1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Here Comes Tomorrow

MadisonLives Wrote: Jun 18, 2014 5:30 AM
The singularity is coming and it will be different than all previous eras of advancement in that past eras augmented humans but this time smarter-than-human machines will actually replace humans. The bottom line is this: post singularity all biological humans will be on the receiving side of social justice if there is any. It's enough to make a thinking-libertarian think twice about the need for us to solve the social justice problem. My work in philosophy suggests that this *can* be done and that libertarian limits (luckily) are essential to the pursuit of social justice because such limits are required to force ideas in government to compete and it's that competition of ideas that will pursue social justice efficiently and effectively. If you would like to learn more about how libertarian limits and social justice work together, see the TEDx talk at TheSolution.org
In response to:

Parting Company

MadisonLives Wrote: Jan 02, 2014 12:03 AM
What Dr. Williams is missing is the wider implication of what Madison wrote in Federalist 41... That's where Madison said it was "in vain" to put put the constitution in opposition to the natural impulse of national self-defense..."worse than in vain" for doing so would only force the Constitution to be ignore, and every time it get ignored it gets easier and easier to ignore until the Constitution until the Constitution is meaningless. What does this have to do with the kind of constitutional violations Dr. Williams talks about? Well... I'm going to argue that the same logic applies to the natural impulse of pursuing social justice. In other words, by officially outlawing charitable efforts by the federal government, our liberty-minded founding fathers GUARANTEED that factions -- that should be competing -- would, instead, ally together to form a super-faction that has enough power to ignore precisely those limits. The solution is CAP+PRIORITIZE... set sustainable limits, and let ideas compete for those limited funds in the transparency of a prioritized budget. You heard it here first.
In response to:

Our Fragile Planet

MadisonLives Wrote: Dec 11, 2013 1:24 PM
If we hit a tipping point in the environment (such points clearly exist) then it's even worse for the unfortunate! So the pursuit of maximum social justice is not inconsistent with the pursuit of maximum environmental sustainability. Think of it this way: Step 1: Decide what resources we-the-living "own" and what we will leave for future generations. Step 2: Use capitalism to maximize the utility of those resources. Step 3: Use prioritized government spending to pursue equal opportunity (aka social justice) -- this model unites the values of the left, right, center and even the environmentalists
In response to:

Our Fragile Planet

MadisonLives Wrote: Dec 11, 2013 1:14 PM
What Dr. Williams misses is that just before a tipping point, things look great. Humanity may not have yet produced enough damage to the environment to equal already occurring natural disasters but wisdom often means being conservative... and conservative, in this case, is erring on the side of caution. Dr. Williams is a big fan of "fiscal sustainability"... how is "environmental sustainability" any different? And to all the fans of environmental sustainability, why the heck can't you understand the need for fiscal sustainability? We should all be on the same side...
Cal -- I agree we should stop blaming politicians and political parties because they are only doing what they are incentivized to do... but by that logic we should not blame we the voters either because we are also just doing (largely) what we are incentivized to do. The solution, therefore, is INCENTIVE REFORM. Check out http://IncentiveReform.org
Charles41 -- the solution is incentive reform: http://IncentiveReform.org
As a political philosopher, I can tell you that conservatism is a failure in academia because it's not where the problem is. Libertarian philosophy properly harnessed individual ambition (capitalism), political ambition (rep. democracy) and foreign ambition (with a strong defense forcing negotiation). The big confusion now is what to do with collective ambition. The pure libertarian / conservative answer is that collective ambition is dangerous, so it should be outlawed by the constitution and is! But the reality is, collective ambition unavoidably exists and must be structured. The answer is to force collective ambition to counteract itself via a reform called Cap and Prioritize.
What will come next is "cap-and-prioritize" based on Oregon's 20-year history of prioritizing Medicaid spending. The cap will end the era of entitlement because it will force congress to argue priorities instead of making promises. By actually prioritizing the budget, the transparency will force government to pursue both fairness (social justice/equal opportunity) and results. This unites the conservative definitions of ''safety net" and "equal opportunity" with the progressive definitions of "social justice" and "fairness".
The solution is school choice. School choice would not only allow schools to compete over education quality, it would also allow schools to compete over security policy. Then, when an incident like this happens, nobody would be arguing about one-size-fits-all-government-mandates... they would be deciding (in a free market) what level of protection is right for them. And if (god forbid) it happened at their school, it would be understood as part of life (which evil, unfortunately, is).
It's the tax powers in the constitution (as amended) that are out of control, not Robert -- and only we-the-people can fix them.
1 - 10 Next