Covid - is there trouble ahead? New mutation and travel bans.

[zugzwang]

24 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it.....

"Governments that govern the best are governments that govern the least"

The classical economists of his day said the same. Those arguments have been comprehensively demolished.

 

[Riedquat]

4 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The classical economists of his day said the same. Those arguments have been comprehensively demolished.

 

Two problems with that statement.

Firstly, if we accept it's the case for economics that doesn't mean the same's true for government in general.

Secondly, there's the danger of reading it too literally; clearly the least government isn't intended to mean no government at all, even though that's the literal interpretation of "govern the least."

[anonguest]

10 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The classical economists of his day said the same. Those arguments have been comprehensively demolished.

 

By whom?  By you? In your own mind and opinion? 

Care to share any references/links to any such observation based arguments that comprehensively demolish Jefferson's assertion?

Edited March 11, 2022 by anonguest

[anonguest]

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

there's the danger of reading it too literally; clearly the least government isn't intended to mean no government at all, even though that's the literal interpretation of "govern the least."

Indeed.  It's another example of the sort of thing I referred to in my immediately prior reply to you - about people not understanding simple statements and, in this case, conflating the word 'least' to mean 'nothing' to them.

Jefferson's statement, and indeed his documented beliefs/opinions, make clear that it is not making a case for no government at all.  IF that had been the case you can be sure he would have said it.

[Bob8]

11 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Two problems with that statement.

Firstly, if we accept it's the case for economics that doesn't mean the same's true for government in general.

Secondly, there's the danger of reading it too literally; clearly the least government isn't intended to mean no government at all, even though that's the literal interpretation of "govern the least."

The two problems I see with "Governments that govern the best are governments that govern the least" is that it does not define best nor least.

Clearly, he thought there should be a Government, but that is should not do the things he did not think it should do.

I mean, yes, that is great. The issue is that everyone would agree. And that is before we define what Governing best means, which presumably means doing the things it should and not the things it should.

It can be repharsed as "Governments what they should and not what they should not are governments that govern what they should and not what they should not" and it loses none of its meaning, but much of its poetry.

[zugzwang]

11 minutes ago, anonguest said:

By whom?  By you? In your own mind and opinion? 

Care to share any references/links to any such observation based arguments that comprehensively demolish Jefferson's assertion?

[anonguest]

2 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

The two problems I see with "Governments that govern the best are governments that govern the least" is that it does not define best nor least.

Clearly, he thought there should be a Government, but that is should not do the things he did not think it should do.

I mean, yes, that is great. The issue is that everyone would agree. And that is before we define what Governing best means, which presumably means doing the things it should and not the things it should.

It can be repharsed as "Governments what they should and not what they should not are governments that govern what they should and not what they should not" and it loses none of its meaning, but much of its poetry.

My own preferred modern variation on the Jefferson theme is:

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have"

[anonguest]

5 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

You're going to have to explain to us how the above event 'comprehensively demolishes' the Jeffersonian principle of asserting the desirability of minimal government.

In particular I also refer you to Riedquat's comment of you conflating economics with 'government' in general.

Edited March 11, 2022 by anonguest

[zugzwang]

19 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Two problems with that statement.

Firstly, if we accept it's the case for economics that doesn't mean the same's true for government in general.

Secondly, there's the danger of reading it too literally; clearly the least government isn't intended to mean no government at all, even though that's the literal interpretation of "govern the least."

The two most important things that govts do:

1. Regulate the economy.

2. Maintain public order.

 

Jefferson was a rapist and a slaver. The case for more govt almost makes itself when we examine his life history.

[zugzwang]

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

You're going to have to explain to us how the above event 'comprehensively demolishes' the Jeffersonian principle of asserting the desirability of minimal government.

In particular I also refer you to Riedquat's comment of you conflating economics with 'government' in general.

The collapse of the $700 trillion tower of credit derivatives in the shadow banking system - a completely unregulated free market - brought down the banking system proper in 2008.

Industrial civilisation would have ended the day Lehman Brothers closed its doors for the last time were not for the co-ordinated intervention of the world's central banks and treasuries.

[anonguest]

44 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The two most important things that govts do:

1. Regulate the economy.

2. Maintain public order.

And therein lies the problem.

The role of government should be to

1. Define socioeconomic standards and enforce/uphold them (i.e. make laws)

2. Organise the the defence of the nation

The idea that it must be goverments job to regulate/organise the economy is a very modern (and IMO) wrong one.  It arises, again, because people conflate two separate goals as being the same thing when they are not.  There is a difference between setting a standard or expectation (e.g.

For example, government (which in effect, in a democracy, is all of us) might, say, decide that people in old peoples homes should eat caviar at least once a day.  That does not mean it is governments job to organise and make that happen. It is the job of the private sector to work out how to do that. And IF it turns out that the minimum cost of doing this is more than people can tolerate then government (i.e. the people) needs to re-examine its expectations.

 

44 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Jefferson was a rapist and a slaver.

So what? So was Wernher Von Braun. Does that mean we must disown any of the technological benefits that have come about and been enabled by the products of his mind?

Issac Newton, through personal investment, supported the slave trade. Are we therefore supposed to disregard the products of his mind because he saw nothing wrong in supporting an activity that we today prohibit?

Draw up a list of, say, 100 major historical figures who made major contributions to the progress and development of humanity (science, literature, philosophy, politics, etc) and I will wager that you will find, without too much diffilculty, that at least half espoused beliefs and/or enagaged in activities we here today would all find repugnant.

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by anonguest

[scottbeard]

6 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Draw up a list of, say, 100 major historical figures who made major contributions to the progress and development of humanity (science, literature, philosophy, politics, etc) and I will wager that you will find, without too much diffilculty, that at least half espoused beliefs and/or enagaged in activities we here today would all find repugnant.

Absolutely.   I love Agatha Christie books, but when you read some of the lines the characters say today they stand out as very racist, which tells you more about the time period they were written in (and the acceptability of racism amongst white people in those times) than about her as a person.

[anonguest]

36 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The collapse of the $700 trillion tower of credit derivatives in the shadow banking system - a completely unregulated free market - brought down the banking system proper in 2008.

There was nothing completley unregulated about the financial system before the crash. It was regulated but not in the correct way or to the correct extent.

36 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Industrial civilisation would have ended the day Lehman Brothers closed its doors for the last time were not for the co-ordinated intervention of the world's central banks and treasuries.

Now who's engaging in hyperbole?!

No it most certainly would not.  Would there have been an even more serious recession/depression without intervention? Very possibly. Would it have been the end of industrial civilisation? OF course not. No more than the Wall Street Crash, and subsequent great depression, did.

Edited March 11, 2022 by anonguest

[dugsbody]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

I'm not convinced that rules of compulsion are necessary. Some rules of prohibition are, but not compulsion (and trying to re-word compulsions to sound like prohibitions doesn't get around that).

They are necessary or we wouldn't have them. Evolution doesn't just apply to genetics, survival of the fittest is supreme. A fitter system will kill off a less fit system, and we've never found a system of anarchy that actually works for humans. If it did and was better, it would have long ago killed off our current rules based systems. 

 

 

[scottbeard]

3 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

They are necessary or we wouldn't have them. Evolution doesn't just apply to genetics, survival of the fittest is supreme. A fitter system will kill off a less fit system, and we've never found a system of anarchy that actually works for humans. If it did and was better, it would have long ago killed off our current rules based systems. 

An interesting way to look at it!

I have often felt that one of the good things about having different countries in the world is that different countries can adopt different approaches, and if someone feels very strongly they should move to a country where what they like is the philosophy.

For example, if there was a country where seatbelts were not compulsory, but if you ended up going through the windscreen and couldn't pay for medical care you were simply left to die and then rot on the bonnet of your car surrounded by broken glass I would not want to move there.  But perhaps some posters on here would.

[dugsbody]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

An interesting way to look at it!

I have often felt that one of the good things about having different countries in the world is that different countries can adopt different approaches, and if someone feels very strongly they should move to a country where what they like is the philosophy.

For example, if there was a country where seatbelts were not compulsory, but if you ended up going through the windscreen and couldn't pay for medical care you were simply left to die and then rot on the bonnet of your car surrounded by broken glass I would not want to move there.  But perhaps some posters on here would.

Some posters on here would probably love many countries in Africa. You can be as libertarian as you want in some of them.

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

The two problems I see with "Governments that govern the best are governments that govern the least" is that it does not define best nor least.

I don't think that's a shortcoming for a general statement of principle; those need to not be well-defined otherwise you get lost in the details, can't see the wood for the trees, and start rejecting the principle because the details aren't right.

Take another statement - "I'd rather be rich than poor." The lack of definition of just what is rich or poor doesn't change the general point.

[Riedquat]

9 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

They are necessary or we wouldn't have them. Evolution doesn't just apply to genetics, survival of the fittest is supreme. A fitter system will kill off a less fit system, and we've never found a system of anarchy that actually works for humans. If it did and was better, it would have long ago killed off our current rules based systems.

I don't see how that ties in with compulsion. A lack of legal compulsion does not equate to anarchy, and indeed the vast majority of laws are prohibitions, not compulsions anyway.

[Bob8]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I don't think that's a shortcoming for a general statement of principle; those need to not be well-defined otherwise you get lost in the details, can't see the wood for the trees, and start rejecting the principle because the details aren't right.

Take another statement - "I'd rather be rich than poor." The lack of definition of just what is rich or poor doesn't change the general point.

I would say it compares to "I want the right amount".

[dugsbody]

11 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I don't see how that ties in with compulsion. A lack of legal compulsion does not equate to anarchy, and indeed the vast majority of laws are prohibitions, not compulsions anyway.

It feels like you're splitting hairs. It is compulsory to pay taxes. It is compulsory to wear a seatbelt. It is compulsory to ensure your tires have a certain depth of tread. It is compulsory for your children to attend school or have an exemption.

Every prohibition law can simply be reframed as a compulsion to not do something. It is compulsory to not sell heroin.

[Riedquat]

6 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

It feels like you're splitting hairs. It is compulsory to pay taxes. It is compulsory to wear a seatbelt. It is compulsory to ensure your tires have a certain depth of tread. It is compulsory for your children to attend school or have an exemption.

Every prohibition law can simply be reframed as a compulsion to not do something. It is compulsory to not sell heroin.

"Reframed as a compulsion not to do something" - I explicitly ruled out that language twisting in my earlier post. It is not accurate to say that "You MUST do something" and "You must NOT do something" are equivalent.

To nudge it slightly closer to being on-topic if there's a law that says you have to be vaccinated then that's a compulsion. If it says you can't go the cinema without a vaccination that's a prohibition - fundamentally a CANNOT rather than a MUST even if you try to re-word it as such.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Riedquat

[zugzwang]

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

There was nothing completley unregulated about the financial system before the crash. It was regulated but not in the correct way or to the correct extent.

Now who's engaging in hyperbole?!

No it most certainly would not.  Would there have been an even more serious recession/depression without intervention? Very possibly. Would it have been the end of industrial civilisation? OF course not. No more than the Wall Street Crash, and subsequent great depression, did.

The shadow banking system was beyond the reach of any regulatory authority or central bank, and intentionally so. A pure free market from its inception.

By September 2008 credit derivatives losses internationally were multiples of global GDP.  The S&P fell 57% in a single year before Paulson managed to co-ordinate a rescue, the sharpest decline ever seen.

What would have arrested that collapse if Paulson hadn't been there?

 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

11 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

It feels like you're splitting hairs. It is compulsory to pay taxes. It is compulsory to wear a seatbelt. It is compulsory to ensure your tires have a certain depth of tread. It is compulsory for your children to attend school or have an exemption.

Every prohibition law can simply be reframed as a compulsion to not do something. It is compulsory to not sell heroin.

Part of the driving theory test is now about hazard anticipation/perception and if you fail to demonstrate an ability to do this you will fail the test. The aim presumably being to keep people who cannot properly evaluate risks off the road.

Thinking it is sensible to not wear a seatbelt is a pretty clear indication that you are incapable of properly evaluating risks and probably should leaving driving to others. 

[zugzwang]

35 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I don't think that's a shortcoming for a general statement of principle; those need to not be well-defined otherwise you get lost in the details, can't see the wood for the trees, and start rejecting the principle because the details aren't right.

Take another statement - "I'd rather be rich than poor." The lack of definition of just what is rich or poor doesn't change the general point.

Choose any metric. Life expectancy, infant mortality, net wealth, literacy... even happiness, and Switzerland is light years ahead of somewhere like Somalia.

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Part of the driving theory test is now about hazard anticipation/perception and if you fail to demonstrate an ability to do this you will fail the test. The aim presumably being to keep people who cannot properly evaluate risks off the road.

Thinking it is sensible to not wear a seatbelt is a pretty clear indication that you are incapable of properly evaluating risks and probably should leaving driving to others. 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's sensible not to wear a seatbelt, just that it shouldn't be mandatory.