[extropy-chat] Why I am No Longer a Libertarian Either...

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jul 27, 2005, at 6:01 PM, Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2005, at 5:55 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>      Anyone can make it here in America, if they WANT
>>> to.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's a nice little unfalsifiable assertion.
>>
>
> Hey, Guys, this is too general on both sides.
>
> If you have some combination of qualities, you can make it. If you  
> do not, you cannot.
>
> Qualities that may enable you to make it:
> determination
> intelligence,
> capital
> friends
> luck
> etc.
>
> Avantguardian makes a "the glass is half full" analysis: "anyone"  
> is likely to have the right combination of qualities, and those who  
> do not deserve their fate.
>
> Samantha makes a "the glass is half empty" analysis (with respect  
> to this problem: not as general attribute): There are a LOT of  
> people who do not in fact have set of qualities that permit them to  
> succeed.

I thought I just pointed out what you have pointed but using fewer  
words.   A general statement of this kind is not justified.  I don't  
think the assertion or my rather obvious rejoinder qualify as  
"analyses".

>
> I can find many examples in my own personal experience to support  
> both analyses. I think we should work together to build a bottom-up  
> approach to this analysis, with specific exemplars rather than  
> abstract populations.

How exactly will this be helpful.  As technology improves, as  
globalization proceeds, as AI comes more into play the bar of  
economically viable skills will raise.  More people over time will  
not likely have something to sell at a price that will support them  
(or will simply get too old).  This hasn't much to do with their  
personal determination and dedication except at those points where  
they still have economically viable skills or the ability to obtain  
them.  What happens when this is no longer the case?   One may argue  
that this will never be the case but that is really avoiding the  
question on the basis of assertion.

> We have Korean emigrants who are now millionaires, and we have  
> bright black ghetto-born guys who are sentenced to life in prison.  
> Stereotypes. We also have black ghetto kids who make it big time,  
> and Korean emigrants who die in poverty. Not stereotypes, but real  
> people.

Well yes.  But what are the underlying questions and situations?

>
> Challenge to Avantguardian: Is there anything society can or should  
> do to mitigate the obstacles facing people who don't have the right  
> qualities to succeed?
>

Sure there are things that can be done.  Whether or not "society" is  
the right entity or used here as a catchall is a different question.

> Challenge to Samantha: how can we help those who are not succeeding  
> without stifling initiative?

I am not sure that is a useful question.  Why should helping some  
stifle others unless too much of limited resources and their own  
capabilities and products of their work is being diverted?  Our  
current government run massively wasteful and ineffective programs  
are not really viable.  This does not mean there is not a real need  
or that all ways of addressing it would be unviable.

I think that the only way to ultimately address the problem is to get  
to such an abundance society that all the necessities of life and  
access to a considerable amount of knowledge and computation is  
simply free due to its inconsequential cost of production and  
distribution.  Many people may not have "what it takes" to get more  
than this quite substantial minimum but on one anywhere on earth will  
be truly impoverished', malnourished or lacking access to the  
knowledge of humankind and the computer/communication generated  
noosphere.

- samantha