DISQUS

I am planning to put on a reverse calendar spread on AA near the close to take advantage of the earnings announcement. I go into details at http://TradeNakedOptions.com

I see. The extent of Swiftee's vocabulary.

I see. The extent of Swiftee's vocabulary.

Tough times, Swiftee? By the volume of comments you leave at Minnesota Monitor every day, I'm guessing those flat fees ain't rolling in. By the monotonous repetition of points you make - Soros, sock puppets, Media Matters, etc. - I can see business is slow: your specialty isn't in demand.

Tough times, Swiftee? By the volume of comments you leave at Minnesota Monitor every day, I'm guessing those flat fees ain't rolling in. By the monotonous repetition of points you make - Soros, sock puppets, Media Matters, etc. - I can see business is slow: your specialty isn't in demand.

Why do Kline and Bachmann hate America?

Why do Kline and Bachmann hate America?

yeah... Whatever about that, Swiftee. What I wanna know is: do you support the lunatic ravings of Mary Kiffmeyer?

yeah... Whatever about that, Swiftee. What I wanna know is: do you support the lunatic ravings of Mary Kiffmeyer?

good one. swiftee is one insightful and comic monkey. redundant, too.

good one. swiftee is one insightful and comic monkey. redundant, too.

Eric,

You're forgetting to factor in the effect on the sum of men's happiness.

And, also, the fact that this is really just a joke to point out how ridiculous this sort of project is (I hope).

If I'm being forced to pay for something, I should definitely get to (at least) see the results of the spending.

Will,

Thanks. I think I misinterpreted you.

And, I agree that this issue could be avoided (at least in its political form) if the state would stay out of this area which is unnecessary for it to protect basic rights.

But, many will argue that ensuring the learning of basic science is as important to a decent chance in modern life as the three R's.

Will,

I'm as opposed to government involvement in "education" as anyone, but I don't think your conclusion follows.

I don't think liberal neutrality requires the teaching of anything like ID in science classes, so I don't think this is a legitimate backlash or indication of a problem with the institution (there are many others, though).

If there was a racist backlash to a legal system that treated all races equally, would you conclude that this "shows that there is something wrong with our institutions."?

Will,

Did you consider that Casey Sheehan did more than just expose himself to the risk of death in conflicts that the president might engage in in the future.

He specifically reenlisted after the start of this war.

So, he viewed this war as just and chose to be a part of it. I don't see how there can be anything left of his mother's moral protection.

Monkyboy,

How's the new hat working out for you?

Bill,

I understand that you're joking and realize that I wasn't speaking for myself when proposing that hypothetical.

What I hoped you'd recognize is that many of us view property rights in the same kind of category, though. Property often represents the results of tremendous personal sacrifice and difficult choices; a significant portion of their lives' time and effort. Your cavalier attitude about "frustrating rich peoples' expectations about what they're entitiled to" suggests that you don't take this idea very seriously. I tried to form my "frustrating some promiscuous women's expectations about their entitlement in terms of contol over their bodies" line to try to express how offensive that attitude can be.

The better lesson is that nobody should be "the one in charge of making interpersonal utility comparisons" with respect to basic rights such as these. At least, not the kind that spark coercive remedies.

No, Bill. I don't think that's the real question.

Should we decide the question of whether or not to permit the rape of women who say "No" on whether some utility function is maximized?

Sure, we might frustrate some promiscuous women's expectations about their entitlement in terms of contol over their bodies, but maybe some women mean "Yes", and maybe some experts judge men to get more benefit than women bear costs, etc.

Sorry, but I don't think that's the way to decide if these are rights violations.

Monkyboy,

Now you can do one thing well, and spend the rest of your time focusing on things that interest you, rather than be forced to deal with as many other things.

Sounds like progress to me.

I think (hope?) Menken was joking about marriage.

He was right that happiness often comes from the sense of accomplishment of a difficult goal (Jefferson would agree). I think his joke was that the difficult goal for women was to get married and for men was to avoid it. Also, the feeling of security and well-being was more obviously associated with married women than men.

Oh.

Okay.

Bill,

We're talking about people, right?

Individual people who have individual goals, and respond to incentives?

I think Nozick's model approximates my sense of our moral obligation to each other to respect each other's autonomy and limit our interactions to the voluntary (other than defense).

And, his notion of the distributive justice where justly acquired and transferred holdings lead to a just distribution, regardless of how that distribution looks, also squares with my thoughts.

Why should anyone care whether you or Cohen think that in the unworkable fictional state of joint-ownership of everything some idiot might not agree to selling part of it?

This doesn't seem to go anywhere towards demonstrating that I must change my notions of morality and justice because people in that situation would only sell their property by considering consequences (as opposed to what?).

From the Julian Sanchez interview of Robert Nozick in 2001 there's an interesting exchange about the value of believing the truth. There Nozick says:

Or the literature that seems to show that optimistic or even overly optimistic attitudes towards one's chances at succeeding at something, or recovering from a disease, or something like that, actually increase the chances. Maybe not up to the level of optimism one feels, but there one would be better off not being a perfectly accurate assessor of chances. In fact there's some psychological literature that seems to indicate that when people are asked by psychologists what other people in their social circle think of them, and then the psychologists check with these other people about what they actually do think, that the people who have more accurate views of what other people think of them are less happy, less successful in life, cope less well with various things, than the people who have rosier views of what people think of them than is actually the case. Now, here's another case where one may be better off believing what's not strictly true. Parents raising children might think: "Well, do I want my child to have a disposition to believe exactly what's true about other people's opinions of him or her? Or to have, not an out-of-touch-with-reality view, but a more optimistic than is actual view, a rosier view, of what people think of them, so that their life will go smoother, more easily, and so on?"

Bill,

I don't know what you're talking about.

It looks to me like there's absolutely nothing left of Cohen's "argument".

"Also, absent ignorance, they wouldn't agree to anything that would make them worse off than continued joint-ownership"

But, almost anything would make them better off than continued joint-ownership. Continued joint-ownership is suicide.

Everyone, absent insanity, would welcome the improvements that come from private ownership.

Requiring unanimity to allow this (or even to agree to the disposition of jointly-owned property) is a death sentence to all.

So, remind me why anything from Cohen should lead someone away from self-ownership+side-constraints?

I mean, other than the fact that liberty leads to possible circumstances that some people don't like.

I think all systems have that feature.

How does Cohen get us somewhere better?