The Creative Human Mind and Google Marxism
Gilder blows up the latest screed for universal basic income.
SOURCE URL: https://outline.com/3EyR8m
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I turned far right in college; talking them really puzzled me with their leftist leanings.
Only those that have chosen, or coerced into choosing, "Not to be" believe in Leftism.
I sincerely think it takes an act of surrendering your "Being Human" card to be leftest and believe Government is your mommy, daddy and lover.
He is correct, That machines will not imitate or obtain the "Human Mind", they will probably imitate a brain well though...although, a brain, human or otherwise, contains only compartmentalized information, much of which, it's container, alive or machine, (being programed), considers necessary for survival.
True, that information, (for non lefties that is), is useful but doesn't lead to insights nor the "surprise" of creativity.
Would you let prisoners die in order to avoid being altruistic? Would you force them into slave labor?
Next, if you reply that you would provide for prisoners, then why would you allow a homeless person who has done you no harm to suffer and die yet you provide for someone who has done harm to others?
My answer is that it depends on the contract. Offenders in jail are under a contract, implied or not. As a consequence of what they have done, we take them out of circulation restricting their freedoms and rights, we still keep them alive, some medical care, and some training. This should provide a limit on the harm they can do while inside.
Re helping the destitute, I like the thought but there does not seem to be a way to limit help, the number of those who need just grows to meet the amount of help you have budgeted for. Described in AS, and something like Parkinson's Law number 1- Work expands to meet the time available (when there is no market discipline).
Then there wouldn't be the incentive for a person to beat up somebody or even kill a police officer to "earn" free food, clothing, a pillow and a safe place to sleep for the rest of their life.
Furthermore, and I think this argument is even stronger, our society currently has a plethora of bureaucratic programs designed to give assistance to the poor. Hundreds of billions of $ wasted on top of the hundreds of billions of $ that are redistributed to the so called poor. Giving out the same amount as is given to criminals could eliminate ALL of those hundreds of government programs. Billions could be saved. If assistance is going to be given, then why not do it efficiently. The control being no more $ than what is provided to a criminal, sans the security costs such as guards, walls, etc.
This is the dilemma. And you are right. We should strap an ankle bracelet, and a neck bracelet that terminates the subject, and put them back in their environment, and let them feed themselves. Attach a real-time camera and mic to the neck device. If someone screams, it can activate the device, and disable/kill the person. Then it costs us FAR FAR LESS.
My grandfather came here from Poland. He was fond of saying "There is something incredibly motivating about getting up and not knowing where your next meal is going to come from!"
You MUST LET a subset of society suffer and die... Especially if you are going to let a subset excel. I think humans need that contrast to help them decide.
The challenge is in the size of the subsets. They should be roughly the same at the extremes.
Because to ALTER This, alters the fabric of society in such a way that reckless behavior, and irresponsibility is encouraged!
Accepting the term for the first being benevolence rather than altruism.
Then the second question can be asked regarding benevolence. If it is properly benevolent to assist those who have committed crimes, then is it not properly benevolent to possibly assist those who have done you no harm? Not as a Right of some kind for universal basic income but rather as a civilized society that doesn't want to accept destitution on the streets.
Is it rational to provide the rudimentary basics of life to someone who beats upon your child with a baseball bat, yet provide nothing to the person who came to your child's rescue and stopped the person from killing your kid?
What other term or phrase would be more precise in describing why we as a society provide for prisoners? Civilized doesn't quite hit the nail on the head either, although being civilized certainly has something to do with it. A desire to not be sadistically cruel, perhaps?
I always read his lines with a huge grain of salt.
The fact is we have all these super intellectuals and high minds telling us what the current state of affairs is. Unfortunately their solutions to problems do not overlap, e.g. each offers a different scenario to save the planet and/or humankind and/or the economy, take your pick.
I have no doubt there are a lot of truth in what they offer. The problem is that those who can act upon these solutions don't read these pieces of gold or if they do they have their own agenda. See Congress.
So thanks for posting this but aside from a mental exercise in reading it I do not see much practical use of it