Social contract

Mail 693 Friday, September 23, 2011

Warren’s Social Contract Argument

Dr. Pournelle —

The seemingly obvious reply to Warren’s speech is that if you buy groceries or go to work then you benefit from the roads and other services that government provides and should pay your "fair share". If that factory builder has benefited more it likely comes from working harder, longer or smarter or just being lucky, none of which is illegal here but certainly, apparently, worthy of greater confiscation of property.

I think most people who are well off are willing to pay somewhat more in taxes, their principle complaints about taxes being (1) the system is unnecessarily complex, (2) too many pay nothing into the system, and (3) how the tax money is spent.

The argument is so often that "they" are rich and should be forced to pay more into the system. This is a fine sentiment – for a thief: You have, I don’t, give it over. It’s a fine sentiment if you’re willing to be a slaveholder, demanding your benefit from the labor of others. It’s a fine sentiment if you’re willing to be a slave to the ability and willingness of others to be productive beyond their basic personal needs.

I choose to be neither a thief, a slaveholder, nor a slave.

Pieter

But your children will be bondsmen if this goes on.

maximum permissable inequality

My reply, whenever I encounter one of these "fair share" people, is to ask them this question:

What’s the maximum permissible level of economic inequality in society, expressed as a ratio of the lowest income to the highest income?

Defend this choice. Explain how it applies to movie stars, sports figures, and other celebrities. Show all assumptions and steps in the calculations.

For extra credit, address these points: Does this ideal ratio ever change? How does society know when it’s time to change it, and in which direction, and by how much? Be explicit.

Get-an-A-for-the-term question: How would society achieve and maintain your ideal ratio without causing civil insurrection? Be specific.

Sincerely,

Robert

Subj: Fwd: FTL neutrinos at CERN?

The late Bob Forward maintained that there was an experiment on tritium beta decay at LANL which had established with six-sigma certainty that neutrinos had negative mass squared, but the author refused to publish.

THIS is a bigger game changer than the absence of the Higgs, which is likely related.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922

Assuming it holds up. Sixty nanoseconds is pretty respectable given modern instrumentation.

: Drones and Danger for US

This is an interesting point:

<.> Dangerously, the Obama administration and the Pentagon have already tried to draw a distinction between engaging in war and utilizing deadly drones. They have argued that the use of drones in the various countries aforementioned is actually a police action, instead of an act of military aggression. </> http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/22/legality-of-drones-are-questionable-dangerous/

Police action? Department of Education Hunter-Killer Drones immediately spring to mind followed by the following lines: "These terrorists caused economic hardship by failing to pay their bills. Therefore, at my direction, I deployed a squadron of drones to neutralize the threats." *sigh*

—– Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Something to Think About …

The English language has some wonderfully anthropomorphic collective nouns for groups of animals.

We are all familiar with a Herd of cows, a Flock of chickens, a School of fish, and a Gaggle of geese.

However, less widely known is a Pride of lions, a Murder of crows (as well as their cousins the rooks and ravens), an Exaltation of doves, and, presumably because they look so wise, a Parliament of owls.

Now consider a group of Baboons…

They are the loudest, most dangerous, most obnoxious, most viciously aggressive, and least intelligent of all primates.

What is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons?

Believe it or not, a Congress!

Liberty and Fairness

Proposing changes in the steepness or flatness of an already progressive tax system doesn’t necessarily represent a fundamental shift in the way the country runs, and hence might not warrant such apocalyptic language (end of liberty, demise of the constitution).

Depending on the proposals (which I haven’t seen), it could just amount to some tweaking at the margins.

Craig

Except that this is pretty well open in its intention. The definition of fairness is to be changed. But I hpe you are right.

One of your readers reported:

President Barack Obama can take a bow. As Obama struggles with poor polling numbers, persistent high unemployment, the possibly of a primary challenge within his own party and a stagnant economy saddled with massive deficits and debts, one area where he can claim success is his prediction that he would slow sea level rise.

Very impressive! Not even Alfred the Great claimed that ability.

–Mike

Pakistan warns U.S.: ‘You will lose an ally’ | Reuters

Jerry,

First we help the Islamicist purge the Turkish military of the heirs of Ataturk, then we help the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow Mubarak and possibly the Mamluks, now Obama is transforming a secular ally into a fundamentalist, Islamic enemy.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/idINIndia-59503720110923

Jim Crawford