A summary of trickle down economic theory:

[Japher]

How did the deterioration of free will come from redistribution of wealth? - Nevermind don't answer that.

You have a point Agathon. Natural as well as Sociological influences have defined what is right and wrong, and have given descrpencies to what we deem to be free will. Yet, it is these natural and sociological influences that give us the abilities and requisits on which we base our decisions. One can, despite all odds, chose not to be bad in the same way they can chose not to be good, yet external factors do motivate this decision.

Are you telling me that someone (without a psychological disorder) living in a poor neighborhood cannot succeed because they are encouraged not to by their surroundings (family, friends, etc...)? Are you saying that it is this encouragement that eliminates free will? Is that the same as taking away their opportunities?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Of course, no behavioral "science" is a scientifically respectable concept. Ask any physicist what he or she thinks of sociology, psychology, philosophy, or any of that other pseudo-scientific babble. Read Feynmann for one example, he's hilarious.

I'm an eliminative materialist. None of those arguments apply to me since I reject propositional attitude psychology.

Human beings are "material" in certain specific applications, say, predicting what will happen when one is launched at 500 meters per second at a solid wall. The behavior of human beings, or any other intelligent animal (and even a lot of low-intelligence animals) can not be modeled with a high degree of accuracy, and certainly not on the basis of material properties.

That is because we do not yet know enough about the brain. On the other hand all the indicators point towards the truth that mental states are just brain states. There isn't any other respectable theory.

If you can show any model of human beings consistently and non-trivially (let's exclude sweating, defecation and autonymous functions) being controlled by causal laws, whether based in classic mechanics, quantum mechanics, field theories, or any other concept of causation on material objects, please do so.

It doesn't matter if I can or not. As I said, we don't yet understand enough about the way the brain works. As I see it we have two options: (1) that the human being is a physical organism and operates according to the laws of nature; or (2) a human being has something magical, a soul, which resists material explanation. Consistency demands the former, superstition the latter.

Actually, that's the problem with the left, but since they've rejected God, they have to disguise their deterministic, fatalistic metaphysical beliefs behind a veneer of pseudoscientific "laws" and pseudophilosphical babble.

It's the religious people who are the superstitious lunatics. Believing in God is the classic symptom of irrationality in the face of fear.

Actually, your denial of free will because there "just has to be" some deterministic basis for complex system behavior is based on antiquated religious dogma. You just can't admit that due to your atheism, so you have to cloak your closet Calvinism in some disguise of so-called objective laws. Of course, you can produce as much evidence for your brand of determinism as Calvin and Luther and others could for theirs.

That has nothing to do with it. My argument is that human beings are physical creatures. It has nothing to do with determinism per se, and everything to do with physicalism. There may be indeterminacy in the physical world but that doesn't matter a jot because indeterminacy isn't sufficient to ground free will. If it was, then my actions would be just as surprising to me as they would to anyone else. As it stands they aren't - they are in accordance with my beliefs and desires.

Then we're simply talking about different applications of the same general concept. In terms of policy and economics, I'm interested in how things can be applied in the real world, not in their theoretical foundation.

In the real world, we have to be consistent or find some reason why not to be. If we believe that it's wrong for people to suffer reductions in opportunity because of things they can't control and that this is the main principle of justice then of course circumstances can limit application of it. But what's really happening is that we have other principles, such as not doing things when everyone is worse off, that come into play.

The limiting case in a theoretical exercise is irrelevant to practical application.

What a load. Our theoretical principles are the sole guide we have. What people call pragmatism is really just the use of multiple principles. For example, we might say "it's right for everyone to be equal" and then realise that everyone will be worse off. All that means is that we have another principle operating that states, "no change when everyone ends up worse off".

We're not talking about lobotomizing everyone to equalize them down to a Forrest Gump IQ, or hobbling those who are physically in shape so that couch potatoes can keep up with them, or making ambitious people do everything with 120 lb packs on their back so they accomplish as little as lazy people.

Of course people aren't talking about that. People mouth off about all sorts of principles without understanding what they really mean. As I said, people generally support EOO because it benefits them. That's their reason, they don't give a fig about consistency.

The question, as you've phrased it, is irrelevant. There is no evidence for a "laziness gene." None. Period. In a situation with zero supporting evidence, there is no reason to assume something is real, and should be treated as such, simply because in theory some evidence might be discovered in the future, despite the fact that there's no evidence now, and what evidence as does exist points primarily to a different conclusion. (i.e. learned behavior, environment, non-genetic psychological issues)

It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or environmental or whatever. Your environment as a child is largely not up to you. Unless you want to posit magical souls, a physicalistic explanation is the best guess.

That's an example of the left's "religious" dogma in action.

Of course it is - how much more compelling to say that the devil made me do it.

Such studies as have been done (NMR and PET imaging of the brain during specific thought processes) suggest that the issue is for more complex and less susceptible to deterministic analyses than previously thought. Nobody in the business wants to suggest it openly (it's bad for grant funding), but the problem of modeling human brain function may be intractible. What has been observed is that for each person, the brain activity that is evident during a given thought process is radically different from person to person, and equally radically different with the same person doing the same activity on different occasions.

And this has what to do with free will? It doesn't matter if my brain processes are indeterminate, this doesn't equate to free will - any more than any other indeterminate processes in nature are the result of free will.

There are other problems here, like reductionism of propositional attitudes to brain states. But that doesn't bother me since I'm an eliminativist. Propositional attitudes have to go. None of this gives a reasonable account of what free will is.

I was once a hippie leftist commie. I grew out of it, when I realized it was fundamentally a crock. There's your compelling explanation.

A hippie commie. Well there's your explanation. My guess is that you got religion.

Equalizing, as to the specific factor being remedied, not equalizing in all factors. Removal of artificial barriers (i.e. adjusting for ****ty educational systems as a poor indicator of natural talent and ability), etc., does not extend to giving subidies across the board to those with no talent or no interest in developing their abilities, which is the aim of Kidicious' wealth redistribution system.

Why should people be punished for their lack of talent, when it isn't their fault? EOO by itself can't tell us the answer.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher

Are you telling me that someone (without a psychological disorder) living in a poor neighborhood cannot succeed because they are encouraged not to by their surroundings (family, friends, etc...)? Are you saying that it is this encouragement that eliminates free will? Is that the same as taking away their opportunities?

I'm asking what the best explanation of it would be. One in scientific terms or just saying "they're lazy".

[Arrian]

Why should people be punished for their lack of talent, when it isn't their fault? EOO by itself can't tell us the answer.

Why should people be punished for their possession of talent?

The answer to both questions comes down to what each society decides is "fair." And it is quite clear that different people have different ideas about fairness (hence this whole damn thread[jack]).

-Arrian

[Japher]

Besides, as you have pointed out, factors that you are bron with and can't control I would say that free will exists but is overwhelmed by social reactions.

I think a lot of people would ditch those environmental factors that cause oppresion if they found something they desired more than exceptance from their peers. I also think a lot of mental factors can be overcome if they find something they love more than the social factors they are currently exposed to.

Finding that outlet is the key to overcoming "laziness", yet when one is lazy they don't bother looking for that outlet. So, is the problem scientific or are they "just lazy"?

I have no idea. In some cases A, some cases B...

The point, however, is, that welfare has existed for many, many years... Why has unemployment, welfare recipients, homelessness gone up? Is it something in the water, or is it something wrong with the system?

[Japher]

I say it is the people. Why? Because I have seen many people take advantage of the system to raise themselves out of poverty, my mother and father for two... I have also seen many people take advantage of it to stay in poverty, and get a free ride...

Therefore, they are lazy

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

Why should people be punished for their possession of talent?

According to EOO the rationale is this:

People in some sense are the authors of their own destiny and autonomy requires that they be allowed to succeed or fail based on their own efforts. However, some people (say women or the disabled) are at a natural disadvantage which handicaps them in the race to succeed. No one chooses their sex and no one chooses their own natural talents so it silly to say that these are due to their own efforts. Accidents of birth give some people unfair advantages which they haven't worked for - hence EOO handicaps these advantages.

The problem is, if you do this across the board for all Accidents of Birth
you end up with a ridiculous policy. But the moral intuition that drives EOO demands that we do this. So the best response IMHO is to dump that moral princple.

[Japher]

We all know that Morals have, and should not have, anything to do with buisness

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'm an eliminative materialist. None of those arguments apply to me since I reject propositional attitude psychology.

I eliminate material too. I suppose it's more or less the same thing?

All the philosophical labels in the world don't affect objective reality in the slightest.

That is because we do not yet know enough about the brain. On the other hand all the indicators point towards the truth that mental states are just brain states. There isn't any other respectable theory.

The fact that they are "just brain states" doesn't mean anything, especially wrt determinism, or whether complex systems behavior can ever be accurately described in terms of fundamental physical laws.

It doesn't matter if I can or not. As I said, we don't yet understand enough about the way the brain works. As I see it we have two options: (1) that the human being is a physical organism and operates according to the laws of nature; or (2) a human being has something magical, a soul, which resists material explanation. Consistency demands the former, superstition the latter.

And the third and most likely option by far is that once systems acquire a certain degree of complexity, they can no longer be described in any meaningful way on the basis of "laws of nature"
Particularly organic systems such as brains, which are highly self-referential, highly feedback oriented, and nonlinear processors.

It's the religious people who are the superstitious lunatics. Believing in God is the classic symptom of irrationality in the face of fear.

Really? With all the clinging to dogma regardless of evidence, I find the Marxist left to be more irrational and looney than nearly any religious person I've ever met.

That has nothing to do with it. My argument is that human beings are physical creatures. It has nothing to do with determinism per se, and everything to do with physicalism. There may be indeterminacy in the physical world but that doesn't matter a jot because indeterminacy isn't sufficient to ground free will. If it was, then my actions would be just as surprising to me as they would to anyone else. As it stands they aren't - they are in accordance with my beliefs and desires.

The whole essence of free will is that you choose to act in accordance with your beliefs and desires, rather than in an externally determined or inevitable way. The entire physical world is indeterminate - what you see is simply an average state over a long period of time and large scale (from the quantum perspective) which gives an appearance of stability and predictability. Classical mechanics and physics work because they are close enough estimates on the scale to which they're applied, not because the universe actually works that way.

In the real world, we have to be consistent or find some reason why not to be. If we believe that it's wrong for people to suffer reductions in opportunity because of things they can't control and that this is the main principle of justice then of course circumstances can limit application of it. But what's really happening is that we have other principles, such as not doing things when everyone is worse off, that come into play.

In the real world, consistency only exists when we artificially limit the scope of what we're applying our actions to. Change the scope, and you can make any "consistent" set of actions in one worldview be totally inconsistent in another worldview.

What a load. Our theoretical principles are the sole guide we have. What people call pragmatism is really just the use of multiple principles. For example, we might say "it's right for everyone to be equal" and then realise that everyone will be worse off. All that means is that we have another principle operating that states, "no change when everyone ends up worse off".

And that does nothing to address the relevance (or lack theiroff) of theoretical limits in "soft" fields like economics, sociology, public policy, etc., where "theoretical" limits are generally just untestable exercises in intellectual masturbation. "theoretical" limits in real sciences have meaning - we can empirically test the strength of a particular material to it's failure point, or test other properties, and use that data to derive meaningful values. We can't do the same in soft systems such as economic policy, where there are too many variables, limited ability to control the scope of the experiment, etc. So the validity of your philosophical theoretical limits are nothing more than untested thought experiments. We therefore guide ourselves not on the basis of limits, but expected deviation from the current situation when a new rule or regime is applied.

Of course people aren't talking about that. People mouth off about all sorts of principles without understanding what they really mean. As I said, people generally support EOO because it benefits them. That's their reason, they don't give a fig about consistency.

Of course not - absolute consistency is an unattainable, subjective, and generally useless item.

It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or environmental or whatever. Your environment as a child is largely not up to you. Unless you want to posit magical souls, a physicalistic explanation is the best guess.

Yes, a freely chosen behavior, i.e. free will , absent other explanations (being stoned on weed all the time, for example_

Of course it is - how much more compelling to say that the devil made me do it.

Well, at least we have an admission that the left is driven by pseudo-religious dogma.

And this has what to do with free will? It doesn't matter if my brain processes are indeterminate, this doesn't equate to free will - any more than any other indeterminate processes in nature are the result of free will.

There are other problems here, like reductionism of propositional attitudes to brain states. But that doesn't bother me since I'm an eliminativist. Propositional attitudes have to go. None of this gives a reasonable account of what free will is.

It has everything to do with free will, i.e. that people make choices of behaviors according to their individual thought processes, and there is no "physical law" driver for the complex systems interaction that is the actual physical mechanism for those thought processes.

The reason you don't see the connection to free will is simple. You're a fundamentalist - free will does not and can not exist in your dogma, so nothing that in reality points to free will ever points to free will in your world view.

A hippie commie. Well there's your explanation. My guess is that you got religion.

Naah, religion came back much later. I just realized that Marxism and communism were inherently unsound, and only worked if you imagined away everything that didn't conform with dogma, and/or blamed failures on external forces such as those pesky reactionary/counterrevolutionary elements. I also figured out that capitalism actually worked.

Why should people be punished for their lack of talent, when it isn't their fault?

Not being guaranteed a specific economic outcome regardless of input is hardly punishment. Most people, in fact, have no great native talents, but they do have the ability to learn skills and apply those skills via hard work and determination, to get a better economic outcome.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I eliminate material too. I suppose it's more or less the same thing?

All the philosophical labels in the world don't affect objective reality in the slightest.

No but they describe it more or less accurately. I take it you've never heard of EM.

The fact that they are "just brain states" doesn't mean anything, especially wrt determinism, or whether complex systems behavior can ever be accurately described in terms of fundamental physical laws.

Then we just expand what counts as a natural law. This is mere word play. The point still remains, free will is an incoherent concept. Nobody believes in it anyway - think about how we deal with other people. To a large degree they are entirely predictable.

Again, I'll point out that hard determinism isn't the issue. Indeterminacy isn't the same as free will.

And the third and most likely option by far is that once systems acquire a certain degree of complexity, they can no longer be described in any meaningful way on the basis of "laws of nature"

Response to this above.

The whole essence of free will is that you choose to act in accordance with your beliefs and desires, rather than in an externally determined or inevitable way.

This is called compatibilism, it's free will lite. Again, how do your beliefs and desires come about - to say you simply invent them is ridiculous because you are then in the position of saying my beliefs and desires come about in accordance with my beliefs and desires and so on...

The entire physical world is indeterminate - what you see is simply an average state over a long period of time and large scale (from the quantum perspective) which gives an appearance of stability and predictability. Classical mechanics and physics work because they are close enough estimates on the scale to which they're applied, not because the universe actually works that way.

OK - be a pragmatist then. You still have to be consistent.

In the real world, consistency only exists when we artificially limit the scope of what we're applying our actions to. Change the scope, and you can make any "consistent" set of actions in one worldview be totally inconsistent in another worldview.

The consistency I'm talking about is a logical phenomenon. Unless you are some kind of conceptual schemer it's the same in every worldview.

And that does nothing to address the relevance (or lack theiroff) of theoretical limits in "soft" fields like economics, sociology, public policy, etc., where "theoretical" limits are generally just untestable exercises in intellectual masturbation.

Because it's a fundamentally different thing. I'm talking about moral principles which are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Unless you are a moral realist moral principles do not report facts more or less acccurately.

"theoretical" limits in real sciences have meaning

logical possibility has determinate meaning. So what?

So the validity of your philosophical theoretical limits are nothing more than untested thought experiments. We therefore guide ourselves not on the basis of limits, but expected deviation from the current situation when a new rule or regime is applied.

Since we're dealing with values rather than facts here, this is wildy inappropriate.

Of course not - absolute consistency is an unattainable, subjective, and generally useless item.

Consistency is subjective? It's the fundamental tenet of practical rationality.

Yes, a freely chosen behavior, i.e. free will , absent other explanations (being stoned on weed all the time, for example

In accordance with my beliefs and desires.

Well, at least we have an admission that the left is driven by pseudo-religious dogma.

Ambiguity, thy name is....

It has everything to do with free will, i.e. that people make choices of behaviors according to their individual thought processes, and there is no "physical law" driver for the complex systems interaction that is the actual physical mechanism for those thought processes.

What does it mean, that people make choices? That they have these processes or that they somehow sit behind them, directing them. Even if my thought processes were not bound to physical laws it still wouldn't mean that I was directing them. This view is neutral between me directing the processes (whatever that means) and me being their victim.

The reason you don't see the connection to free will is simple. You're a fundamentalist - free will does not and can not exist in your dogma, so nothing that in reality points to free will ever points to free will in your world view.

Because nothing you've said points to free will. In fact you haven't even given a convincing account of what you think it is.

Not being guaranteed a specific economic outcome regardless of input is hardly punishment. Most people, in fact, have no great native talents, but they do have the ability to learn skills and apply those skills via hard work and determination, to get a better economic outcome.

That's not the point.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Nice punt, but you've still painted yourself in a corner. In the scenario given, required labor is identical, the extraction process is identical, and the quantity of ore is identical. The only difference is the yield of useful raw material from the ore.

You and I do the work that satisfies our needs and want the most first, right? If we can get someone else to do it for a reasonable price we will. That's what the market does, and that's what a planned economy should do also. In the market we produce and order labor. Without labor we can not buy or produce any goods and services. Sitting around deciding on how it is done is part of the process, but by no means creates any value.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Here's three absurd ideas that make up the foundations of the right wing's argument. There are more, and I could bring them up if I went back through the thread.

I guess because I'm not a commie frootloop, I'm a right-winger. BTW, when you get a chance, please inform Shi, Slowwhand, DanS, and a few other "right wing" folk that Roland (HershOstropoler) and I are officially "right wingers." I'm sure they'll be delighted to know that.

BTW, all three of these "absurd ideas" are results of either your spin on what we've said, or your lack of adequate intellectual rigor wrt use of terminology.

1) Wealth is not a benefit. Ok, then what the hell is the point of studying economics or reading the Wealth of Nations which is the bible for you right wing types.

Arguing on wealth and benefits is something you introduced:

"You aren't talking about policy which benefits everyone. You're talking about policy that will benefit an elite class."

Clearly, the use of "benefit" in this case is not synonymous with wealth. Obviously, X amount of money lying around is beneficial, but in talking about trickle down policy, the taxation of income and the disbursal of benefits are distinct from simply talking about your fallacious system of forced wealth transfer. When you introduced the wealth = benefit argument, that was after the initial discussion on general tax policy, progressive vs. regressive taxation, and who benefits more by such policy. As Imran pointed out, your instant equation of the two terms reduced your statement on wealthy people to a self-referential absurdity, the wealthy people are wealthy because they get more benefits. (i.e. wealthy people are wealthy because they have more wealth)

Nobody said wealth is not a benefit, they said that wealth is not the same thing being talked about when the term benefit was used elsewhere in the thread. If you change the definition midstream, don't fault us for using the original definition.

2) Opportunity is infinite. So I'll just go out and take over the world real quick and make my own reality.

Deliberate strawman, or sloppy interpretation, you tell me? You posit opportunity as finite and zero-sum (by arguing the only remedy is wealth transfer). We argue opportunity is expandible - i.e. new opportunities can be created to meet newly emerging needs in the marketplace. Ever heard of technology? We don't do things the same way we did them in Grandpa's time, so there's a whole range of jobs and business opportunities that didn't exist in grandpa's time.

3) The poor are poor because they don't try. Any poor person who tries can become rich. This comes from your idea that opportunity is infinite really. You have to justify this with the idea that the poor must be inferior because they have the same opportuinties as we do.

Your fallacies are legion. First and foremost, there are these two nebulous but monolithic groups "the rich" and "the poor" and that economic opportunity is only definable in migrating from the latter to the former.

Several of us in this thread have gone from poor to better off than poor, and/or had family who did so. I've seen plenty of poor people where you could figure out right off the bat why they were poor and why they'd stay that way. A lot of people don't fit your convenient mold, and are neither poor nor rich. Almost all, with very few exceptions, either have improved their economic situation over time, or could do so if they to take the necessary steps and hung in their.

Wake Up!

We are awake, and the joke's on you who wants to rationalize excuses for economic success of some people and the economic failure of others.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Arguing on wealth and benefits is something you introduced:

"You aren't talking about policy which benefits everyone. You're talking about policy that will benefit an elite class."

The context was who should pay the taxes. My approach was to make the beneficiaries of the system pay the tax. One of you then said that wealth is not a benefit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, you said that the system provides unfair benefits to the rich and that is why they should pay much more tax.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, you said that the system provides unfair benefits to the rich and that is why they should pay much more tax.

No I didn't, but since you mention it they are unfair benefits. It wouldn't matter if they were fair. Why should someone else pay for their benefits?