Social Justice Warriors to Believers in Truth: Drop Dead

_{Barry Arrington

February 6, 2019

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Those of us who believe in truth, virtue and “justice” (unadorned with the modifier “social”) are inimical to the “social justice” movement. So says this UN report:

“Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.”

Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations, The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, Division for Social Policy and Development, The International Forum for Social Development, 2006, 2-3

Comments

F/N: The interested reader will note the pattern of evidence in the thread leading to clear retreat from earlier talking points by objectors (the Marriage manipulation and gender bender cases at 94 and 97 are striking given how those issues vanished thereafter after having been raised again and again in recent weeks). All of these cases are relevant as they show that one of the key strategies being used by radical, destructive agendas in our civilisation is to resort to Newspeak loaded, manipulative redefinition under false colour of law or other seemingly competent authority. We are now looking at redefinitions of conception that created a silent abortion phenomenon and opened the way for what was to follow in the 1970's and became the current ongoing worst holocaust in history. Notice, infanticide is now also involved as events in New York and Virginia demonstrate. We therefore can note how manipulation of language leading to distorted thought is one of the key issues we must watch out for. Of course, mind benders often amplify this by then using Goebbels' favourite turnabout projection by the he hit back first fallacy which creates confusion especially for worshippers of the golden mean hoping that a moderate compromise is reasonable. So, we must again learn that a crooked yardstick taken as standard will cause us to reject what is straight, accurate and upright. Instead, we need to seek reasonable, responsible, objective truth, based on plumb line test cases that are naturally straight and upright. Here, that a new life with a unique genome begins when sperm and ovum meet, forming the zygote. KFkairosfocus_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

PPPS: At about the point of implantation, about a week after fusion of sperm and ovum to form the zygote, the cell division process is at the 64-cell, blastocyst stage. This implies seven doublings from the zygote, averaging roughly one per day.kairosfocus_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

BB, with all respect, you are shutting your mind to evidence on the table before you. At what point does a unique genome form, initiating a living process of cell division and specialisation as an embryo forms? The clear answer is at fertilisation leading to zygote. In the normal case, in a relevant Fallopian tube (there being two and one ovum being issued per month). Implantation is a later stage, leading to growth and nurturing of the already existing embryo. The logic of the process is decisive, revealing the convenient fallacy in the redefinition of recent decades. Early, silent abortion is not contraception, and IUD's are therefore immediately deeply questionable on moral grounds. The tip-toe game in the clip above where it is noted that IUD usage varies sharply dodges an obvious reason for why in certain regions they see a very low uptake that goes beyond debates over Dalkon shields etc. SB is manifestly correct to cite IUD's as evidence that "contraceptive" use will under typical circumstances -- including, specifically, what on fair comment is a deception regarding what prevention of implantation implies -- increase abortion rates, including silent abortions. That's on top of implications of irresponsible behaviour given the known facts on failure rates: a low hazard per exposure compounded by increased exposure on presumption of safety may well increase aggregate risk. In short, if one is not willing to take up the responsibilities of parenting, one should not be carrying out the act that includes the biological function of initiating new life. The use of abortion as routine backup is questionable and the provision of contraceptives that effect silent abortions is also questionable. KF PS: Even tubal ligation can fail up to twenty years later: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4137647/ PPS: A discussion on the 1965 ACOG redefinition of conception: http://prolife365.com/conception-and-abortion-definitions/ where the contrasting telling omissions and suppression of material timeline at Wikipedia in that light add to the reasons to be concerned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy The latter includes the buried headline and/or lead which comes up under history:
History In the past, pregnancy has been defined in terms of conception. For example, Webster's Dictionary defined "pregnant" (or "pregnancy") as "having conceived" (or "the state of a female who has conceived"), in its 1828 and 1913 editions.[19] However, in the absence of an accurate understanding of human development, early notions about the timing and process of conception were often vague. Both the 1828 and 1913 editions of Webster's Dictionary said that to "conceive" meant "to receive into the womb and ... begin the formation of the embryo."[19] However most references say that it was only in 1875 that Oskar Hertwig discovered that fertilization includes the penetration of a spermatozoon into an ovum. Thus, the term "conception" was in use long before the details of fertilization were discovered. By 1966, a more precise meaning of the word "conception" could be found in common-use dictionaries: the formation of a viable zygote.[20] In 1959, Dr. Bent Boving suggested that the word "conception" should be associated with the process of implantation instead of fertilization.[21] Some thought was given to possible societal consequences, as evidenced by Boving's statement that "the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech." In 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) adopted Boving’s definition: "conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum."[22] The 1965 ACOG definition was imprecise because, by the time it implants, the embryo is called a blastocyst,[23] so it was clarified in 1972 to "Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst."[24] Some dictionaries continue to use the definition of conception as the formation of a viable zygote.[25]
kairosfocus_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

That's a clear answer, kf. Thanks.hazel_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

H, I have focussed the normal case. The point is that a unique human life begins when the zygote forms. In the case of IVF, it seems there is a typical praxis of choosing and freezing or discarding embryos, which is just as questionable as the IUD function of preventing the next stage, implantation. In both cases, deliberate termination of innocent human life seems to be involved in a significant proportion of cases. KFkairosfocus_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

kf, you write, “I address the normal case, IVF faces another set of concerns.” Yes, but sometimes the unusual cases help clarify. Would you agree that the sentence the “formation of the zygote is the point of origin of a new genetically unique human life” is true, irrespective of whether it happens in a Fallopian tube or a test tube in an IVF lab, or not?hazel_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

Hi Stephen: you write, "I don’t think you understand the context." I was just responding to kf. I haven't been very involved, nor following, your discussion with BB.hazel_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Hazel
Yes, a ” significant number of cases an IUD prevents implantation.” I’ve said that from the beginning in my posts on this. I’m not sure what the “significant number is”.
I don't think you understand the context. The fact that an unspecified number of instances in which the IUD prevents implantation doesn't matter. What matters is that it often happens. This discussion began when I presented a fact to Brother Brian, which he either could not or would not accept: The large-scale use of contraceptives and abortifacients always increases, not decreases, the abortion rate. The false belief that contraceptives will remove the consequences of sexual activity causes increased sexual activity. Combined with method and user failure, the increased sexual activity leads to an increase of unwanted pregnancies (and abortions). Brother Brian tried to make the opposite argument by ignoring the science and countering with false statistics from the abortion lobby, labeling popular abortifacients as contraceptives, which yields a false statistic. When I refuted the claim, he changed the subject several times without addressing the evidence which shows that contraceptives increase the abortion rate. The use of IUDs followed this same pattern in a mechanical sense. The process begins with the IUD’s contraceptive function; when it fails, the abortifacient function kicks in. That is why Planned Parenthood lies when they say that contraception reduces the abortion rate. They know that contraception leads to abortion and will provide them with more unwanted pregnancies and the opportunity to kill more babies.StephenB_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

KF
H, the record of the medical textbooks across time — there are multi-generation medical families — is, that in recent decades implantation was used as a new definition.
I would like to see evidence for this claim because it does not correspond with my own experience. In my health classes we were taught that pregnancy began when the embryo implanted in the uterus. We were being taught this several years before the legalization of abortions, using text books that were already at least a couple decades old.Brother Brian_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

H, it's not about word use but about realities of process. When is the genetic framework of a new human life started, and at what place? KF PS: There are two. Relevant points to the active one. I address the normal case, IVF faces another set of concerns. PPS: Significant points to the fact of conceding relevance of prevention of implantation. That is, the effect is material. The case of the fishing line IUDs shows that that can in fact be dominant.kairosfocus_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Yes, a " significant number of cases an IUD prevents implantation." I've said that from the beginning in my posts on this. I'm not sure what the "significant number is". I don't know the history of the use of the word conception, so I don't know if it is true, as you say, that "in recent decades implantation was used as a new definition." I also don't know the history of all the advanced biological knowledge we have right now about how the whole process from ovulation to implantation works, which may have affected a change in the use of terms. And I agree that the "formation of the zygote in the relevant Fallopian tube is the point of origin of a new genetically unique human life". This is also true of fertilized cells in IVF, so the phrase "relevant Fallopian tube" isn't a necessary part of that statement.hazel_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

H, the record of the medical textbooks across time -- there are multi-generation medical families -- is, that in recent decades implantation was used as a new definition. A look at the biology thus the process logic will immediately tell us that the formation of the zygote in the relevant Fallopian tube is the point of origin of a new genetically unique human life. Implantation is the uterine wall is an important make/break stage in development but it is patently after the genetic fusion has specified a new individual human life. KF PS: All that is required to make the point is that in a significant number of cases an IUD prevents implantation. I note, that IUDS historically included knotted fishing line. Monofilament line is pretty inert. Other IUDs I remember from my childhood -- my mom was a health educator -- were made of inert plastic. I particularly recall a snake-like switchback design.kairosfocus_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Yes, I noted earlier that IUD's work in both ways: preventing fertilization and preventing implantation. I have read that preventing fertilization is the more common thing to happen, but I don't have that source right now.
Most medical organizations define pregnancy as beginning with implantation. By this definition the IUD is still considered contraception. However, life begins when fertilization occurs, ...
Perhaps it is you who is doing the redefining? There are different perspectives here: I think you can say this is my definition, and the definition of many who think as I do, but I don't think you can say this is the definition.hazel_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

H, kindly note:
The IUD also works by making it harder for an embryo to implant in the uterus.
In short, silent early abortion. KF PS: Redefinition of conception to refer to implantation is a loaded redefinition. The point at which new human life forms is when the zygote forms. PPS: Remember, an early successful IUD was IIRC a length of knotted nylon monofilament i.e. fishing line.kairosfocus_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

FYI, because information is good. From the Christian Family Planning website
Intrauterine Device (IUD) How does an IUD work? The IUD works by multiple mechanisms: A primary mechanism is currently believed to be the prevention of fertilization. The chemicals in the IUD are thought to change the composition of the natural secretions in the uterus, making it harder for the sperm to reach and fertilize the egg. The IUD also works by making it harder for an embryo to implant in the uterus. Considerations for Christians The IUD prevents both fertilization and implantation, but generally does not prevent ovulation. Most medical organizations define pregnancy as beginning with implantation. By this definition the IUD is still considered contraception. However, life begins when fertilization occurs, so many Christians would consider the IUD an unacceptable method of birth control as it poses a risk to pre-born life, i.e. the potential to cause a very early abortion.
hazel_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

BB: Did you or did you not say at 174: "You [--> i.e. me] don’t appear to be concerned about the unintended consequences of women having unwanted pregnancies." I responded directly to this. BTW, I said nothing against contraception, I spoke to the problem that IUD's are in fact abortion inducing items, as were certain oral contraceptives for many years. The so-called morning after pill is an abortion inducing agent also. Contraceptives prevent conception, the above abort the growing embryo. World of difference, and the facts that [1], the truth about IUD's is not well understood and [2], that they are often deceptively labelled as contraceptives speak volumes. Further, you have distorted what I said in a loaded way regarding maternity leave. FYI maternity leave -- typically 3 months in jurisdictions I know -- is not equal to the novelty imposing a YEAR of such leave under colour of law. The latter, as I noted, would be exceedingly disruptive to the small business sector KFkairosfocus_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

KF@175, I don’t know what you are responding to but it certainly isn’t my comment at 174. In an earlier comment you mentioned your opposition to extending maternity leave and job protection based on the hardships for small businesses. This is a strange statement given that many women make the decision for abortion because of financial considerations. Rather than discuss whether or not extended maternity leave can reduce the number of women opt for abortion you follow up with your oft stated dehumanizing our living posterity in the womb. I have presented several suggestions for significantly reducing abortion (early childhood education, contraceptives, maternity leave, support for adoption services, etc.) and you have dismissed each of them out of hand in spite of the clear evidence showing that they are effective.Brother Brian_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

BB, really! It is obvious that something has gone very wrong with the values in our culture when you use language that suggests that unwanted pregnancy is a justification for taking life. Clearly, our problem is that we have dehumanised our living posterity in the womb, and that then leads to the idea that we can therefore kill our unborn children freely. Think, carefully, about that and what it implies, please. KFkairosfocus_{February 18, 2019
February
02
Feb
18
18
2019
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

KF@173
I suggest that there are a lot of policy issues, questions of unintended consequences and more that you may ponder, e.g. consider the unintended, un-calculated impact on small firms constrained by law regarding hiring women of child bearing age of losing staff for one-year chunks of time outside of their control;
KF, you are sending mixed messages here. You don’t appear to be concerned about the unintended consequences of women having unwanted pregnancies. Even to the extent that you don’t want them to use contraceptives. Yet when you are asked about extended maternity leave, you are concerned about the unintended consequences of women looking for employment. Although, I wasn’t sure if you were more concerned for the women or for the business owners who are willing to break discrimination laws to pad their bank accounts. What you fail to address is the “unintended consequence” of significantly higher infant mortality in countries with short durations of maternity leave.
Every additional month of paid maternity leave is associated with a 13 percent reduction in infant mortality rates in low-income countries and the developing world, a recent study suggests.
Do I need to mention where the US ranks on infant mortality? Hint, it’s not good. Now, let’s get back to your favorite topic, abortion rates. One of the major factors cited by women when deciding on abortion is financial limitations. Maternity leave and job guarantees go a long way to reduce these financial limitations. I don’t know if anyone has done the research but I am willing to predict that the countries with the most generous maternity leave regulations also have the lowest abortion rates.Brother Brian_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

BB, do you realise how many of your talking points come from a shop-worn list? It is the list and its context I -- for cause -- object to. I have already laid out a link to relevant facts for the likely most relevant context, the USA. I suggest that there are a lot of policy issues, questions of unintended consequences and more that you may ponder, e.g. consider the unintended, un-calculated impact on small firms constrained by law regarding hiring women of child bearing age of losing staff for one-year chunks of time outside of their control; I strongly suspect under such a law a lot of small firms would only hire close family; significantly affecting innovation, growth potential and employment. Unfunded regulatory mandates that may sound good politically to decisive voting blocs can have pretty serious consequences. KFkairosfocus_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

I understand what you are saying, Stephen. This is an interesting topic to think about. A zygote is a very special human cell: the first cell which contains the specific whole complement of genes for that particular individual, and which start the process of developing into first an embryo and then a fetus. Although all cells (except gametes) have a full complement of genes, only the zygote is in the state which can start this process of development. I’m not trying to tell anyone things they don’t know: I have just found it interesting to do some reading and refresh some biology that I hadn’t thought about in a long time.hazel_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

KF@167, that’s a strange response to my claim that you can believe in a higher minimum wage, higher taxes for the very rich, fact based early childhood education, one year maternity leave a job protection, etc. without being a Marxist/communist/materialist/nihilist/evolutionist. In fact, most of these things are advocated for by theists. And they have been very successful strategies in many societies. If you would like to discuss any of these in greater detail, I am willing. However, if you are going to resort to your oft used accusation of the evils of materialism, I’m afraid that my time is better spent cleaning my fish tank.Brother Brian_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

F/N: it is fair comment to point to nihilism and/or to amoral influences when we see the enabling of the worst holocaust in history on the table, proceeding at another million victims per week. KFkairosfocus_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

SB: A zygote has human DNA, which means that it is a living human being. Hazel
Every cell has human DNA, so I don’t think that just having human DNA makes a cell a living human being.
You are confusing the part with the whole. Human DNA in a cell is not the same thing as a human being. Human DNA in a cell is a marker that indicates the existence of a human being, which is a lot more than its DNA.
Perhaps Stephen can offer a a better definition.
I didn't offer any definitions. I simply stated a fact. Human DNA is a reliable marker for the existence of a living human being. I didn't even come close to saying that a human DNA cell is exactly the same thing as a human being. That formulation is simply a product of your confusion. A cell is the building block for any organism and human DNA decides what particular kind of living organism is being built. In this case, the organism does not develop *into* a human being, it develops *as* a human being.StephenB_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

F/N: It is common to demand that "the rich" do not pay their fair share of taxes, this may give some balance: https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/04/15/how-much-do-the-top-1-percent-pay-of-all-taxes/ Also note, it is the relatively well off who are the investor class who financially feed much of the innovation that causes growth in both employment and GDP. Again and again, it is the lack of balancing facts like this in economic rhetoric that tells us that something is drastically wrong with our typical thinking on macroeconomically relevant policies. As for thought on the vital energy sector, having written an energy policy that had to address gross but popular errors of thought, my abiding concern is that ever so many of us are prone to hold strong opinions that we take for facts that have very little warrant and which we are in no position to hold with such confidence. In a nutshell, we are very open to manipulation, and manipulators abound. KFkairosfocus_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

BB, you have already shown yourself impervious to first principles and their mathematical-logical consequences. That being established I note for record that evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers are obvious all around. As for marxism and its heirs such as cultural marxism as well as an apparent re-emergence, just look around at headlines on things like the proposed green new deal -- which manages to defy both physics and economics. Venezuela is only the latest of a long line of ruinous failures. Finally, if you choose not to examine relevant economics on why I am deeply skeptical of statism and bureaucratic central control of economies or key sectors [e.g. health], that is already its own answer: you are again failing to respond to evidence. KF PS: On evolutionary materialism:
Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>
kairosfocus_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Hazel@161, I agree that the accusation of Marxist/materialist/nihilism whenever anyone suggest that some changes are for the better is mysterious. It is possible to believe that the very rich should pay more tax, that the minimal wage should be increased, that we should have strictly enforced labor laws, that we should have fact based early childhood education, that we should provide more support for women with unwanted pregnancies, that women should have paid maternity leave with job protection for at least a year, that people should have more than two weeks vacation per year, without compromising our democracy or our capitalist based economy, or freedoms. In fact, almost every western democratic country has all of these. The one glaring exception is the US. In addition to this, most of these countries also have lower abortion rates, lower rates of violent crime and lower incarceration rates.Brother Brian_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

H, BTW, I lived through a ruinous mini civil war triggered by Marxists and fellow travellers; which gives me a baseline of experience. As I noted above, my response comes from signs that I am seeing, which come out in the easy resort to statist thinking that is so manifest all across our civilisation. When we see crisis after crisis (real, imagined, media amplified, street theatre-triggered, etc) with the same standard solution -- more state intervention on the progressivist-socialist agenda, that tells us: Marxist thesis-antithesis-crisis strategies. As in, "never let a good crisis go to waste." Do you want me to use Lenin's far less polite terminology? (Which, shows not only that he was deliberate, but that he thought those he co-opted were gullible and suicidally short-sighted.) KF PS: When I speak to evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers, that too is based on abundant evidence. Why is a theory and linked ideology so dominant despite utter lack of central warrant for its claim that life assembled itself spontaneously out of some organic soup or other, and similarly created the diverse body plans without a credible information source? Why is a self-referentially incoherent, amoral view in the driving seat for education and policy?kairosfocus_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

PS: I should add, that the malinvestment can be induced through interference with capital markets by way of ill-judged monetary policies, or by direct investments by government (such as for ill advised infrastructure). Likewise, resort to subsidies etc can trigger distortions. Such distortions push the economy beyond its sustainable possibilities frontier and then -- being unsustainable and unstable -- trigger collapse into recession, stagnation and/or depression. As a rule, government officials have an exaggerated view of their ability to make well judged interventions. PPS: Oh, that I would see enthusiasm for interventions to effectively promote sci-tech, engineering, technology and mathematics education!kairosfocus_{February 17, 2019
February
02
Feb
17
17
2019
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

H & EG, I followed the collapse of the dominance of Keynesianism and the linked case with Marxism as it happened across the 1980's into the 90's. I saw the subsequent rise of cultural marxism, including in watermelon environmentalist forms. In recent weeks, we have seen a Green New Deal put on the table and given media splash treatment even though it is obviously unworkable physically and economically, pivoting on violation of pretty reliable principles. We have repeatedly seen how activists ride piggyback on concerns regarding welfare, oppression, deprivation etc. and have a clear common agenda, bureaucratic centralisation of society and economy, backed up by state power acting under colour of law. This, in the teeth of repeated demonstrations over the past 100 years, of consistent failure and abuse, often by triggering malinvestment and collapse. So, I remain skeptical and insist that we do not have good state-centric solutions, but instead a history of economic failure and demonstrable perverse incentives and destructive unintended consequences. If I saw evidence of serious respect for the economics, for markets and for the diffuse, highly perishable value-laden, risky information and linked creativity that markets address, then I would be a lot less concerned. Where, for just one point, Rahn and Laffer -- now backed by significant econometric evidence on turning points -- showed significant reason to accept that there is a peak point for government tax revenue as a proportion of the macroeconomomy, and that there is an earlier peak for growth. The balance of estimates is 15 - 25%. Where, small differences in growth rates have major long-term consequences due to the cumulative, compounding nature of growth. Which is driven by investment, innovation, creative genius. Some state is needed to provide protection and stability, but beyond a peak, government overhead costs and excessive regulation put a damper on growth. Then, revenues peak and fall so that reducing rates will increase actual revenues. The growth penalty then locks out future prosperity. Where, it is as the economy grows that reasonable welfare provisions become affordable in the Rahn-Laffer sense. The clear evidence is that modern states strongly tend to grow well beyond the peak points, and that there is a ratcheting effect that makes it very hard to pull back once expectations have been locked in and significant blocs of the voting public have become indoctrinated. It seems the only realistic policy is to try to hold the line and grow to the point of affording what is there, with resort to privatisation motivated on patent failure of major nationalised institutions. The Economies of Eastern Europe have significant lessons, on how to return to market based economics. So, colour me skeptical on statist, economy-burdening solutions prone to hijacking by ideological statists and radical agendas. In particular, locking in the abortion holocaust into the welfare system is a great evil. Similar concerns extend to perverting medicine and psychology as well as social services and law in pursuit of radical family distorting and/or sexuality-focused identity-bending agendas. KF PS: On "green" energy initiatives and failures: http://www.scifiwright.com/2019/02/green-energy-and-the-old-deal/kairosfocus_{February 16, 2019
February
02
Feb
16
16
2019
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply