Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[Al_Masetti]

Agreed, you should be treated by doctors who had poor grades and could only stay in medical school by getting their grades inflated to keep from flunking out.

Interesting premise for a debate.

AND … folks whose grades are too high should receive a grade decrease out of a sense of equity.

That sound about right?

 

[Ender]

Agreed, you should be treated by doctors who had poor grades …

Actually this has already happened with predictable results. In 1973/74, Michael Bakke applied for admission to the UC Davis medical school and was rejected while at the same time four minority students with lower qualifications were admitted. One of the four, “Dr.” Patrick Chavis was sued 27 times for malpractice and was accused of causing the death of one of his patients. A judge suspended his license in 1997 and the California Medical Board revoked it in 1998. Bakke is now a practicing anesthesiologist in Rochester, MN.

jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings083002.asp

Ender

 

[ribozyme]

Actually this has already happened with predictable results. In 1973/74, Michael Bakke applied for admission to the UC Davis medical school and was rejected while at the same time four minority students with lower qualifications were admitted. One of the four, “Dr.” Patrick Chavis was sued 27 times for malpractice and was accused of causing the death of one of his patients. A judge suspended his license in 1997 and the California Medical Board revoked it in 1998. Bakke is now a practicing anesthesiologist in Rochester, MN.

jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings083002.asp

Ender

Fine the mean average IQ of African Americans is 85, so a smaller proportion of blacks (relative to whites) have the mental prerequisites to become doctors (or any other career that requires mental acuity) and therefore should accept their humiliating lot in life competing with Latinos for cheap labor. Is that what some people want to hear in this thread?

 

[estesbob]

Fine the mean average IQ of African Americans is 85, so a small proportion of blacks (relative to whites) have the mental prerequisites to become doctors (or any other career that requires mental acuity) and therefore should accept their humiliating lot in life competing with Latinos for cheap labor. Is that what some people want to hear in this thread?

This post is bizarre, even for you. Are we reading the same thread? Or are we even living on the same planet?

 

[Ender]

Fine the mean average IQ of African Americans is 85, so a smaller proportion of blacks (relative to whites) have the mental prerequisites to become doctors (or any other career that requires mental acuity) and therefore should accept their humiliating lot in life competing with Latinos for cheap labor. Is that what some people want to hear in this thread?

I have no idea whether your statistics are accurate or invented but for the moment let’s accept them. It seems that this situation would present only two options: accept that there will be proportionately fewer black doctors or reduce (for blacks) the standards needed to be met to become a doctor in the first place. In the former case, while there will be fewer black MDs, the ones there are will be accepted as capable practitioners; in the latter case they will all be viewed with the suspicion that they may not be competent and should be avoided. Do you have a third alternative that doesn’t depend on an alternate reality?

Ender

 

[ribozyme]

I have no idea whether your statistics are accurate or invented but for the moment let’s accept them. It seems that this situation would present only two options: accept that there will be proportionately fewer black doctors or reduce (for blacks) the standards needed to be met to become a doctor in the first place. In the former case, while there will be fewer black MDs, the ones there are will be accepted as capable practitioners; in the latter case they will all be viewed with the suspicion that they may not be competent and should be avoided. Do you have a third alternative that doesn’t depend on an alternate reality?

Ender

I am saying that it isn’t so simply to advocate a meritocratic policy in favor of affirmative action.

Indeed, Rubin opposes affirmative action because of its likelihood of increasing resentment among those excluded on the basis of merit. But he offers no corrective. How can an ethnically diverse society with enormous genetically influenced group differences in intelligence and other traits conducive to upward mobility design social policy in a way that satisfies all the groups in the society without either creating resentment among talented groups who are excluded in favor of the less talented or creating resentment among underachieving groups who see themselves relegated to the lowest rungs of the society? Given his economic arguments, Rubin would probably maintain that affirmative action should end and that underachieving groups should just accept their lot because it is good for society as a whole. I view this as a psychological impossibility.

theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol4no1/km-rubin.html

Of course, one possible way of solving it is invoking a Rawlsian conception of justice by invoking the original position. (I provide in link a while back.) I am not justifying mentally incompetent doctors, (I am uneasy about affirmative action when it can put incompetent people in positions where they can do severe harm to people) but a meritocratic society would relegate people without sufficient abilities (regardless of their race) to positions of disgrace and they should simply be content with their miserable lot in life. (Maybe religion might placate them.)

I am not enthusiatic about welfare to work policies if all it would do is put the people formerly on welfare in humiliating low prestige service jobs. If it were up to me, I would simply put them away in an experience machine.

 

[JimG]

“positions of disgrace” “humiliating low prestige service jobs”?

My goodness, I’ve worked a lot of low paying jobs in my life, but never considered any of them to be “positions of disgrace!” Not even humiliating.

I can recall that my mother was so adamant in have her kids earn some money in their youth, that she occasionally went so far as to take out a want-ad in the local paper along the lines of “teen age boy will do odd jobs.”! She didn’t seem worried that we would find them to be ‘positions of disgrace!’

 

[estesbob]

I am saying that it isn’t so simply to advocate a meritocratic policy in favor of affirmative action.

theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol4no1/km-rubin.html

Of course, one possible way of solving it is invoking a Rawlsian conception of justice by invoking the original position. (I provide in link a while back.) I am not justifying mentally incompetent doctors, (I am uneasy about affirmative action when it can put incompetent people in positions where they can do severe harm to people) but a meritocratic society would relegate people without sufficient abilities (regardless of their race) to positions of disgrace and they should simply be content with their miserable lot in life. (Maybe religion might placate them.)

I am not enthusiatic about welfare to work policies if all it would do is put the people formerly on welfare in humiliating low prestige service jobs. If it were up to me, I would simply put them away in an experience machine.

. I really don’t follow what you are saying above. But then I don’t think you do either. When you are finally kicked out of the cocoon of university life you’re in for a devastating realization that everything you have been thinking since you entered was utter nonsense.

 

[ribozyme]

. I really don’t follow what you are saying above. But then I don’t think you do either. When you are finally kicked out of the cocoon of university life you’re in for a devastating realization that everything you have been thinking since you entered was utter nonsense.

What? I did not delve into my lexicon of sesquipedalian recondite words in my last post.

I was simply saying that advocating a pure meritocratic policy is not so simple. Of course, I do not want people who are obviously mentally incompetent to become doctors (such as people with Down syndrome), but this means people will have to put in positions of the lowest rungs of society. The link I provided was a book review by Kevin MacDonald who acknowledges this difficulty; he doesn’t blatantly advocate affirmative action (in fact, he is a paleoconservative), but he at least understands one complex issue.

The question is how to deal with the mentally incompetent people? Should their lives merely be a stifling disgrace (that term is not my original formulation; use google to find out where I plagiarized it from; this would help too) doing a menial job with minimal job security and not receiving enough pay so it has to supplement it with private charity. My own answer is to encourage lifestyles where these people can live sequestered from the real world and protected from gangs and hard drugs. One way is to make it conducive to emulate the hikikomori as those people are protected by from adversity of life. While this might be considered an unpalatable solution for many here because they emphasize “personal responsibility,” to me it is a human and satisfactory utilitarian solution that protects them from suffering, harm, and humiliation.

But I guess the poor will always be with us. I suppose that might be a good thing for conservative labor economists; more poor people means there will be a cheap labor pool for the owners of capital.

So what do I not know about the world? Of course, I lack knowledge in many specifics and I expect some ideas that I adhere to will be wrong. But tell me if there is any evidence that the world isn’t a Hobessian jungle filled with poverty, inequality, and pain? I just want insulation from this jungle and I believe it also a magnanimous goal to protect others from the inimical effects that this jungle has on human welfare.

 

[Ender]

The question is how to deal with the mentally incompetent people? … One way is to make it conducive to emulate the hikikomori as those people are protected by from adversity of life. While this might be considered an unpalatable solution for many here because they emphasize “personal responsibility,” to me it is a human and satisfactory utilitarian solution that protects them from suffering, harm, and humiliation.

What a breathtakingly arrogant approach for you to assume that you have not just the judgment but the right to determine for others how their lives should be lived. It might in fact lead some of them to more comfortable lives but let’s not pretend we’re not treating them as sub-human. You are very at ease with the concept of disposing of other people’s lives.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

When you are finally kicked out of the cocoon of university life you’re in for a devastating realization that everything you have been thinking since you entered was utter nonsense.

Hence the word sophmoric. There is a reason why people become less liberal as they mature. Reality.

 

[JimG]

But tell me if there is any evidence that the world isn’t a Hobessian jungle filled with poverty, inequality, and pain?

Well really, most people don’t think of the world that way, not even poor people. Maybe, like me, you just need to get out more.

 

[ribozyme]

Well really, most people don’t think of the world that way, not even poor people. Maybe, like me, you just need to get out more.

But tell me if there is any evidence that the world isn’t a Hobbesian jungle filled with poverty, inequality, and pain?

So you are telling me to stop watching Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D’s during weekends (I watch it for about 6 hours during the weekends) and go out to the world? Why should I? Will I be greeted by a world with little poverty and a world that would force me to embrace optimistic sentiments?

What a breathtakingly arrogant approach for you to assume that you have not just the judgment but the right to determine for others how their lives should be lived. It might in fact lead some of them to more comfortable lives but let’s not pretend we’re not treating them as sub-human. You are very at ease with the concept of disposing of other people’s lives

The question is how to deal with the mentally incompetent people? … One way is to make it conducive to emulate the hikikomori as those people are protected by from adversity of life. While this might be considered an unpalatable solution for many here because they emphasize “personal responsibility,” to me it is a humane and satisfactory utilitarian solution that protects them from suffering, harm, and humiliation.

As a utilitarian, the issue that I place top priority on is whether they are suffering or not. Could you show me how the participating in a “flexible labor market” will help them live lives with little adversity or suffering when compared to my “modest proposal?” Tell me how Friedmanite and Austrian economics will treat them with me dignity and give them a higher standard of living instead of relegating them to the lowest rungs of society. I thought protecting people from the effects of poverty is what “social justice” is about. Tell me how my putative proposal is antithetical to that goal.

 

[JimG]

So you are telling me to stop watching Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D’s during weekends (I watch it for about 6 hours during the weekends) and go out to the world?

Well, I think that would be a good thing, yes! As for me, I need to spend less time on the computer, starting ASAP!

 

[Ender]

As a utilitarian, the issue that I place top priority on is whether they are suffering or not. … I thought protecting people from the effects of poverty is what “social justice” is about.

First, you equate poverty with suffering, yet many people in this country and others who live in poverty are quite happy. Apparently not having read the same great thinkers as you they are unaware that they are supposed to be suffering.

Second, you seem to be less optimistic and more prone to suffering than they. Perhaps they should put you in an experience machine where you would be able to think happy thoughts all day. You should at least realize that if you claim the right to dispose of the lives of others they will, with equal validity, claim the right to dispose of yours.

Ender

 

[ribozyme]

First, you equate poverty with suffering, yet many people in this country and others who live in poverty are quite happy. Apparently not having read the same great thinkers as you they are unaware that they are supposed to be suffering.

Second, you seem to be less optimistic and more prone to suffering than they. Perhaps they should put you in an experience machine where you would be able to think happy thoughts all day. You should at least realize that if you claim the right to dispose of the lives of others they will, with equal validity, claim the right to dispose of yours.

Ender

Well, if you are in poverty, you are more likely to suffer in adversity right? I will not mince words: I consider the poor to be a “stifling disgrace” especially when they have to work two minimum wage non-union menial jobs.

The experience machine was just a hypothetical thought experiment. However, I do believe that analogues of the experience machine do exist. Many people in Japan spend most of their days in the Internet (on 2Channel) and I consider this to recapitulate the experience machine. I suppose those people who stay in their homes are not likely to commit property crime, drugs, murder, have sexual intercourse etc. It is sort of like a prison, although the prisoner is materially comfortable and will retain his dignity because he isn’t going to be raped. I consider the hikikomori to be living in an experience machine where they are protected from adversity.

If the wealthy people can insulate themselves from poverty by living in gated communities, why not encourage people who cannot get excellent jobs in a meritocratic world to live insulated lives from adversity too? My suggestion goes hand in hand with my advocacy of a managerial state and my commitment in negative utilitarianism.

 

[estesbob]

Well, if you are in poverty, you are more likely to suffer in adversity right? I consider the poor to be a “stifling disgrace” especially when they have to work two minimum wage non-union menial jobs.

?

How many jobs do you have? How many jobs have you had in your life?

 

[Ridgerunner]

But tell me if there is any evidence that the world isn’t a Hobessian jungle filled with poverty, inequality, and pain? I just want insulation from this jungle and I believe it also a magnanimous goal to protect others from the inimical effects that this jungle has on human welfare.

Your evidence is that you can go out on the street and not see people lying dead from starvation. What you can do is go into the poorest neighborhood you can find and count the cars, TV sets and overweight people.

Unless you go into academia, you are not going to be insulated from the necessity of having to produce for your rewards in life. You can make the choice and perhaps already have.

I know a lot of people below the “poverty line” and have been there myself. Might get there again. Most are not miserable at all. I think it would do you good to go into some factory that you disdain as low wage and meet some of those people. Find out how they live and what their happiness level really is. Watch them joking around as they work.

I was tickled at one of my cousins who gave up one of the best-paying factory jobs (with health insurance) in this area to go to work for a produce farmer. He isn’t making squat, but he gets to be outdoors doing physical labor and making things grow, which is what he always wanted to do. Their produce is truly beautiful, and is sold fully ripe; not the green, machine-picked stuff in the stores. At home he has several bee hives of his own. Beekeeping work is some of the meanest work you can imagine. You can’t make much money doing it, considering the time you put into it. But he loves it.

Don’t assume you know what other people are thinking. Many are not as demanding as you seem to be.

I assume you have read “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”. What did you learn from it?

 

[ribozyme]

Second, you seem to be less optimistic and more prone to suffering than they. Perhaps they should put you in an experience machine where you would be able to think happy thoughts all day. You should at least realize that if you claim the right to dispose of the lives of others they will, with equal validity, claim the right to dispose of yours.

Ender

And yes I have no problem with “disposing” of their lives. But you haven’t addressed my challenge when I asked they would have a higher quality of life when I “disposed” of their lives or not. Actually in Japan, many people choose to “dispose” of their own lives, and I think Robert Nozick’s attempt to defeat the utilitarian ethic using the experience machine backfired. The point of my proposal is to insulate them from poverty and humilitation, and you haven’t shown how my proposal is antithetical to those aims.

But tell me if regarding these people as cheap labor (i.e. as a commodity) treating them humanely? Would they have a more comfortable life if those people participated in the labor market? So far you haven’t answered that question directly although you did acknowledge that it was possible that they have more comfortable lives. Tell me how being a hikikomori is worse than living in the bottom rungs of a highly unequal society.

I would also have a problem if those people are capable of being chemical, mechanical, or civil engineers, people who design innovative semiconductors, people who discover hits for pharmaceuticals, people who do scientific research, and so on. But since unions (which gives workers pride about doing their jobs and allows them to secure a decent standard of living while contributing to society) are weak and there is an influx of cheap labor to lower their wages, I see my option vastly superior than living their life as a “stifling disgrace” working two minimum wage jobs and having to supplement the rest with private charity.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would also have a problem if those people are capable of being chemical, mechanical, or civil engineers, people who design innovative semiconductors, people who discover hits for pharmaceuticals, people who do scientific research, and so on. But since unions (which gives workers pride about doing their jobs and allows them to secure a decent standard of living while contributing to society) are weak and there is an influx of cheap labor to lower their wages, I see my option vastly superior than living their life as a “stifling disgrace” working two minimum wage jobs and having to supplement the rest with private charity.

Not meaning to be disrespectful to you as a person, Ribozyme, but I truly don’t think you know much about the labor market. I know nonunion factory workers who make more than many engineers. I know union workers who don’t make nearly as much a nonunion workers I know. I don’t think you know much about the “influx of cheap labor” either. Many of those I know move up in the ranks or move on to better paying jobs. They don’t consider their lives a “stifling disgrace” at all. I don’t live in a high wage area, but I don’t know of any job that doesn’t pay more than minimum wage, except those few that are typically manned by teenagers. And, unfortunately for teenagers, there aren’t very many of those. It’s too bad you’re too young to go into a workingman’s tavern. You would gain some valuable insights if you did.