Respect and Religion

[jennypenny]

It may just be semantics, but I think if I "respected" a religion then it would de facto be my religion. What I try to do is "accept" other/all religions, as in, "Your path is not my path, see you if/when we arrive at the same place. Best wishes." However, I might also actively dis-respect a sect or the leader of a sect if I thought power was being evoked out of proportion with love. No different than choosing to break up with a bad boyfriend or oust a tyrant dictator.

I agree that it is partly semantics. Obviously, "respected" was a poor word choice on my part because there seem to be many different views of what that means.

The other issue, which I can see now I did not make clear, was that when I expressed disappointment for the lack of respect for "my religion", I didn't mean Christianity or Catholicism per se. I meant mine personally. I've been open enough on the forum for people to know that I don't fit into any box they might like to stuff bible-thumpin' republicans into, as riggerjack said. I don't follow my church (or anyone) blindly and I don't condemn those who choose a different path, whether it's another religion or no religion. I thought respect should be given to anyone on the forum who has made thoughtful decisions about how they live their life.

I could see someone who didn't know you [7W5] as we all 'know' each other on the forum to reach for stereotypes about your lifestyle choices and disrespect or condemn them. Anyone who's been reading your posts would know, however, that you've given careful thought to how you're living your life and would respect your choice, even if it's one they wouldn't make for themselves. They should know you well-enough to respect you and see that your lifestyle works for you.

That's the kind of respect I meant. As a rule, we're very respectful of everyone's viewpoints. Religion seemed to be the exception where people fell back onto tired stereotypes instead of judging the forum members individually. An argument was made that religion is a net negative and so it's hard to show respect for it because even the best-intentioned members don't make up for the perceived negatives. I would argue that there are other areas where our choices could also be considered harmful in ERE terms--driving an automobile, having babies, living in a bigger house, flying, etc--and yet forum members don't seem to judge others on those measures unless it's related to financial decisions. More latitude is given for other 'transgressions' if that's how they're viewed.

I don't mean to stir the pot again. I was told I was 'flouncing' (and I was a little) so I'll let it go. I just wanted to comment on 7W5's post.

[7Wannabe5]

@jennypenny: I think you did a very good job of explaining, and I do now better understand what you meant, and I do agree.

Furthermore, if we accept the premise that once a book is published and read by others, it is no longer the sole jurisdiction of the author to declare and delineate its entire meaning, intent or purpose, I would suggest that based on my reading, the "heart-mission" of ERE is something like "bring back the squirrels to the public parks of Denmark." Since, I do not see any inherent conflict between the "heart mission" of the Catholic church or most other religions or well-intended secular organizations of which I am aware and the "heart mission" of ERE, it is my belief that all religions and their practitioners should in that sense be "respected" on the ERE forum.

[Riggerjack]

.net loss of what? each human has to choose something to measure, and whatever he chooses determines the conclusions he will reach.

OK, we are talking around each other.

Give me and example of a compulsion/free will (or, if you prefer free market/control economy) problem. That way we can agree to terms before processing.

In general, when talking about improvement, I have an idea based in Austrian economics. Rational action. Not the strawman of rational actors, but the idea that since we can't know everyone's motivations and priorities, we must assume they are pursuing their own interests, As They See Them.

If I am in charge of a project, it is strongly in my interest to ensure that my team recognizes that achieving my goals fits well with their goals.

[BRUTE]

typical examples would include anything with big negative or positive externalities. global warming, noise/pollution regulation, "public goods" like roads, education, healthcare.

brute's point is basically that while he agrees that individuals can best decide for themselves what they prefer, there exist situations or environments where many individuals choosing what's best for them does NOT lead to what's best for everybody, as defined by at least one member of the group. and that's really all it takes, as each member of the group defines and measures "collective good" in their own way.

[Riggerjack]

as defined by at least one member of the group. and that's really all it takes, as each member of the group defines and measures "collective good" in their own way.

And that is the poison pill. When you define "best" by the effect on the least, a few things happen:
The vast majority of motivation for most of the group goes away. While some are driven to succeed, most people are motivated to avoid failure (myself included). Freedom to fail is an essential freedom. Without it, nobody is truly responsible for their choices.

Command, or coercion, becomes more effective, as success is measured in small increments at the bottom, rather than overall gain. In fact, you can have an overall loss, but so long as those at the bottom don't sink any lower, I guess that is a success, of sorts.

When I said free will always has better results, it is because I measure success by net good. As measured by improvement less loss. The most good for the most people, so to speak. So long as losing is reversible, losing can be good. Some people learn better by negative rather than positive reinforcement. If losing means losing permanently, further learning and improvement is wasted. Permanence (good or bad) is waste.

Back to your examples, I'll start with the low hanging fruit: roads. We already have toll roads, and transponders, and electronic payment systems. All we need to do is sell them off to private interests, and let the free-ish market work. At that point, it just becomes another form of capital for rent, only it then belongs to a more responsive and creative class of owner. Costs go down, maintenance less intrusive, marketing more creative. If you want to judge by the effect on the least, impose restrictions during the transfer, like free passes for low income users, during offpeak hours, or free bike lanes, whatever.

As for pollution, I'll be the first to admit that libertarian principles are VERY weak in this case. The best case would probably come in taxing pollution at its source. For example, at the well, or dock, for petroleum products. About a year and a half ago, I outlined a harsh carbon tax in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5836&p=85026&hilit ... tax#p85026

Basically, breaking down the entire gov revenue into a revenue neutral carbon tax. What I like about a carbon tax is it incentivizes conservation, but doesn't force it. Each individual is free to choose how he will react to the change, rather than being forced to change by blanket regulation. Of course, a carbon tax this harsh would have other changes, black marketing goes up, the value of gas stations drops, suburban real estate drops in relation to urban real estate, until businesses flee overpriced cities. Ethanol increases, causing a sharp spike in corn prices, and in corn farming land prices. Agri-corps show record profits. Hippies start playing with wood gas, again, and blow themselves up...

As with our previous forays into corn market manipulation (ethanol subsidies) lowering carbon footprints will be paid for in a body count among the poorest previous consumers of that corn, priced out of the market.

So using your standard of "effect on least", reducing carbon emissions is probably unethical.

[BRUTE]

no need to convince brute that there exist libertarian/free-market solutions for many externality problems. brute has read all of mises.org.

the point brute was trying to make was more about perspective. for any difference in solution, system, or measure, unless it is pareto-better (i.e. every single human is at least the same off, or better, in every dimension), there will be some losers compared to the old/other solution/system/measure. and since humans have different preferences and standards, it's very likely that there will always be at least someone who's somehow worse off ("i really liked horse drawn carriages").

thus there will always be some humans who will oppose anything. not necessarily because they're opposers, but because realistically, any change will produce losers. thus, humans who want to make a change will have to "break some eggs".

[Riggerjack]

Fair enough, but the least among us are also the least invested in the current system. When you are on the bottom, any shakeup is likely to benefit you more than the current system. It is the ones who have played by the existing rules, and used that to their success, that object most to rules changing.

thus there will always be some humans who will oppose anything. not necessarily because they're opposers, but because realistically, any change will produce losers. thus, humans who want to make a change will have to "break some eggs".

Though honestly, even if you could grant a Pareto-gain to everyone, if it were even, some would object that they weren't advancing proportionately. If it were proportionate, some would complain that The Rich were outgaining the rest.

The truth is that people are only happy when they are complaining, Change doesn't make em happy, Stagnancy doesn't make em happy. None of that is a reason to avoid a "most improvement for the most people", standard.

[BRUTE]

Fair enough, but the least among us are also the least invested in the current system. When you are on the bottom, any shakeup is likely to benefit you more than the current system. It is the ones who have played by the existing rules, and used that to their success, that object most to rules changing.

brute isn't sure. the hallmark of a good system (=one that is still in existence) is that the losers don't grab their pitchforks immediately, either by being bought off (=entitlements) or deceit (=patriotism, bread and games).

brute also thinks that "playing by the rules" isn't what leads to success in systems. what leads to success is have others play by rules. the really successful humans never played by the rules.

Though honestly, even if you could grant a Pareto-gain to everyone, if it were even, some would object that they weren't advancing proportionately. If it were proportionate, some would complain that The Rich were outgaining the rest.

The truth is that people are only happy when they are complaining, Change doesn't make em happy, Stagnancy doesn't make em happy. None of that is a reason to avoid a "most improvement for the most people", standard.

no contest there. as mentioned by brute before, all these things are very subjective. often, humans just want to keep the status quo.

[SilverElephant]

Back to your examples, I'll start with the low hanging fruit: roads. We already have toll roads, and transponders, and electronic payment systems. All we need to do is sell them off to private interests, and let the free-ish market work. At that point, it just becomes another form of capital for rent, only it then belongs to a more responsive and creative class of owner. Costs go down, maintenance less intrusive, marketing more creative. If you want to judge by the effect on the least, impose restrictions during the transfer, like free passes for low income users, during offpeak hours, or free bike lanes, whatever.

However, there are numerous examples of formerly government-managed businesses that have seen prices go up and service/quality go down, often to a large extend, after privatisation. Mostly this happens in sectors/businesses that, due to the way they are structured, can basically only ever be managed by one owner. Roads are such an example. The railway system in Germany is an example, as is the European electricity grid.

Privatisation works in a lot of sectors. Critical services (such as utilities and roads) are, I believe, not amongst them, at least not while they are as highly centralized as they are now.

[Riggerjack]

.However, there are numerous examples of formerly government-managed businesses that have seen prices go up and service/quality go down, often to a large extend, after privatisation. Mostly this happens in sectors/businesses that, due to the way they are structured, can basically only ever be managed by one owner. Roads are such an example. The railway system in Germany is an example, as is the European electricity grid.

That's not privatization, that is government monopoly replaced by private monopoly.

Monopoly is just another form of government control. They can't exist without government enforcement, long term. If a regulator "deregulates" by setting up a monopoly, or worse, partially privatizing a network (like California's power grid and ENRON), you can be assured someone got paid, and everyone else will continue to pay. This is well and thoroughly understood in economics. To the point that when this happens, it isn't unintended consequences, it's graft and sabotage.

. brute also thinks that "playing by the rules" isn't what leads to success in systems. what leads to success is have others play by rules. the really successful humans never played by the rules.

As I said above, if your system cannot handle cheaters, you have no system. Also, if you weren't playing by the rules, the rules changing will have a minimal impact.

No, the ones I meant were the one playing by the rules, the middle managers, and journeymen. The ones who played the game as is, and are invested in it, are the ones most desirous if stability. When there are losses, because of change, these guys are the primary casualties. Granted, they generally have the resources to adapt, but they (as a class) lose the most if they fail to adapt.

[BRUTE]

That's not privatization, that is government monopoly replaced by private monopoly.

brute likes a quote by Hoppe (?) that goes something like this, paraphrased: private enterprise is always better than government at running things. the problem is that if something isn't desirable to begin with, a "bad" (instead of a good), it's also going to be better at producing that! that's why private prisons and private energy monopolies, and often, private roads, are terrible. government hands somebody a license to exploit a monopoly more efficiently.

[Riggerjack]

Oddly enough, I have a bit of experience with those terrible private roads.

Here in WA, as a real estate developer, you have limits on how many residences (4) can use a road that doesn't meet county requirements. This means, when you divide your 5 acres into 16 lots, they become .20 acre lots, because there needs to be a 60 foot wide right of way, with a road meeting the county's requirements feeding each lot. The developer gives away the land, and builds and paves the road, in exchange for the right to divide the property. The county or city then inspects and takes over ownership. It then includes it in the right of way access fees it charges utilities, and charges property taxes for decades before maintenance is needed, when it will do maintenance in amazingly inefficient ways.

I only mention this, because most folks see government crews maintaining roads, and seem to think that government builds roads. There are times when they do, but usually they just take em from land owners.

[fiby41]

When to tolerate/respect

https://www.myind.net/tolerance-intoler ... jg.twitter