Essay talk:Liberal Beliefs/Archive1

I realize that I am not supposed to make changes in your essay, rather I should discuss it here. However I offer the removal of an offending (to me) pronoun as a Friendly Amendment - and hope to get back to discuss your ideas later. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash 12:23, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Jesus, at least make it better if you're going to edit an essay about my personal beliefs that's in my userspace. "B of Rs?"--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 12:28, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Well that was an attempt to make it read better without tampering with your presentation of your personal beliefs. However it clearly (another word for "my opinion") did not do that and I shall revert it right away.  Also, I am guessing that you are not the same Tom Moore who was the radical student leader at EMU in those heady days leading up to Kent State?  Carptrash 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I already fixed it, don't worry about it :)
 * No, I'm not that guy. My name, when I chose it on CP, was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Sir Thomas More, the theologian and scholar who wrote Utopia.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 11:44, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

And who gave his name, as I recall, to a Right Wing Catholic Law School? Or is that just my mind wandering off the garden path?

But that's not why I'm here. I was charmed to read that "even the clumsiest of readers must admit that " - because, well. . . . . ......  first of all I was struggling a bit with the idea of a "clumsy reader," are we talking dyslexia, etc. here? and secondly you seem to be employing that irritating technique, used mostly by the Right Wing, of telling other folks what they must admit - usually followed by at least the implication of what they do, of what they must think, etc. No one (opinion) has to admit anything. I believe that's somewhere in the US Constitution too. Carptrash 11:58, 29 August 2008 (EDT)


 * It's a rhetorical device. I'm sorry you don't like my phrasing, though.  I do my best.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 12:07, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

One of the set of guidelines that I try to live my life by is the Shirinn Code:
 * 1 Show up.
 * 2. Be present
 * 3. Tell the truth.
 * 4. Do my best.

Which is what you are doing. Or, as we used to say (I paraphrase) in the 60s, "Rhetorical device on."
 * Carptrash 14:13, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

But on to your posting.
I was interested to discover this.
 * "Iceland was once a more lush place with a vibrant ecosystem; now it's deforested and filled with alien imports, with all the verdant history of the ages crushed forever."

Iceland still has, I believe, "a vibrant ecosystem," though perhaps changed from what it was a millennium or so ago. It is not clear as to what extent it was forested when the ancestors of the modern Icelander first arrived. Excavation of old dwellings, for example do not reveal that a significant amount of large lumber was used as construction material. That it is fill with "alien imports" is somewhat a function of the fact that it is a rather remote island with a relatively small (1/3 million ?) population. For the Icelanders to try to produce their own cars, or to revert to trotting around on their ponies would be (opinion) counter productive at best. This sentence (phrase, actually), ''with all the verdant history of the ages crushed forever." screams out for for Artie Johnson to pop up and exclaim, "Very interesting, but what does it mean?"

And so it goes, life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash 11:44, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 * And it's totally self-sufficient & eco-friendly energywise (apart from vehicles!), using thermal power for everything else. 11:51, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm sure there are a lot of great things about Iceland nowadays. The Vikings all died, after all, so it's not like I'm in any way blaming modern Icelanders.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 12:06, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Susan. Carptrash 11:58, 29 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Iceland used to be covered with forests. Long stretches of birch, holding the thin topsoil in place, ruled the island and supported a complex ecosystem.  When the Vikings arrived, over the following decades they stripped away the forests (http://www.umilta.net/iceland.html).  This allowed about half of the total topsoil to erode away, and has resulted in only a few stands of birch remaining.  The whole system they supported vanished.  Now a full three-fourths of Iceland can be generously described as "barren."  The trees that have been replanted in areas are often alien trees ("alien imports" did not refer to cars) rather than the native birch.  There is little of the volcanic topsoil left.  The ancient and delicate ecosystem of ages past that sustained much of the native life that is endangered or gone, is the "verdant history of the ages," and it has been "crushed forever."


 * I'm sure there is an ecosystem there now. It may even be "vibrant," although that's a subjective term.  But the example was meant to illustrate that humans can do massive and long-lasting harm to the environment through relatively benign means, in contr:::It sometimes annoys me that we're condemning brazil, Burma, Indonesia et al for deforestation when you look at our history - th UK was once forest North to South & the US likewise Coast to coast. I suppose we've the excuse of past ignorance, but we ought to make some allowances for them.  13:00, 29 August 2008 (EDT)ast to the general perception held by some (maybe none here on RW) that the environment ignores us and we can't really hurt it that badly.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 12:06, 29 August 2008 (EDT)


 * It sometimes annoys me that we're condemning brazil, Burma, Indonesia et al for deforestation when you look at our history - th UK was once forest North to South & the US likewise Coast to Coast. I suppose we've the excuse of past ignorance, but we ought to make some allowances for them. 13:00, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Ain't no one innocent of wrecking their environment up somewhat, as far as I know. I picked Iceland as a particularly glaring example of a case where man wrecked the ecosystem, then starved to death, since he had made his own way of life impossible.
 * It is true that we should give people the benefit of the doubt in many cases. The Vikings and Burmese poor are probably ignorant of the possible consequences of their actions for the most part.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 14:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Well none of this discussion (from my perspective) is about blame. I enjoyed reading the link that you provided - for several professional (i.e. what we do here) as well as personal ones. Like its author, my father worked for the UN's Food & Agriculture Organization, while the cemetery filled with trees that he mentions is also filled with my of my ancestors. Carptrash 14:38, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Civil Rights
I really think that it is your best interest to amp down the use rhetorical devices just a bit. For example, "A strict balance of powers is in everyone's interest," is simply (opinion) not true. It is in fact (yet another term for my opinion) in the interest of the ruling oligarchy to skew the balance of powers in what ever direction they deem needed at a particular time. That's why they do it. I'd like to propose that you ban words such as "always, never, everyone no one" and probably a few others from your vocabulary for two weeks and see what it does. Carptrash 15:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 * You're absolutely correct in that I tend towards absolute terms when I use hyperbole. When I go through and copyedit this and proof it some, as it evolves, I will probably change much of the language.  But until then, I would appreciate it if you would relax a little, please?--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 15:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

school prayer
" Students, like every other student,"
 * so . ................ this means . . .. what ?  Carptrash 15:15, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 * This means it was an error, that I have corrected. Thank you for pointing it out :)--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 15:20, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Well I am a pretty laid back fellow and will prove it here. However, a quick look at some alternate meanings of the word "carp" might provide a few insights into some other aspects  of my personality.  --Carptrash 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 * It is very apt, to be sure.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 15:35, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Drugs
"While drugs should not be legalized (except innocuous marijuana),"
 * Well, err... it's not as clear cut as that. Prohibition demonstrated all too well what happens when a desired substance is made illegal. How it's controlled, that's another, more complex matter. Silver Sloth 10:17, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I know it's commonly used, and in part I agree with you, but Prohibition is entirely different. A previously-legal and highly popular substance was made illegal and only half-heartedly enforced in the case of Prohibition.  It just doesn't compare very well, I don't believe.
 * There may be other drugs as innocuous as marijuana that should be legalized; I'll be honest and say that the matter is not one I have spent a lot of time on. To my knowledge, things like ecstasy and meth are dangerous.  My central point is that not everything should be legalized, due to the inevitable loss of life that would follow, but at the same time it is not necessary to spend such insane amounts doing things like burning crops in South America.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 19:27, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Oil
Shouldn't we drill our own oil? That would greatly reduce the dependence on foreign oil and lower the price dramatically. --CPAdmin1 09:18, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * There is a case for that but unfortunately things are way more complicated. Oil is not just oil, it varies from region to region. God in his infinite wisdom decided to make different grades of oil to hide away in pockets around the world. So the oil that is found may not be quite what is needed. Different grades are needed for gasoline, diesel, heating oil or chemical feedstock. Also why lower the price of oil? It is a limited commodity and produces pollution making it too cheap encourages wastage and removes the incentive to find alternatives. The problem is that over recent years the US has had access to some incredibly cheap oil and got hooked on it. Refining capacity was reduced because nobody was making any money on it. The US thinks it's paying a lot for 'gas', well it is a lot cheaper than in most of the rest of the world. Where larger taxes are levied on oil the actual cost at the pump only partly affected by the price of crude. So while pump prices have more than doubled in the US they have increased by maybe only 50% in other countries, still not pleasant but more tolerable. The tax component actually moderates the consumer price fluctuations in percentage terms. As many countries have historically paid more for their fuel than the US, that has encouraged the development of more fuel efficient cars rather than driving around in Hummers. The oil market is incredibly cyclical and moves from under to over capacity depending upon the general economic markets. It's not just a question of drilling a few wells and solving all your fuel problems. It has to be discovered in the first place, infrastructure put in and planning on how the fields should be developed. There is a limited market of qualified people in the oil industry so it will take a while to get newbies trained and experienced. It is also very capital intensive to find and produce oil. The companies will not want to spend loads of cash if they don't think they'll get a reasonable return on their investment. Unfortunately dumbass politicians and people like Andy who think the know about economics don't actually know much about the economics of the petroleum industry; opening up offshore drilling will be no quick fix.  Генгис    10:03, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Not just offshore drilling. What about ANWR? or Oil Shale?&mdash; Unsigned, by: CPAdmin1 / talk / contribs
 * I strongly resent GK's cogent and insightful response that has deprived me of making the exact same points.


 * ANWR is a wildlife preserve, and I think we should preserve it, not risk it significantly in order to obtain a relatively small amount of oil. It would provide a few years of oil as a best-case scenario, but a wildlife preserve that has been ruined does not bounce back so quickly.  Oil spills are not just a risk when it comes to drilling; small spills are routine.


 * Oil shale can certainly provide oil. But also, as I noted in my essay, oil can be produced from coal.  It's already almost economically viable and we have absurdly huge amounts of coal.  The idea, though, is to get off oil as much as possible.  It's not a renewable resource and is used for countless important things, like plastics.  We won't stop drilling entirely, ever.  But to burn tankers of it every day is just foolishness when it is harming our environment and when a bold move can seize the better alternative.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 10:39, 18 October 2008 (EDT)


 * ANWR is a wildlife preserve yes, but to drill there would not significantly impact the preserve. --CPAdmin1 10:46, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * You'll forgive me if I'm inclined to doubt oil companies' honesty when it comes to claims like that. --Kels 11:10, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not an expert on the matter, so all I have to go on is what I've heard. And from what I know of the matter, that's probably not really true.  And even if it was, there's a relatively small amount of oil there, so it doesn't seem worth the risk to me.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 10:59, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * It would effect less than one half of one percent of ANWR &mdash; Unsigned, by: CPAdmin1 / talk / contribs
 * Is a group lobbying for ANWR drilling really a credible source? Hell, they don't even have any citations or anything for that "fact."--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 11:09, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * WE are going to be using oil for much of the foreseeable future the point is that if we produce the oil that we have the capability of producing, that would increase supply which lowers the price (economics 101). it would decrease our reliance on foreign oil. (700 billion going out of the country for oil each year.)  which would help this economic situation.  And it would help hold us over until we have the technology to do without oil. --CPAdmin1 10:52, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * We don't have to be using oil for the foreseeable future, is the point. People accept it as an inevitability, but that's simply not true.  We have the technology to do without oil right now.
 * I have not heard of any person pointing to oil as a factor in the current economic crisis, which I am told is mostly a result of massive deregulation of the savings and loan industry.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 10:59, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Right now, all (any others are an extremely insignificant minority) cars and planes use oil. Just the process of switching everything over to other technology would take years, if the other technology was ready at an affordable level.  During the time it takes to finish developing technology, and to switch over to that technology, it IS inevitable that we usse oil. --CPAdmin1 11:08, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * ...did ...did you read my essay's section about this? I had assumed that you did, but it doesn't seem like it.  There are multiple companies making electric cars or "superhybrids" that consume a tiny amount of gasoline, with GM making the Volt one of their flagship projects under the prominent Chevy brand.  To be sure, there are no planes I am aware of doing a similar thing, but their oil usage is a drop in the bucket compared to power companies, it seems to me.  Switching over will take time, but it will be very well-worth it and the expensive in the time it does take.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 11:14, 18 October 2008 (EDT)


 * (EC plus loss of session) Oil shale is certainly an alternative. However, just like the Athabasca tar sands it is hugely energy intensive so generates a lot of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, has large scale environmental consequences, requires a lot water resources and actually needs a high oil price $70-$90 a barrel to be economic. Unless that price can be guaranteed for a long time then no-one's going to go into it in a big way. As Tom said, the ANWR is too small to have a significant impact on the total market. And it's not just the USA, China and India are both making demands for more oil. The USA cannot isolate itself from the world market with regards prices. Reducing the price of oil will probably reduce the incentive to find alternatives. People are more driven to find a solution when under pressure and the alternatives may not be financially rewarding with a low oil price. Reducing the balance of trade by reducing oil imports is a valid aim but how much better if that is achieved through clean sustainable alternatives rather than just carrying on in the same dirty way. One advantage that the US has is its technological leadership make use of that rather destroying wilderness areas. I don't want to get into the politics of the Iraq war but just imagine if all the money spent on it had been invested in research into renewable energy resouurces. Thereby eliminating the need for foreign oil. The political benefits of that would have been far more profound than any military victory could possibly be. 86.148.65.122 12:35, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

War
"war is seldom moral. It is only moral if it is engaged in to prevent an accordingly higher level of suffering, or for self-defense. A war of choice over a natural resource is almost never the right thing to do. Nuclear war would never be the right thing to do, under any circumstances." <BR>Therefore, if Iran is working toward producing a nuclear weapon with the intent of destroying Israel, then we should go to war to prevent that from happening. Correct? --CPAdmin1 09:26, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Nonsense. Just because nuclear war is wrong doesn't make going to war to possibly prevent it the correct thing to do.  Such a scenario could conceivably occur, but it's nowhere close to happening right now and doesn't seem likely for any time in the future.  There's some question, also, of the presumptuousness of a single nation getting to decide who deserves nuclear weapons.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 10:41, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I was not saying that such a scenario exists now. I was giving the hypothetical situation where Iran is very close to having a nuclear weapon, and they have already said that they would use it on israel. --CPAdmin1 10:47, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I'd rather not indulge in hypotheticals, but I would suggest that it seems like an assassination of whatever leader was willing to nuke the "holy land" would be far more moral than war and much more efficacious.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 11:06, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

wealth redistribution.
"If I make $3,000 in a check, then 30% of my check is $900. I have $2,100 left. I spend $2,000 on eating and sleeping, and have $100 left, instead of $1,000. My quality of life has decreased enormously, and I have to pray my daughter doesn't get sick. If I make $300,000 in a check, then 30% of my check is $90,000. I have $210,000. I spend $100,000 on eating and sleeping since I like to live very well, and have $110,000 left instead of $210,000. I can't buy my second yacht. Because of these factors, all taxation should be and must be progressive. The idea is not to make taxes "fair" by some arbitrary adherence to a number. These are human lives we are talking about, and so "fair" should be determined by the weight of the burden on one's life." <BR>Ok, lets apply that logic to a hypothetical scenario: Education. <BR>2 people are going to college. The first person is getting F's. He is not going to pass his courses and therefore is not going to be able to graduate. Without a degree, he will have a much harder time getting a job, and if he does find a job, it will pay significantly less, and his quality of life will be low. <BR>Person number 2 is getting A's. He is going to pass his courses and graduate with honors and get a degree. He will have a much easier time finding a job, his job will make him more money, and he will have a higher quality of life. <BR>However, if we take away from Person number 2's grades so he is only getting B's, and give them to person 1 so he is getting D's, then Person 1 will now be able to graduate and get his degree. This will make it easier for him to get a job, and one that pays more. This will significantly increase his quality of life. Person number 2 however will not be greatly effected. While his GPA will take a hit, he will still be easily passing his classes, and graduating, getting his degree and getting a good job. While he might not get into his school of choice if he want's to continue his education, his quality of life will not take a hit. <BR>Because of these factors, all education should be and must be progressive. The idea is not to make Education "fair" by some arbitrary adherence to performance. These are human lives we are talking about, and so "fair" should be determined by the weight of the burden on one's life.

Make sense to you? --CPAdmin1 09:53, 18 October 2008 (EDT)


 * I understand your thinking, and it's an interesting analogy. A similar version was proposed by Huckabee during the primaries in a folksier kind of way.  I also think it's clever the way you adapted my own rhetoric to make your point.


 * It seems to me, though, that it is a question of intent. Both education and taxation should be conducted in a manner which most strongly leads to their intended purpose, but with consideration for the people within those systems.  In the case of taxation, that means that it should be conducted in a manner which achieves the intended purpose (which should strictly be the acquisition of funds for government purposes) with consideration for the people being taxed (by making taxation progressive to equalize the burden).  The intent is not to equalize the burden between people: that would be wealth redistribution, rather than taxation.


 * In the same way, the intent of education is to educate the students, not to maximize their future careers. Students may later use their education to maximize their future careers, but that shouldn't be the intent of the educational system.  The intent of education would not be at all served by grade redistribution, nor would it be served by making degrees meaningless.  Both of those things would actually hurt the education system.


 * A more correct way to apply the same logic to the education system would be to try to educate students in a manner that took into consideration the people within the system. For example, provisions within the Americans with Disabilities Act that required schools to be handicapped-accessible, to equalize opportunity.  That doesn't mean the intent of education should be to equalize opportunity in some manner of Harrison Bergeron-esque scenario, but those things should be taken into consideration in achieving that intent.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 10:54, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Social contract?
You described yourself as subscribing to the social contract theory, so I was rather surprised when you agreed with Peter Singer. The utilitarian ethic he philosophizes on is generally treated with enmity by social contractians. 01:36, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I do not buy wholesale into his thinking. For example, I do not think it is just to accord rights in a scale coinciding with sentience, thereby concluding that infanticide of the retarded is moral in some circumstances.  Indeed, I find much of his latter conclusions to be flawed.  A more deliberate application of a veil of ignorance yields a world wherein we would never commit such an evil, not knowing our place at either end of the knife: wielder or victim.  I do, however, think that he expertly establishes that moral actions are not a binary, but rather a spectrum.  Some murders are more wrong than others, in other words.  This is singularly important to my conclusions on abortion, in which we must not discard wholesale the rights of the mother (which would amount to rape by the state, to poach a phrase) in the interests of preserving fetal life "just in case."  In a binary world, it is merely a matter of prioritizing rights, but Singer's logic proves (as does all experiential evidence) that there are a thousand shades of gray.


 * I find social contract theory to be highly useful, and Hobbes was a brilliant man. Truth be told, I'm not sure it accurately has described what government is in most cases, but I do think it is the most valid form of what government should be.


 * Heh, sorry if that was a bit wordy.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 01:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Although I agree that grading the value of life based purely off their sentience leads down a dangerous path, in a way I admire Singer's willingness to follow his own philosophy to its logical conclusion (as he perceives it, anyhow). I soured on Kant largely because his conclusion—that animals have no rights, but... we should still condemn those who harm animals because those who do so are likely to be cruel to humans as well (or however it went)—to me smacked of someone who was clearly uncomfortable with his own conclusion, and engaged in a bit of philosophical "retconning" to make it more palatable to himself.   02:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)


 * And sorry if my own response was rather wordy.  02:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Singer does have some balls on him, that's for sure. It takes serious courage in your convictions to stand face-to-face with disability rights advocates and espouse a philosophy that characterizes them as less than human.  here's a great account by such an advocate on her meeting with Singer.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 02:30, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * That was a thought-provoking and eye-opening essay. Thank you for pointing me to it.   03:14, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yah, that is why I draw the line way before many of his conclusions. I mostly admire him for his "Singer Solution to World Poverty" and similarly-themed works, though I vehemently oppose his positions on infanticide and his grading of the disabled's "worth".  (Am I the only one who came to like him for the "Singer Solution" rather than his animal rights essays?)   03:14, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm sure you're not. That's right near the beginning of his Practical Ethics, his book that is almost as famous as his Animal Liberation.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 03:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * That's reassuring.  03:29, 31 October 2008 (EDT)