Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[Maniac]

Another short reply to Drogue:

Well, it doesn't mean always passed on, but there is a strong correlation between attributes of the parents and those of the children.

Unfortunately I do not know any researches or statistics about the strength of the correlations between parents' and children's talents. But if your theory would be true, the nobility of the 18th century should be better rulers than the nobility of the 8th century. Somehow I doubt this is true.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Archaic
http://www.swcollege.com/econ/mankiw...h20/links.html

That should be enough to show that Poverty isn't increasing.

I'll try to read it this weekend when I find some time between other activities this weekend such as studies, ACDG, Diplomacy games, SMAC PBEM games, reading of a book about the Chinese civilization... If not, my two-week christmas holidays start in a week. Then I should have sufficient time.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic
http://www.swcollege.com/econ/mankiw...h20/links.html

That should be enough to show that Poverty isn't increasing.

"It is true that the United States continued to suffer increases in inequality of family income (rather than individual earnings) over the past decade."

This quote is from the first article linked to... combined with the rise in "temporary" employment (i.e. not insured, no retirement, etc.), this fact points to actually increasing disparity. There are no laws against laying off temps here in the U.S.- a laborer can have his loyalty ruthlessly exploited and be disposed of at the drop of a hat- homeless before he knows it and despised by ignorant children of privilege watching the marginals.

[Maniac]

It's only about the US? I believe it's true the income graph has changed from a pyramid to an onion over the last hundred years (the middle class) in the western world due to socialistic measures, but I thought the extremes had widened too. Also that is not taking the entire third world into account...

[lucky22]

Yeah... this one is only about the U.S. I don't know about "temp" employment in the Commonwealth and western Europe... Of course protection for labor is virtually non-existent in the rest of the world.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
That only is true when customers have full knowledge of the corporations' policies, which is impossible as mentioned in my answers to Archaic.

Exactly. Hence why I said it could be argued, I personally do not believe it, or at least that it is outweighed by other factors. I think even when people do know corporations policies, they don't act upon them (examples, GAP and Nike, both heavily publisised human rights issues, both very successful companies). People do not choose where to buy by human rights records, they choose to buy by who has the best product, at the most competative price. Therefore, if a company has a better product, or cheaper means of manufacture (and a cheaper price) it has more power. Yes perfect FM is not American corporatism, but GT's idea of FM is very close IMO. If this is wrong, please show how they differ (late 20th Century American and GT's FM idea for the UNPK).

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Unfortunately I do not know any researches or statistics about the strength of the correlations between parents' and children's talents. But if your theory would be true, the nobility of the 18th century should be better rulers than the nobility of the 8th century. Somehow I doubt this is true.

How so? I'm not saying that the children improve on the parents, just that, if a parent has a talent, then their ofspring is more likely to have that talent than the average person. If 2 'intelligent' people have a child, it is likely that child will be intelligent too, but it may or may not be more intelligent than it's parents. That is the essence of Darwinism I believe, and has been shown to be most likely in many studies. That is all I meant by

Well, it doesn't mean always passed on, but there is a strong correlation between attributes of the parents and those of the children.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Maniac
Another short reply to Drogue:



Unfortunately I do not know any researches or statistics about the strength of the correlations between parents' and children's talents. But if your theory would be true, the nobility of the 18th century should be better rulers than the nobility of the 8th century. Somehow I doubt this is true.

Due to inbreading, which is an unrelated external factor.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue

If 2 'intelligent' people have a child, it is likely that child will be intelligent too, but it may or may not be more intelligent than it's parents.

Exactly. The word 'likely' is mandatory here. Also that it may be more intelligent, may be just as intelligent, or may be less intelligent. In other words, though a set of genes for better cognitive abilities are probably passed on, it is not at all certain those latent genes come into action. There is a lot of variation between individual cases, and therefore a darwinist system is quite unfair and inefficient compared to a meritocratic one.

Due to inbreading, which is an unrelated external factor.

So without inbreading you believe that the nobility would contain a significantly higher percentage of good leaders than the normal people, when not taking the factor of rearing for leadership into account?


I get the feeling we have two Nazi race purifiers among us...

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Maniac
So without inbreading you believe that the nobility would contain a significantly higher percentage of good leaders than the normal people, when not taking the factor of rearing for leadership into account?

When not taking the factor for rearing for leadership into account? Then they would have no higher percentage than the average. They are just average children. When you factor in the inbreeding, those children become below average.

The great majority of the influencing factors in social darwinism have to do with the environment the child was raised in. A successful family can raise a child in a better environment, giving them more and better opportunities than the average person.

Originally posted by Maniac
I get the feeling we have two Nazi race purifiers among us...

Let's see......

Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Fear, Guilt By Association, Hasty Generalization, Personal Attack and last but not least, Poisoning the Well.

[Pandemoniak]

@ Archaic

Nasty. Simple. Efficient. But Dirty.

[Archaic]

I'm not going to repeat the fallacies again Pan. Everyone already knows the ones you keep pulling by rote now.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Exactly. The word 'likely' is mandatory here. Also that it may be more intelligent, may be just as intelligent, or may be less intelligent. In other words, though a set of genes for better cognitive abilities are probably passed on, it is not at all certain those latent genes come into action. There is a lot of variation between individual cases, and therefore a darwinist system is quite unfair and inefficient compared to a meritocratic one.

Um... what do you mean by Darwinist? All I mean is survival of the fittest, natural selection. Darwinism and meritocracy are not mutually exclusive, as I happen to agree with both. I however, do not see the need to make society 'unnaturally fair'. I think we as humans have evolved far enough to have a fair society by choice, and not hav it imposed upon us. If however, we haven't, and we are still primarily bound by greed and ambition for ourselves, then I would not support laws to artificially impose fairness upon the people. I support Eudaimonia, meritocracy and fairness by ethos and democracy, rather than by inforcement. How can we have a fair society if in our hearts we are not fair ourselves?

Originally posted by Maniac
So without inbreading you believe that the nobility would contain a significantly higher percentage of good leaders than the normal people, when not taking the factor of rearing for leadership into account?

No, nobles do not necessarily have the genes for leadership. Just because their forefathers were leaders, and had practice, does not make them good leaders. You cannot pass on experience in genes.

Originally posted by Maniac
I get the feeling we have two Nazi race purifiers among us...

That's going a bit far ! What have I (or Archaic for that matter) done that even slightly supports that? Just because I believe in Darwin does not mean I agree with race purifying, and we are both Libertarians, the antithisis of Fascism. I have to say I'm surprised you would stoop to such a comment Maniac.

Indeed, as my original post on Darwinism states, I was advocating a centre left, Libertarian meritocracy, using Darwinism, and human nature, as its founding principle. I believe it is the closest to 'fairness' you can get without imposing unnatural strong laws, and that is sustainable. This happens to be the opinion of the economist I was quoting too.

Pande: While I, along with you, disagree with Archaic on many things, including his debating style, he has a point. The debating mistakes he posted (Appeal to Fear et al) are correct.

[Pandemoniak]

Pande: While I, along with you, disagree with Archaic on many things, including his debating style, he has a point. The debating mistakes he posted (Appeal to Fear et al) are correct.

Most certainly. All kind of eugenism make me vomit though.

[Drogue]

True, however no one, to my knowledge, has advocated eugenism in any form yet.

My personal feelings are, if it is unnatural, then it is not a good thing. Natural eugenism (ie. people choosing who to mate with for their characteristics, is fine, but unnatural eugenism, (ie. 'breeding programs' for humans) is not, although there is an argument in support of such a measure.

[Maniac]

I don't understand you guys. Really I don't...

When not taking the factor for rearing for leadership into account? Then they would have no higher percentage than the average. They are just average children. When you factor in the inbreeding, those children become below average.

No, nobles do not necessarily have the genes for leadership. Just because their forefathers were leaders, and had practice, does not make them good leaders. You cannot pass on experience in genes.

Then how can you consider a social darwinist system better than a meritocratic system if the children are just average?? In a social darwinists system people who do not always (just as much as the average person) posses the right talents for a job get educated for that job, while in a meritocratic system people who have the right talents for a job get educated for that job. That is more efficient. In a social darwinists system and a meritocratic/equal chances system everyone can gain just as much experience through education, but because in a equal chances system the students have better inborn talents & genes for that job, they will perform better than the social darwinist system student, who just happen to be born in a rich family.

Um... what do you mean by Darwinist? All I mean is survival of the fittest, natural selection.

With which I agree and one of the reasons I strive for a meritocratic system. "Natural selection" in the market makes sure the best for a certain job gets that job, and everyone begins with equal chances at the start line. What I do not agree with is "Social Darwinism", a system thought up in the bourgeois 19th century which implies that the elite of a society deserve to be there due to their supposed superior talents. Just another philosophy made up to justify that all power lies within a small group and to exclude people from lower classes to rise to that elite.
What do you mean by (Social?) Darwinism? And how does it effect how the supposed best society should look like?

I however, do not see the need to make society 'unnaturally fair'.

How do you define "natural" and "unnatural"? Are laws unnatural according to you?

Just because I believe in Darwin

So do I believe in his evolution theory, but besides the name there is no link between Darwin and Social Darwinism.

we are both Libertarians, the antithisis of Fascism.

That's your opinion. IMO absence of laws on the political and economical field can do nothing else than lead to a corporate dictatorship of multinationals in our current society (arguments provided in my previous posts). Therefore, according to me, Libertarianism after a while automatically leads to a variation of "fascism".

[Drogue]

Well, I was talking about Darwinism, as in according to Darwin's laws, not Social Darwinism, which as you say, shows little resemblance to the great man's work. I think Darwinism (non-social) is meritocratic, in that who is best equipped survives and prospers. I agree with equal eduication, but I also believe you should be allowed to pass on something (ie. money) that you have earned, as part of the reward for the work during your life.

Natural and unnatural I define by unnatural being something that is enforced, against human nature. Laws can be both, some laws are 'the collective concience' of society (ie. what most people are for or against) and are natural, some are enforced, such as police control, and are unnatural. That's just how I see things however, I'm not to good at explaining what I mean.

Actually, that definition of Libertaianism is what is given both by websites such as the political compass and by the Libertarian Party (in great britain). That Libertarian is not necessarily a completely (or at all) Free Market, which IMO is what leads to corporatiasm. Myself, and many economists (Keynes, Galbraith etc.) are Libertarian and left.

[Hercules]

Just popped in. These threads are becoming increasingly like university tutorials.
Archaic made a point somewhere (least I think it was him) that a lot of good and welcome imput to the game lanquishes in the Rec. Com.

Take note of two points: our citizen registry has not significantly increased (if it has at all);

Less than half of registered citizens post regularly.

The survival of our ACDG species is under threat unless we behave differently. The departure of DE (hopefully temporally) is a sympton of something wrong.

The survival of ACDG requires regular and varied participation and agreement to a code of conduct in discussion and debate. I suspect for many the current style of debate in many threads is a big turn off.

[Method]

Originally posted by Hercules
I suspect for many the current style of debate in many threads is a big turn off.

yes it is

[Drogue]

Ok, shall we try to keep all arguments strictly game based. So that we can RP, but anything old Earth style is off limits. Just an idea.

[GeneralTacticus]

So, no more use of the USA or USSR in the FM debate? I like it.

[Drogue]

Exactly. If FM comes up, we can debate on in-game effects, and RP in that more money and research vs more drones and eco-damage, and leave economic theory and old Earth out. Is that agreed? Should we amend the contitution for that?

[GeneralTacticus]

I don't think a constiutional amendment would eb the way out of this; it would probably end up in endless legal wrangles over what the meaning of a particular comment actually was, and in any case, the constitunio isn't there for stuff like this, it's there to provide a framework for the game's organization. It would be just to have it as an informal agreement.

[Drogue]

OK, do we all agree? (by all I mean myself, Archaic, GT, Maniac and Pande - The main participants)

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, I do, and I assume you do, too. Can't speak for anyone else.

[Pandemoniak]

Ok, shall we try to keep all arguments strictly game based. So that we can RP, but anything old Earth style is off limits.

Agreed, though we shouldnt totally ignore all that happened on Earth, just limit our conversation to quickly quote things that happened centuries ago...

[Archaic]

Agreed with Pan for once (Miracles do happen), but if any strawmans are used, the others should be allowed and obliged to point it out.

[Kirov]

The other possibility is to create a special thread, named, for instance, "Holy Wars". I agree with ceasing this endless debate, but I think your agreement would not last forever (to the next SE choices, I suppose).

[Pandemoniak]

/me ask Commisioner Lemmy to award the Great Medal of Glory and Honor of the Peacekeepers and the Crisler Prize of Peace to Drogue, for his succesful attempt to make Archaic and myself agree.

[DeathByTheSword]

Drogue good work!