I have no worries about losing.

And, for the record, I think there’s about a 15% chance that McCain will actually win. A number that doesn’t exude confidence, but that at least allows me a good “told ya so” to those who gave him a 0% chance if he does win.

I’ve just put up my first (serious) post at a joint blog called Suite Talking. The title refers to the fact that it is a joint venture between myself a college suitemate. From now on I’ll probably be double posting most of my more “serious” posts over there. Feel free to come over and visit and comment and even check out some thoughts by that lanky bastard known as Nate.

So, without further ado, my first crossposting:

Why is wealth redistribution bad?

[Quick summary: a principle of fairness isn't enough to establish wealth redistribution policies as bad as there are two main intuitions about what fairness means, I predict that these two intuitions fall in line with two major ethical theories.]

One of my (many) major problems with the Obama campaign is its support of policies that would function as wealth redistribution. Like most conservatives, I find such socialistic tendencies abhorant*, but why?

Common answers would almost all appeal to fairness. It seems inherently fair that each person should receive compensation relative to the extent, difficulty, and quality of his work. To take compensation from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not is, without a doubt, unfair. But is that enough? Life after all, and as parents are so fond of reminding children, is not fair. Why should taxes be?

Or consider that the distribution of circumstances for those who are extremely wealthy and extremely poor has not been fair. The majority of the extremely poor were born in circumstances that significantly contributed to their poverty.**

The government could never make the world’s circumstantially fair. But if it redistributes wealth, then to some extent hasn’t it mitigated the unfairness of the world? If bad circumstances tend one toward bad decisions which tend one (and one’s children) toward bad circumstances, then isn’t it the case that not redistributing wealth is systematically contributing to the unfairness of the world?

I’m interested to hear what any of you think about this. Is it more fair to try to increase equality in the end result? Or to try to treat everyone the same as possible?

There are plenty of people in both camps, a good number of which like to argue. But, as per usual, I would bet that there is actually a more fundamental disagreement between the two camps than the surface quarrel over taxes. My guess is that the two groups will fall more or less in line with the following two ethical theories: those who tend toward a deontological ethic (focusing on duty and action) will have the intuition that everyone should be treated the same, and those who tend toward a utilitarian ethic (focusing on outcome) will have the intuition of endpoint equality.

My intuitive ethic is something of a Duns Scotian mix of deontology and divine command theory (a standard package, I’d wager, for most conservative Christians), and I bet that that accounts for my status as a wealth-redistribution-abhorrer. But I also question whether all of ethics can be propositionalized, which means that I’m open to understanding ethical decisions in other manners (e.g. faithful interpretation of a role rather than instantiation of a rule). And that probably correlates pretty well with my feelings that the case against wealth redistribution is not open and shut.

_____

*-I know it’s not a word… I’m working on making it one.

**-It may be argued that no one in America will be in abject poverty unless they make conscious decisions to act in a manner that directly leads to poverty (immoral or illegal activity, failing to perform well enough to even meet the minimal work requirements of a minimum wage job, etc.). These people are fully responsible for the decisions that they have made and therefore fully responsible for their impoverished state.

But for that argument to work mustn’t it be true that the (unfair) circumstances do not affect these decisions? But of course they do. A child raised to think that criminal activity is the norm would seem in some way to be less (ethically, not legally) culpable for criminal activity than one who has had a clear demonstration and example of right and wrong since we know that these sorts of examples leave a distinct impression on children and inform their decision making.

Matthew Mehan (a friend of a friend of a friend), however, has an interesting take on the film that might make me give it another chance. His article at mercatornet.com argues that Shyamalan intended his film to decry a shift in America away from a “culture of life.” Mehan’s case on some comments about bees by one of the main characters and the manner in which the three most gruesome deaths occur (analogous to three main types of abortion).

I’m not sure I agree with Mehan, but the article is definitely worth a look if you’ve seen the movie. Thoughts anyone?

Posted in Uncategorized ]]> http://dontwastewine.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/my-new-favorite/feed/ 0 Sandy 10-6-08-get-fuzzy2 http://dontwastewine.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/republicans-need-better-marketing-people/ http://dontwastewine.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/republicans-need-better-marketing-people/#comments Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:06:32 +0000 Sandy http://dontwastewine.wordpress.com/?p=301 ]]> Have you seen any of the Republican campaign ads? Honestly.

It should also be noted that Obama received the second most contributions ever from F&F… In three years… The only person who received more was a 27 year senate veteran (see here). Not that Republicans are innocent here, but still…

2. Debates aren’t that great of a forum for policy anyway. At least not televised debates. Written debates would be much more informative. Of course, there’s more to presiding than just policy, but still.

3. My politics are based on principles. And there is never a question of which party’s candidate will come closest to those principles.

4. Who cares about VP’s? The Obama campaign and the media (but I repeat myself) care a lot about Sarah Palin because they see her as a much easier target than McCain (specifically, she’s a stereotype, even more useful because it’s the same stereotype they give for Bush–against whom Obama is really trying to run). But really, VP’s rarely do anything of importance, apart from possibly succeeding their P’s.

5. I don’t vote. And I’m not in the least bit ashamed of it. To anyone who thinks my vote “makes a difference”: I’d be happy to make a bet with you of a dollar against everything I own. We can do an easy counterfactual check after the election is done, and if my vote would have made a difference you get it all.

5a. No seriously. I would get effing pissed.

—–

Addendum (to number 4):  An argument can be made that this VP debate is more important because of John McCain’s age and health. This may be, but it’s only slightly more important. Matt Damon says to look at the actuary tables on McCain, but this neglects at least the two facts that McCain clearly has good stock (his mom’s still going), and he has access to the best medical treatment in the world.

” And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.”

But if there was any doubt about the piece’s appropriateness or accuracy, check out another article, “He came, he saw, he sprinkled us with stardust. Even Gordon Smiled.” Stardust!?! Really!?! This one is from another British paper, The Guardian, and contains bits like the following:

“But, mainly, he simply appeared, and sprinkled that stardust. Gordon Brown could be seen beaming. In the dark. The dark of the hall of 10 Downing Street. Obama wasn’t allowed, through protocol, to grasp Mr B’s hand outside for the cameras, as he is only a presidential candidate, and it wasn’t done for John McCain’s visit. But there was an Obama arm swiftly around Gordon’s shoulders, and a (rather fluid) returning lower-back pat, before the door shut.”

—–

As a reminder, you can vote for “rim fag,” my related entry to Urban Dictionary, here.

Another great Gondry video with amazing transition after amazing transition. (Also, it kind of reminds me of Run Lola Run).

1. Some more bad news for promoters of the idea that no one in their right minds isn’t freaking out about climate change, David Evans announces that he’s off the wagon in The Australian.

Who’s David Evans? He describes himself thusly:  “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.”

2. The Financial Times Deutschland recently ran an editorial in response to the large number of Obama fans in Europe. Here is a translation on the site Watching America. Included is this lovely quote,

“Obama is often praised for rekindling enthusiasm in democracy in people due to his drawing power. But mass obeisance to a charismatic leader really has little to do with democracy. On the contrary, the sociologist Max Weber describes charismatic domination as a condition that gains no legitimacy either through elections or tradition. The Obama-hype is similar to the month-long dance around the iPhone, except that the Apple cell phone will still have to submit to field trials.”

3. Every wonder what the guys from Mystery Science Theatre 3000 are up to? Check out Cinematic Titanic, Riff Trax, and The Film Crew.

4. Surprise! The New York Times is biased against Israel.

“…most headlines concerning attacks are written in the active style when concerning Israel, but in the passive when concerning Arab terrorists, who usually are called ‘militants.’”

5. Is your life dull and dreary? Perhaps you should take up a new hobby… like monkey torture!