Glen, Neither you nor Marcus seem to have much enthusiasm for this argument, and I think every body else is bored cross-eyed by it, and I am not sure I understand it, and all my attempts to clarify it are treated as nit-picking, so ...
Let's just say you won and drop it. I am really happy with that resolution. Agreed? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left Since Nick is the instigator and it's not clear to me how facile he is with threaded discussions, I've compiled all my responses into one post. Unfortunately, this leaves me very little room to make any arguments myself. I'm just responding to what others have said. So, I'll prepend the _gist_ of what I have to say: 1) The responses have NOT successfully shown examples where the rules are set by non-rich people. But I'm still OK with pretending that these examples exist. And I don't really need any evidence to play along as if it's been shown. 2) The more important questions are a) the modal one (when is rulership necessarily linked to wealth) and b) can we characterize rulership in terms of power transfer rates (across regimes) or the transformation of money to power and vice versa? And this may require the classification of types of rule. With (2), we might be able to come closer to delineating the difference between having money and rule-setting. Anyway, on to the nit-picking below -------------------- On 01/10/2014 05:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > There */are /* examples of less ruling of the rich and, even if there > were no such examples, a discussion of why it would be better if we > had less such ruling would be useful. I agree that counter factual reasoning is useful. I don't yet believe there are examples where the rich did not define the rules. I suspect that, given each proposed example, when we dig deep enough, we'll find that the rules were defined by the wealthiest in that (or the just prior) society. But I can let that go and play along as if the examples are settled. > ARGUMENTATION: I agreed to the proposition that the rich */tend/* > */to/* have a dominant influence in societies in which resources are > readily stored, including our own. So, while I might agree that it > will always be more or less true, I might also believe that the less > it is true, the better. Or, that a society in which it is less true > is more likely to be stable and attractive to live in for the largest > numbers of people. You can believe that. And I might also believe it. But demonstrating that it's true is different from believing it. Do we have any data that societies where the rules are defined by poor people are somehow optimally stable, attractive, or better? > (2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there ARE > examples where the rich are not as dominant as the rich are in our > current society. In fact, not long ago, we were such a society. I don't believe you. 8^) In order to convince me you're right, you'll have to show that the rules were defined by someone other than the richest people. I actually believe the richest are less dominant, now, in our current western societies because we have more "rich" people, which leads to a more diverse rule set. > (3) Your request is for what one of my favorite FRIAM friends calls > "an existence proof". In other words, I have to provide an example > that such a thing has ever existed, before I can make an argument that it > ought to exist. Surely, an existence proof is desirable, but not > necessary to planning. But now that you mention it, it occurs to me > that the world might well be a better place now, if an existence proof > had been required of the man who first proposed to make an atomic bomb. I'm not looking for a proof, just evidence. A good example might be Uraguay? But I'm a bit ignorant of the net worth of the legislators there. Just having an austere president isn't enough. The same might apply with the Holy See. Not drawing a salary doesn't mean you're not rich/wealthy. And it's not clear to me how many rules are actually set by the pope. On 01/10/2014 07:58 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > "She who has the gold rules they who value gold" > or the contrapositive of same? > > That is another way. It's not clear to me how different that way is, though. > Did I not already say this once? Yes, sorry. Nick seemed to want to start over. On 01/10/2014 08:14 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Robert already mentioned a counter example: The Communists seizing > power from the Nationalists in China. And I agree that there is some friction in the money <-> power transformation. But who made the rules before the seizing? What rules persisted across the seizing? And who made the rules after the seizing? After we answer those questions, we can ask what the net worth was of those making the rules. > Similarly, greenbacks didn't make the difference in Vietnam. So > another way is spending lives and destroying things, not just > employment and bribery. Right. Again we're talking about the rate of the money <-> power transform. But we're also talking about what it means to set the rules and what form the rules take. > Ok, but going back to the thread about the proof of God's existence, > one of the conclusions in the proof was that "Everything that is the case is > so necessarily." And from that it can be concluded there is no free > will. If there is no free will, why talk about `ought'. That kind of > reasoning would make sense per the aphorism but I don't it is also a > descriptive fact. It's common but not universal -- even if the only > other time the aphorism doesn't hold true is in the during the part of > the suggested cycle where the wealthy are thrown up against a wall and > shot. That's the more interesting part of the discussion, to me, just as it's the more interesting part of Goedel's modal proof. On 01/10/2014 09:09 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > On 1/10/14, 6:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> (2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there ARE >> examples where the rich are not as dominant as the rich are in our >> current society. In fact, not long ago, we were such a society. > For example > (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/03/27/outside-groups-spending > -through-roof) > > " Outside groups, including super PACs and nonprofit organizations, > have spent almost four times more on the 2012 presidential campaign > than comparable organizations spent at the same point in the 2008 > cycle, an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings show." Sorry, I am dense. How is this an example that non-rich people are making the rules? If anything, it seems to be evidence that the rich people are still making the rules. On 01/11/2014 12:16 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote: > It's honestly been "the other way" a lot. There was even a time not > too long ago in the U.S. when our government made "rational" decisions > about this issue. In the mid 1950s, you were taxed on everything you > made over $400k at 92%. The bottom bracket was taxed at 22%. In > 2012, you were taxed on everything you made over $380k at 35%. The > bottom bracket, up to $17k, was taxed at 10%. It's not clear to me that the rich people would _never_ define a rule taxing themselves (or fellow rich people) more. So, just because there are periods where rich people are taxed more does not imply that non-rich people defined those rules. I guess all we'd need to see is who made those tax-the-rich rules and what was the net worth of those rule makers? On 01/11/2014 01:58 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Then "rich" households ought to start at $326k (1%), $212k (5%), $163k > (10%), $114k (20%). I'm OK with any arbitrary line we draw. But, given the next phase of the discussion (rates of transition of power from one regime to another, rates of money <-> power transformation, diversity of rule sets, etc.), I'd like to distinguish between high income and wealth. I think there's plenty of evidence (pro football players, lottery winners, etc.) who earn quite a bit of money but never manage to set the rules. So, while it seems "He who has the gold rules" might be somewhat true, we can't say that "All people with gold rule" is equally true. What it really boils down to is that money is (to some extent we haven't discovered) necessary but not sufficient for rulership. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Standing on the runway waiting to takeoff ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
