Now you've lost me. I'm okay with hanging him by the neck until he's dead. And maaaybe in special circumstances hanging until he's dead dead. Stuff like killing a small child and making a ventriloquist's dummy out of the corpse. Just plain dead may not be quite dead enough for that sort of thing. Or even just for ventriloquism in general. But "dead dead dead?" That's just barbaric and inhumane. No one deserves more than two deads.
Actually, I think that can probably be generalized to "If your conclusion is that you can just take whatever you feel like, the logic that got you there is just a hand-wavy pretext."
There is no one that can say with certainty (and proof!) that “your money” was earned without negative impact to the Commons. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Isn't this basically the fiscal equivalent of "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out?" It's one thing to do a best-effort accounting of negative externalities and implement Pigovian taxes based on that.
But "Well, you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your income isn't based on negative externalities, so we're just going to take whatever we feel like" is just a hand-wavy pretext for taking whatever you feel like.
Look: If you want to say that the government is legitimate, that's not so obviously wrong as to be completely laughable. And I'm not particularly interested in having that argument with you, so I won't object.
But what you actually said:
You are responsible for what your government spends Mad Rock, we all are. Your us/them distinction is a prevalant but faulty one.
Is in fact so obviously wrong as to be completely laughable.
Majoritarian and unilateral aren't mutually exclusive. You have the government and the majority on one side of the transaction, and me on the other. Only one side consented to the transaction.
Also, I love that, having bought into the premise that consent of the governed is essential to the legitimacy of government, and noting that some of the governed do not in fact consent, yet still committed to the conclusion that the government really is legitimate, you resolve the cognitive dissonance by making up an imaginary contract and asserting universal consent.
No. I think there are legitimate arrangements that don't align precisely with my preferences. But I wasn't saying anything about legitimacy. I think that the Boy Scouts is a perfectly legitimate organization, but I'm not a part of it.
Contrariwise, your us/them conflation is a prevalent but faulty one. I didn't vote for the current government, and I have not in any way authorized their actions. They're acting in direct opposition to my stated preferences. From my perspective, they're functionally equivalent to a colonizing government.
It seems clear to me that the “reasonable” level of doubt beyond which a jury is told to go can and indeed should change over time. This will no doubt make conservatives uncomfortable.
Why would this make conservatives uncomfortable?
Also, DNA exonerations should have two effects on our confidence in the death penalty. The first is that it should cause us to revise our estimates of the false positive rate of the justice system without DNA testing. I think for most people this will result in an upward revision, but it's possible that for some who were already more skeptical than appropriate it will result in a downward revision.
The second effect is that it should cause us to revise downwards our estimates for the present false positive rate. We no longer convict people who can be exonerated by DNA evidence. It's not immediately clear which effect should dominate.
Also, it's not obvious that the death penalty is a bad thing for people wrongly convicted of murder. Yes, being executed for a murder you didn't commit is bad, but you know what else is pretty bad? Wasting the rest of your life sitting in a prison cell for a murder you didn't commit.
Yes, being executed is worse. But you also have to look at the probabilities. Capital cases receive much greater scrutiny, so you're probably more likely to be exonerated if you're sentenced to death than you are if you're sentenced to life in prison. You have to consider not only how bad the worst-case scenario is, but also how likely it is.
Seems to me that it would specifically be the value of land out in the middle of nowhere that would plummet. Except that that's already pretty cheap. I wouldn't expect the price of urban or suburban real estate to fall much. In fact, it might even rise, with all the extra population.
Yes, that's the sort of thing I was looking for. Granted that the effect of a racial diversity was much weaker than the effect of opinion diversity (maybe we need affirmative action for people who oppose child labor laws?), it's fascinating that there was any effect at all based on the race of the plants, given that they were just reading scripts.
On “Something to Go Galt About”
You're taking it too literally. What he meant was that libertarians are bad people.
On “A conversation for the times”
That exchange constantly ran back and forth in my mind during the Bush administration.
But not anymore?
On “Occasional Notes: Revisionism”
Now you've lost me. I'm okay with hanging him by the neck until he's dead. And maaaybe in special circumstances hanging until he's dead dead. Stuff like killing a small child and making a ventriloquist's dummy out of the corpse. Just plain dead may not be quite dead enough for that sort of thing. Or even just for ventriloquism in general. But "dead dead dead?" That's just barbaric and inhumane. No one deserves more than two deads.
"
I reject the fallacy of division.
And Uncle Sam is not my lover. The kid is not my son.
"
Actually, I think that can probably be generalized to "If your conclusion is that you can just take whatever you feel like, the logic that got you there is just a hand-wavy pretext."
"
There is no one that can say with certainty (and proof!) that “your money” was earned without negative impact to the Commons. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Isn't this basically the fiscal equivalent of "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out?" It's one thing to do a best-effort accounting of negative externalities and implement Pigovian taxes based on that.
But "Well, you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your income isn't based on negative externalities, so we're just going to take whatever we feel like" is just a hand-wavy pretext for taking whatever you feel like.
"
Look: If you want to say that the government is legitimate, that's not so obviously wrong as to be completely laughable. And I'm not particularly interested in having that argument with you, so I won't object.
But what you actually said:
You are responsible for what your government spends Mad Rock, we all are. Your us/them distinction is a prevalant but faulty one.
Is in fact so obviously wrong as to be completely laughable.
"
I think you’re looking for marjoritarian.
Majoritarian and unilateral aren't mutually exclusive. You have the government and the majority on one side of the transaction, and me on the other. Only one side consented to the transaction.
Also, I love that, having bought into the premise that consent of the governed is essential to the legitimacy of government, and noting that some of the governed do not in fact consent, yet still committed to the conclusion that the government really is legitimate, you resolve the cognitive dissonance by making up an imaginary contract and asserting universal consent.
"
No. I think there are legitimate arrangements that don't align precisely with my preferences. But I wasn't saying anything about legitimacy. I think that the Boy Scouts is a perfectly legitimate organization, but I'm not a part of it.
"
I mean, if you want to say that you're a collaborator, that's fine. But I'm not.
"
Contrariwise, your us/them conflation is a prevalent but faulty one. I didn't vote for the current government, and I have not in any way authorized their actions. They're acting in direct opposition to my stated preferences. From my perspective, they're functionally equivalent to a colonizing government.
Lose the "we."
On “A Man for No Season in Particular”
Raw beef! With butter!
...And a bunch of other stuff, I guess. But if you're not going to order the raw beef, you might as well just go to an Indian restaurant.
On “Occasional Notes: Revisionism”
It seems clear to me that the “reasonable” level of doubt beyond which a jury is told to go can and indeed should change over time. This will no doubt make conservatives uncomfortable.
Why would this make conservatives uncomfortable?
Also, DNA exonerations should have two effects on our confidence in the death penalty. The first is that it should cause us to revise our estimates of the false positive rate of the justice system without DNA testing. I think for most people this will result in an upward revision, but it's possible that for some who were already more skeptical than appropriate it will result in a downward revision.
The second effect is that it should cause us to revise downwards our estimates for the present false positive rate. We no longer convict people who can be exonerated by DNA evidence. It's not immediately clear which effect should dominate.
Also, it's not obvious that the death penalty is a bad thing for people wrongly convicted of murder. Yes, being executed for a murder you didn't commit is bad, but you know what else is pretty bad? Wasting the rest of your life sitting in a prison cell for a murder you didn't commit.
Yes, being executed is worse. But you also have to look at the probabilities. Capital cases receive much greater scrutiny, so you're probably more likely to be exonerated if you're sentenced to death than you are if you're sentenced to life in prison. You have to consider not only how bad the worst-case scenario is, but also how likely it is.
"
There's no contract. The government makes a unilateral decision to take your money.
On “A Man for No Season in Particular”
Seems to me that it would specifically be the value of land out in the middle of nowhere that would plummet. Except that that's already pretty cheap. I wouldn't expect the price of urban or suburban real estate to fall much. In fact, it might even rise, with all the extra population.
"
Ideally you should only use words you actually understand.
On “Affirmative Action and Philosophy vs. Reality”
I refuse to cede the use of examples from these rich subjects just because the occasional troll or wayward ‘loon-juicer violates Godwin’s Law.
Technically they're fulfilling Godwin's Law, not violating it.
Like Jesus.
"
I'm wondering how they identify these people. Do they carry around swatches?
"
Well, when a man and a woman and another man love each other very much...
"
I'll have to take a look at some of the other papers when I get a chance.
"
Yes, that's the sort of thing I was looking for. Granted that the effect of a racial diversity was much weaker than the effect of opinion diversity (maybe we need affirmative action for people who oppose child labor laws?), it's fascinating that there was any effect at all based on the race of the plants, given that they were just reading scripts.
On “A Man for No Season in Particular”
Auction?
"
"I'm going to be very disappointed if this comment thread doesn't degenerate into a bunch of puns," he added swiftly.
"
Does it matter, really? I think the whole idea is to get the land into private hands. Who exactly makes money off that isn't terribly important.
"
"That was supposed to be a reply to the Skeptic's comment above," he explained.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.