Haven - cutting welfare

One problem that historians always have to struggle to remain aware of is that we simply do not have the experiential context to analyse events that took place hundreds or thousands of years ago. Our modern society is so radically different from anything that came before, with such a different philosophical worldview and moral ethos, that it becomes a dangerous gamble to start making historical comparisons.

Nico wrote:One problem that historians always have to struggle to remain aware of is that we simply do not have the experiential context to analyse events that took place hundreds or thousands of years ago. Our modern society is so radically different from anything that came before, with such a different philosophical worldview and moral ethos, that it becomes a dangerous gamble to start making historical comparisons.

And yet you can find grafitti from the Roman empire that would not look out of place today...

Sorry, but if there´s one thing i have found while studying history in the last 30+ years, it´s that people are people, regardless when.
Local culture and personality can skew things in just about any direction, but that is just as true today as it has been before.

The thing most often done wrong, is to impose our EXPECTATIONs of history upon history, instead of analysing actual facts.

Someone i worked with in a museum used to retell the old joke that "it´s ritual/religious" really means "we actually don´t have a clue what it was used for".
And it is indeed very accurate, unfortunately.

The Marvin Harris line of thought, that you can find an underlying reason that clearly explains why people do certain things in certain ways that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, isn't completely true. But it certainly can often explain a lot.

Tenshinai, kzt, I said it's dangerous to make historical comparative analyses, not impossible. In order to do so with as much surety as possible, you cannot simply take one or two scraps of records or a handful of artifacts and claim that they make it possible to understand a historical event or situation comprehensively. That is why the best historiographies and archaeological writings are the ones that take years to write and draw on numerous source materials.

From:

https://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=WA16G06&f=WU16G01

Beyond the hype of "wealth redistribution" lies a cold, hard economic fact: the greater the freedom of a country, the greater its wealth; the greater a country's government, the greater its poverty.

TAANSTAFL

It often takes decades for policy changes to show the effects. So, is TAANSTAFL true in this?

Someone pointed out that Goedel's incompleteness proof must mean that any policy prescription will have unexpected results. It might be better to aim for goals, rather than to provide specific methods, and re-evaluate results as they occur.

What would a society be like if it required every law or regulation to clearly articulate its goals and be regularly tested to see if it is working? I can only recall one SF story with such a society

DDHv wrote:From:

https://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=WA16G06&f=WU16G01

Beyond the hype of "wealth redistribution" lies a cold, hard economic fact: the greater the freedom of a country, the greater its wealth; the greater a country's government, the greater its poverty.

TAANSTAFL

It often takes decades for policy changes to show the effects. So, is TAANSTAFL true in this?

Someone pointed out that Goedel's incompleteness proof must mean that any policy prescription will have unexpected results. It might be better to aim for goals, rather than to provide specific methods, and re-evaluate results as they occur.

What would a society be like if it required every law or regulation to clearly articulate its goals and be regularly tested to see if it is working? I can only recall one SF story with such a society

Problem with that is that it pretty much ups the workload for the government by at least twice, so, you need a bureaucracy that is twice as big, minimum...

It´s why countries sometimes "testdrives" laws and regulations(or the removal of them) in one or several small regions instead of nationally, because then they CAN do it like that, as they´re testing it on just maybe 1-2% of the nation, making realistic evaluation possible without breaking the backs of the bureaucrats.

Tenshinai wrote:It´s why countries sometimes "testdrives" laws and regulations(or the removal of them) in one or several small regions instead of nationally, because then they CAN do it like that, as they´re testing it on just maybe 1-2% of the nation, making realistic evaluation possible without breaking the backs of the bureaucrats.

Shame Sweden didn't go for integration of its immigrants and instead went for forced Ghettos to "limit" their bureaucracy needs as they didn't bother to "test", and that which they did test, they refused to document it based on culture(where from), or they did, and lied to everyone and said they didn't to "adjust" to their preconceived notions of reality. Instead, without testing, went with mass importation. Of course ideas based in culture have consequences. Long live Islamosweden.

Tenshinai wrote:

DDHv wrote:From:

https://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=WA16G06&f=WU16G01

"Beyond the hype of "wealth redistribution" lies a cold, hard economic fact: the greater the freedom of a country, the greater its wealth; the greater a country's government, the greater its poverty."

TAANSTAFL

It often takes decades for policy changes to show the effects. So, is TAANSTAFL true in this?

Someone pointed out that Goedel's incompleteness proof must mean that any policy prescription will have unexpected results. It might be better to aim for goals, rather than to provide specific methods, and re-evaluate results as they occur.

What would a society be like if it required every law or regulation to clearly articulate its goals and be regularly tested to see if it is working? I can only recall one SF story with such a society

Problem with that is that it pretty much ups the workload for the government by at least twice, so, you need a bureaucracy that is twice as big, minimum...

It´s why countries sometimes "testdrives" laws and regulations(or the removal of them) in one or several small regions instead of nationally, because then they CAN do it like that, as they´re testing it on just maybe 1-2% of the nation, making realistic evaluation possible without breaking the backs of the bureaucrats.

Yes. There is also the problem of what happens when the test drive produces results that the testers don't like.

This is probably why people who disagree are more likely to provide effective tests. This usually means that they have presuppositions of their own. This is exactly why concentrating on better test methods is the most critical part of thinking. For one thing, if your feelings are tied up in finding and using better test methods, they are less likely to lead you astray.

Example:

http://constitution.com/new-study-prove ... l-parents/

I just wish my memory was better. I once read a booklet covering over two dozen common logical errors, and only four of them are consciously remembered

DDHv wrote:
Yes. There is also the problem of what happens when the test drive produces results that the testers don't like.

This is probably why people who disagree are more likely to provide effective tests. This usually means that they have presuppositions of their own. This is exactly why concentrating on better test methods is the most critical part of thinking. For one thing, if your feelings are tied up in finding and using better test methods, they are less likely to lead you astray.

You make the assumption that the declared reason for a law/regulation is why it was passed/implemented. There are a lot of health and safety laws whose entire purpose is to prevent new entries into a market.

Castenea wrote:

DDHv wrote:
Yes. There is also the problem of what happens when the test drive produces results that the testers don't like.

This is probably why people who disagree are more likely to provide effective tests. This usually means that they have presuppositions of their own. This is exactly why concentrating on better test methods is the most critical part of thinking. For one thing, if your feelings are tied up in finding and using better test methods, they are less likely to lead you astray.

You make the assumption that the declared reason for a law/regulation is why it was passed/implemented. There are a lot of health and safety laws whose entire purpose is to prevent new entries into a market.

Too right! Those opposed to a given law are also more likely to find the errors in laws passed for bad reasons, no?

From:

http://constitution.com/abolish-minimum ... -everyone/

But, because of the minimum wage, I am forced to pay marginal workers more than they’re worth and pay more valuable workers less than they’re worth.

The best strategy is to take the best work you can find, and then seek learning to allow you to be worth more. Welfare undermines the motivation to do this.

Without experience, how do workers move from marginal to valuable? I know a young man, who before he was old enough to work for pay, would do volunteer work at zero pay in order to get experience. He also went out to the dump, located fixable mowers, then used them to mow lawns. He is now working well in construction.

Many don't realize the high value of experience, but will do work for a low wage and get experience that way. Can the employers afford to hire them? Already, there are at least two stores in our shopping distance circle who have installed some automated checkout lanes. Minimum wage is not what the government sets, it is zero, with experience also being zero unless, of course, the person has the rare common sense of my young friend


A real life analysis for thoughtful readers:

Wealth and Poverty by George Gilder.
Copyright 1981, and good enough that he has correctly predicted a number of effects that are occurring now. Gilder gives non-statistical reasons why some people state that the welfare system, in practice, consists of bribing poor people to stay poor. Dolism, here we come


PS. Concerning Haven, assume that those signing up to work for war reasons get the experience needed to be worth more in pay than the (frozen) basic living allowance. Some, at least, would choose to leave welfare behind and actually contribute to the society. From Gilder's analysis, the freezing of benefits in an inflationary period would be a major key to the success of any such program.