Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE

[enigmaT120]

Those were both good blog posts, Jacob, thanks for sharing the links. Are you sure that I don't need to read the blog if I have (and have read) your book?

So does this:

"The privileged person will use his resources, skills, ability to plan, ability to strategize, etc. to spend less. In other words, he will substitute social, technical, economic, etc. capital for spending money. The unprivileged person will not have these substitutes already available and will therefore not have anything to substitute. "

mean that Spartan Warrior is condescending or not?

[jacob]

@enigmaT120 - The blog is different from the book. Book = textbook treatise on the principles of ERE. Blog = stream of consciousness minus principles. I was writing both at the same time so everytime I wrote something it either went in the book or on the blog but rarely both. The blog tends to go wider than the book. Especially in latter years (2010-11).

In general, my stance on this whole redistribution issue is that poverty goes far deeper than just a lack of money. There are two aspects to this.

First, are people capable of [deeply] learning how not to be poor by rational argument? I think <5% of the population are capable of changing their mind due to rational argument. Hence the extremely large concentration of above average IQ INTJ (+close temperamental cousins) found in the personal finance space.

Second, are people capable of deeply learning how not to be poor by cultural mimesis? Yes, I think most people are capable of this. This is why the human race didn't die out during the great depression. However, our current culture is such so as to completely work against these precepts. Indeed, it is almost designed to steer people^H^H^H^Hconsumers towards self-destructive choices.

[JL13]

As an extension of that, I wonder what percentage of philosophical libertarians are XNTX. I'm sure most rationals would believe, due to their temperament, that personal outcomes are related to and a result of personal competence. Conversely, maybe guardians are more likely to be sympathetic to redistribution. After all, if you're doing what you're SUPPOSED to be doing (copying your neighbor), then shouldn't you deserve a just outcome?

[jacob]

@JL13 - Probably a lot. This is why I no longer vote libertarian. While it would work for a small subset of humanity, the majority of humanity aren't [epi]genetically compatible with that much freedom/responsibility. Incidentally, I'm not even sure that's the case for democracy. After all democracy has been somewhat rare throughout human history. Indeed, I think it's an artifact of offensive weapons technology (machine guns) currently and vastly outmatching defensive weaponry. Should anyone ever develop a technology that effectively neutralizes bullets and explosives---some kind of personal shield technology---I'd expect democracy to end really really quickly.

[JL13]

Do you mean that democracy is a weak form of government, and can only stay in power because it has a powerful military to quell potential authoritarian uprisings? So if "personal shields" appeared, then some egomaniac would wear one and be successful with a coup? And the holloi polloi wouldn't really pay much mind?

[jacob]

No ... I think that the prevailing form of government is almost exclusively reflective of the power balance that current weapons technology allows. (Rather than some kind of historical or moral progression.)

Feudalism: Swords lose to armour and fighting skills. Defence wins. It is profitable to invest in very expensive Samurai training and/or full suits of armour. The majority can be oppressed by a skilled/wealthy minority.
Democracy: Pulling the trigger on a cheap gun is easy and defeats almost everyone. Offence wins. Start a revolution by handing out Ak47s to children or muskets to civilians. Whoever holds the majority wins.
Neo-feudalism: AK47s and Tec9s lose to anyone wearing an expensive personal shield. Some egomaniac/government equips their minions and once again 5% of the population rules the [peasant] majority "at-will". The people would almost certainly mind but they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

[JL13]

Ah so cheap effective offense = majority rule. Expensive offense = minority rule.

[Scrubby]

Democracy: Pulling the trigger on a cheap gun is easy and defeats almost everyone. Offence wins. Start a revolution by handing out Ak47s to children or muskets to civilians. Whoever holds the majority wins.

Does this make Africa and the Middle East the most democratic areas in the world?

[jacob]

@Scrubby - No, it makes it hard to hold onto dictatorships.

[George the original one]

I would argue explosives are more effective than bullets and the invention of a personal bullet shield would not affect their effectiveness. After all, they've been the weapon of choice for those seeking to destabilize a government for at least 160 years.

[7Wannabe5]

So, ( Lawyers + Prisons) is not a good enough defense for the current power elite? Where I currently reside, some people believe that Aramark is in collusion with Big Alcohol. Get them hooked on candy when they are little. Then switch them over to sweetened intoxicating beverages at adolescence. Calculate correlation of alcohol use with crime and increased prison population. More imprisoned bodies to be fed through corporate contract. More profits for Aramark. One woman keeps telling the kids "Look what they are building for you." in reference to new prison construction. I, obviously, do not actually believe such a conspiracy, but still think it is a good warning for the kids.

[Scrubby]

@Scrubby - No, it makes it hard to hold onto dictatorships.

Not hard enough. http://thisisafrica.me/10-africas-longe ... g-leaders/. Those aren't special cases, most of the world's nations are dictatorships.

It seems to me that most dictatorships in the last 100 years have ended because the dictator has died, not because they have been overthrown by an armed population. Those that have been overthrown have quite often been replaced by another dictatorship.

[Riggerjack]

. Not hard enough. http://thisisafrica.me/10-africas-longe ... g-leaders/. Those aren't special cases, most of the world's nations are dictatorships.

It seems to me that most dictatorships in the last 100 years have ended because the dictator has died, not because they have been overthrown by an armed population. Those that have been overthrown have quite often been replaced by another dictatorship.

True, however, armed civilians are rare, worldwide. It is the ratio of armed civilians to armed forces that is key. An armed society is hard to oppress. Disarming is the first priority of tyrants.

Your examples prove the rule. Even in areas ruled by warlords (Mogadishu as a classic example), while there are lots of guns, they are in the hands of the warlords, not the civilian population.

The democratization of firearms leads to the democratization of society. The concentration of firearms leads to concentration of power.

This is why the firearms arguments are so polarising. Either you trust your political class, or you don't. It's not about guns, it is about empowered citizens. Empowered citizens aren't very good at doing what they are told, how you feel about that has everything to do with how you feel about the political class.

[7Wannabe5]

@Riggerjack: I was attempting to teach a very poorly behaved group of 6th graders the other day. One of the kids said "Do you know why we aren't behaving? It's because we don't trust you yet." My response was "Well, you clearly have some serious trust issues then." Maybe you ought to run for public office within the realm surrounding you containing a population of about 20,000 . Then you will be able to achieve greater empathy and, perhaps, trust for the "political class."

[Riggerjack]

Thank you, no. I have done my time as a leader, it did not increase my happiness at all. In fact, I think it is my familiarity with leadership that is the basis of my disdain for leaders.

My motivation for ER is my desire for more autonomy.