Religion and Engineers

[wilheldp_PE]

^Absolutely not. Government, at least as far as American government goes, is an attempt to take such weakness into account and operate a system that, if run properly, cancels those weaknesses through the checks and balances set up by the constitution. It is, on its very face, an attempt to set aside those human weaknesses and develop a set of rules that make sure that all important decisions are made with a level-headed, rational consideration of the good of the many versus the good of the few.

And are there unicorns in the forest that fart rainbows? That's a very noble view of what government is supposed to be, but in reality, the magnified weaknesses of politicians are thrust upon the people while we are being told that it is all for our own benefit.

What is the overriding philisophy of anarcho-capitalism, in how it would be "best" for society as a whole? In what way would anarcho-capitalism prevent a public health catastrophe resulting from the reluctance to deal with wastes? The way I see it, the expense and trouble of dealing with wastes would be ignored until it became so desirable (e.g., in the event that catastrophe strikes) that the private sector sees a potential profit, and the public at large are willing to pay for it. In other words, by the time it's too late, and great Auntie Petunia and little Jo-jo have already died of cholera or the plague...

If the first quoted section of your post is what you think government is, then anarcho-capitalism isn't for you. The government isn't there to solve all of our problems for us...never should have been, and I don't think that is what the Constitution set out to do. Personal responsibility is the central governing thought of both anarchy and libertarianism. If there is a serious health risk, then you better get to work solving the problem before you die. First person to invent the solution wins, and can become very wealthy selling said solution (i.e. the capitalist part of anarcho-capitalism). Second person to solve the problem also becomes wealthy and provides competition to the first person (i.e. a check/balance). If one of the providers is seen to be corrupt or greedy by the population, they will buy from the other guy, and the first guy won't become wealthy.

Having a large central provider as the government breeds helplessness and laziness. Instead of people taking responsibility for their actions and suffering the consequences, they just look to Big Brother to bail them out (see: the current housing bailouts).

 

[wilheldp_PE]

And are there unicorns in the forest that fart rainbows? That's a very noble view of what government is supposed to be, but in reality, the magnified weaknesses of politicians are thrust upon the people while we are being told that it is all for our own benefit.

I apologize preemptively for this ad hominem personal attack. I would delete it, but that would be dishonest.

 

[Dleg]

And are there unicorns in the forest that fart rainbows? That's a very noble view of what government is supposed to be, but in reality, the magnified weaknesses of politicians are thrust upon the people while we are being told that it is all for our own benefit.
If the first quoted section of your post is what you think government is, then anarcho-capitalism isn't for you. The government isn't there to solve all of our problems for us...never should have been, and I don't think that is what the Constitution set out to do. Personal responsibility is the central governing thought of both anarchy and libertarianism. If there is a serious health risk, then you better get to work solving the problem before you die. First person to invent the solution wins, and can become very wealthy selling said solution (i.e. the capitalist part of anarcho-capitalism). Second person to solve the problem also becomes wealthy and provides competition to the first person (i.e. a check/balance). If one of the providers is seen to be corrupt or greedy by the population, they will buy from the other guy, and the first guy won't become wealthy.

Having a large central provider as the government breeds helplessness and laziness. Instead of people taking responsibility for their actions and suffering the consequences, they just look to Big Brother to bail them out (see: the current housing bailouts).

If you fail to see how this falls apart when talking about a society-level issue like public health, then perhaps you should stop smoking whatever it is that is giving you the rainbow-farting hallucinations about your own plan. (Hey - you chose not to delete it)

The basic idea is that people (and especially profit-oriented corporations) generally don't want to do something that is preventative in nature, or that is aimed at everyone (i.e., not only their "customers"), until the need for it smacks them in the face. By the time you get to the point of needing to invent the cure, the plague has already happened. And all those folks who happen to not be able to afford the "cure" whatever it is - medicine, basic sanitation, a safe drinking water supply) will still get those diseases AND spread them to the folks who paid to supposedly insulate themselves from the problem. Same thing with certain environmental problems - once a resource is spoiled, it is spoiled for everyone. Not just those who neglected it in the first place.

Hence the term "public" health, and the very real and very necessary function of government in providing for a certain minimum level of service to everyone, not just those who can afford it.

 

[PE-ness]

I wish I was smart enough to debate these important issues with you guys, but I'm afraid my head just isn't big enough to contain more than one thought at a time. And it pretty much contains only one. All the time.

But then again, that keeps things nice and simple for me.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

The basic idea is that people (and especially profit-oriented corporations) generally don't want to do something that is preventative in nature, or that is aimed at everyone (i.e., not only their "customers"), until the need for it smacks them in the face. By the time you get to the point of needing to invent the cure, the plague has already happened. And all those folks who happen to not be able to afford the "cure" whatever it is - medicine, basic sanitation, a safe drinking water supply) will still get those diseases AND spread them to the folks who paid to supposedly insulate themselves from the problem. Same thing with certain environmental problems - once a resource is spoiled, it is spoiled for everyone. Not just those who neglected it in the first place.
Hence the term "public" health, and the very real and very necessary function of government in providing for a certain minimum level of service to everyone, not just those who can afford it.

Benbo nailed it when he said that nobody knows if anarcho-capitalism would work because it has never been given the old college try. But free market economics dictates that if there is demand for something, somebody WILL provide it.

The problem is that the US has never enjoyed a truly free market. Government regulation and testing is a bigger barrier to entry than just about anything else, and I'm sure you will argue for its necessity, but there have been numerous reports of dangerous drugs and food items "slipping past the goalie" even with FDA oversight. Then you have the government mandated monopolies like the local power companies. This is more a state or local function (in the case of power), but it is a monopoly nonetheless.

And finally you have Intellectual Property rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.). This is one of the places where I can't decide if I agree 100% with anarcho-capitalism. They say that IP laws stifle competition, allowing the inventor to enjoy a monopoly on the sale of a product for a period of time which hurts the consumer. Lack of a competing product allows for artificially high price, and less innovation on the product. BUT, I say that lack of IP laws would stifle innovation. If company A invests a lot of time and money inventing a widget, releases it to market at a price required to recoup R&D costs, then company B reverse engineers the widget, and puts an exact replica on the market at a much reduced price, then company A makes no profit on their R&D effort. The incentive to invent is diminished. Then again, people still haven't figured out the recipe to KFC Original Recipe chicken or Coke Classic, so maybe it is still possible to keep trade secrets without the government.

 

[FLBuff PE]

Then again, people still haven't figured out the recipe to KFC Original Recipe chicken...

Oh, I beg to differ...

http://www.recipezaar.com/58947

I think this may be the real deal. Look at the # calories/serving, and the # calories from fat. Sweet Jebus!

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Oh, I beg to differ...

http://www.recipezaar.com/58947

I think this may be the real deal. Look at the # calories/serving, and the # calories from fat. Sweet Jebus!

The Original Recipe is not packaged in three different places. The way it is cooked and the process makes it taste like it has eleven herbs and spices when in reality there is not. The way it is done in the restaurant is using dried eggs and milk in the flour along with a box of breading salt and the seasoning bag and a bag of breading flour.

Well, they sure are going to a lot of trouble to protect a recipe that is already a non-secret.

 

[MGX]

I'm Methodist.

I love reading/debating/studying different religions and philosophies, but they all seem to lead to a dead end. There is always a leap of faith to be made in order to arrive at any conclusions as far as I can tell, otherwise we'd all be agnostics. A philosophy degree would be a wonderful expenditure of energy and fascinating to no end as a lifetime study, but how incredibly useless it is to feed a family!

I recently re-watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" TV miniseries and it floors me each time I view it. The photos of galaxies and their dimensions either make me think any god must be incredibly large and awesome or so tiny to be irrelevant in proportion to the entirety of existence. Having a sense of wonder about how everything works and the majesty of it all with a sense of skepticism are invaluable. I also think that we, as a society, can have this debate without bloodshed is fantastic.

 

[Dleg]

^There was that one episode of Cosmos, about the concepts of additional dimensions and infinity, I think, where he broached the subject. I always have thought that was one of the most thought-provoking and well-done pieces of television I have ever seen. I saw it when I was maybe 13 or 14, and it helped shaped the way I think about things even today. Definitely one of those "Whoa Dude!" moments.

(I own the series on DVD, by the way. Excellent viewing for anyone interested in science, let alone astronomy or physics)

 

[maryannette]

....
There is always a leap of faith ....

I recently re-watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" TV miniseries and it floors me each time I view it. The photos of galaxies and their dimensions either make me think any god must be incredibly large and awesome or so tiny to be irrelevant in proportion to the entirety of existence. Having a sense of wonder about how everything works and the majesty of it all with a sense of skepticism are invaluable. I also think that we, as a society, can have this debate without bloodshed is fantastic.

I worked in manufacturing for 20 years. I thought often about the amount of planning, design work, coordination, testing, etc. that went into making one fairly simple product. Compared to that, the universe is billions of times more complex. The conclusion: surely the universe was designed; it didn't just "happen".

Should we switch to pirate avatars in 2 weeks?

 

[SSmith]

I worked in manufacturing for 20 years. I thought often about the amount of planning, design work, coordination, testing, etc. that went into making one fairly simple product. Compared to that, the universe is billions of times more complex. The conclusion: surely the universe was designed; it didn't just "happen".

Using your same logic, for several thousand years now it has been well understood what it means in an engineering sense for something to float. The conclusion: no man could have ever walked on water.

That aside--who said things had to 'happen?' Why couldn't things just have always been? The idea of things beginning and ending could very well be a human artifact due to our short timelines and nothing else.

 

[maryannette]

Using your same logic, for several thousand years now it has been well understood what it means in an engineering sense for something to float. The conclusion: no man could have ever walked on water.
That aside--who said things had to 'happen?' Why couldn't things just have always been? The idea of things beginning and ending could very well be a human artifact due to our short timelines and nothing else.

No argument from me. I can't talk you into having faith and you can't talk me out of it. I'm just sharing a different perspective.

 

[benbo]

That aside--who said things had to 'happen?' Why couldn't things just have always been? The idea of things beginning and ending could very well be a human artifact due to our short timelines and nothing else.

Not to get into any religious implications, which is futile as Mary suggested. However, I don't know of any theory of cosmology that holds the universe has existed and will exist in it's current state forever. Some sort of changes "happened" in all the theories I know about (Big Bang, steady state). Not to mention evolution

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you posted.

Edit: For me, it is impossible to conceive of something 'starting" - which means there was nothing before it. I can't conceive of nothing. It is also impossible for me to conceive of something always being. So I don't try to think about this anymore.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Not to get into any religious implications, which is futile as Mary suggested. However, I don't know of any theory of cosmology that holds the universe has existed and will exist in it's current state forever. Some sort of changes "happened" in all the theories I know about (Big Bang, steady state). Not to mention evolution
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you posted.

Edit: For me, it is impossible to conceive of something 'starting" - which means there was nothing before it. I can't conceive of nothing. It is also impossible for me to conceive of something always being. So I don't try to think about this anymore.

This is where I think both religious and agnostic definitions of the beginning of the World/Universe break down. According to agnostics/physicists, there was nothingness, then the universe exploded forth from an infinitely small and infinitely dense piece of matter. Religious folks say that the universe was created by their deity of choice. Neither can explain what produced that tiny, dense piece of matter or deity. There is a fairly large disconnect in both theories.

You say you can't conceive of something "starting" or "always being", then how do you make the connection that God either had to spring forth from nothingness or have always been?

 

[maryannette]

You know, that is one of my questions. I've always believed that everything comes from God, but where did God come from? I don't know all the answers, but I have faith.

 

[SSmith]

No argument from me. I can't talk you into having faith and you can't talk me out of it. I'm just sharing a different perspective.

I just do not understand how on one hand your engineering sense can affirm your faith, but then you choose to ignore that same sense when it points out a potential discontinuity. ::shrug::

 

[benbo]

This is where I think both religious and agnostic definitions of the beginning of the World/Universe break down. According to agnostics/physicists, there was nothingness, then the universe exploded forth from an infinitely small and infinitely dense piece of matter. Religious folks say that the universe was created by their deity of choice. Neither can explain what produced that tiny, dense piece of matter or deity. There is a fairly large disconnect in both theories.
You say you can't conceive of something "starting" or "always being", then how do you make the connection that God either had to spring forth from nothingness or have always been?

First of all, I don't know how you assumed anything about what I believe about God. Maybe you can point out where I posted somehting like what you wrote here.

But since you mentioned it, that's what faith is about. I'm not claiming to fully understand it, and certainly not trying to prove it. The difference is that I wouldn't claim that I could, unlike most scientists.

 

[SSmith]

According to agnostics/physicists, there was nothingness, then the universe exploded forth from an infinitely small and infinitely dense piece of matter.

There is a rather large contradiction in this statement. Physicists don't try to explain the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang theory explain the phenomena that we observe today back to an infinitely dense point, but not before that point. Google "what happened before the Big Bang" to see some of the different theories about it.

 

[maryannette]

I can't explain it, either. Logically, I struggle sometimes defending my faith. But, faith is more than logic. For me, it is a relationship with God. I know that must sound really stupid to some people, that I have a relationship with a being that is imaginary in many senses. I can't explain my emotions and relationships. I can't tell you why I am in love with my husband. When I met him, I said, "I wouldn't want to marry him." But I did and we've been married nearly 30 years. That defies logic. Some things I just accept. I accept that I have a good marriage, despite not being attracted to my husband initially. I accept that I am a Christian, despite the disconnects. I just am what I am. I'm comfortable with that.

 

[SSmith]

I'm sure you are aware that comparing your husband to a superstitious ideal is hardly comparing apples to apples.

I don't understand the people that want to believe in something more than their sense allows. I want to believe that it isn't raining today so I could bag the leaves I raked yesterday. I want to believe it really badly... But no matter how hard I want to believe it's not raining, I can look out the window and see the rain falling. No amount of faith could change that fact.

The religious perspective would be that I just didn't have enough faith.

I can't explain it, either. Logically, I struggle sometimes defending my faith. But, faith is more than logic. For me, it is a relationship with God. I know that must sound really stupid to some people, that I have a relationship with a being that is imaginary in many senses. I can't explain my emotions and relationships. I can't tell you why I am in love with my husband. When I met him, I said, "I wouldn't want to marry him." But I did and we've been married nearly 30 years. That defies logic. Some things I just accept. I accept that I have a good marriage, despite not being attracted to my husband initially. I accept that I am a Christian, despite the disconnects. I just am what I am. I'm comfortable with that.