservatives donate more time and are more likely to donate blood. Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of thier incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush. Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average. People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of FOUR TIMES more than people who accept that proposition.
Could it be that conservatives and liberatarians care at least as much as liberals do for the poor, but they just disagree on what the proper role of government should be?

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:22:36 +0000

Well, I agree with your first paragraph (kind of, I do see self-identified libertarians that believe all the things that libertarians believe which include the short list you included).

As for the second paragraph, I would ask you politely to check your description of freedom as “simplistic.” I would be interested in which methods of state initiated force against the general population that you think are preferable to, you know, not having state initiated force against the general population. I’m not quite sure what those would be, what practical parts of society would be better, or how such continued action could be morally justified if you had the opportunity to end such statism, but I would like to hear it. Well, actually I have heard it many times before and indeed that line of thinking seems to be the main theme of the Republican Party so I actually find such political attitudes to be tried-and-failed method, but given your other posts you may have a unique argument to present that I would be genuinely interested in hearing (despite my sarcasm I would be very much interested).

P.S. I take exception to the notion that our system has ‘evolved’ into a complex, convoluted system of ponsi schemes, senseless regulations, prohibitions, tax systems with deductions designed for social engineering, infrastructure that where it is not deteriorating it is completely useless (e.g. Alaskan bridge to nowhere), etc. If anything we have been in the process of slowly devolving into statism and collectivism through a series of ‘not-so-bad’ programs that “oh-you’re-just-exaggerating.”

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:17:46 +0000

I just respond to what I read. I see self identified libertarians who want to wholesale tear down the FDA, EPA,and other regulatory agencies. They want the roads and highways put into private hands. They want markets to operate in a totally unfettered way. They see taxation as theft, and pretty much think all services to the public should be more or less done in a voluntary manner (since taxation is immoral).
I certainly see the problems with the existing system, and they should be addressed. My point is that what we have created since the inception of American society is a series of actions, reactions, social contracts,elections,laws,etc, that resulted in our current situation. I think that it is naive to think that everything can be corrected with a simplistic theory of free market approaches to replace a complex web of social structure that took centuries to evolve, without causing serious unintended consequences.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:05:34 +0000

???

You lament upon our education system in your last sentence, but such passive desperation makes little sense given the opening of your statement. In that opening you clearly lay out the situation that private schools are doing what public schools do better and for less money. You seem to have the answer; the dynamic nature of a competitive system in which each actor (private school) has as its nature individuality, autonomy, and self-reliance/accountability. The producer (the school) is free to produce in any manner that suits them so long as they do not engage in coercion, but their money is theirs to lose as much as their profits are theirs to keep. The consumer (the parents/students) is free to ‘consume’ in any manner that they please as long as there is no coercion involved. The parents/students want the best education for the lowest price. The schools want the largest market share, profits, and reputation as they can possibly get. Each of the respective parties seeking their separate interests, and denied any chance to use force rather than reason, persuasion, and fairness end up producing the highest quality at the lowest price. This dynamic nature is the same force that drives evolution, however unlike evolution nobody gets devoured.

Unfortunately there are many people who get into the wrong frame of mind and view all things as zero-sum; they come to believe that one man’s ability is another man’s loss. In fact the ability of one benefits all who can come into contact with that ability and it should be protected, encouraged, cherished, and celebrated.

By: fascination

fascination — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:34:36 +0000

Joe, I was in the Netherlands last year and they had some very aggresive panhandlers. So that statement of yours isn’t correct. However, it is a beautiful country and I think that some of their policies on some issues are indeed better than ours here in the U.S. If you have never traveled there I recommend it. Especially Amsterdam! :)

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:13:40 +0000

Sir I think you confuse liberty with anarchy.

By: fascination

fascination — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:06:06 +0000

The public schools are awful where I live too, Tim. The local private schools spend less per child than public schools do and yet, where I live at least, they out perform the public schools. Why is that?
America spends more money on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on international tests. By high school age, American children test lower than children in 24 other countries, many much poorer than ours. My husband and I are saving up so that we can put our children in private school when they reach school age. I would hate to put them into the public school here! Our country is definitely doing something wrong when it comes to educating our children. I used to think it was lack of money being spent on education but thats not it. Hopefully one day we can find the answer.