Geeks In the Public Forum? 326
cedarhillbilly writes "In his new book The Geek Manifesto, Mark Henderson 'pleads for citizens who value science to force it onto the mainstream political agenda and other main walks of life.' There are some important questions that need answers: 'Do you have to give up your tech practice to undertake a public role?' Also, 'Is political life (compromise, working by consensus, irrationality) antithetical to the "geek" values?'"
The Guardian's coverage sums up the idea nicely: "What I desperately want is a move toward an evidence-based culture in politics. Politicians are free to say: 'I think people on drugs should be punished because drugs are immoral.' That's a moral call, albeit a rather stupid one in my opinion. What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not a moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."
Technocrats (Score:5, Interesting)
In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.
Re:Technocrats (Score:4, Insightful)
And the environmentalists want environmentalists running the system, the banks want financial people running the system, large corporations want businessmen running they system, and so on and so on. Yea, we all wish that politicians had our point of view, but it's not realistic. To get elected, you need to be able to convince more than half the population that you would properly represent them. If you're too focused in one area, then you'll have a real hard time getting support from people not in that area.
Re:Technocrats (Score:5, Funny)
What's always surprised me is why we can't have more pimply-faced, basement-dwelling virgins running the system.
Re:Technocrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Will that ever work? Doubtful. Is it becoming more likely in the US? Hell no. But it is more complicated than "I want politicians who think like me," and it's disingenuous to paint this that way. We would be much better off if we didn't have the witch hunts, security theater, censorship, racism, and all other unfortunate little problems caused by people thinking with their crotch and not their head.
Re:Technocrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Put another way, it isn't "I want politicians who think like me", it's "I want politicians who think". The idea is, in my mind at least, that any proposed course of action should have evidence, or at least a verifiable theory, to back it up. And, almost more importantly, results should be reviewed and fed back into the system, something that seems sorely lacking in today's political climate. A technocracy or meritocracy can have division over what is the correct course of action, just like you can have two software engineers who are both experts in their field disagree about the best way to solve a problem. It isn't about finding the one true path forward, it's about evaluating the possible paths based on reality instead of ideology.
Re: (Score:3)
Put another way, it isn't "I want politicians who think like me", it's "I want politicians who think".
This was beautifully stated.
A technocracy or meritocracy can have division over what is the correct course of action, just like you can have two software engineers who are both experts in their field disagree about the best way to solve a problem. It isn't about finding the one true path forward, it's about evaluating the possible paths based on reality instead of ideology.
Those two engineers may debate each other about which of (let's say) 3 good solutions is the best one. They would agree that the other possible solutions (which could number in the millions) are all faulty and wouldn't waste time and resources trying to implement them. That's the important part. We'd end up with either The Very Best Possible Solution EVER ... or at least a very good one. That sounds good to me!
If politics worked this way, we'd have all learned the lesson o
Re: (Score:3)
This is simply a call for factual truth. If a politician wants to make a statement of fact then they must be able to prove that statement, if they can not, then they should be held liable and pay a penalty, either a fine, imprisonment of both, considering the responsibility they are seeking to take and the consequences. Politicians are free to voice opinions no matter how crazy but they should be bound by statements of facts and of course promises they make.
Contractually any promises they fail to keep sh
Re:Technocrats (Score:4, Interesting)
You can still have Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians... but it is about using fact-based arguments over appeals to emotion.
They derive opposite conclusions from the same facts, so I don't see where that gets us.
That's his precise point. They do that because they are ideologies. For example, libertarianism is the ideology that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want unless there is a necessary and compelling reason to forbid something. The only necessary and compelling reasons it recognizes are those things which infringe on the freedoms of other people who do not consent. For example, you are free to drink alcohol whether or not I think that's a good idea, because it is your body; but you are not free to drive drunk and put me in danger I didn't ask for.
Whereas a few extremely conservative people may feel that drinking is always wrong. They cannot be satisfied with simply not doing it themselves, because that gives no cause for controlling their neighbors, so they want alcohol to be illegal. They lost that battle a long time ago, and banning alcohol outright is no longer politically possible. So instead they implement local laws that make no sense, such as forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sundays (as though one couldn't stock up on Saturday).
Both of them are looking at the same thing: the act of consuming alcohol. All competent observers who watched you drink a beer would report the same data. It is the ideology that drives their responses to it. This is the difference between a conclusion and a response.
I also have wanted evidence-based politics for a very long time. Under such a system, we could not have a War on (some) Drugs without first demonstrating that it is a law-enforcement issue and not a medical issue. It would also have to be demonstrated that there is no such thing as responsible use and therefore all use of certain substances is always undesirable. Finally, it would also have to be proven that making drugs illegal prevents users from easily acquiring them through the black market, otherwise there is no point. Because all of those things are easily falsified, such a policy would not exist under that system.
The real frustration of modern politics is that so many people are at such an immature emotional level that they insist on continuing policies in the face of contradictory facts. It's as though they think that if you just try hard enough you can divide by zero. When you show them contradictory evidence in abundance, they get angry instead of saying "perhaps I should change my mind." For emotionally immature people, that would mean a victory for you and a loss for them, because they honestly believe they would be submitting to you personally for pointing something out and not to the truth. Thus politics is reduced to popularity because that's a form of brute force -- you have more numbers than me so it doesn't matter if you're wrong, you still get your way.
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address (emphasis mine)
Re: (Score:3)
You can still have Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians... but it is about using fact-based arguments over appeals to emotion.
They derive opposite conclusions from the same facts, so I don't see where that gets us.
That's his precise point. They do that because they are ideologies. For example, libertarianism is the ideology that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want unless there is a necessary and compelling reason to forbid something. The only necessary and compelling reasons it recognizes are those things which infringe on the freedoms of other people who do not consent. For example, you are free to drink alcohol whether or not I think that's a good idea, because it is your body; but you are not free to drive drunk and put me in danger I didn't ask for.
Here's the rub (aside from your other points): You are not free to drive drunk... But what's "drunk"? Failing a field sobriety test? A BAC of .05? .08? Any readable BAC? Is it legal to pull someone over (or set up a checkpoint) specifically to test for drunkenness?
How far in advance is it legal to require someone to not drink newly purchase alcohol (via restricted hours/day of sale)? Any time Sunday? Only 2AM to 6AM each morning? Never? How long should a person have to age before being allowed to
Re: (Score:3)
These laws were ALL put in place to try to reduce the chances of someone either directly injuring themselves or others, or being too drunk to drive, getting behind the wheel and injuring themselves or an innocent bystander (thus infringing on their rights).
None of the laws you listed (other than those related to BAC) have to do with driving. The blue laws (Sunday and late night drinking) are because some people think you shouldn't drink. Has nothing to go with driving or hurting others. The age thing is similar...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More often than not, scientists falsify their results to get ahead.
Your statement asserts that more than half of scientific results are deliberately falsified. Bullshit.
There are, of course, a few who might deliberately falsify results, but they are a tiny minority. They are also always caught out in the end. Scientists know that the truth will always win for any testable hypothesis, and the idea of faking results is ludicrous.
It's depressing, albeit unsurprising, that you were modded "insightful". The article which was linked to in the slashdot story you linked to was
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Technocrats (Score:4, Insightful)
sure but thats not the only issue. There is also the question of ideology. I think everyone would like to see 'technocrats' in power. The problem is that who counts as a technocrat does come back to ideology... the ideology of what government policies should even be trying to accomplish...because that is not a valueless question, or even a purely technical one.
Lets go back to "drug policy", since its my favorite...from the original post:
"I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that."
Its an interesting example but, it rests on that first statement "I want to do X". Well how do we determine that X is a good thing, and something that the government should be doing? What is their goal? What is it that they are intend to do?
Is it the governments job to protect us from our own bad decisions? Is it their job to enable us to live in freedom as we choose, or is it to build an orderly society that gets things done. Is it more important to build forward or to garauntee liberty? When these come into conflict, ideology will deterime which evidence is important.
Even if you were to make a technocratic argument that liberty is the most efficient way to achieve the goals of an orderly society that gets things done, it still can't answer whether that should be the goal. The goal itself has to come from ideology.
What an elitist (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Isaac Asimov
Re: (Score:2)
There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated
Political scientists think the same one vote that some monkeys are inbred
Majority rule, don't work in mental institutions
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions
What are we left with?
A nation of god-fearing pregnant nationalists
Who feel it's their duty to populate the homeland
Pass on traditions
How to get ahead religions
And prosperity be a symbol to culture
-- Fat Mike, NOFX The Idiots Are Taking Over
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated Political scientists think the same one vote that some monkeys are inbred Majority rule, don't work in mental institutions Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions What are we left with? A nation of god-fearing pregnant nationalists Who feel it's their duty to populate the homeland Pass on traditions How to get ahead religions And prosperity be a symbol to culture
-- Fat Mike, NOFX The Idiots Are Taking Over
If Fat Mike would like to make statements decrying anti-intellectualism, he should first learn to compose a coherent sentence.
Re: (Score:3)
If Fat Mike would like to make statements decrying anti-intellectualism, he should first learn to compose a coherent sentence.
No argument against what the poet said, so you resort to lowest-common-denominator, ad hominem attacks on his sentence structure?
Ever hear of artistic license? [wikipedia.org] Obviously not.
Re: (Score:3)
If Fat Mike would like to make statements decrying anti-intellectualism, he should first learn to compose a coherent sentence.
No argument against what the poet said, so you resort to lowest-common-denominator, ad hominem attacks on his sentence structure?
Ever hear of artistic license? [wikipedia.org] Obviously not.
Oh, it was a poem? I think you need to preface it by saying something like, "Yes, Fat Mike is literate - this is just a poem, which is why it has only the most tenuous connection with English grammar." Otherwise it just looks like any other idiot on the internet who can't put more than two words together coherently. It would be especially helpful for those of us who have no idea who Fat Mike is, what NOFX is, or what The Idiots Are Taking Over is (nearly everyone).
NOFX is a band with a singer. Bands with singers tend to write lyrics. Lyrics tend not to resemble the composition and structure of dissertations.
What would be especially helpful would be for you to recognize when you are unfamiliar with something being referenced, and respond to that by taking the seconds needed to Google it. That's if you care enough about it to complain.
Re-read your post I quoted. You're too prideful to admit you had no idea what you were talking about when you could have easil
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, it was a poem? I think you need to preface it by saying something like, "Yes, Fat Mike is literate - this is just a poem, which is why it has only the most tenuous connection with English grammar." Otherwise it just looks like any other idiot on the internet who can't put more than two words together coherently. It would be especially helpful for those of us who have no idea who Fat Mike is, what NOFX is, or what The Idiots Are Taking Over is (nearly everyone).
I take it your Google is broken? Mine seems to be working fine...
Re: (Score:2)
Political scientists think the same one vote that some monkeys are inbred
should read
Political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred
So, if that's the one you are complaining about, mea culpa. That's what I get for trusting a website for song lyrics.
Re:What an elitist (Score:4)
Strange that Asimov spent a lot of time writing about corrupt societies (Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun, The Galactic Empire).
The problem is that a lot of these "technocrats" or regulators as we call them in the U.S. are horribly, horribly corrupt. They use their knowledge not for the benefit of the common man, but for their own personal benefit (and landing future jobs with RIAA or Bank of America). The regulators are in bed with the industries they are supposed to be regulating. And the industries are buying-off the regulators to get favors or exemptions (like MF Global not being prosecuted for stealing funds from customer accounts).
I would sooner put the power in the hands of the People who, in their everyday market decisions, will decide which products succeed and fail. It's the closest thing we have to democracy with people "voting" directly with their dollars.
Of course we need agencies like OSHA to protect the workers, and the EPA to stop dumping of chemicals in waterways, and FTC to keep investment banks (gambling houses) separate from savings banks..... but we should try to keep these things as minimal as possible. When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized.
Re:What an elitist (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course we need agencies like OSHA to protect the workers, and the EPA to stop dumping of chemicals in waterways, and FTC to keep investment banks (gambling houses) separate from savings banks..... but we should try to keep these things as minimal as possible. When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized.
A technocrat in the real sense wouldn't ever do that, because there is no evidence that drinking natural milk is a law-enforcement problem. The only thing a real technocrat would be concerned about is that milk of any kind is labelled accurately so that customers know what they're buying. There'd be nothing for them to do unless misrepresentation/fraud were taking place.
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing a real technocrat would be concerned about is that milk of any kind is labelled accurately so that customers know what they're buying.
Unless there's evidence that people dont' read warning labels (they don't), and if there's evidence that banning has a superior outcome than labeling.
If the technocrat's mandate is "keep as many people healthy as possible", then he could easily eschew labeling for a ban if the evidence indicates that's more productive.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that they feed that natural milk to their kids, and it has a tendency to do severe and permanent damage. Enough damage that we, as a society, say you have to clean that milk up before you sell it.
The solution to that is to prosecute the parents for being negligent, not the farmers for selling milk that was honestly described to the customer.
Any way you care to look at it, going after the farmers makes no sense. If the milk were being sold as "pasteurized" when it was not pasteurized, that would be a reason to prosecute the farmers. But they would be prosecuted for fraud by local law enforcement, not for selling natural milk by the feds.
Re: (Score:3)
>>>Except that they feed that natural milk to their kids, and it has a tendency to do severe and permanent damage.
Bullshit. People have been drinking natural milk for 10s of thousands of years without harm. And besides the sellers of natural milk are strictly regulated for cleanliness. It's probably safer than the homrone-injected pastuerized milk that sometimes has puss floating in it.
Furthermore and most importantly: It's MY body and MY kids. I will decide what to drink, not some unelected st
Re:What an elitist (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Except that they feed that natural milk to their kids, and it has a tendency to do severe and permanent damage.
> Bullshit. People have been drinking natural milk for 10s of thousands of years without harm.
Rubbish. Lactose tolerance in humans is a very recent development. The mutation is only about 5000 years old, and far more recent in some populations. It is also not true that drinking raw milk did not harm people. For example, raw milk was one of the primary vectors for tuberculosis. Illness from milk was one of the leading causes of bacterial infection in pre-industrial farmers and herders. There is a reason that the world adopted Pasteurization as quickly as it did: it saved a lot of lives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
A "tendency"? Nonsense, and any ill effect is due to contamination, not with some inherent property of the milk.
Is the risk of contamination higher with raw milk? Probably, yes. Do the health benefits of the milk exceed the risks? That is for the individual, not the government to decide. Is it any worse than mega-doses of corn syrup, preservatives, artificial sweeteners and hormone-laced meat/dairy products and other "government approved" crap that they sell as "food"?
"[you] as a society" have no right
Re: (Score:3)
Another change I would make is to convert the House (half of the Congress) into a direct vote. The representatives would still be there, debating with one another and crafting the actual bills, but when it came to the final vote, the Reps would step aside and the people would vote directly (via computer). If we had that, TARP and the other bailouts would have never passed..... per the will of the people.
The Senate would remain the same as now (the Member States' legislature).
Re: (Score:3)
Horrible idea. Look no further than California to understand why.
Re: (Score:3)
Thats not so much about the people, as it is about the process. For example I was offering this as a part of my state legislative campaign. But the caveat was that you would have to either read an article with a question on the bottom, or watch a youtube video about the topic in question, before you had the ability to provide me with your vote. This way Its actually providing the expertise along with the personal opinion of the constituency. Furthermore there is no funding requirement for spending increases
Re:What an elitist (Score:4, Funny)
Uh, excuse me, I have a problem with the "Beardo Gets Kicked in the Nuts and Everyone Else Gets $500 Act."
passes 137,000,000 to 1... you guys are jerks.
Re: (Score:2)
"You know I've noticed a certain anti-intellectualism going around this country ever since around 1980, coincidentally enough. I was in Nashville, Tennessee last weekend and after the show I went to a waffle house and I'm sitting there and I'm eating and reading a book. I don't know anybody, I'm alone, I'm eating and I'm reading a book. This waitress comes over to me (mocks chewing gum) 'what you readin' for?'...wow, I've never been asked that; not 'What am I reading', 'What am I reading for?' Well, goddamn
Re: (Score:3)
Technocratically-minded people idealize such a system until that system starts dictating their lives. Good for thee, but not for me is what it would be if you want to be honest about it.
How do you figure? There is no technical evidence-based reason to tell other people how to manage their personal lives. Such a one-size-fits-all plan for everyone is easily shown to be problematic. Just one person who didn't fit the plan would be enough to falsify it entirely.
We already have a system that wants to dictate more and more of daily life. The War on (some) Drugs is a great example, but it's not nearly the only behavior among consenting adults that can result in prison. This isn't coming
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree.
But will they? He says he wants an evidence based approach, but how often is the evidence clear and agreed upon by a large majority? Look at climate change. Look at the medical profession, particular mental health.
You would need some way of judging evidence too. Peer review is fine but even then it is often fooled or simply gets the wrong answer and is later itself reviewed and found lacking.
Democracy is highly imperfect but still the least bad choice.
For y(x) = -1/x, What is Your Policy at Zero? (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.
I haven't read this book and I think the article discussing it doesn't accomplish much aside from briefly agreeing with the author on everything. I think this whole argument is sort of a nonstarter. Oftentimes I try to look at "soft" issues as an ethical engineer and I come to the conclusion that you can approach a lot of hotly debated issues from two sides. And, like the limit as x approaches zero in y(x) = -1/x [wolframalpha.com], you can sort of logically come to two extremely different conclusions. As an oversimplified example, take anti-trust laws. From the left we start with something really innocuous like it's the government's job to protect an individual's basic rights which means that if they wish to enter a market then other individuals shouldn't be able to collude to keep them out of that market by price fixing which means that we should have government regulations against it ... and we're at positive infinity. But if you approach from the right you start with something really innocuous as well like governments should enable individuals to follow their dreams and if their dreams are price fixing so be it because the free market will decide whose product is better and the consumer will be smart enough to buy the new product if it is indeed made better and the price fixing will result in a loss to the colluding parties and so therefore we need to make the free market freer and truly free to alleviate all these issues ... and we're at negative infinity. Both sides are clamoring for one extreme and the engineer is just sitting there saying "Technically it's undefined."
Basically, two strong narratives will ruin an ethical engineer's best intents.
Another topic that I'm not sure how it is addressed is that you only get one experiment. There is no control group for your political policies. On top of that a negative stigma has been attached to people being used as lab rats so don't even try to divide your populace into statistical experiments -- they have to do that themselves. If an engineer does not have absolute control over an environment, he or she usually considers the experiment flawed and the resulting data potentially worthless. This is one of the defining hallmarks of our political process -- no one person controls all of the variables.
I'm left wondering why any ethical engineer would desire to be a technocrat.
I am 100% behind pushing science in the public forum and seeking more data and more models. I will argue, however, that the first decision an engineer makes in office will likely be as emotionally, personally and financially motivated as it would had Governor Evil been there instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Jefferson summed-up your thoughts eloquently: "If it were possible we would have no government. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to government at all."
In other words the ideal would be no government or regulation at all (anarchist), but since that's impractical, we create a minimal government to protect basic rights like not being harmed by others (libertarian). BTW I side with the free market viewpoint, since I don't see why there's need for government to regulate products, except
Re:Technocrats (Score:4, Funny)
Well it would mean we'd get Firefly back, that's for sure.
Policy Analysis (Score:2)
Policy analysis generally uses longitudinal analysis as well as qualitative analysis to provide data to decision makers with the information they need to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, politicians generally don't always pay attention to factual evidence but this isn't the fault of the staff working the projects.
There's also the fact that factual analyses are influenced by interpretation of data. This is always a grey area which is impacted by morals, etc, etc, etc.
This is a much bigger problem than
No chance in hell (Score:2, Insightful)
The same skills that get your laid also get you elected...
Let's do Science to it! (Score:2)
Okay. I understand logical statements, but what we need is Hypothesis, Tests, CONTROL GROUPS, etc. The scientific method should be applied.
I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.
Who gives a flying fuck what you think. If we did science this way we'd still be fighting against flat-earthers. TEST RESULTS, or STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with letting science decide is that science cannot make normative decisions. That is, science cannot tell us whether one outcome is better than another.
Consider water pollution. Science can tell us that if we put *x* mcg of Hg into a stream, *y* number of trout will get contaminated and *z* number of people will get sick, and it will cost the plant *a* number of dollars, which will lead to *b* number of layoffs, and *c* number of people going on food stamps, etc.
What science can't tell us is w
That's Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians say things that they think will cause us to vote for them. When they say stupid shit, the fault isn't so much in the limited realm of "politics" but rather the much wider realm of all of us. Do most people argue in terms of evidence? You're not going to make politics become evidence-based, until you can answer that last question with a confident Yes.
Re: (Score:3)
So then, at this point the question becomes, how do we get most people to argue in terms of evidence (and thus, logic)?
Therein lies the real challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
Test-Driven Government! (Score:2)
Every time some politician gets a brainwave for a law, it needs to be tested in the real world. Laws are the programs for social order. To make them and roll them out without testing is as mad as writing a computer program and rolling it out without testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time some politician gets a brainwave for a law, it needs to be tested in the real world. Laws are the programs for social order. To make them and roll them out without testing is as mad as writing a computer program and rolling it out without testing.
Politicians already know better answers but continue with poor policy because a business interest is benefitting. You'll find that's true of most bad social policy. A better way is known, tested and studied, but since that solution is cheap, easy and effective, it's not instituted because the policy conflicts with some entrenched, costly and inefficient business interest. What you're talking about is great and it's already been done and ignored. What you're talking about would require the end of capital
Lying with math (Score:2)
I agree with Henderson's point. I also think that we should make basic education in statistics part of the math curriculum in schools. When you don't understand statistics, don't know what a standard deviation from the mean is, don't understand the concept of "statistically significant," etc., it's very easy for someone to lie to you by manipulating numbers or misrepresenting study results. Newspaper reporting has never done a particularly good job of accurately reporting study data or scientific findings,
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with Henderson's point. I also think that we should make basic education in statistics part of the math curriculum in schools. When you don't understand statistics, don't know what a standard deviation from the mean is, don't understand the concept of "statistically significant," etc., it's very easy for someone to lie to you by manipulating numbers or misrepresenting study results.
What if the average person doesn't have enough raw brainpower to understand statistics?
Federalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Theoretically, this is one of the arguments in favor of Federalism. Local communities can beta-test new ideas before they go into general deployment.
Doesn't always quite work that way, but that's the idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Theoretically, this is one of the arguments in favor of Federalism. Local communities can beta-test new ideas before they go into general deployment.
Doesn't always quite work that way, but that's the idea.
I think that was one of the understood and therefore unstated goals of the designer of the US system: to enable n parallel experiments in government, with the ability of individuals to vote with their feet if they realized that too many of their local fellows disagreed with their personal theories. Unfortunately, one of the legacies of the civil war was a drive toward national unification, and not just in terms of keeping all of the states in the federation. Over a roughly 50-year period after the war, s
Backwards and dangerous (Score:2)
Politicians are free to say: 'I think people on drugs should be punished because drugs are immoral.' That's a moral call, albeit a rather stupid one in my opinion. What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."
This is a terrifying position. The government should never ever
Re: (Score:3)
Every proposition of "should" is moral, and every decision (and certainly every policy) is based on a proposition of "should" (often, but not always, along with empirical considerations.)
Empirical considerations can tell you what outcomes are most likely from a different course of actions, but unless you have a value framework, you have no way of choosing among those actions.
Re: (Score:3)
What you're saying is that the claim of immorality is actually a factual claim. If that's the case, we can and should measure those social costs and compare them to the social costs of prohibition. If we did that, we'd find that it's prohibition that is "immoral".
Re: (Score:2)
We have laws against rape because the vast majority of the populace does not want to be raped. This is not a moral judgement, it's practical.
Science and politics don't mix (Score:2)
More FORMER scientists in public office is great. But don't start politicizing science. For the same reason you don't want to politicize the military... it has serious negative consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't politicize science - it would sciencify politics.
Stop the thread (Score:2)
We need more nerds/geeks/etc in politics! (Score:2)
I am deeply involved with party politics in my state. There is a deep need to get more technical people involved. Many friends I have talked to either "don't have the time" or think "it's so broken it can't be fixed". I say that the only reason it requires so much time and is so broken is precisely because normal everyday people aren't getting involved.
Politics takes time and energy, but it is run by those who show up. Please take time and get involved. I really couldn't care less which party you choos
Re: (Score:2)
my take (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been working fulltime in an elected, political position for about six years, so I kind of know what I'm talking about here:
If you get the chance, do it. This is a real win-win for everyone when it happens. It will help you do things with real meaning and bring about some important changes. I'm modest when I say that my approach to the office revolutionized it and most of the methods I developed are still in use today, four years after I left. That is the "evidence-based" approach TFA talks about, but more. Geeks in general have a less ideological approach to methods and procedures: We tend to have it easier dropping stuff that doesn't work instead of clinging to it "because we've always done it this way". That does get you into political fights sometimes, when you unceremoniously dump the pet method of someone, but it works and that's where you get the credit and trust you need to push more changes through.
And it also benefits you tremendeously. My social skills advanced greatly in this time. Instead of sitting at a computer most day with occasional meetings, my job suddenly was mostly about meeting people.
Negotiations are the greatest thing, ever. A geek with some negotiation training is most opponents worst nightmare. Most of us don't care enough about our own image to be tricked with the various ad hominem dialectics, and we have a great ability to cut through the bullshit and hit the facts of the matter. And since numbers and math are our friends, we aren't easily fooled by bullshit statistics.
And finally, you will almost certainly find that law is not the evil enemy, but just a different type of code. After a few years on the job, I was regularily discussing with full-time lawyers at eye level. A basic understanding of the law - not of any particular law, but the way the law in general works - is a benefit that will pay you back for the rest of your life.
So yes, yes, yes - if you geeks find an opportunity to enter politics, by all means do it. It doesn't have to be a for-life choice. I would've certainly been re-elected for a third term, but decided not to run again because I'd had enough. It isn't always easy, and sometimes all the politics and the people with their pet agendas and all the personal crap gets on your nerves, a lot. I wouldn't want to do it for live, but it was more than worth it doing it for a few years, and I know that both myself and the office profited from it.
Did I say you should go and do it?
Speaking of the war on drugs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Out-of-country operations are just a cover for counter-insurgency, or for clearing land in Columbia and driving out peasants so multi-national corporations can come in for mining, and resource-extraction, and agribusiness, and macra production, and so on. Which is why you have (outside of Afghanistan) probably the largest refugee population in the world in Columbia. The War on Drugs is not effecting drug production. In fact, it's going up.. But it's going to continue because that wasn't the purpose.
Here in the United States, the drug war has been associated, clearly, with a very sharp rise in incarceration. If you go back to 1980, the prison population in the United States, per capita, was approximately like other industrial countries -- kind of toward the high end, but not off the chart. Now, it's five to ten times as high and still going up. And most of it is drug related (also, length of sentences, and repeated sentences, and so on.)
And it mostly targets what are called the "dangerous classes," the poor, minorities, and so on. So like, black males, is astronomical. On the other hand, drug use among wealthy people is barely prosecuted. So it's a class-based form of control of superfluous population, and for that purpose, it seems to be working.
It's also making a lot of money for commercial enterprises. What some criminologists call the prison-industrial complex has been a pretty substantial development, especially for rural counties, it's a Godsend. When they build prisons, it brings in construction work, jobs, and surveillance. A couple of years ago, maybe still, the fastest growing white-collar profession was security officer, and it gets rid of people you don't want anything to do with. They don't have a place in the current industrial system. And there's also racial elements involved. So you can say the drug war is a success for what its real purpose is, but not for its proclaimed purposes. -Noam Chomsky
Re: (Score:3)
if you go back to the 1980's crime was a lot more rampant, murder rates were double and triple what they are today. the justice system was a joke and criminals were back on the street within hours of being arrested.
in NYC i used to see drug dealers openly selling drugs on the streets with cops 50 feet away saying they couldn't do anything about it
between guiliani and bloomberg they cleaned up NYC. its safe now in most places. and putting drug users/dealers in jail is part of the reason
What you said changes nothing. Jailing people works less well than prevention and rehabilitation, it doesn't not work at all, it just doesn't work as well and costs a lot more. So those people who were locked up, saving the streets of NY, could have been treated or prevented totally and for a lot less money. All legitimate studies point to that. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/buyers/doitwork.html [pbs.org]
duh, politics has always been political (Score:4, Insightful)
the US Constitution was a result of months of bitter argument and bickering. same with politics in almost every democracy on earth. except that you will normally have a party win 40% or so of the vote and they will have to make a coalition with lots of smaller parties and make political deals as a process
this is called life. the US has 300 million people. say almost 200 million adults who can vote. almost everyone will have different opinions on every subject based on their home location, upbringing, etc.
to pass laws that affect different people you have to make political deals
this childish star trek fantasy of an all wise council making the right decision is just a fantasy. there is no right decision for most people
Re: (Score:2)
it might work for a few thousand people, but not for modern nations of tens of millions of people living across millions of square miles, different climates, etc
Re: (Score:2)
the US two party system is in name only. in effect we have what we always had, the small states vs the big states and cities vs suburban/rural areas. the opinions of republicans and democrats will differ based on their state and where they are within their state. there are democrats from smaller states that are more conservative than republicans from north east states
the electoral college is partly the result of this city vs rural political battle
i live in NYC but the political opinions of those who live in
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Heres your evidence (Score:3)
Geeks are as bad as anyone else (Score:4, Interesting)
"That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."
Right there is the problem. Geeks are often, by nature, chock full of hubris. Assuming that you have all the evidence, and that all your evidence is correct, and that you have interpreted the correct conclusion from your evidence, and therefore anyone who questions your evidence should just "shut the hell up", is not conducive to compromise or cooperation. It is precisely THAT attitude that got the U.S. into Iraq, to cite a recent example ("We KNOW there are WMD's, and we KNOW Saddam is going to use them, so we're going to invade Iraq and the rest of you can just shut the hell up.").
This is a constant problem at my office, where the .Net developers are so bloated with hubris that they think their applications are perfect, and always want to blame the DB2 database first when something goes wrong. And they continue to do this, even though evidence indicates that 99% of the time they have a bug in their application.
"Evidence" is not always objective, or correct, and geeks are just as prone to ignore facts as anyone else.
Gotta kill Bulverism first (Score:4, Insightful)
Good luck with that (Score:3)
Technocracy (Score:3)
It [wikipedia.org] didn't gain support back then; it won't gain support now.
The bottom line is that people have an inherent distrust of those who are smarter than them, worrying that the other person might use superior intelligence to take advantage of them. They'd much rather have someone who might be less smart, but that they can understand, in charge than someone who might do a better job, but whose actions are incomprehensible (and, thus, unpredictable) to them. Welcome to our politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom is living without government coercion.
The “Right” to Healthcare is Based on Theft and Coercion
He has a sign on his desk that says "Don't steal, the government hates competition"
Re: (Score:3)
You have a right to healthcare but you don't have a right to have me pay for your healthcare.
This at least is logically consistent with the other rights that have been enshrined in our constitution in that it doesn't impose any obligation on any one else. I can stand on the street corner all day long and exercise my first amendment rights but that in no way imposes an obligation on your to listen to my rantings. My right to keep and be
Re: (Score:2)
Heaven forbid a government collect money in order to enable it to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
>> There is no right to healthcare contrary to what you and others say. If you want healthcare, you pay for it.
If there's no fundamental human right to healthcare, food, and shelter, then there's no fundamental human right to free speech, or association, or any of the those other negative rights that are meaningless when you're dead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there's no fundamental human right to healthcare, food, and shelter, then there's no fundamental human right to free speech, or association, or any of the those other negative rights
How do you figure that?
I can exercise my free speech without forcing you to do anything. I don't need to take your money (through government as a proxy). I don't need to force you to listen, though I can hope you will choose to. At no point does my free speech require that armed men (police) use threats of violence to force you to do anything.
That is the difference between an inalienable human right and an entitlement. If you believe they are the same, you could not be more misguided. Be careful,
Re: (Score:3)
Rights are something that we imagine, I have no right to be not eaten by a hungry lion, just as I have no right to healthcare. What we do have is a set of privileges, which are conducive to the society that we live in, and liberties from individuals or groups of individuals and to do certain things.
That being said, the case could be made that universal healthcare is a national security priority. I mean if it only takes a ferret farm and a few flu samples, in order to make a super viral pandemic that could k
Re:There is only one moral call (Score:4, Interesting)
*sigh*
Yes, in a perfect world with a healthcare system paid out of taxes, people wouldn't do anything adverse to their health. One current hypothesis is that lowering your calorie intake to 20% below what is considered a "normal" intake is actually the best way to prolong your life ; I can't see that happening on a mass scale either.
I think the main point here is that everyone needs healthcare of some kind, statistically speaking, throughout their life. Some people need more than others, often through no fault of their own. Their right to life is often dependent on them getting this healthcare. But their right to life does not automatically give them the income to pay for it. With the economy the way it is, many people are struggling to eat, let alone pay for healthcare.
What you are essentially saying is "I don't give a shit if you die, I want my [pool | car | foreign holiday]."
On top of this, the way that healthcare is paid for in the USA currently makes it the most expensive in the world. Of the G8 nations, you pay nearly twice the cost per head of the next nation, for pretty similar outcomes. This extra cost is pretty obviously because of the nature of your health insurance industry. It seems insane to leave your health in the hands of a corporation who profit the most from denying you as much healthcare as possible. The extra bureaucracy the insurance industry engages in for their campaign to deny their customers treatment undoubtedly increases costs.
A libertarian will usually step in at this point and say "Well then, do away with the insurance companies, let me pay my doctor out of my own pocket, and the prices will drop!". This, alas, does not work well for everyone, as pointed out, because not everyone can afford healthcare, even healthcare that is now cheaper because of market forces. Healthcare is both labour intensive and employs many expensive, low-volume technologies, and neither of these costs can be depressed by mass production.
If you want a cheaper healthcare system, you only have to look to countries with socialised healthcare. Here in the UK, we have very similar outcomes to the USA (they have slightly better cancer treatment, largely because they have a larger population, and this means that drug trials for rare cancers are more viable, we have better cardiac outcomes). But we pay less than half per head what you do, because our healthcare system is run by the government, and the focus is not on making a profit, but providing the best outcomes. When we cut costs, we aren't trying to prop up the bottom line. We cut reluctantly, because we know that cut is hurting our patients, instead of rubbing our hands expecting a juicy bonus.
Well, I can see your point of view. Everyone has a selfish streak. No-one likes to be told what to do. But I would be interested to see how long your resolve to be a self-reliant individual lasts should you contract a medical condition or suffer an accident that outstrips your ability to pay for the care it requires.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So then life is not a right? Ownership of property is not a right? Free speech is not a right? They can all be taken away.
Ownership of property is based on finite goods.
Re:There is only one moral call (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If only it were as easy as merely challenging the foundation of government, the idea that coercion is immoral would have been universally accepted a long time ago.
Stating that coercion is immoral would challenge the very foundation of families, wherein for nearly off human history children have been considered effectively the property of adults.
That's why it's so hard to spread
Re: (Score:3)
Stating that coercion is immoral would challenge the very foundation of families, wherein for nearly off human history children have been considered effectively the property of adults.
A parent is supposed to be a benevolent dictator. This is not something you could ever realistically expect from the State.
That's why it's so hard to spread political freedom - because people have been conditioned from infancy to obey the arbitrary dictates of someone more powerful. They learned from an early age that the rules they were forced to abide by didn't apply to the people making the rules. The existence of governments is merely a side effect of this early conditioning.
It depends. Truly good parents don't condition; they reason. They convince their children to obey their rules by showing that their own rules are good enough for them as well. In other words, they are not hypocrites. They correct rather than punish because they don't get angry easily. They see a need to earn respect by being respectable and personally upholding every virtue they e
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm tired of suffering at the hands of stupidity, and I don't want to bite my tongue over it, anymore.
You have a point. But you're missing another. You may suffer just as much or more at the hands of intellectuals.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah. Replace Politics with Discourse.
Another fantasy, based on the assumption that the human animal is a brain on legs...
Re: (Score:2)
If it worked, maybe. It does not work though.
Re: (Score:3)
The best person I know putting forth the cause of reason and sense is Pope Benedict XVI. Go read his address to the University of Regansburg if you don't believe me. Remember though it's the one that the religions you so deride decided to kill priests and nuns over, because the Pope was stupid enough to tell the truth about how certain religions deny reason.
Lobbyists and Fascists Too (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Religion First (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that we'd be better off without "religous types" such as Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum, I'd like to remind you that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi were also "religious types."
Re:Religion First (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that we'd be better off without "religous types" such as Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum, I'd like to remind you that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi were also "religious types."
They understood the difference between having your personal faith and respecting that others have the right to do (or not do) the same, versus implementing a theocracy.
Gandhi had no problem with the teachings of Christ even though he was thoroughly Hindu. His only complaint about Christianity was that the Christians who practice it are not enough like the Christ they claim to follow.
I personally admire the teachings of Christ. I believe he was better and more advanced than myself, and therefore I should listen to him (as I do with anyone meeting that criteria). I believe that practicing his teachings makes me a better, more loving, more forgiving person. But I cannot stand the way it's paraded around like it's a political issue.
One's faith should be a personal thing. I am spiritual, but spirituality is not something I can give to another person. If they want it, they have to find it themselves in their own terms. If they don't want it, I respect that even though I don't personally agree. In either case, telling someone else how they should live goes against everything I believe in. Selling one's faith in exchange for votes makes that person a sort of whore and calls into question the sincerity of their faith.
Not only do I not care what religion a candidate practices, I don't even want to know. Candidates should be judged on whether they promote freedom and prosperity, not whether they're in the same denominational club as oneself.
Re: (Score:2)
Please re-read your sentence, except this time try substituting "niggers" or "gays" or "jews" for "religious types".
I'd hate to see the laws we'd be stuck with if you were in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want governments to start basis decisions on logic and sense, you'll need to remove all influence from the religious types first. Until then, we're stuck with some pretty depressingly stupid laws.
Yes, because things like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are just horrible public policy. Damned zealots.
Some people seem to think that taking religion away will lead to a utopia for humanity. I think it'll just be replaced with something else... communism, fascism, some new-ism. And it would be hellish.
Re:Religion First (Score:4, Interesting)
Removing the religion doesn't suddenly render you an immoral beast. I think the biggest problem with religion is that it provides an arbitrary justification for any stupid law you like, with a vast sourcebook of quotes that you can bend to support it. Without this, you have to justify your laws solely on their merits.
"Thou shalt not kill" is pretty obvious - everyone has an interest in this one being enforced. If you permit arbitrary killing, you might be next.
Despite "Thou shalt not kill" being quite early in the Bible, the rest of the Old Testament is packed with killing, genocide, etc, all approved of by Jehovah ; it translates more closely to "Thou shalt not murder". Wars of conquest, apparently, don't count as murder when God Says So. Without the religion, it becomes a whole lot more impartial - you don't have any particular groups of people who you can dismiss as being unimportant by dint of their religious beliefs or geographic location. So, remove the God, and now you have fewer justifications for killing, and you only have evidence and logic to fall back on - which really only leaves you with self-defence as a viable justification. If people only killed people in self defence, no-one would kill anyone, because there wouldn't be any people killing anyone except in self defence...
"Thou shalt not steal" is also pretty damn obvious. If you ask a 5 year old "How would you like it if I took your sweeties?", they'll say that's not fair. So if a 5 year old can grasp it, I'm sure it's not really a very challenging leap to ask atheists to support this remaining on the law books.
I think the kind of depressingly stupid laws being referred to are things like :
Tax exemption for religion : even Jesus said "Pay unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" ; ie, pay your damn taxes. Religion is all about the next world, right? So you can chip in your fair share to maintain the mundane and worldly matters we have in this one.
Laws that require Women to be subjugated and marginalized.
Laws that target homosexuals for different treatment, despite the evidence being very clear that homosexuality is a natural variation in not just humans but many other species, and thus presumably part of God's design (if you believe in that sort of thing).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"the people with money are in charge."
I wonder if the lawyers outnumber the rich in the federal legislatures.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Socrates was a lot harder on the politicians than on the artisans:
"When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me."
That sounds a lot like contemporary politics.