The Post

Nice post. I happened to read it b/c I'm taking a class at UCI using your 7th edition OSC book. Great book btw.

Anyway, the scenario described has both the girls on the same footing in some way. Attending college. Some of the ideas of redistribution of wealth are to help those that are at a disadvantage and need a helping hand to lift themselves up or keep them from falling back.

In any system, there is going to be waste or unintended consequences (even some that are counter). However, if the good outweighs the bad, and there may never be absolute measure of how much something is, then a program can be justified. The question is how do you measure something's worth to society and how much damage it does? Compare it to other like scenarios? How about when having to cut one of two programs that are vastly different in target and effect?

My parents are Democrats in a Republican county. They own two houses and an apartment complex. My father owned a failed business in the late 80s/early 90s. He also is a retired from aerospace as an IBEW electronic electrician.

"Why is he Democrat and not Republican?" a question posed to him by his brother-in-law, co-owner of the complex. He didn't understand why my father would be a Democrat when he owned land, rented a house/apartments. My father believes that you can't take money with you to heaven, so there's no need to hoard unnecessarily. He needs enough to see himself to the end and has more to leave us, so we can do the same. He doesn't spend frivolously, in fact, going to swap meets and the 99 cent store are consistent with his character. Btw, he's devoutly Catholic, and Christians that cling to money in a harsh way seem to be a mystery.

So, while some justify their reasons for being on one side or the other, both are never wrong. They have their reasons, and both have some truth... some is the key word. Those that take it as absolute truth are ones that drive division.

Moderation is taught from many sources, but in ideology, moderation is never explicitly defined. It's a winner take all in explaining how things work or should be.

For example, if someone says, "we should get rid of Social Security altogether, its a waste of money." I respond with, "would you like to tell that to my sister? You know, the one that gets federal disability from Social Security and will the rest of her life." I can go on on how the Fed pays for her books, school, and more.

I recognize there is a lot of inefficiency in the system. Don't protect what you can reform into something more efficient. On the other hand, don't completely condemn and dismantle anything unless you have tried to understand the positive benefits of its existence.

We lose site of what it is to understand, to have empathy. Both sides of the argument (father/daughter) don't really empathize with the other from the start. It's point is showing the girl a kernel of truth behind the father's thinking. To have her understand is one side of the equation.

This plays out in politics all the time. How come some Republicans will change their minds about stem-cell research after meeting Nancy Reagan? How come Arlen Specter pushes for it? Why does a Democrat push against affirmative in schools? How does a union member hate the union he belongs to?

From personal experiences and from the experiences of another, if we can relate, then we can see.

Well... time to get back to reading all about File-System Interfaces! yay!
 

I agree that OSC is a great book.

The girl in this story did not gain her 4.0 through the sweat of other students. Many of the very rich DID ride to their positions on the backs of the working class.

That's why I am self employed. But when I pay my large health insurance bill, I'm still funding giant corporations. I hate the fact that a portion of it will go to a very rich (and questionably useful) CEO.
 

good points TimC.

Luckily, I have fallen under employment under an individual that believes every worker deserves a wage and healthcare. He is also my friend but takes that approach to his other employees/1099s. He believes 90% of a company's profits should go back into the company and he values dissent and our input in even the more trivial and non-trivial situations. He doesn't want to grow beyond 2 dozen people because he is afraid quality of service would be sacrificed as a result.

We are a small group of network administrators, but those large ones would learn volumes by looking at small ones like us.
 

very interesting blog!
but this excellent example cant be applied to all people, because some simply dont have the ability or the gift others have. people arnt equal.
for example, using the same concept the poor bum in my stret will die from starvation because his leg is cut off!
 

Hi, Sir. i am from iran where relegious fanatic rules us. for us liberal democracy is a dream that we can not even imagine it.in this post you really went depth. but remember that both republican and democrat parties are liberal democrat. i mean they respect liberty, freedom of speech and rights of citizzen ship and both are democrat i.e. they support free election and pluralism. i mean you saw that what happened to us and how the government killed or brother and sisters. they do did that because deberal democracy doesnt mean shit to them. if you where in IRAN and experienced the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC you would never said somehing bad about liberal democray.
thank you
please answear me.
 

Great article Avi, philosophically speaking. So much better than the dining philosopher's example. Here's one that you will appreciate (it's in Steven Landsburg's book and in Lance Fortnow's Blog):
Business Logic:

“The Headache Problem: A billion people are experiencing fairly minor headaches, which will continue for another hour unless an innocent person is killed, in which case they will cease immediately. Is it okay to kill that innocent person?”

The obvious answer is yes, Landsburg says. Here’s why: Virtually no one will pay $1 to avoid a one-in-a-billion chance of death. Yet most people would pay $1 to cure a headache. Ergo, most people “think a headache is worse than a one-in-a-billion chance of death,” he says. Killing one person would “replace your headache with a one-in-a-billion chance of death.”