Testing for "Right Wing" Controlled Variables

CSGnet Archive CSG2012
1

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.17.1530)]

Well, it’s the day after the 35th anniversary of Elivis’ death (I know because he died the day before my daughter was born) and it’s been pretty quiet on CSGNet and I have a nice, quiet weekend coming up so I thought I would stir up some packets (of he switching kind) by trying, once again, to find out what right wingers (libertarians, conservatives, Republicans, Christian fundamentalists, etc) are controlling for in terms of what we call “system concept” type perceptions. What, in order words, do they consider to be a good society. So I think I have one simple question that might go a long way toward helping me get it. The question is this:

If it were found to be unquestionably true that doing nothing other than raising the top marginal tax rate on all income (wage and capital gains income > $1,000,000, say) to 90% would raise the living standards of everyone in the society (reduce poverty, raise average wages) would you be in favor of this policy?

Anyone can answer this, of course. But I would really like to hear from “right wingers”.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

2

A society that worked that way would obviously be broken, we’d have to fix it rather than accede to its idiosyncrasies. Or was that a Donner Pass type of question? Fortunately, we live in a society where eliminating the tax on dividends even if made revenue neutral by capping the deductibility of interest would probably reduce poverty and raise average wages. – Martin L

···

On 8/17/12 4:30 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@GMAIL.COM wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.17.1530)]

Well, it’s the day after the 35th anniversary of Elivis’ death (I know because he died the day before my daughter was born) and it’s been pretty quiet on CSGNet and I have a nice, quiet weekend coming up so I thought I would stir up some packets (of he switching kind) by trying, once again, to find out what right wingers (libertarians, conservatives, Republicans, Christian fundamentalists, etc) are controlling for in terms of what we call “system concept” type perceptions. What, in order words, do they consider to be a good society. So I think I have one simple question that might go a long way toward helping me get it. The question is this:

If it were found to be unquestionably true that doing nothing other than raising the top marginal tax rate on all income (wage and capital gains income > $1,000,000, say) to 90% would raise the living standards of everyone in the society (reduce poverty, raise average wages) would you be in favor of this policy?

Anyone can answer this, of course. But I would really like to hear from “right wingers”.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

3

Absolutely.

The only reason I’m in favour of libertarian, free market, low-regulation policies is because I believe that it’s been proven that they would make the society better in all the ways you mention (and other ways). If tomorrow someone would convince me that this other policy would work towards that goal, I’d be in favour of it.

Adam

···

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.17.1530)]

If it were found to be unquestionably true that doing nothing other than raising the top marginal tax rate on all income (wage and capital gains income > $1,000,000, say) to 90% would raise the living standards of everyone in the society (reduce poverty, raise average wages) would you be in favor of this policy?

4

From Richard Pfau [2012.08.18 08:10 EST]

Ref: Martin Lewitt (Aug 18, 2012 5:14 am)

Fortunately, we live in a society where eliminating the tax on dividends even if made revenue neutral by capping the deductibility of interest would probably reduce poverty and raise average wages. – Martin L

Martin,

What evidence do you have to support this statement?

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

5

The evidence is the way corporate managers are trained in business schools to evaluate their cost of capital. High taxes or double taxes on dividends paid for equity capital compared to the deductibility the interest paid for debt capital. The tax favored status of debt capital results in businesses with higher debt loads. So eliminating the tax on dividends would have two effects generally considered salutary for business growth, lower cost of capital, and more flexible financing.

Just like consumers, businesses are more likely to have to cut back or go bankrupt when carrying great levels of debt and during recessions. GW Bush tried to eliminate the double tax on dividends, but only got half a loaf (15%), which still left banks and other debt financing with a tax advantage.

– Martin L

···

On 8/18/12 6:10 AM, “Richard H. Pfau” richardpfau4153@AOL.COM wrote:

From Richard Pfau [2012.08.18 08:10 EST]

Ref: Martin Lewitt (Aug 18, 2012 5:14 am)

Fortunately, we live in a society where eliminating the tax on dividends even if made revenue neutral by capping the deductibility of interest would probably reduce poverty and raise average wages. – Martin L

Martin,

What evidence do you have to support this statement?

With Regards,

Richard Pfau

6

So eating the heart of a millionare would give you immortality (and you wouldn’t get caught), you’d do that too, or is it only for the benefit of “society” that you are willing to be immoral? – Martin L

···

On 8/18/12 3:29 AM, “Adam Matic” adam.matic@GMAIL.COM wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.17.1530)]

If it were found to be unquestionably true that doing nothing other than raising the top marginal tax rate on all income (wage and capital gains income > $1,000,000, say) to 90% would raise the living standards of everyone in the society (reduce poverty, raise average wages) would you be in favor of this policy?

Absolutely.

The only reason I’m in favour of libertarian, free market, low-regulation policies is because I believe that it’s been proven that they would make the society better in all the ways you mention (and other ways). If tomorrow someone would convince me that this other policy would work towards that goal, I’d be in favour of it.

Adam

7

[Martin Taylor 2012.08.18.10.14]

···

Martin L., in three responses to Rick
and Adam, you haven’t attempted to answer Rick’s question.
Instead, you have unhelpfully questioned the validity of its
premise. When someone asks a question “If X happened to be true,
what would follow?” it is unhelpful to answer by saying “X happens
not to be true”.

  Martin T

    So eating the heart of a millionare would give you

immortality (and you wouldn’t get caught), you’d do that too, or
is it only for the benefit of “society” that you are willing to
be immoral? – Martin L

On 8/18/12 3:29 AM, “Adam Matic” <adam.matic@GMAIL.COM >
wrote:

        On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:30 AM,

Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.17.1530)]

          If it were found to be unquestionably true that doing

nothing other than raising the top marginal tax rate on
all income (wage and capital gains income > $1,000,000,
say) to 90% would raise the living standards of everyone
in the society (reduce poverty, raise average wages) would
you be in favor of this policy?

Absolutely.

          The only reason I'm in favour of libertarian, free

market, low-regulation policies is because I believe that
it’s been proven that they would make the society better
in all the ways you mention (and other ways). If tomorrow
someone would convince me that this other policy would
work towards that goal, I’d be in favour of it.

Adam

8

[From Bill Powers (2012.08.18.0839 MDT)]

ML: The evidence is the way corporate managers are trained in business schools to evaluate their cost of capital. High taxes or double taxes on dividends paid for equity capital compared to the deductibility the interest paid for debt capital. The tax favored status of debt capital results in businesses with higher debt loads. So eliminating the tax on dividends would have two effects generally considered salutary for business growth, lower cost of capital, and more flexible financing.

BP: These are conclusions resulting from adopting some theory, aren't they? You state them as facts, but for someone to whom the theory hasn't been explained they don't sound persuasive. How about explaining the way you arrive at these statements?

I notice that you refer to predicted effects "generally considered salutary" for business growth. What about growth of the economy for everyone, rather than just businesses? In recent years we've been having a pretty bad time for workers and consumers while many businesses have been recording record profits. Certainly that situation is good for businesses,. but how about for the rest of us?

ML: Just like consumers, businesses are more likely to have to cut back or go bankrupt when carrying great levels of debt and during recessions. GW Bush tried to eliminate the double tax on dividends, but only got half a loaf (15%), which still left banks and other debt financing with a tax advantage.

This sounds to me like just dealing with a small piece of the relationships that make up the whole economy. I'm sure you know what I'm going to say next, but I'll say it anyway: where is the model from which all these predictions and conclusions are being drawn? Opinions are not models; generalizations are not models. Models have to be described and run to generate a simulation of the system and show what a system organized according to the model will actually do, and why.

A model of the economy is made up of a large number of relationships among variables and can't be understood just by considering some of them. The human brain is limited in the number of variables it can handle at the same time, which is the main reason we use computer models. It's easy to focus on one aspect of the economy and arrive at conclusions that may solve some problems relating to that aspect, but the "keyhole" approach too easily fails to take side-effects and closed loops and indirect effects into account that can turn the supposed solutions into even worse problems. Everyone who works with models has experienced this -- you think you know how the system works and discover only later that you missed the most important things. I don't know anyone smart enough to say true things about the economy without using a model. Without the model it's all just a big cloud of hot air.

Best,

Bill P.

···

At 07:43 AM 8/18/2012, Martin Lewitt wrote:

9

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.18.0900)]

Rick Marken (2012.08.17.1530)–

If it were found to be unquestionably true that doing nothing other than raising the top marginal tax rate on all income (wage and capital gains income > $1,000,000, say) to 90% would raise the living standards of everyone in the society (reduce poverty, raise average wages) would you be in favor of this policy?

So far, two right wingers have replied:

Martin Lewitt’s response was:

A
society that worked that way would obviously be broken… blah blah…

Adam Matic’s response was:

Absolutely.

So right there I have learned that “right wingers” is a category that includes people with a least two different system concepts. One of which is completely different than mine (ML’s) and the other the same (AMs). If system concepts are the highest level perceptions that are controlled then there is no hope for ML and I to ever agree. But it may be possible to convince Adam to change his mind about how to achieve our common social goals. Or maybe he can convince me to change mine and agree that the Ayn Rand approach is demonstrably the best.

Any other right wingers out there want to answer my question above? I’d like to get an idea of how many right wingers might actually be be convinced by what looks tome like overwhelming evidence that their “free market-low tax-low regulation” approach to economics is not the way to achieve Adam and my vision of the good society.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

10

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Aug 18 1237 MDT]

···

Martin L., in three responses to Rick
and Adam, you haven’t attempted to answer Rick’s question.
Instead, you have unhelpfully questioned the validity of its
premise. When someone asks a question “If X happened to be true,
what would follow?” it is unhelpful to answer by saying “X happens
not to be true”.

  Martin T

    So eating the heart of a millionare would give you

immortality (and you wouldn’t get caught), you’d do that too, or
is it only for the benefit of “society” that you are willing to
be immoral? – Martin L

On 8/18/12 3:29 AM, “Adam Matic” <adam.matic@GMAIL.COM >
wrote:

        On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:30 AM,

Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.17.1530)]

          If it were found to be unquestionably true that doing

nothing other than raising the top marginal tax rate on
all income (wage and capital gains income > $1,000,000,
say) to 90% would raise the living standards of everyone
in the society (reduce poverty, raise average wages) would
you be in favor of this policy?

Absolutely.

          The only reason I'm in favour of libertarian, free

market, low-regulation policies is because I believe that
it’s been proven that they would make the society better
in all the ways you mention (and other ways). If tomorrow
someone would convince me that this other policy would
work towards that goal, I’d be in favour of it.

Adam

11

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.18.1240)]

Martin Lewitt (2012 Aug 18 1237 MDT)–

But let me consider a third option, Richard posited that the living standards of EVERYONE would be raised, presumably that would include the standards of the millionaires as well.

Your concern for the wealthy is very touching. I don’t share that concern but I can see that I could have phrased my question a little better. Try this:

If it were found to be unquestionably true that doing nothing other than raising the top marginal tax rate on all income (wage and capital gains income > $1,000,000, say) to 90% would make it possible for everyone in society to be in control of their lives – that no one would have to worry about affording needed health services, about being able to support their families when they become unemployed, about getting a good education, etc --would you be in favor of this policy?

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

12

[Martin Taylor 2012.08.18.14.52]

That's not a "third option". It's the proposition Rick started with.

----------quote [From Rick Marken (2012.08.17.1530)]-----------
If it were found to be unquestionably true that doing nothing other
than raising the top marginal tax rate on all income (wage and
capital gains income > $1,000,000, say) to 90% would raise the
living standards of everyone in the society (reduce poverty, raise
average wages) would you be in favor of this policy? -------end quote--------
Your answer seems to be that you would conditionally be in favour of
the policy, the conditions being that the millionaires would agree
to such a tax, and could move to somewhere else to avoid the tax.
That seems to predicate that Rick’s proposition is untrue under the
conditions in which it is assumed to be true. So I think it is no
answer to Rick’s question.
As to why Rick’s proposition might not result in a “broken society”,
ask yourself what extra wealth might accrue to the millionaires if
for every million dollars in their income, 45 families had an extra
$20,000 to spend on the things that the millionaires’ companies
make. One can’t prove anything on such hypotheticals without working
models of the economy, but is it not at least possible that the
millionaires might then have more take-home income despite the high
marginal tax rate?
Martin

···

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Aug 18 1237 MDT]

On 8/18/12 8:17 AM, “Martin Taylor” <mmt-csg@MMTAYLOR.NET >
wrote:

          [Martin Taylor

2012.08.18.10.14]

    But that wasn't what I said, was it?  I didn't question

whether it was true in that society, in fact there may well be
societies today where it is true, ones so constrained,
uncreative and unproductive that theirs is a zero sum game, but
even then it wouldn’t work, because presumably the millionare’s
living standard would not be raised (“raise the living standards
of EVERYONE”). Richard didn’t say that the society couldn’t be
fixed or destroyed (two options I considered).

    But let me consider a third option, Richard posited that the

living standards of EVERYONE would be raised, presumably that
would include the standards of the millionaires as well. I’d
see no problem raising their taxes to 90%, if they agreed to
that, and if there were other societies they could choose to
live in instead that were acceptable.

            Martin L., in three responses

to Rick and Adam, you haven’t attempted to answer Rick’s
question. Instead, you have unhelpfully questioned the
validity of its premise. When someone asks a question
“If X happened to be true, what would follow?” it is
unhelpful to answer by saying “X happens not to be
true”.

13

[From Bill Powers (2012.08.18.1739 MDT)]

  Rick Marken (2012.08.18.1240)]

RM: I can see that I could have phrased my question a little better. Try this:

If it were found to be unquestionably true that doing nothing other than raising the top marginal tax rate on all income (wage and capital gains income > $1,000,000, say) to 90% would make it possible for everyone in society to be in control of their lives -- that no one would have to worry about affording needed health services, about being able to support their families when they become unemployed, about getting a good education, etc --would you be in favor of this policy?

BP: This is getting closer to the main issue. The free-market view is against coercion and arbitrary takings of people's wealth, but only if those suffering from these kinds of enforcement are rich. If the rich, because of their wealth, have the ability to purchase legislation, hire the best lawyers, command private armies, manipulate wages, and otherwise exert power to bias the system in their own favor, they can coerce those with less wealth to prevent their changing the rules, and free-marketers do not seem to object to that.

Thus the social system is made unstable, in that an excess of wealth and power tends to become more excessive, so power begets more power and loss of power begets even more loss. From the standpoint of the rich the result is greater stability, of course, because it becomes more difficult for those with less wealth to improve their own lot. But this is a positive feedback situation and the stability is actually the end-point of a runaway process.

Modeling these rather imprecise concepts will be difficult and will require a consensus that includes people on both sides of the argument. Considering that agreement would be to the disadvantage of the rich, I don't quite see how to correct this instability in a way agreeable to all. A millionaire would have to love truth and beauty a great deal to admit that his wealth is a cause of social problems and should be reduced. There are not many Warren Buffets out there.

Best,

Bill P.

14

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.18.1730)]

Martin Taylor (2012.08.18.14.52)–

Your answer seems to be that you would conditionally be in favour of

the policy, the conditions being that the millionaires would agree
to such a tax, and could move to somewhere else to avoid the tax.
That seems to predicate that Rick’s proposition is untrue under the
conditions in which it is assumed to be true. So I think it is no
answer to Rick’s question.

Actually, Martin Lewitt answered my question perfectly. Remember, I said I was asking it to test for controlled system concept variables. If someone was controlling for the same kind of society I was they would have answered “yes” (or “absolutely”) and then possibly go off with qualifiers about how the taxation policy wouldn’t work or something like that. If they were not controlling for the same kind of society I was they would answer something other than int he affirmative. So, to paraphrase a well known joke, Martin Lewitt’s answer to my established what he is (what he is not controlling for); now we’re just quibbling about the price;-)

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

15

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Aug 19 0929 MDT]

I agree with Rick, he may have gotten down to quibbling about price with Adam, but not with me. First, doubt he intended the 90% tax to be interpreted as leaving the millionaires standard of living higher, nor did he intend the answer to be contingent upon their voluntary agreement and freedom to escape the society to someplace acceptable to them. That doesn’t sound like it is just quibbling about price, but about actual values.

– Martin L

···

On 8/18/12 6:35 PM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@GMAIL.COM wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.18.1730)]

Martin Taylor (2012.08.18.14.52)–

Your answer seems to be that you would conditionally be in favour of

the policy, the conditions being that the millionaires would agree
to such a tax, and could move to somewhere else to avoid the tax.
That seems to predicate that Rick’s proposition is untrue under the
conditions in which it is assumed to be true. So I think it is no
answer to Rick’s question.

Actually, Martin Lewitt answered my question perfectly. Remember, I said I was asking it to test for controlled system concept variables. If someone was controlling for the same kind of society I was they would have answered “yes” (or “absolutely”) and then possibly go off with qualifiers about how the taxation policy wouldn’t work or something like that. If they were not controlling for the same kind of society I was they would answer something other than int he affirmative. So, to paraphrase a well known joke, Martin Lewitt’s answer to my established what he is (what he is not controlling for); now we’re just quibbling about the price;-)

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

16

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.19.0940)]

Martin Lewitt (2012 Aug 19 0929 MDT)–

ML: I agree with Rick, he may have gotten down to quibbling about price with Adam, but not with me. First, doubt he intended the 90% tax to be interpreted as leaving the millionaires standard of living higher,

RM: No, as I said in my restatement, I intended the question to be interpreted in terms of whether or not one shared my goal regarding the kind of society one wants: one where everyone has the ability to control their lives without a lot of anxiety and fear.

ML: nor did he intend the answer to be contingent upon their voluntary agreement and freedom to escape the society to someplace acceptable to them.

RM: This just reinforces Bill’s excellent point about “free marketers” like yourself:

BP: The free-market view is against coercion and arbitrary takings of people’s wealth, but only if those suffering from these kinds of enforcement are rich. If the rich, because of their wealth, have the ability to purchase legislation, hire the best lawyers, command private armies, manipulate wages, and otherwise exert power to bias the system in their own favor, they can coerce those with less wealth to prevent their changing the rules, and free-marketers do not seem to object to that.

ML: That doesn’t sound like it is just quibbling about price, but about actual values.

RM: I’m not quibbling about values; I’m testing to determine what some of your values are (in PCT “values” is not a technical term; it is a lay term that I take as referring to references for higher level perceptions; perceptions of principles, like “honesty”, and system concepts, like “society”). Specifically, I was testing (for the controlled variable; look it up) to see what kind of society you value (control for). Your answers to my question have convinced me that the kind of society you value is completely different than the one Adam and I value. This means that Adam and I might be able to have a useful debate about the best economic policies that are the means for achieving our common societal goals. You and I have no chance of ever agreeing on anything having to do with economic policies because we have completely different goals regarding the social results of those policies.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

17

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Aug 19 1111 MDT]

Rick,

Would it be fair to say that value some of the European societies more than the one you are continuing to live in for some reason? Is it lack of language skills that keeps you here, or their closed door policies there? For me, the US is closer in practical political terms to achieving the type of society I prefer, although I can’t say I’m optimistic.

Regards,

– Martin L

···

On 8/19/12 10:39 AM, “Richard Marken” rsmarken@GMAIL.COM wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.19.0940)]

Martin Lewitt (2012 Aug 19 0929 MDT)–

ML: I agree with Rick, he may have gotten down to quibbling about price with Adam, but not with me. First, doubt he intended the 90% tax to be interpreted as leaving the millionaires standard of living higher,

RM: No, as I said in my restatement, I intended the question to be interpreted in terms of whether or not one shared my goal regarding the kind of society one wants: one where everyone has the ability to control their lives without a lot of anxiety and fear.

ML: nor did he intend the answer to be contingent upon their voluntary agreement and freedom to escape the society to someplace acceptable to them.

RM: This just reinforces Bill’s excellent point about “free marketers” like yourself:

BP: The free-market view is against coercion and arbitrary takings of people’s wealth, but only if those suffering from these kinds of enforcement are rich. If the rich, because of their wealth, have the ability to purchase legislation, hire the best lawyers, command private armies, manipulate wages, and otherwise exert power to bias the system in their own favor, they can coerce those with less wealth to prevent their changing the rules, and free-marketers do not seem to object to that.

ML: That doesn’t sound like it is just quibbling about price, but about actual values.

RM: I’m not quibbling about values; I’m testing to determine what some of your values are (in PCT “values” is not a technical term; it is a lay term that I take as referring to references for higher level perceptions; perceptions of principles, like “honesty”, and system concepts, like “society”). Specifically, I was testing (for the controlled variable; look it up) to see what kind of society you value (control for). Your answers to my question have convinced me that the kind of society you value is completely different than the one Adam and I value. This means that Adam and I might be able to have a useful debate about the best economic policies that are the means for achieving our common societal goals. You and I have no chance of ever agreeing on anything having to do with economic policies because we have completely different goals regarding the social results of those policies.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

18

[Martin Taylor 2012.08.19.14.02]

[Martin Lewitt 2012 Aug 19 1111 MDT]

Rick,

Would it be fair to say that value some of the European societies more than the one you are continuing to live in for some reason? Is it lack of language skills that keeps you here, or their closed door policies there? For me, the US is closer in practical political terms to achieving the type of society I prefer, although I can't say I'm optimistic.

Regards,
    -- Martin L

Rick is trying to find out what kind of society you prefer -- what would be the various reference values for states you would act to bring about if you had the power, regardless of their practicability in actual economics. For example:

1: For children suffering from starvation, is your reference value that these should be a high or low proportion of all children?

2: For children living in luxury, is your reference value closer to "all children" or to "no children"? (I consider "few children" to be closer to "no" than to "all", and "many children" to be closer to "all" than to "no".

2a: How do you define "luxury" when deciding your answer to 2?

3: For adults in general, considering "rich" to be "having the ability to control most important perceptions" and "poor" to be "having the ability to control only a few of the most important perception", is your reference value for the proportion of people who are "poor" that it should be high or low?

4: Same question as 3, but asking about the proportion of people who are "rich"; should it be high or low?

5: Are the above questions asking about perceptions for which you have reference values?

I know my answers to these questions, and I can guess what Rick's answers might be, but from your messages in this and other threads, I cannot guess what yours might be. To know those answers might ease future conversation about PCT in general.

Martin T

19

[From Bill Powers (2012.08.19.1654 MDT)]

MT: Rick is trying to find out
what kind of society you prefer – what would be the various reference
values for states you would act to bring about if you had the power,
regardless of their practicability in actual economics. For
example:

1: For children suffering from starvation, is your reference value that
these should be a high or low proportion of all children?

2: For children living in luxury, is your reference value closer to
“all children” or to “no children”? (I consider
“few children” to be closer to “no” than to
“all”, and “many children” to be closer to
“all” than to “no”.

2a: How do you define “luxury” when deciding your answer to
2?

3: For adults in general, considering “rich” to be “having
the ability to control most important perceptions” and
“poor” to be “having the ability to control only a few of
the most important perception”, is your reference value for the
proportion of people who are “poor” that it should be high or
low?

4: Same question as 3, but asking about the proportion of people who are
“rich”; should it be high or low?

5: Are the above questions asking about perceptions for which you have
reference values?

BP: Yes, I think Martin has narrowed the discussion to the important
aspects. In general, I think that Martin, Rick, and I place a high value
(to the extent possible) on everyone’s having power over their own
lives, a version of Kant’s categorical imperative: “Act only
according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it
should become a universal law.”

This means, I believe, that all three of us will voluntarily give up some
absolute freedom to control our own lives if that is necessary to assure
that we all have equal freedom to control. In short, we value our own
comfort, enjoyment, and peace of mind about the same as we value those of
others.

In turn, this indicates that we reject, within reason, any set of
principles, moral or practical, that places self-interest above the
interests of all other people. This isn’t (to me) a hair-shirt philosophy
of self-sacrifice, but simply an expression of the fact that I enjoy
other people’s enjoyment and success very much as if it were mine, too. I
would not like to live in a society in which I was the only happy and
satisfied person.

We do not consider that this principle puts us at any disadvantage,
because we are not trying to achieve advantages over others. On the
contrary, my (and possibly our) concept of the ideal society in which we
would like to live requires abandoning the goal of any marked advantage
over others, as I (and quite likely we) find that having such advantages
is embarrassing and lowers our self-esteem.

Of course I/we are not innocent or naive; this sort of attitude is
practical only if most people adopt it. In an overly competitive and
self-promoting society, there are simply too many people who are willing
to claim their right to the good things of life while at the same time
trying to prevent others from having them, possibly for fear that sharing
them might mean losing them. Excessive concern with self-interest is not
a happy state of being; anxiety and fear lie just beneath the surface.
People in this state of mind behave pretty much as one would expect of
anyone who imagines that danger and deprivation lurk just around every
corner.

Knowing this, we have all devoted a good portion of our intellectual and
social lives to searching for ways to understand human nature and relieve
human suffering. Only succeeding at that will work toward the kind of
world in which each of us not only does his best for others, but can
reasonably expect the best from them.

This is a system concept, a way of seeing the whole system in which we
live or would like to live. I think what Rick wants to hear from
conservatives or libertarians or in general the Right Wing is a
description of the system concepts they have adopted and wish to promote.
The point is not to think up justifications, but simply to describe the
reference conditions one seeks, for whatever reasons. Just what ARE the
“good things in life?”

Best,

Bill P.

20

[From Rick Marken (2012.08.19.2100)]

Bill Powers (2012.08.19.1654 MDT)–
BP: Yes, I think Martin has narrowed the discussion to the important
aspects. In general, I think that Martin, Rick, and I place a high value
(to the extent possible) on everyone’s having power over their own
lives, a version of Kant’s categorical imperative: “Act only
according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it
should become a universal law.”

This means, I believe, that all three of us will voluntarily give up some
absolute freedom to control our own lives if that is necessary to assure
that we all have equal freedom to control. In short, we value our own
comfort, enjoyment, and peace of mind about the same as we value those of
others…

We do not consider that this principle puts us at any disadvantage,
because we are not trying to achieve advantages over others. On the
contrary, my (and possibly our) concept of the ideal society in which we
would like to live requires abandoning the goal of any marked advantage
over others, as I (and quite likely we) find that having such advantages
is embarrassing and lowers our self-esteem.

RM: Yes, this describes my ideal society quite well. I particularly relate to feeling of being “embarrassed” by having a marked advantage over others – a financial advantage, anyway .I especially don’t like to see other people doing very much less well than me. I can’t go to Mexico anymore because it pains me to see these luxurious villas nestled amid the squalor. I don’t know how those people can enjoy their wealth (same for the super wealthy in the US but I think they we do a better job of walling themselves away from the squalor).

BP: This is a system concept, a way of seeing the whole system in which we
live or would like to live. I think what Rick wants to hear from
conservatives or libertarians or in general the Right Wing is a
description of the system concepts they have adopted and wish to promote.
The point is not to think up justifications, but simply to describe the
reference conditions one seeks, for whatever reasons. Just what ARE the
“good things in life?”

RM: Right. But I haven;t been able to get descriptions; I think these people know that their vision would be considered pretty ugly by that part of the population that doesn’t watch Fox News (which is most of the people in the US – Obama was elected by a considerable majority) unless they describe it in a way that masks the blemishes. So they say they want “freedom” and “no coercion” and no “command economy” (using “socialism” as the code).

So I think I know what the social vision of the right wing is and its not a pretty sight (to me anyway; of course it looks great to them). And I think this is the ultimate conflict we have in society – that between the “libertarians” and the “cooperators”. I don’t think there is any way for me to change my vision or for them to change theirs because there seems to be no higher level reason to do so – other, perhaps, than survival. We have to live together in the same society so I guess we’ll just have to put up with them (and they with us) and hope it doesn’t come to blows.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com