Mother Jones: 5 Terrifying Facts From the Leaked UN Climate Report

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Wrong Guy, Aug 28, 2014.

  1. xenubarb Member

    Some one or some group is not exactly what I'd call acceptable cites for your assertion. I heard some guy said the moon is made of cheese. Or maybe it was some group, I don't recall.
  2. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  3. The Internet Member

    Where were you when I needed you? It was like pulling teeth trying to get Hugh Bris to tell me the specific paper he was getting his info from. First he was, “Imma not do your homework for you. Just Google.” He also said I was a bad person for quoting “97%” without reading the paper that number came from, even though I did read the Cook paper:

    Finally, Hugh Bris gave me the Doran paper, which just by accident has a “97%” in it. He apparently saw the Doran paper discussed here:

    A survey of people’s opinions (Doran) is weaker evidence than a summary of thousands of published, peer reviewed scientific papers (Cook, Oreskes, Powell). Pretending the Doran paper is the basis for the scientific consensus on global warming is a big fat strawman aka a lie.

    I think Hugh Bris got suckered by Anthony Watts’ blog post. And I bet other people were suckered as well. Watts’ blog is strangely popular. This needs to change because Watts is a bad person who should feel bad and who should not be popular.

    The paid disinformation people need to be outed and shamed because they will keep stirring up fake controversies if we let them.
  4. The Internet Member

    Hubris, I want to make sure you saw my answer to one objection you had to the Doran paper. You said the Doran paper failed to report survey results for non-climate scientists.
    But I quoted a sentence to prove that survey results for Earth scientists overall (about 3,000 participants) were included:

    Attached Files:

  5. Hugh Bris Member

    Son, you still haven't addressed my objections.

    I am not in the least interested in the studies you keep throwing at me. I have the same objections to those now as two weeks ago, and you have never addressed those objections. In fact, you have pointedly ignored it.

    TI, do you understand my objections to the Cook paper? Can you put into words what I object to in it?
    Here's the first sentence:
    Can you list any problems with that statement?

    @Barb (hey Barb!!!)
    I'm sorry, I got the meta and survey backwards. My mistake. Which I corrected later in the thread.

    Can you tell me in your own words what a meta study is, and how they are done? I get the feeling you don't quite get what they are. I may be wrong, I probably am, but I haven't seen evidence of understanding, either.
  6. Hugh Bris Member

    Not sure what the connection is. My point was that laudemum was in use for <200 years before govt decided to ban it. It's obviously not a crime, otherwise it would have been a crime a lot earlier, So, some person, or cabal of people got together, and just like pot, decided unilaterally to ban it. Not law, legislation.

    OK, so that still doens't mean we ban a substance. my sister is allergic to pencillin. We don't ban that, we treat it as a medical issue.

    And you say alcoholism is inheritable> I didn't know that.

    And your point?
    as I understand it, glue sniffing if for those who can't get their drug of choice. If not, then it still doesn't change the fact that limiting choices limits the expression of our humanity.
    All human action is free will. This is simply the nature of the world. We make choices and live with the consequences. But to take away our freedom of action is to limit our humanity, which I would vehemently object to.

    And your point is? Again, freeedom is the way we discover what we want, need and desire in life.
    In my system, people caught creating problems use that as a reason to get more money. It's quite a system for those running it.
    There was no aspirin back then, so pain relief was whatever was available. I'm sure it was more available to people with more money, but that's true of most everything.

    And my point is this is Public Choice economics is the real world, This IS how it works with govt, ie the result was a feature, not a bug. The govt wanted this extended control.
    I see your idea as a unicorn, beautiful, but unobtainable. In theory, it would work like you suggest. But, and I will continue saying this until you actually studdy the issue, Public Choice economics explains why your unicorn will never materialize.

    The article I linked said small amounts of heroin were not subject to arrests.

    I'm not advocating for drug abuse, or even use. I am saying that it's an individual choice, and that must be respected.
  7. The Internet Member

    The three papers (Oreskes, Cook, Powell) are the only ones I brought up. They are simple to understand: just a count of how many papers with key words “global warming” or “climate change” that contain peer reviewed evidence for or against the AGW hypothesis.

    You kinda confoos me when you say you aren’t interested, then you want to talk about the Cook paper. That is okay though. I am often confoosed.
    Please re-state your objections because I thought I understood them to be:
    1. self described “climate scientists” might not represent Earth scientists generally
    2. something about “meta-analysis."

    It was my impression you hadn’t read the Cook paper, just the Doran paper and some blog comments about the “97%” figure that led you to believe the Doran paper was the basis for that.

    If you call something a “meta-analysis” it is up to you to explain what you mean by that word. And not in a general way. In a specific way in relation to a particular scientific paper.

    I do not view a count of items as a “meta-analysis,” which usually has some tricky statistics in it --e.g., take 10 studies of drug v placebo, some showing the drug is useful, some not, weigh each according to its statistical power, try to control for the file drawer effect, etc.

    If we had only 10 papers related to global warming, a detailed meta-analysis might be appropriate, if the studies were very similar and addressed the same question. But we have thousands of papers all addressing different questions. So counting is sufficient to make the point that hella lot on one side, zip on the other.
  8. The Internet Member

    Hubris, I want to make sure you saw my answer to one objection you had to the Doran paper. You said the Doran paper failed to report survey results for non-climate scientists.
    But I quoted a sentence to prove that survey results for Earth scientists overall (about 3,000 participants) were included:
    I expected you to say, “oops my bad.”
  9. Hugh Bris Member

    Fair enough
    I want to find out what you understand about how to analyze a scientific study or meta study. I quoted the first line of the study to see what you made of it. I wanted to see how you approached that statement, to see you use your critical facilities to ask some pertinent questions about it.

    Point one is accurate.
    Point 2 is what I want to understand about you. I don't think you understand what a meta study is. I did explain it earlier, but nothing since then tells me you understood it.

    And, at this point, we are not arguing about the consensus, we are discussing the methodology used to arrive at that conclusion. Sort of a meta argument.

    protip: read the abstract, the places where they talk about the statistics, and the conclusion, including the confounds section. That's where the scientists tell you why they are full of shit. The first thing I noted about the Purif papers was none of them had the confounds section, and their stats were, shall we say, unusual.

    I read the prts of the Cook study that I need to get a sense of it (see above). The Doran survey was one of the offerings from Skeptical Science, which is an advocacy site for global warming.

    Others have offered the Doran paper as proof. If it wasn't you, then I apologize.
    lol. I did, many posts ago. I explained meta and surveys.

    If you throw meta studies at me, and talk about them as if they were the primary studies, then you are talking nonsense.

    If you quote meta studies at me, it is your responsibility to know what they are. You are quoting something that you don't seem to understand. Not to blow my own horn, but I've done a meta study, and you haven't. I'll take my understanding over yours on this matter.

    What the hell are 'tricky statistics?
    You are right. The one paper I offered was a survey, a "count of items," not a meta study. I mentioned this many posts ago.

    And your explanation of a meta study is somewhat lacking in scientific rigor. PLease resubmit your paper for a proper grade.

    Again, this is sheer nonsense. The Cook paper looked at "11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."

    You didn't read the Cook paper, did you? If you did, you didn't understand it. This fact was the first sentence in the abstract.

    I want to ask again, do you see any possible problems with the Cook paper? That first sentence of the introduction, for instance. What did you make of that?
    We are supposed to be highly critical of studies, not accept them at face value.

    You are quoting me back at me, dude.
    Explain the methodology they used to find those 75 of 77 agreement numbers.
    Why isn't the denominator 3000?
    What methods were used to exclude those ≈2925 other earth scientists from the count?
    Were the methods clearly stated?
    Did you understand them?
    Can you explain to me what the criteria were for separating earth scientists from climate scientists?
    What is the difference between them?
    Are there actual degree programs that grant a Climate Scientist degree?

    Shall I go on?

    Is there is a difference between 'earth scientist' and climate scientist." That is my point. It is possible that 'climate scientist' is a self selecting term for scientists who already are on board.

    Again, the article from MJ is pure Chicken Little. It gives one of many possible scenarios as if it were the only one. Publications that do that are playing purely partisan politics (PPPP, or peepee squared), not reporting science. They are spreading misinformation, and confusing people such as TI.

    And I ask again, if most of us already agree that the earth was warming (but there is that pesky pause to explain) and that humans contribute to that, what are we arguing about? The answer: What to do about it.
  10. The Internet Member

    Hubris, you keep trying to shift the burden for some point you want to make from yourself to me. That is not fair ball.

    The Cook study is not a meta-analysis. Neither is the Doran study, in spite of your claim otherwise earlier in this thread. I guess you now agree with me about the Doran study but are holding out on Cook.
    Note the absence of any discussion of weighted averages in the Cook paper, which is just a bloody count of papers.

    There are a ton of peer reviewed scientific papers in support of the AGW hypothesis. There is a sad handful of shitty papers on the other side. Obvious fact is obvious.

    Considering the mistakes you make, like
    - claiming the “97% of papers agree...” is based on the Doran paper rather than the Cook paper
    - failing to read the Doran study closely so you notice that there are several groups discussed, not just climate scientists
    - calling the Doran study a “meta-analysis
    - calling the Cook study a “meta-analysis

    I would think you might, at some point, take a break from firmly asserting the same idea --i.e., “all ur science papers not gud enuff!”
  11. The Internet Member

    The authors wanted to know, how well informed are climate scientists concerning the scientific consensus?

    75 out of 77 climate scientists gave the correct answer, indicating that they, as a group, are better informed than other groups in the study.

    Because 75 climatologists/3000 Earth scientists doesn’t tell you anything about how well informed climate scientists happen to be.

    Maybe the lightbulb is flashing on now? You are understanding that the Doran study is not about establishing a scientific consensus? It is about public education regarding the consensus? Eh?
  12. Random guy Member

    Let me google that for you

    Allergic reaction and addiction is not really comparable. Opium is also used in medical practice, but strictly regulated, and not because of allergy.

    Not I, those scientists studying it says so. Or rather, they say that there's about 60% inheritance. The remaining 40%s are due to non-genetic factors (i.e "nurture").

    The problem is that both nature and nurture inherit, and can be a bugbear to tell apart. Genetics is funny in that it strikes so unevenly, and was probably the case in the prime minister/NATO secretary general and his sister. If we are to judge from her brother, she had caring, intelligent, resourceful and evidently quote capable parents, yet she never were able to break out of her addiction, no matter how hard she (or I presume her family), tried.

    According some sources I have seen, around 15% young teens try it (her in Scandinavia), but only a few develop the habit, or progress to other drugs.

    There are some expressions of humanity we'd rather limit, like driving speed in urban areas or the urge to fight under intoxication. When it comes to sniffing, the government has decided to limit it by putting noxious substances in the most obvious choices, like paint thinners.

    The problem is that some of those choices will kill you and wreak havoc on your surrounding. I have no problem with people killing themselves if that is their wish. Drug addicts on the other hand slowly kills themselves over years and years, becoming increasingly dependent on their surrounding to help them while they exploit their relatives and friends to feed their habits. The amount of hurt they spread is far, far beyond that of taking some poison and croak.

    Ideally, you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else. Druggies definitely hurt other people, even if the legal aspect is taken out of it. Read up on the addictions of Coleridge or Mary Todd Lincoln if you want examples.

    And yet it is how it works in my country. Granted, it does not always work perfectly, committees can do stupid things too. By and large it works quite well though. The idea that a government cannot be run well may be true for the US, but that does not mean it is universally true. The Scandinavian democracies shows that Public Choice economics isn't the whole and full picture.

    If you're ever headed for Scandinavia, shoot me PM and I'll happily show you around unicorn-land.

    Small quantities for personal use is legal (it's usually ignored by the police many places in the world where it is illegal, including some in the US), but the quantities needed for pushing the stuff will land you in all kinds of trouble. To refer back to my original example, in liberal Portugal, a heroin pusher will be arrested and treated a lot harsher than a speed driver for imposing harm on others.

    You and I are adults and have the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision on whether to inject heroin or not. If we wanted to, I'm sure we could get hold of it too. The problem here is that you or I are not the pushers primary buyers. They target the young and rebellious, the depressed, the outsiders, the down and outs, people who are in a phase of life or in a life situation where their ability to make decisions are impaired. The pusher knows this, and intentionally targets these people. The reason selling heroin is strictly forbidden is because it hurts a lot of people and the social structure of the society.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. The Internet Member

    I would like to move to Scandinavia. But who will speak out against the “Government: An Industry of Death” cult run by the Kochs, Putin, and other carbon fuel companies if I leave?
  14. Random guy Member

    Moving away is called "voting with you feet". Huge emigrations from Scandinavia to America in the 20th century was a major factor in forcing the governments to adopt a lot of social and political reforms. There's almost 12 million Scandinavian descendants in the US alone, against 26 million inhabitants in modern Scandinavia, giving an idea of the severity of the Scandinavian diaspora.
  15. The Internet Member

    Were times really bad in Scandinavia a hundred years ago?

    Minnesota and its surrounding states soaked up a lot of the immigrant Vikings. Surprisingly little raping and pillaging though. In fact, quite the opposite: neighborly types who bring plenty of tuna noodle casserole to the church picnics. They say, “yah” and “oh jeez.”
  16. Random guy Member

    No, but 200 years ago they were. Only Sweden came out of the Napoleonic was ahead, and all the Nordic countries still had a 18th century economic system with very limited rights and distribution of power. Most Scandinavians did for instance not have the right to move without permission of their landlord, and serfdom was a huge problem. Emigration waves forced the governments to install general votes, freedom of movements, land reforms to give serfs their own land, better taxation and money systems etc. By 1914, the basis of the modern Scandinavia was in place (except Finland, who had a revolution going on).
  17. Hugh Bris Member

    Here's the thing I see. You seem willing to ban something because some people don't react well to it. You make artificial distinctions between what some government person approves and what is lawful. I don't see how a government can justify saying "Pot is too dangerous" even while allowing alcohol. It makes no sense. Alcohol is far more dangerous than pot yet one of them is OK, while the other for years got you 20 years in prison.

    You are worried that others will make the wrong decisions. The truth is, of course they will, and they will learn by it. But to say "You can't have this choice because I don't think you can handle it" is elitism of the worst sort. It tells me you feel better qualified to run other people's lives than they are.

    I say stuff and nonsense. Let them make their choices, and if they aren't the choices you would have made, well, you aren't them, so leave it be and let them live their life. They will resent your attempts and ignore you anyway.
  18. I wonder why we should not develop new technologies to harvest energy. Even if finite stuff like oil, coal, uranium or thorium could be used for +- long times, there might be a boost of innovation we might profit from.
    Going to the moon or fighting wars was / is nonsense in most cases, but are said to stimulate development of all-day technology.

    Anyway, if we want to keep earth stable on a range of say >10k years, we have to invent technology to
    a) support human existence while not influencing climate (too fast), for which using regenerative energy seems reasonable,
    b) control climate if we observe long-term cycles, for which producing or reducing CO2 seems a possible way to go.

    If using stuff like uranium is good from the safety aspect and in terms of a "battery effect" (we cannot convert burned up uranium back to U235 like CO2 can be put back to coal) should be considered.
  19. The Wrong Guy Member

    People's Climate March: thousands demand action around the world – live | The Guardian
    • Like Like x 1
  20. The Wrong Guy Member

    Thousands Rally in New York for the People's Climate March | VICE News

    Tens of thousands of protestors turned out for the People's Climate March Sunday in Manhattan, toting hand-held banners and paper sunflowers, chanting slogans, and demanding action ahead of upcoming the UN climate summit in New York.

    Overwhelming Manhattan's seemingly unwhelmable Midtown neighborhood, demonstrators rallied together in support of Mother Earth two days ahead of the UN summit, where nations are expected to lay the groundwork for a future carbon emissions plan. Any potential binding agreement is not expected to be made until the Climate Change Conference in Paris late next year.

    Organizers had expected around 100,000 people to attend but announced Sunday afternoon that more than 310,000 protesters had assembled. The impressive march, organized in conjunction with more than 2,800 events in 166 countries, couldn't have come at a more demonstrative moment — just a week after national climate scientists reported searing temperatures over the summer months that broke all records since, well, records began.

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Rockyj Member

    Basically it doesn't matter what we do as its too fucken late. Guy has stated is that the temperatures we see today is from our behaviors 40 years ago,1974, before we knew all the shit we now know, and many of us were not even born yet!

    He talks about it here @ 6.13 - 7.36

    His Blog!

    BTW THE SKY IS FALLING & WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE is considered fear mongering,
    however, we're all gonna die anyway...right?
  22. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Hey! It's RockyJ!
    nm we are posting bad poetry in a thread.
  23. Rockyj Member

    Bad poetry like this?

    When I'm in sober mood, I worry, work & think.
    When I'm a drunken mood, I gamble, screw & drink.
    But when these moods are over & its time for me to pass,
    I hope they bury me upside down so the world can kiss my ASS!

    Which is one of my old drinking toasts!
    • Like Like x 3
  24. I agree.

    How are you doing? Did you see the posts about Doc Wong today? Remember when you used to post about him on BARF?
  25. DeathHamster Member
  26. DeathHamster Member


    Suppose your apple tree is on the site of an old paint plant. The soil is loaded with lead, and those apples are slow poison. That kind of thing is what the government is for.
  27. Hugh Bris Member

    I wonder if you've read about NSA, or about qualified immunity, you know, where TPTB say the law doesn't apply to them.

    I wonder how exactly having two sets of rules, one for you and me, and one for the ruling class, is helping me, You say the government is here to help me, yet the facts on the ground show the opposite, a govt that will roll right over me without so much as a sorry bout that chief; a group that makes two sets of rules, one where I can got to prison for years for having drugs, yet the banks pay a small fine for laundering billions of dollars of drug money.

    So, you are being hopelessly naive if you think that the govt gives a flying fuck about my health.
    Read what the govt did during prohibition,

    Then come back and tell me honestly that the govt give a damn about you and me. They care about power.
  28. Random guy Member

    Hugh, you really need to consider moving to a different country.
  29. Hugh Bris Member

    I thought this was an activist site. When we see wrong, we are supposed to take action.

    I show several examples in which the govt egregiously failed to do their job, when it was as clear as day, and you tell me I should ignore their failures, and leave because I pointed out the failures.

    My govt (I don't know about yours) has committed so many heinous acts (Japanese internment, the Syphills experiments come to mind) that there is no way to trust them. And since Public Choice theory really does have a good explanation for why this happens, it behooves you to study it, rather than repeat mindless drivel that I used to hear from the worst of the Southern rednecks (America, Love it or Leave it.)

    So, please don't force me to think of you as a Southern redneck. That's not a purty image
  30. Random guy Member

    I think you may find that with me being a foreigner, my "you should move" has a slightly different meaning than the "love it or leave it" you cited. The redneck slogan is based on the assumption that the US is the best place there is, which I think is a highly suspicious.

    I believe it would be good for you to spend some time in a country with a system of government that functions a bit more as planned. I consider most of the reasons you cite for distrusting the US government valid, but I think you would benefit from seeing ghat this is not necessarily a function of governments as such, but a problem possibly tied to US-specific social and political traits.
  31. The Wrong Guy Member

    400,000 Protesters Turn Out For People’s Climate March In NYC | The Onion,36985/
    • Like Like x 2
  32. Hugh Bris Member

    Ah, OK.

    I disagree. What I see as faults in govt as exactly the problems I'd think to find, given the incentives.

    Politicians want power over other people. I find that ugly and repugnant, and I find the people who want power over others to be the worst people that humanity has to offer.

    You so completely ignore incentives in this field, that I have to wonder if that's deliberate. Politicians have every incentive to lie and dissemble. That is an ugly human trait, and it is needed for all politicians.

    If my friends lie to me, they are no longer my friends. If politicians lie to me, I am still obligated to follow their rules, no matter how repugnant, evil, stupid or banal I might find them.

    I don't understand how anyone can think that makes sense.
  33. The Wrong Guy Member

    Google will stop supporting climate change science deniers, calls them liars | Ars Technica

    Controversial group also opposes net neutrality and municipal broadband

    Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt today said it was a “mistake” to support the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that has said human-created climate change could be “beneficial” and opposes environmental regulations. Schmidt said groups trying to cast doubt on climate change science are "just literally lying."

    Google’s membership in ALEC has been criticized because of the group’s stance on climate change and its opposition to network neutrality rules and municipal broadband. Earlier this month, Google refused to comment after 50 advocacy groups called on the company to end its affiliation with ALEC.

    That changed today when Schmidt appeared on The Diane Rehm Show and was asked by a listener whether Google is still supporting ALEC. The listener described ALEC as “lobbyists in DC that are funding climate change deniers.”

    Schmidt responded, “we funded them as part of a political campaign for something unrelated. I think the consensus within the company was that was sort of a mistake, and so we’re trying to not do that in the future.”

    Schmidt did not say what issue led Google to support ALEC. Yelp reportedly joined ALEC to fight so-called "Strategic lawsuits against public participation," but it's not clear if Google had the same motivation. We contacted Google’s public relations department today but haven’t heard back.

    Schmidt did not comment on ALEC’s stances on net neutrality and municipal broadband, but criticized the group's position on climate change.

    “The company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts, what a shock, and the facts of climate change are not in question anymore,” Schmidt said. “Everyone understands that climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”

    Google was a member of ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force, along with Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo. Microsoft cut ties with ALEC recently.

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Hugh Bris Member

    Gotta love it. The true face of progressives: disagree with us and you go to jail.
    And just to prove this wasn't an anomaly
    RFK Jr. is a truly ugly human being. he can't stand that other people disagree with him, and his reaction is not "C'est la vie" but "Throw their ass in jail."

    Ah, love those progressives, they are their own worst enemies.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Random guy Member

    'this indeed. This is why we have elections, to get the worst offenders booted out on a regular basis. It's not a perfect system, but it works tolerably well where I'm from, in the US not so much. Perhaps it's the size of our respective countries, mine is far smaller and a lot more transparent as a result.

    As i said, I think a year or so in one of the Nordic countries would be an interesting experience for you.
  36. Hugh Bris Member

    I'm sure that living anywhere else would be an interesting experience. But can we make it some place with less snow? Please? I am not a snow person.

    But that ignores what I am saying about govt, namely that by their very nature they are prone to violence. The very definition of government of govt tells the story. It is the use of force, of violence, of imposing one's will over others. That is an ugly way to run society. I don't care how nice your government looks, it is still the initiation of the use of force. In any other context, you'd agree that initiating force is wrong, but because government, you accept a two tiered system of justice.

    Elections, huh?
    Elections don't get good people in office. Good people do not run for high office.

    Let me repeat, good people do not run for high office.

    You know why? Because good people do not want to impose their will on other people. They recognize that as being beyond the pale and not acceptable behavior. It takes a person with no boundaries, as the psychologists term it, to be comfortable imposing their will on others. People with no boundaries have other names: criminals, sociopaths and psychopaths.

    I'll repeat, politics encourages the worst that people can be, not the best. So, even saying Sweden is probably one of the better govt on earth does not make it moral, nor right. It only makes it the lesser of many evils.
  37. Random guy Member

    If your definition of good people exclude anyone who run for an office, then I suppose no good people evver have offices. So, Nelson Mandela, Václav Havel and Vigdis Finnbogadottir must all have been bad (or at least non-good) people because they at some point in their life ran for office?

    Is it possible that you may not always be entirely right on that?
    • Like Like x 1
  38. The Internet Member

    What if a company runs a place rather than an official government --e.g., the East India Company running parts of India years ago? Does that mean that good people get into power rather than bad people, because companies are good while government is evil?
  39. Hugh Bris Member

    Sure it could. I'm not saying that no good people get to power ever. There's always the chance, and some have made it. I don't know enough about your examples to know how they managed power.

    But this begs the question. You came up with 3 names. I can think of thousands of truly bad politicians, and only a few good ones. If good leaders are that few and far between, govt is eternally fucked.

    My objections remain. The nature of politics gives unscrupulous people a big prize to shoot for.

    Power over others is not something I want, not something any of my friends want, not anything normal people want, but it is something sociopaths, psychopaths and other cream of society shoot for. That is my basic objection. Politics attracts the most sociopathic members of society to its ranks. It makes it hard to sort out the few good politicians from the rest.

    I'd prefer market solutions. They have immediate feedback, which govt lacks. If something is wrong, I vote with my feet and wallet. That is much harder to do when it's govt. They are a monopoly. (Hey, govt told me monopolies are bad. Hmmmm)
  40. Hugh Bris Member

    People can be good or bad, or both. (They sure make it complicated) Companies, and governments are composed of people. Therefore, both companies and governments can be good or bad, or both. But the incentives in the market are entirely different than the incentives in government. This is where the problems start.

    In the situation you mention, I'd expect them to act as a monopoly, and a govt to the extent they were allowed. IOW, they would BE govt. And of course, history tells us that mercantilism (the East Indian Company was mercantilist) is what capitalism replaced, to all our benefits.In fact, that was liberalism, the removing of govt restraints on trade and activity)

    Look at the individual incentives involved, TI. In the example you give, they would have that 'no accountability' attitude, knowing that in essence, they were the law. That would not bode well for the out groups. That 'no accountability' comes from knowin that no person or group could counter their acts. That is, if their cop shot down some unarmed teen in the streets, and they were the ones expected to investigate, then I would expect them to exonerate their compatriot. That is just human nature.

    The Law is supposed to take the law out of the hands of man. When the law enforcers and makers tells itself what is legal, there is no accountability.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins