Thiago Cardozo's page

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Now, try to use the scientific method to derive moral laws. You cannot.

Sam Harris obviously disagrees with you.

Since I did not read Harris' book I cannot comment on specifics, but here is my take on what it appears to be and how it relates to my quote.

If, and only if you choose beforehand that morality should be derived froma a pragmatist, materialistic viewpoint, one can use (in an albeit more restricted manner) a 'scientific approach' for deciding on morals. But note that there are many other possible stances which can be taken which do not involve nothing similar to a pragmatist or materialistic position. The only way to decide between these is by means of a philosophical argumentation.
Besides, I'd guess (though I may be wrong) that he is not actually advocating using the kind of process scientists use (construct a hypothesis, see its consequences after implementation and then, change it) but merely saying that morals should be based on scientific evidence. I actually agree with that. But again, there is no scientific data which can, by itself, lead me to this position.

I have recently received the Beginner's Box and I'd first like to congratulate Paizo for the awesome product. This said, I had a small problem I hope you guys could help me with.

The box carries four pregenerated character sheets, as it appears in the product description, but there are two Fighter sheets and no Rogue sheet. Since I am an Adventure Path subscriber would it be possible for you to ship me an avulse pregenerated Rogue character sheet with my next AP shipment ?

Thank you for your help,
Thiago

Right, But i think they work better as conclusions based on observation rather than as philosophical assumptions.

Empiricism drops out of any other method we've come up with not working and getting repeatedly getting contradictory answers we know to be false.

Materialism likewise comes from us not seeing anything else. We're not dogmatically materialists, we're pragmatically materialists. There could theoretically be something else there, but since we haven't seen anything else there's really no point in assuming anything else without a good reason

There are no 'conclusions based on observation' without a good dose of rational thinking. Many philosophers tried to establish the conclusions you could derive and those you could not from a purely empirical standpoint (without other assumptions besides what we get from our senses). It is not as easy as it appears. For instance, after much work on it, it is well known that science is, quite clearly, NOT a purely empirical endeavour. The idea that science can be strictly defined as something like "man observes - man hypothesizes about the observed - man observes again to see if their hypotheses are correct" is wrong, for instance.

And pragmatism is a philosophical position. The fact that we live in a time where this position had already been thought through, appeared in books, influenced literature leads us to believe that it is the "natural" way we deal eith the world. It is not. Many societies without a codified pursuit of different philosophical positions did not and do not function based on the tenets of pragmatism. Not even our societies are completely pragmatists, and much of our knowledge and way of life derives from other types of philosophical positions.

I think he said 90% of philosophy was malarky and the good 10% was common sense.

I was talking about other poster (Darkwing Duck), but I re-read his post in context and it appears he was saying that some results in science may appear as common sense for the modern person, when it would not for people before those discoveries were made and accepted by society.

I agree. The universe is too weird for common sense alone.

Yes it is. And no amount of data collecting can lead to scientific knowledge.

You don't test random hypotheses. Something has to give you an idea that the hypothesis is true. Look at the discovery of LSD. The guy who discovered it was pretty sure that it was the chemical he was working with that was causing his hallucinations and not a bad lunch, tiredness, brain tumor etc. He had to test it to be sure though, so he delibrately dosed himself with it and he was right. (unfortunately the poor guy was less correct about the right dose...)

I presumed you were talking about this, but I wanted to be sure. You are scratching the surface here. Observations usually act merely as a motivator. Only rarely can one derive strict hypothetical statements from data. See, for instance, Newtonian Mechanics. Newton did not look at a bunch of data and created that set of hypothesis. In fact, the data used by Newton was very scarce. Observation cannot explain the construction of hypothesis in science. The role of observationial data in science comes AFTERWARDS, and it is never (or at least very, very rarely) purely observational in nature. All observation in science is "laced" with theory.

The scientific method is much more fluid than we are led to think by textbook descriptions of it (which, of course, were first proposed by philosophers). It is a quite interesting intellectual endeavour to try to understand its logical and philosophical foundations. Many philosophers have tried to do exactly that and the result for those who decide to learn about it is a better comprehension of the activity. It is interesting even when the philosophers are wrong, because you end up seeing the process from other angles.

Philosophy doesn't help decide between different matters of thought either. Philosophy has been working on the existence of God for how long now?

From this quote I can tell that you are primarily concerned with "philosophy as a tool for verifying what is real and its behaviour". Well, tinkering with philosophical ideas throughout the ages led to the concept of a scientific method and it helped with this part of the problem. Philosophy already contributed to it. Now, try to use the scientific method to derive moral laws. Or understand art, knowledge, ethics and politics. You cannot, because philosophers did not design this tool for those activities. Philosophy, on the other hand has been used and is used for all those. And let me tell you, our history has been shaped in the way it has in great part, for good or evil, because of philosophical ideas.

Well, we've never not had realism. People have always known that stuff is here. What we haven't had is sola realism or only realism: the idea that this stuff is ALL we've got.

Yup, that is basically what I said, realism was here since forever. Though it's consequences were not thought out and made explicit for centuries. It is called naive realism, as in opposition to critical realism.

As to why it took so long a few things

I think it took so long because humans (and other critters) are hard wired to see patterns. A false positive costs you less than a false negative. If you develop a belief that a rustling bush always means a saber toothed tiger you'll live longer than both the person who beleives that it NEVER means a saber toothed tiger as well as the person who only thinks its a saber toothed tiger sometimes.

I agree that humans have this characteristic. But if scientific inquiry is natural, it should have ocurred to many people before thousands of years of human history came to be. One might argue we did not have the means then, and there were lots of 'scientific minds' waiting for the opportunities to create...

Experimental science is expensive. For the vast majority of human history we've been largely subsistance. We haven't had the ability to produce large numbers of "spare" people who are sitting around learning for their entire lives.

Well the greek high castes, for instance (and this is only an example), had loads of spare time. And they used it quite well, but not with science. The closest they had to it was 'natural philosophy', which ended up being quite important for science, but nowhere near in form to what we think of as science. So I have to disagree with the 'lack of time' explanation.

Furthermore the people we did have learning didn't talk to each other much. I don't think its a coincidence that the scientific revolution and the printing press* happened together. Ideas take a lot of people to form well. What one person thinks sparks something else in another person which someone else pass it on... people could stand on the shoulders of giants because the giants were shouting HERE I AM! in the light rather than hiding behind secrecy and ritual in the dark.

The press certainly helped A LOT the process. But it took at least two centuries for science to start taking the shape we came to know. And philosophers like Bacon and Descartes, and the 'natural philosopher/scientist' Galileo, all had an important role in taking the singular method used by astronomers with their own considerations to forge ideas which would shape our world forever.

There are few movements of world history which were not anticipated by philosophical ideas. The fact that many of those which helped forge the future acknowledge it should give you a hint that, perhaps, philosophy is not that limited, small, useless thing you have come to think. The very foundation of US law, its Constitution, was strongly inspired by philosophical thought.

Well, without inserting words into someone elses mouth has anyone said that?

Well not these very words, no. But you did say that empirism and materialism are the two foundations of science, and one other poster did say that most of science is common sense. Though empirical data is of great importance in science, its success goes well beyond what empirism and common sense can yield.

In science the theory is bound on both sides by fact. Your facts need to be developed off of previous observations, you develop an idea, and you test that idea to be sure that you're right.

I don't understand what you mean when you say facts are developed off of ptevious observations.

This would be the part of philosophy they refer to as common sense.

Does one need formal philosophy to have the idea that reality is well... real? Or is it simply a lack of philosophy that would give you this conclusion.

Philosophy is the only reason to ask the question, so i don't see the need to credit it with a partial answer.

In the same way common sense serves poorly as a tool for scientific discoveries, it is not a great criterium for deciding between different manners of thought. Notice that common sense says that reality exists at the same time it says that objects do not move when there are no forces acting on them. Philosophy gave us the means by which we try to investigate this reality we assume to exist. Why do you think the scientific revolution took so long to happen if we had realism since forever?

Is positivism the assumption or the conclusion?
As far as "is" questions go (as opposed to ought, moral questions) what is the value of philosophy?

It is neither. If we are talking about science, that is.

It changes society profoundly, for good or evil, by creating new avenues of thought and burying old ones. Science is only one of the many ways philosophy changed the world.

Case in point? I know Schrodinger didn't believe the cat dead and alive.

I am talking about stuff like Mach's criticism of Boltzmann's work, and Heisenberg's stance on the role of the observer.

I exist
The world exists.
My senses give me a more or less accurate picture of reality
I think everything else can...

a really small part of scientific knowledge could actually be obtained by merely using these principles.

So good to hear that from a Post-Doc student in chemistry!

Oh, I have to correct that, I have recently become an Associate Professor here in Rio! Hope I can keep enough time to continue posting and reading =)

This topic is itself a statement in favour of philosophy. Namely, it would help people who are interested in science, or even scientists themselves not to grossly misrepresent its logical foundations.

For instance, the claim that "science is solely based on observation" and that "science is basically an extension of common sense" could not be farther from the truth.

Science is a theoretical activity concerning reality. It implies a philosophical stance (namely, realism), whether the scientist likes philosophy or not, or he recognizes it or not. Many scientists and scientific-minded folks claim to follow or believe in sets of principles which are in fact based on the philosophy of positivism which is antithetical to the very scientific activity it tried to defend.

The failure to understand scientific activity in philosophical grounds led many scientists to make absurd assertions concerning their very job. This was most notable during the development of quantum mechanics.

Science as an area of knowledge demands a set of presuppositions and is guided by some logical imperatives which can only be properly understood by philosophical inquiry.

Thanks for the help, James! I thought that was the case, but was not sure ^^

Hi everyone!

Just received the PDF for the Inner Sea Guide and I have to say it appears amazing.

I have a question concerning the Battle Dance ability of the Dawnflower Dervsih archetype that I hope someone can help me with. It is not clear to me whether you completely lose the ability to use the normal Inspire abilities, or if you lose them only during a battle dance. In other words, when I start Inspire Courage can I choose to use either Batlle Dance or normal Perform, or I give up permanently the ability to use it as a normal Perform (i.e to inspire my allies)?

In the Rise of the Runelords game I DM, the cleric of Sarenrae has taken the Goblin child for fostering at the church. He is using the goblin`s natural fascination with fire to teach him about the Dawnflower.

I had a proud and prickly Wizard character who had to deal with this kind of situation. Whenever a non-spellcasting character would try to coach Aldor on which spell to use he would say something along the lines "See, your ignorance gets the better of you. The stars are not right, and this particular enchantment cannot be weaved." After a few times, they took the hint and stopped doing that ;)

What I don't get is that, apparently, the OP's point is basically "same rules, better organized presentation". People are actually arguing against this ?

something I posted in the original thread about the vow that I don't think people are considering. This might make people see it in a more positive light, perhaps.

- As Jason pointed out, if this is a trap, it is a lousy one. Besides, players new to the game, which would be in greater risk of making bad choices have much to get accostumed to before going into the "advanced option" books. This concern is unnecessary, I would say.

- It appears to me that one of the Pathfinder design choices has been to offer options to many different styles of play. In a low magic game this could be a viable option, while many other options usually considered great would cease to be so. Perhaps I would set my adventures in the mana wastes ?

- Lastly, don't forget these books are not merely player's options, but also GM toolsets. The vow of poverty, as written, is a great way for a GM to build an antagonist with high-level interesting abilities, but which is balanced against a party of lower level due to his lack of proper equipment.

There seem to be a lot wrong with this book. I wonder if I should just flat out ban it.

I think that this impression comes from the fact that each issue encountered is discussed in a 500 post thread. If you actually compare the number of (perceived) issues to the number of useful stuff in the book this impression might go away. The book appears awesome to me.

As for this feat, it is seriously problematic and appears out of place in this book. Banned in my games, that is for sure.

It seems to me that people are failing to see a few things here:

- As Jason pointed out, if this is a trap, it is a lousy one. Besides, players new to the game, which would be in greater risk of making bad choices have much to get accostumed to before going into the "advanced option" books. This concern is unnecessary, I would say.

- It appears to me that one of the Pathfinder design choices has been to offer options to many different styles of play. In a low magic game this could be a viable option, while many other options usually considered great would cease to be so. Perhaps I would set my adventures in the mana wastes ?

- Lastly, don't forget these books are not merely player's options, but also GM toolsets. The vow of poverty, as written, is a great way for a GM to build an antagonist with high-level interesting abilities, but which is balanced against a party of lower level due to his lack of proper equipment.

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Maybe you didn't get my reply to your first post...read up, the thread is not too long, I will not post it again. There is a list of important information revealed by the leaks, a list which is only a small subset of valuable information which should be public.

I replied to your post. The link you provided did not specify what ground breaking information--if any--came from Manning's documents. What exactly did this man accomplish?

I see you are not an easily surprised person, or you have much inside intel which is redundant with the contents of the leaks. I cannot say the same for myself.

For instance, I have to say that accounts of spying on UN officials, gunning of journalists, lies from the former Secretary of Defense to the american people, specific information on multinational companies meddling in governments in Africa, to name only a few, were quite alarming to me.

However, the importance of the leaks is not so much the amount of surprise they cause, but the specificity of the information. Everyone suspects that companies do shady stuff to further their ends. However, this kind of diffuse information offers nothing. However, when specific companies are singled out for doing stuff which can now be verified and checked and, I don't know, STOPPED, it appears to me that this is quite important.
In the same tone, everyone knows that war brings lots of suffering and many things are done which should not be. However, when specific events of abusive use of force, or unlawful behavior, for instance, are revealed, taking the stance of "oh but we know bad things happen" is, in my opinion, a position of compliance. In fact, these revelations allow the public to question the decisions of their leaders, where the diffuse affirmations of "war is bad" do not. The same is obviously valid for informations concerning governments lying to their people. And so on.

Still waiting for some one to explain what Manning actually accomplished by leaking classified documents.

Maybe you didn't get my reply to your first post...read up, the thread is not too long, I will not post it again. There is a list of important information revealed by the leaks, a list which is only a small subset of valuable information which should be public.

I love how some are going off about, "You have no facts to prove he did anything wrong." And then immediately turn around and say things like, "I know he is being treated badly." Really? Where did you get those facts? Were you there in his cell when he was forced to stand naked? No, then maybe you are not getting all the facts. Or maybe you are and so are the other people. Or maybe you all are wrong. Seriously, don't act as if being "sure" is a bad thing and then do it yourself.

His lawyer has stated so and has not been disputed.

Apparently, even one of the spokesmen of the Secretary of Defense has stated his concern over the matter.

Andrew R wrote:

It is a known fact that he leaked things he should never have, what are you going on about?

Facts are things like gravity, one plus one equals two, quantifiable things. What you're stating is no more a "fact" than saying I should eat vanilla instead of chocolate pudding, it's an OPINION.

From another viewpoint Manning's actions might be seen as something akin to the Pentagon Papers, (for those of you old enough to remember the significance).

If you expose incompetence, deception, and hijinks on a scale on the order of WikiLeaks collateral damage is inevitable. What goes unsaid though is the collateral damage of leaving these damming secrets hidden.

+1

Oh, and Ellsberg himself has drawn this connection.

yup, he did admit it.

Let's first remember that the most damning account from Manning's actions come from Lamo, who is himself known for taking all kinds of actions to aggrandize himself. The truth in this matter is most likely a bit different from what we can garner from Lamo's accusations.

Nevertheless, the importance of whether his actions were heroic or not are beyond the point, I guess. Manning has been kept for 8 months now without a trial under humiliating, psychologically and physiologically strenuous conditions, a situation which only serves to tarnish US image as a free country.

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Yeah...nothing at all of importance. A bigger list with links to the articles is on

Unless I missed something, none of what you listed there came from Manning. I didn't attack Wikileaks. I said that Manning got himself thrown in jail for nothing (assuming he is found guilty).

If I understand it correctly, Manning is accused of leaking the Iraq files, the Afghanistan files, and the Diplomatic Cables. I think most of those came from the cables, and those which didn't came from the other files.

Manning leaked thousands of classified documents that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that in war civilians often die.

His leak exposed nothing. We expect collateral damage in Afghanistan because that is an integral part of the Taliban's tactics. If you fight in or near populated centres you will have civilian casualties. period.

We're supposed to be shocked that war is terrible? Manning got himself life in prison for nothing.

- American planes bombed a village in Southern Yemen in December 2009, killing 14 women and 21 children

- The Secretary of State's office encouraged US diplomats at the United Nations to spy on their counterparts by collecting biographic & biometric information

- The Obama administration worked with Republicans to protect Bush administration officials facing a criminal investigation into torture

- A US Army helicopter gunned down two Reuters journalists in Baghdad in 2007

- US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers

- Then-Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and his top commanders repeatedly knowingly lied to the American public about rising sectarian violence in Iraq beginning in 2006

- The US was shipping arms to Saudi Arabia for use in northern Yemen even as it denied any role in the conflict

- Swiss company Trafigura Beheer BV dumped toxic waste at the Ivorian port of Abidjan, then attempted to silence the press from revealing it by obtaining a gagging order

- A stash of highly enriched uranium capable of providing enough material for multiple "dirty bombs" has been waiting in Pakistan for removal by an American team for more than three years

- BP suffered a blowout after a gas leak in the Caucasus country of Azerbaijan in September 2008, a year and a half before another BP blowout killed 11 workers

- Pope Benedict impeded an investigation into alleged child sex abuse within the Catholic Church

- Anglo-Dutch oil giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC has infiltrated the highest levels of government in Nigeria

- British officials made a deal with the US to allow the country to keep cluster bombs in the UK despite the ban on the munitions signed by Gordon Brown

- The US government was acting on behalf of GM crop firm Monsanto in 2008, when the US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops

- The British government promised to protect America's interests during the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war

- Pfizer tested anti-biotics on Nigerian children, contravening national and international standards on medical ethics

Yeah...nothing at all of importance. A bigger list with links to the articles is on

http://frontlineclub.com/blogs/RyanGallagher/2011/02/what-wikileaks-has-tol d-us.html

This spin of "no surprises" is silly. There were important revelations concerning many, many countries, including of course, the US.

As for quantum mechanics there's no physical evidence yet for its full explanation and it's verifiability with relativity. Yet people are wasting vast amounts of money trying to find certain theoretical particles and goodness knows what else on a hope and a theory.

what is this even supposed to mean ?

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:

"Recent studies have revealed that interference is not restricted solely to elementary particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, it has been shown that large molecular structures like fullerene (C60) also produce interference patterns."

They are still very small though. I know atoms behave like this too. But a lump of rock doesn't.

My knowledge of highschool physics is over a decade old, but I'm not 100% sure a lump of rock doesn't also behave this way. It might be an order of magnitude so slight that it is imperceptible to you and I. It might have more to do with the stability of multi-molecular clumps of matter. Whatever the reason, the phenomena is scientifically measurable, testable, and reproducible.

Not with QM it isn't. The point is that if you truly understand QM you will understand what I am saying. Why do you think scientists are still looking for the Universal Theory of Everything? To wrap up this paradox. The math is correct but the observations are at odds with it. Scientists know there is something missing. I'm sure, one day they'll find it, but they haven't as yet. The universe is far more complicated than any of us believed.

Dude, I don't want to keep nagging you with this, but stating this stuff lots of times won't make it true.

Let me say this for the last time: there are no observations at odds with quantum mechanics in respect to interference and diffraction of particles. Ambrosia is right. Quantum mechanics predicts diffraction for small particles and no diffraction for big ones. I know, I have studied it. It is taught in basic QM courses. Heck, my PhD thesis involved the interference effect.

The Theory of Everything you mention has not been achieved for other, very different reasons, one of those being the difficulty in incorporating gravity in QM.

But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?

Have you studied the electron test fired through slits?

This is exactly the point. The same underlying logic which leads to electron diffraction leads to baseballs not diffracting. There is no disconnection. This is one of the first things one demonstrates in QM 101

The fact that very small things do not do things the way larger things do. I.e. You cannot measure the path/direction of a very small particle AND know its position as well. It's a one or the other situation. This does not apply to big things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that. That is what I mean by paradox, unless groundbreaking research has happened that I am unaware of.

This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.

The fact that very small things do not do things the way larger things do. I.e. You cannot measure the path/direction of a very small particle AND know its position as well. It's a one or the other situation. This does not apply to big things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that. That is what I mean by paradox, unless groundbreaking research has happened that I am unaware of.

There is no paradox. The fact that this does not happen with big things emerges directly from the theory and is not bizarre at all.

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are a paradox too...

what do you mean by this ? There is no paradox I am aware of.

Explain why you say this? Then I might respond. I haven't a clue what you're asking me here and the subject is too big to write a treatise for you.

Let me explain it. I happen to work with QM and I am not aware of any paradoxes involving quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics. In a sense, Quantum Mechanics predicts Newtonian Mechanics for classical bodies. I was wondering if I was forgetting something. I would like you to name the paradox so I could look it up.

Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are a paradox too...

what do you mean by this ? There is no paradox I am aware of.

I hope you get better soon Mark. Best wishes!

As for the hallucinating/blind question I'll say this. There is a Law of Thermodynamics, the 2nd one to be precise. It simply states that all things tend toward an equlibrium state known as entropy. By this we mean that every non living thing in the qniverse is in perfect equilibrium with its position on an energy diagram.

Yet life as we know it isn't. The whole concept of life and its formation are completely out of equilibrium with the natural order of thermodynamics, yet life exists be we experience it and know it does.

How did life start (the primordial soup)? Where did the necessary building blocks come from? They came from outer space in things we call carbonaceous chondrites which contained amino acids and a few sugar compounds. Even they easily break down under normal conditions. They are simply unstable.

So they hit the earth some get into some primitive sludge and over aeons the first primitive sell appears. A thing, though primitive from a biological perspective and yet highly complex from that of an equilibrium and thermodynamic context. These amazing compounds should by rights have broken down or fallen into equilibrium with the sludge they landed in, yet they didn't, they got more complex until they gained the ability to replicate themselves. This is staggering! Scientists have run experiment after experiment trying to create more complex compounds from the basic compounds and have done nothing more than create a few polymers that appear and are immediately broken again.

Scientists do not know how life came to be.

Marcus, I know you have made only a qualitative description of thermodynamics, and wasn't aiming for precision. However some of the conclusions you have reached based on this qualitative picture are false, and perhaps some misconceptions regarding thermodynamics and its role in respect to the existence of life should be discussed.

First, you are talking about equilibrium thermodynamics, a branch of thermodynamics which, rigorously, applies only to a subset of systems in the universe, life forms not being one of them for reasons you pointed out yourself. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics, on the other hand is formally the correct theory to apply to living systems and to understand them. It would be no surprise if equilibrium thermodynamics made wrong predicitions concerning living systems. Luckily, one can always assume that a life form is in a steady-state equilibrium and proceed with an approximate analysis.

Despite this "disclaimer", the existence of life forms does not contradict equilibrium thermodynamics at all. A more correct presentation of the second law of thermodynamics is that any transformation ocurring in a closed, isolated system either maintains entropy constant or increases it. The key here is, of course, the "closed and isolated" clause, which is not true when considering a living thing. When one considers a living entity along with its environment as a closed system, the second law is seen to be preserved. The fact is living creatures are "entropy" factories, mantaining complex organization by means of the decomposition of complex things into simpler ones (e.g. food). One could say that, in a way, thermodynamics favors the formation of such complex entities since their existence provides greater increasing of entropy than their inexistence.

Oh, and if you go back a lot of posts in this discussion you'll find us discussing some interesting findings regarding the building blocks and their existence in prebiotic conditions... :)

Who has the best looking babes is what I care about.

That would be Brazil. ;)

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

This is irrelevant to the point at hand. The point in question is whether or not obligatory taxes are theft. If they are considered theft, they are as much theft for paying for police, firefighters and roads as they are for paying whathever else. The use of the "stolen" money (e.g. using it to enforce the constitution) is inconsequential to decide whether it was stolen or not.

Oh, and more. Are the "right to have roads" or "right to have firefighters" on the american constitution as well ? Are these public services privately owned in US ?

How is it irrelevant to the point at hand? We are discussing the use of tax money and powers of the gov't?

It is NOT STOLEN MONEY. The constitution does detail the power of the gov't to levy taxes to pay for things detailed ...wait for it,..... in the Constitution. If you can't get past that point then this conversation is over.
Police, roads, etc are LOCAL GOV'T issues. They are in some cases detailed in the individuals State Constitution. This is an agreement with the State, and the citizens of the State. If you do not like a law or rule or level of taxation in a State, you could move to another State, you follow? So there exists an agreement on the level of the States and their citizens. If an individual State wanted to have a mandatory State healthcare system that would be different. We do have that already, and it’s a flop. So in that instance I could choose to stay, move to another state and not be forced to pay wherever I live in the country.
You guys are lumping many things together which should not be together. Police, roads...yeah, they are funded through taxation. But it’s on a local level. You can pay, fight to reduce or eliminate services as you see fit. So the whole road/police argument is smoke. If a city or country wants to expand its infrastructure with increased development (roads, more police) most of that is either listed in a city charter or detailed in the State Constitution. Ultimately taxes levied are an...

Dude, first of all chill out. Your aggressiveness is not cute and I don't think you need this to drive your point.

Now, reread how this partiular discussion started (in particular, some of Doug's Workshop posts). I agree with you, tax money is not stolen money. The point discussed was whether "taxing is theft" was a good argument against public health care. Since you agree that taxing is not theft, you agree this is not a good argument. Of course you can have lots of other arguments against a public health care system. However, merely saying "the state is taking my money at gun point" does not work.

No, it is not an equivalent statement.
Laws exist and they are enforced by police. There is no equivalent when it comes to healthcare. We have written the laws, and the laws must both be upheld and protected by our reps in govt. The police are an extension of that process.
Using that kind of absurd logic people will argue the right to own a computer, internet access, money to gamble, ipods, cars, etc based solely on need or perceived right (to happiness? lol). None of these are rights provided and protected by the Constitution - not even food or water to live. You cannot be denied these things, but they are not provided by the state.
This is just a process to take something from those who produce to those who do not. Classic redistribution - a gift for a permanent vote. Sure as hell isn't freedom.

Healthcare providers are not slaves to the gov't, mandating and controlling the price they want to charge makes them gov't workers. They provide a SERVICE, that service needs to be paid for and should be priced according to what the market would bear. Otherwise they can (and hopefully will) just walk away.

This is irrelevant to the point at hand. The point in question is whether or not obligatory taxes are theft. If they are considered theft, they are as much theft for paying for police, firefighters and roads as they are for paying whathever else. The use of the "stolen" money (e.g. using it to enforce the constitution) is inconsequential to decide whether it was stolen or not.

Oh, and more. Are the "right to have roads" or "right to have firefighters" on the american constitution as well ? Are these public services privately owned in US ?

My rights are protected as equally by the police as your rights are. Neither one of us gets more rights than the other. However, taking my property (by force) to fund your health care means my rights are not protected. There was no due process involved, there was simple theft. My labor, my property, is deemed to be in fact owned by another, circumventing my Natural Rights to my property.

Your right to health care is also equal to mine should we both live in a country with tax-funded health care.

Again, the fact that you consider police work important has no implication on the question of whether taxing to provide public service is theft or not. For instance:
"Taking my property (by force) to fund your protection means my rights are not protected."
is an equivalent statement. If you abandon the position that taxation is theft, you can argue for the merits of police funding in lieu of health funding, for instance. If, however, you consider taxation theft, it is as much theft when the "stolen" money goes to the police as to when it goes to health care, or anything else, for that matter.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

It is the fact that Doug's Workshop seems unwilling to discuss why he considers one to be a violation of his freedom/'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', and the other not, that is so gauling.

You'll have to direct me to the part where I agreed that you should be forced to pay for the military. If you read my blog about this time last year, you would see that I decided my tax bill went to buy 12,000 7.62mm NATO sniper rounds. Nothing said you should do the same.

Now, the police? Well, if we don't have the police, then the guy with the biggest stick gets what he wants. Granted, that's what happens under your system anyways, so I guess I can understand your attraction to this mode of governing.

Taxes can be voluntary; there has been at least two proposals put forth in the US Congress to do just that. So, I reject your "I choose to pay taxes" argument. If you don't pay taxes, you'll go to jail. Or maybe Great Britain has other laws that I don't know about. Here, you don't have a choice. You use your labor to provide for your family, government gets a cut. Even the Mafia is scared of the revenue agents.

Now, if you still think that you have the right to take money from me to pay for your health care, I invite you to do just that. Certainly, I couldn't possibly stop you if you have a Natural Right to my labor. I can't stop you from engaging in your Natural Right to speech and expression, and eliminating your Natural Right to self defense only means you will exercise that right; please attempt to use your right to my income to provide for your health care. This isn't me being snarky. It's an attempt to prove to you that you have no inheirent right to my property.

You are ignoring the fact that your argument against tax-supported health care works the same against tax-supported police or armed forces. Saying that "police is important" does not help you evade this problem, since it is a question of personal priorities, which can vary. Let`s say that you found police to be unimportant; can you decide not to pay for it ? Or is the state going to "steal your money" no matter what ?

If I am not mistaken it was a pizza with bresaola and roquefort cheese. It was delicious indeed! I have to update the album, lot more pics from that trip :)

Nah, that's just your stomach getting the best of you. :P

Four pics of me visiting the beautiful city of Paris. Please note, in of the pics, the delicious pizza being savored, and my weird face, surreptitiously captured by my lovely wife:

Here!

Of course I was more irritated at Thiago's implying I was some kind of luddite or something.

I was not meaning to imply you are a technology hater or anything like it, since you, quite obviously, enjoys its uses everyday. Quite the contrary, I was appealing to your appreciation of it (in an admittedly sarcastic manner) in order to make a point.

Ooh, great off topic post. Now that you've shown you've nothing useful to contribute, does anyone else find it amusing one of the top climetologists now threatening an ice age that apparently no one saw coming in their models and that ice age is claimed to "not disprove global warming."

I recognize I was a tad vitriolic in my response, and I understand your rude retort. As for your question, even though you specifically excluded me from those you wish a response from, I will insist in answering it.

If you find this amusing you are not aware of how scientific knowledge is produced, something that has time and again been stated by many other posters in kinder words. Scientists disagree in many aspects in their fields of expertise no matter how politically charged the topics are. It is, in fact, how science works. My post, which you deemed off-topic, was in fact an attempt to illustrate, how this same process, which is now being exposed to the public with lots of media spin, leads to the technology we all find so useful. In other words, there is small difference between the process which lead to the knowledge which allows us to have this exchange and that which makes the majority of climatology specialists think that global warming has a significative anthropogenic contribution.

Seabyrn wrote:

Global warming is a measurement of an increase in global average temperature. Dispute that all you want, but disputing it by saying that *global* warming is false because *greenland* temperatures did not increase is simply wrong. It's apples and oranges - no one has claimed that all parts of the globe are seeing increasing temperatures, only that the average over all regions has been going up.

True, but after Yesterday's announcement I can't stop laughing at scientists enough to really care what they say about Global warming anymore.

Yeah, those crazy scientist wackos, I am so glad someone invented the Internet so we could make fun of them! And the computers where the Internet exists. And the processes which allow us to obtain electricity. And the theories which allows us to understand and control all these processes. Take that science klowns!

Yes, it is very much that way.

First, complete removal of fines will have a distince effect upon the safety of the roads because it will remove the fine as a deterrence for an enormous number of people. This will result in an appreciable reduction of safety. The numbers affected will be so large that it will be appreciable.

2. Charging this high fee to the rich will affect such a small number of individuals that the roads will not be appreciably safer for doing it. The purpose is clearly not to make the roads safer. But, when you can charge the rich the same for the same infraction and charging the rich more will not change the safety of the roads, the act of charging them more is meaningless to the safety of the populace.

Now this is a good argument, at least from a merely utilitarian viewpoint.

There is nothing to gain for society from charging them more other than societal members feeling good that some rich guy got it stuck to him. That is very low value in my book.

This is bothering me a bit. What this has to do with what I have been saying ? I was trying to rationally discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the fixed-value fines. You guys seem hellbent on pointing out how anyone who questions certain things hates the rich.

Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Again, what does this has to do with "wealthy people are evil" ?

For what must be the fifth time, the points are:

1) People who are successful largely make better decisions, ergo, they are less likely to acquire an undesirable expense. A wealthy person is not better than a poor person, but they are more careful or better at allocating their resources. The point is not that a poor person is not impacted by a fine, it is that a rich person is not as likely to make a decision that will cost the fine to begin with.

2)It is no one else's business what a person makes or what resources they have. A speeding rich person is not a greater danger on the streets than a speeding poor person. In fact, they are more likely to be able to handle the responsibility for any trouble they cause. The law should treat everyone exactly the same, and if a person doesn't acquire enough wealth and doesn't have the judgement to avoid a ticket, that is his problem. He isn't less guilty than a rich person. The law isn't picking on him just because he can't afford the ticket. The amount of the ticket has nothing to do with whether a person can afford to pay it. The ticket is punitive. It should not also be confiscatory or prejudicial.

For some in this country, we switched from not judging by the color of one's skin to judging by the contents of their wallet, and that ignorance is tearing this country apart.

** spoiler omitted **

Ok, I will ignore your second point and the commentary which follows it since they do not appear to address anything I have been saying. I honestly have no idea where, in my posts, you read anything implying anything remotely related to what you are saying here.

As to your first point: you are basing your analysis in an a priori judgment of people's reasoning and decision-making capacity based on their wealth, which I think is ironic, given your rant which followed in (2) and after. Even if I accept your (arguable) position, I would say that, the more rational someone is, the more he would be able to successfully gauge the risk/benefit ratio of speeding and risk losing that money.
In fact I would say that, from a purely rational stance, if one ignores the inherent dangers of speeding and considers only the financial risk of the fixed-value fine, the poorer you are, the less likely that the benefit of speeding is worth the risk. On the other hand, the richer you are, the more likely that the benefit of speeding surpasses the risk of financial loss.

Thus, nothing to do with "rich people are evil!"

To repeat, the penalty is a fine whose value is (and should, IMO) be based upon the severity of the civil infraction. Extenuating circumstances can adjust such fines with some examples being on the way to the hospital with a sick person or a first time offense. Still, these will determine where on the scale for the infraction that the fine is assessed.

But you are saying it yourself that fines are not punishments, but, on the contrary, a way to interdict people from misbehaving. Don't you think that they should be constructed in order to reach that goal instead ?

I have seen nothing to state anywhere that the fine is appropriate to the infraction itself rather than to punishing the individual and I have seen nothing anywhere that has shown it would in any way appreciably affect the safety of the roads because it will hit a few rich people hard in the checkbook.

Well, it would certainly make them think twice about doing it because otherwise they would be losing a non-insignificant parcel of their money, as poor people surely do.

The most straightforward manner by means of which I can rationalize what you are saying above is:

"Since there are a lot more poor than rich, the total number of rich people which do exceed speeding limits is so small that adapting a proportional fine would affect very little the number of crimes."

Is this what you are aiming at ? I am not being sarcastic here, I really am trying to understand your position.

The added "license points removal" is not the fine, so I am not concerned with it. I am specifically addressing the way fines work (or don't work) as deterrents to misbehaviour. Either they are needed or they are not needed. If they are not needed because, and I quote:

They still receive "points" on their driver's license which can (will) lead to loss of driving priveleges for repeating offenses just like everyone else. And, that is the key.

then there is no need for a fine. If the fine is, in fact, needed because it does help reduce misbehaviour, as you seem to believe since you followed the previous statement with:

The point of the fines is not to PUNISH. It is to make the roads safer for everybody with the threat of a fine.

then I am arguing that fixed-value fines have no effect on the wealthy as deterrents. Instead of addresing this point, you noted that the loss of one's license might be enough to deter such a wealthy person from misbehaving.

I completely agree with you when you say fines are not supposed to punish. They are supposed to deter certain kinds of misconduct by fear of financial loss. All such deterrents are in fact an appeal to one's reason("By misbehaving I may lose something of importance to me, so I should avoid it"). I fail to grasp how a small, fixed-value fine could be as good a disincentive to the rich as it is to the poor.

The fine is set for a crime. If you can't afford it, don't do it. No one bears any responsiblity if I get ticketed other than me. I've got no case if I defend myself by saying 'a ticket would crush my family right now'. The right thing would be not to have gotten the ticket in the beginning.

In this country, we have GOT to stop assuming wealthy people are somehow evil and unwealthy people are some sort of downtrodden noble caste. Niether of those is true. If something costs a higher percentage fo your income, make more money. If you don't feel the climate is fair, vote to change it. But the best vote you can cast is for someone who wants to ease the pain for the people who make jobs and manage their companies wisely. Punishing them means there are less of them to make jobs. Sending their money to an account overseas to be removed from our economy hurts our currency and creates opportunity costs in future business and investments.

This has nothing to do with wealthy people being evil or whatnot, it has to do with the fact that fixed-value fines can be ignored by wealthy people, making them, in practice, immune to the expected effect of the fine, in contrast to their effect on poor people. On the other hand, proportional fines are a problem to both poor and rich, achieving the intended goal.

I have boldened part of your text because it beautifully illustrates my point. It implies indirectly that wealthy people (who can pay those fines) can, to a certain extent, be free from the effect of punitive measures on misbehaviour, while others can't.

Again, what does this has to do with "wealthy people are evil" ?

Two most rercent papers on chemical bonding :

http://link.aip.org/link/?JCPSA6/130/104102/1
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jp903963h

unfortunately I guess that to see anything beyond the abstract, one must have paid access to the respective journals (probably from a university account). So much for freedom of information :(

The most salient point is repeatedly ignored: people who are successful generally make better decisions. There is ome luck, there are some random circumstances, but successful people apply themselves better in those situations. As such, they are less likely to make callous mistakes than someone who probabl would be hurt by a ticket. I have friends who are wealthier than me. They are disciplined, fair people. They don't speed or live wrecklessly any more than others, and probably less. They have a nicer car, care about the perceptions of others, and the primary reason they have more money is because they value it more and have a sense of discipline about it. They won't speed, because even though an $80 ticket won't hurt bad, it isn't in the budget.

I tire someone of making this point and having to respond to semantics. If you'd like to ask someone else their opinion of your small point, I think you'll find more engagement there. I have a deadline to chase.

Are you really saying that the most salient point is that wealthier people are more reasonable in some sense ? And thus, less prone to commit crimes ? The current economic hell people all over the world see themselves into speaks against this very notion.

The $80 fine may not be on their budget. However, should they feel the need to speed, they may easily hand over $80 bucks if caught doing it, while someone poor cannot do it in such a careless way since the stakes are higher to them.

It's not a FEE, Steven, it's a FINE. Perhaps that's the problem. You look at it as a purely economic transaction, and we look at it as a punishment that has to actually matter to the person involved to be effective?

I think this nails it. A very rich person can, in principle, pay for the "right" to commit some crimes (the ones punishable by fines), if such fines were low enough compared to his wealth.

Of course, the idea of fines is not to create such a situation, but to actually prevent people from commiting crimes, lest they find themselves losing a relevant part of their wealth.

By sticking to a fixed-value fine, one does not reach this goal, since the actual punishment is different for people with different amounts of money. A poor guy will surely have to think twice before crosssing the speed limit, since losing 100$ is quite important to him (a severe punishment), while a very wealthy guy has no disincentive to speed, as losing the same amount of money is meaningless to him (a mild punishment, or even non-punishment).

Expressing the fine in terms of percentages of possessed wealth does not make the law unequal, in the same way that a 1% tax over income is not unequal.