About the same that it has to do with your freedom not to buy national security. Some #### just has to get paid for if the society is going to function. If there is a reasonably efficient means to have that something get paid for via a free market, then society should do all it can to use the free market mechanism to deliver those services or goods. But if the nature of a good is such that its delivery completely undermines and distorts market mechanisms, such as national security and health insurance, then you have to find another way to deliver those services.

The problem with this analysis is that it is complete ########. National security is a public good. Health insurance is not, and there is no problem with the "market mechanisms" of health insurance (*). (Note: talking about "health insurance" is already distorting the picture. Health insurance and health care are different things.) What leftists like Sam mean when they say that there are problems with the market delivery of health insurance is that poor, sick people can't get it. But of course that's true of food, clothing, shelter, and everything else. That's an argument for welfare, not an argument for mandating that people buy health insurance. It's just that liberals are smart enough to realize that welfare is unpopular, so they make up these pseudo-scientific-sounding arguments about "distorted market mechanisms."

The mandate is just a different packaging for a tax. Part of the social contract for the society you live in is to pay that tax.

The mandate is not a tax. Taxes are paid to the government, not to private businesses. If it were a tax, it would be unquestionably constitutional, though no less objectionable. But again, Democrats didn't want to be caught raising taxes, so they didn't structure it as one. (In effect, it certainly acts as a tax -- but, then, so do all government regulations. For that matter, one could describe the criminalization of cocaine sales and possession as a "tax." But that doesn't mean it's a tax legally speaking.)

It's a swipe at 100+ years of leftist nonsense about the "inevitability of communism".

Oh, so a straw man. I assumed as much.

The problem with this analysis is that it is complete ########. National security is a public good. Health insurance is not, and there is no problem with the "market mechanisms" of health insurance (*).

Well, thank you for teaching us the Truth of David, Buddha-con.

The details are very case-specific. Give me a particular criminal, with a particular set of circumstances (like you did with the pickpocket above) and I'll give you more specific information, but eventually I'm going to hit a wall because I'm not a trained psychologist or therapist and I'm not looking at a detailed case file. How do we know when to release a person from a rehab center or a mental institution? We trust the judgment of professionals in the field.

No, we don't. In fact, we know that flipping a coin would work just as well.

I'm suggesting that we give these criminals behavioral therapy and we trust the judgment of those therapists. A politician or judge or lawyer is in no position to evaluate the psyche of an individual, let alone to come up with a general rule of about how long a person needs to be rehabilitated and apply that rule unilaterally to all prisoners.

Let's say that I'm right, and that there are no experts who can tell with any degree of reliability whether someone has been rehabilitated. What then, CB?

I am not exaggerating in the slightest when I say that it would be the end of liberal democracy. It's pretty simple. Either we provide universal health care for everyone as the ethical foundation of society or it will be the fall of our civilization.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've been to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and I can say without hyperbole that this is a million times worse than all of them put together.

it's a more harsh penalty than having sex with a mentally disabled person incapable of consent or manslaughter.

Speaking of which, if you're a pedophile, you should go out and molest a child (*), because the penalty for doing so is less than the penalty for downloading pictures of naked children. Many judges have noted the insanity of child porn sentencing laws.



(*) Note: this is not actually legal advice.

Personally, I think it's about time to retire the term "straw man." It's been used to death, and people now pretty much use it to refer to any opinion they disagree with. I roll my eyes every time I read it.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on.

When I say straw man, I mean straw man. He has constructed a scarecrow to do battle with, to avoid engaging the actual arguments at hand.

Personally, I think it's about time to retire the term "straw man." It's been used to death, and people now pretty much use it to refer to any opinion they disagree with. I roll my eyes every time I read it.

That's a straw man.

That aside, I have been using it in this thread the same way Sam has. People in this thread have constantly been making up positions that nobody had taken, just in order to smash them down. That's strawmanning.

I think my sarcasm detector must be broken. Because pairing

OK, where are all the left-wing voices defending my right not to buy health insurance?

and

If such "immortality treatments" become possible (I don't think they will), the answer is to ban them for the wealthy,

makes my head spin.

No contradiction. The first one is speaking of a country function under the US Constitution, the second about a dystopian future where medical advances have led to huge inequalities based on life expectancy. In that case, you throw the Constitution away.

When I say straw man, I mean straw man. He has constructed a scarecrow to do battle with, to avoid engaging the actual arguments at hand.

So, your saying there weren't people out there parroting the inevitability of communism for several generations?

And you think you're the one being reasonable predicting the inevitable occurance of immortality? Yeah, right.

National security is a public good.

Santa Claus has eight flying reindeer.

So, your saying there weren't people out there parroting the inevitability of communism for several generations?

That wasn't addressed to me, but the only "people out there parroting the inevitability of communism for several generations" were the Communists themselves,** and in this country a sizable number of those folks were likely to be undercover FBI agents. There were few if any liberals of the sort you see in liberal groups like the ADA or the liberal wing of the Democratic Party who ever voiced such garbage. And if you're trying to say that they were, you're just blowing it out of your butt.

**Unless by that you're referring to people who argued that military force was unlikely to be able to defeat the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. But that group of skeptics included plenty of conservatives among them.

513. I never said it was the Democratic party, and I never restricted it to the US.

There were plenty of communists and Marxists saying it in all Western countries. Especially in academia.

But where's the evidence that we're not catching people because of limited resources?

Are you suggesting that we are at some sort of theoretical maximum value of enforcement? I can't imagine that we've hit the police density where we couldn't increase patrols and response time in a way that would have some positive effect. We also could shift dollars currently going to enforcement to other programs (or simply reduce taxes if those programs aren't cost-effective) that work to prevent crime rather than to punish it.

It's well understood that there are diminishing marginal returns (in terms of deterrence) from increased punishment. That's not the same thing as saying that harsher penalties don't matter.

I wouldn't say harsher penalties don't have any positive effect at all in a vacuum. I've already agreed that keeping a guy in prison for ten years rather than five years is a pretty solid guarantee that this prisoner won't be victimizing society for those extra five years.

I would say that those extra five years have a pretty remarkable cost, and the relatively small benefit doesn't come close to justifying that cost.

But it's not "likelihood of being caught" that's the other relevant factor; it's likelihood of being punished. If you're caught, but nothing happens to you, then what's the big deal?

Of course. I've said from the start that there has to be a consequence for crime.

I believe far, far more people would commit crimes, especially non-violent crimes, if they knew the punishment for being caught was likely to be home confinement or a year of community service rather than hard time in prison.

Let's assume for a moment that you're absolutely right. That extra crime has a cost to society, but hard time in prison is expensive and has a social cost. What makes you believe that this extra crime is so damaging to society that it merits paying that price to avoid it? We're not talking about rape and murder here; we generally agree about those criminals facing serious prison time even if we disagree a bit about the motives for that imprisonment.

What about a society that has, by default, very light penalties for non-violent crimes and very heavy penalties for violent crimes? Would that be a criminal justice system that you could endorse? I'll keep trading ten or twenty additional car thefts for one fewer rape or murder.

Let's say that I'm right, and that there are no experts who can tell with any degree of reliability whether someone has been rehabilitated. What then, CB?

We then have no experts that can tell with any degree of reliability that someone has not been rehabilitated either. It sounds like we're going to have to concentrate our efforts on other aspects of criminal justice that can be measured, such as isolation, deterrence, and restitution.

That said, I reject the premise that therapists and psychologists are entirely unreliable in assessing someone's risk to re-offend. Decades worth of data have entirely no predictive value, and the entire discipline of psychology is junk science? I don't buy it.

That said, I reject the premise that therapists and psychologists are entirely unreliable in assessing someone's risk to re-offend.

That stuff is best left to the lawyers.

So, your saying there weren't people out there parroting the inevitability of communism for several generations?

Seconding Andy, somewhat, I am saying that no one in this thread has made an argument about the inevitability of communism. Yet here you go again, tearing into that terrifying ghoul, headpiece filled with straw, yet again. You have run out into the nether regions of "things some die hard Party member might have said in the 1960s" and attributed it en masse to a dialogue that is completely, utterly and totally removed from anything close to that condition.

I'm sure that someone, somewhere, at some point in time, made some argument vaguely aligned to your "historical inevitability of communism" gambit. I'm also sure that such an argument, even if it were made by an "academic" at some point in the not-too-distant past - say the last 30 years even - has nothing to do with anything anyone is setting forth here and now, on this thread, on this website, in the past 2-3 weeks.

You said national health insurance/healthcare need not be a moral concern for us, because in the absence of health insurance/care, people would just die.

Others pointed out the fact that a free republic such as ours can't functionally exist in a future where radical life extension is available to some, but early death is meted out for the underclasses.

You then said that was okay, because such medical advances were impossible.

I said "no, life extension has been going on for centuries, to the point where modern men are science fiction characters when compared to even feudal times, and it's absurd to think that will cease into the future."

You replied "nuh uh, and by the way, Communism!"

To which I replied, "Spittin in the wind comes back at you twice as hard."

Speaking of communists, here's U.S. Representative Allen West, Sarah Palin's "rogue" choice for Mitt Romney's V.P. running mate, on the subject at a townhall meeting on Tuesday:

Moderator: What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card-carrying Marxists or International Socialist?

West: It’s a good question. I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

513. I never said it was the Democratic party, and I never restricted it to the US.

Yes, another one of those "I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'" motifs that adds SO much to intelligent discussion. I'd assumed that you were talking about the U.S., but if you're not, then hell, why not include the entire Politburo of the USSR and the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party while you're at it?

There were plenty of communists and Marxists saying it in all Western countries. Especially in academia.

And there were many millions more self-described "conservatives" who regularly voted for racists like Jean Marie Le Pen in France, Ian Smith in Rhodesia, Enoch Powell in England, various Afrikaaner politicians in South Africa, and countless domestic politicians from Jesse Helms to Sheriff Arpaio. I'm sure that armed with that information, you'll now begin to lump all conservatives with them.

I would say that those extra five years have a pretty remarkable cost, and the relatively small benefit doesn't come close to justifying that cost.

You keep saying this without any supporting evidence. The U.S. is already substantially underwater with regards to recidivism — i.e., more than 7 in 10 released convicts end up back in prison. Unless the shorter sentences come with some sort of miraculous rehabilitation, your position seems like it would simply let these criminals get back to committing crimes sooner rather than later.

What about a society that has, by default, very light penalties for non-violent crimes and very heavy penalties for violent crimes? Would that be a criminal justice system that you could endorse? I'll keep trading ten or twenty additional car thefts for one fewer rape or murder.

No, I wouldn't endorse that. As it is, only a small percentage of property crimes are solved. If the penalties were made even lighter, that would all but guarantee even more property-related crimes would occur. Why should society tolerate that? I reject the presumption that society is obligated to tolerate repeat criminal offenders or to give anyone more than a second — or, at most, third — chance when it comes to felony crimes against people or property.

Unless the shorter sentences come with some sort of miraculous rehabilitation, your position seems like it would simply let these criminals get back to committing crimes sooner rather than later.

I'm saying that even if they do, prison is only of value in this situation if the cost to society of those future crimes exceeds the cost of imprisonment.

We have a pretty good idea of how expensive these extra years in prison are. If you are going to advocate spending X in resources to address a problem, then you should be able to demonstrate that not addressing the problem costs more than X. 5 more years in prison for that third-time car thief costs around $150,000. Is that car thief likely to cause $150,000 worth of damage to society with his extra five years of freedom? Demonstrate that, and you'll at least have a practical argument for sentence length. Or demonstrate that the non-financial costs translate into more damage than that $150,000 could solve used on other things.

The burden is not on me to prove that longer sentences waste money. The burden is on you to prove that they don't. If it's all so obvious, then it should be easy to prove. If it's not provable, then we're spending an awful lot of money on mere speculation.

That said, I reject the premise that therapists and psychologists are entirely unreliable in assessing someone's risk to re-offend. Decades worth of data have entirely no predictive value, and the entire discipline of psychology is junk science? I don't buy it.

They're not soothsayers. I don't know where you get the idea that they can more reliably predict what someone is going to do in the future than a trained seal can. Hell, people can't even accurately predict what they themselves are going to do in the future. How many people have said to themselves, "I would never do X" (lie, cheat on their spouse, drink and drive, use illegal drugs) and then they do? How many spouses would never have believed ahead of time that their spouse would cheat on them?

Your blind faith in the psychology profession is admirable. It's also naive, and potentially dangerous.

5 more years in prison for that third-time car thief costs around $150,000. Is that car thief likely to cause $150,000 worth of damage to society with his extra five years of freedom?

Aside from the general benefit to society of having such thieves off the streets, I don't believe it's a stretch at all to suggest that it's cost-efficient to keep felons off the streets at a cost of $30,000 per year. (I'd prefer a cost of $10,000 per year, but that's a different story.) $30,000 per year doesn't even cover the cost of one decent SUV that's stolen and totaled or stripped down (or shipped overseas). And given that only a small percentage of property crimes are solved, and assuming most such crimes are committed by a small number of career criminals, the $30,000 might be a bargain.

The burden is not on me to prove that longer sentences waste money. The burden is on you to prove that they don't.

Actually, no. In just about any circumstance, the burden is on the person who wants to change the status quo.

Aside from the general benefit to society of having such thieves off the streets

What "general benefit to society" is this? Be specific.

What "general benefit to society" is this? Be specific.

For starters, having fewer car thieves roaming the streets.

For starters, having fewer car thieves roaming the streets.

You're begging the question. If taking the car thieves off the streets costs more in social and economic capital than leaving them be, what exactly is the benefit of "having fewer car thieves roaming the streets?"

In just about any circumstance, the burden is on the person who wants to change the status quo.

Certainly not any sort of logical burden. Truth doesn't have inertia.

This is especially true when there is no status quo in this country with regards to law enforcement. What's the appropriate sentence for stealing a car? You'll get a different answer based on what state you're in. Is the burden on those who argue that three strikes laws are bad because California has them, or is the burden on those who argue that they're good because New York doesn't? Is the burden on those who suggest that Oklahoma is over-punishing marijuana offenses or on those who suggest that New York is under-punishing them? Is the burden on those who say America's criminal justice system is too harsh or on those who say Sweden's is too lenient?

I'm saying there's insufficient evidence to justify the claim that our prison system is an effective use of resources. You're saying there's sufficient evidence. I can't provide negative evidence for you, and you're awfully certain that we're going down the right path. If so, show me some of that evidence. We are pretty much at the most extreme end of the spectrum in terms of imprisoning our own citizens; that's a very strong position that requires very strong evidence.

Our system is expensive and we imprison a relatively large percentage of the population relative to other Western democracies. Am I going too far out on a limb here, or would you concede both of these points? We have a fairly high recidivism rate. Is this something we can all accept as true?

Those are things that have a cost to society. There's a burden to justify that cost, and "that's what we're doing now" isn't evidence without making the further assumption that "what we're doing now" is more likely to be right than a given alternative. (A ridiculous assumption, based on the historical record.)

You're begging the question. If taking the car thieves off the streets costs more in social and economic capital than leaving them be, what exactly is the benefit of "having fewer car thieves roaming the streets?"

I already addressed this in #524. I don't believe it's a stretch at all to believe the average felon incurs more than $30,000 per year in costs to society, to the point that spending $30,000 to keep them locked up has positive ROI.

***

This is especially true when there is no status quo in this country with regards to law enforcement. What's the appropriate sentence for stealing a car? You'll get a different answer based on what state you're in. Is the burden on those who argue that three strikes laws are bad because California has them, or is the burden on those who argue that they're good because New York doesn't? Is the burden on those who suggest that Oklahoma is over-punishing marijuana offenses or on those who suggest that New York is under-punishing them? Is the burden on those who say America's criminal justice system is too harsh or on those who say Sweden's is too lenient?

Repeating what I said in #524, the burden is on the person who wants to change the status quo. Within the context of politics, the only time this isn't necessarily true is when a law has a sunset provision.

I can't provide negative evidence for you, and you're awfully certain that we're going down the right path. If so, show me some of that evidence.

For starters, violent crime has fallen substantially since around 1990, which was only a few years after the late-'80s trend of building more prisons and strengthening criminal statutes. I can't guarantee there's a correlation any more than the Freakonomics guys can guarantee it's due to abortion rates, but it's something to consider. Personally, it seems self-evident that locking up criminals for longer periods of time will yield a lower crime rate, but others obviously disagree.

Our system is expensive and we imprison a relatively large percentage of the population relative to other Western democracies. Am I going too far out on a limb here, or would you concede both of these points? We have a fairly high recidivism rate. Is this something we can all accept as true?

I agree with all of this. I just haven't seen you offer anything but wishcasting when it comes to reducing crime rates and recidivism rates. I also disagree with your premise that criminals are locked up primarily to make them "suffer." I believe society has moved past both "suffering" and "rehabilitation" when it comes to criminals, and now locks them up simply as a means of keeping uncivilized people away from the rest of society.

I already addressed this in #524. I don't believe it's a stretch at all to believe the average felon incurs more than $30,000 per year in costs to society, to the point that spending $30,000 to keep them locked up has positive ROI.

If it's not a stretch at all, you should be able to easily demonstrate it with evidence. If you can't provide the evidence, it's quite a bit of a stretch. That's an awful lot of money.

What would this cost actually look like? Let's consider car theft. The average stolen car is worth around $6000. Ignoring any other considerations, the released car thief would have to steal 5 cars per year to justify the cost of imprisonment. But there are other considerations: 3 out of 5 stolen cars are recovered (partially mitigating the damage); the thief creates some of the cost to society, but the chop shop that purchases the car also bears some responsibility; a fair number of released car thieves never re-offend (recidivism rates are high, but nowhere near 100%).

I'm not talking about "no sentence" as compared to "significant sentence." I'm talking about "significant sentence" as compared to "very long sentence."

What would this cost actually look like? Let's consider car theft. The average stolen car is worth around $6000. Ignoring any other considerations, the released car thief would have to steal 5 cars per year to justify the cost of imprisonment.

Well, per a quick Google search, the FBI says that in an average year, $6.4 billion worth of cars are stolen, with an average value of $6,700. That comes out to about 950,000 cars stolen every year. I can't find a good breakdown of the U.S. prison population, but I'm quite sure there's nothing like 950,000 people convicted of car theft every year. Thus, a lot of car thieves are getting away with their crimes and a lot of them are stealing a lot more than one car per year. Even if we credit the recoveries back to the thieves, which I'm not crazy about, there's still a whole lot of damage being done to society without anyone apparently paying the piper for it.

Thus, a lot of car thieves are getting away with their crimes and a lot of them are stealing a lot more than one car per year.

If anything, this supports the idea that longer sentences will have less of an effect, since a significant portion of car thieves never see prison at all. What portion of that damage is done by car thieves who have served a single, reasonably long sentence and been released? What portion is done by car thieves who have served two or three reasonably long sentences and been released?

The fact that we catch one car thief out of every five (or whatever) doesn't mean that the one we catch is responsible for five times the damage.

Even if we credit the recoveries back to the thieves, which I'm not crazy about, there's still a whole lot of damage being done to society without anyone apparently paying the piper for it.

I'm not crediting the recoveries to the thieves. I'm counting the damage that the thieves caused accurately. If someone steals my $20,000 car and I get it back with $5000 worth of damage and inconvenience, it's unreasonable to call that $20,000 worth of damage. Are the car thieves paying fines (or contributing labor) to mitigate the damages? Additional prison time shouldn't get credit for that either.

I'm not crediting the recoveries to the thieves. I'm counting the damage that the thieves caused accurately. If someone steals my $20,000 car and I get it back with $5000 worth of damage and inconvenience, it's unreasonable to call that $20,000 worth of damage. Are the car thieves paying fines (or contributing labor) to mitigate the damages? Additional prison time shouldn't get credit for that either.

Additionally, if you replace the additional prison time, which is being reduced, with community service, that's firther value being added back to society. And of course the people being released might actually get a legitimate job, adding further. And they pay taxes!

I'm not crediting the recoveries to the thieves. I'm counting the damage that the thieves caused accurately.

Sort of. A bank robber who steals $10,000 and then gets caught before spending any of the money is still a bank robber and still owes a debt to society. The bank might have been made whole upon recovery of the money, but society hasn't been. I'm all for "paying fines or contributing labor," but I'd prefer that labor occur behind bars.

National security is a public good.

Santa Claus has eight flying reindeer.

While the comment is somewhat cryptic -- even Perros can't believe that national security doesn't exist -- I should clarify that the term "public good" is an economics term, referring to goods (as in "goods and services") that are nonrivalrous and nonexcludable. It does not mean "anything good for the public."

But where's the evidence that we're not catching people because of limited resources?

Are you suggesting that we are at some sort of theoretical maximum value of enforcement?

Well, sure. Are we close to that theoretical maximum? Probably not. Are we close to that theoretical maximum, consistent with civil liberties? I would say so.

We then have no experts that can tell with any degree of reliability that someone has not been rehabilitated either. It sounds like we're going to have to concentrate our efforts on other aspects of criminal justice that can be measured, such as isolation, deterrence, and restitution.

That said, I reject the premise that therapists and psychologists are entirely unreliable in assessing someone's risk to re-offend. Decades worth of data have entirely no predictive value, and the entire discipline of psychology is junk science? I don't buy it.

Yes, the entire discipline of psychology is junk science. But I was saying specifically that there is no evidence that there is an ability to "assess someone's risk to re-offend."

Yes, the entire discipline of psychology is junk science.

To bring in baseball tangentally, I think I'd go with a slightly different take and agree with Bill James that psychology is more of a ######## dump than a junk science. I think there's value in psychological study, but it's inherent vagaries allow people to dig in there and pull out whatever they want to see.

Yes, the entire discipline of psychology is junk science.

Says our resident lawyer expert on everything.

For starters, violent crime has fallen substantially since around 1990, which was only a few years after the late-'80s trend of building more prisons and strengthening criminal statutes.

A fact famously correlated to Roe v Wade by the Freakanomics folks...

Freakonomics is the mother of all bulls1it dumps. Middlebrow crap is what it is. You're better off pounding the table.

What would this cost actually look like? Let's consider car theft. The average stolen car is worth around $6000. Ignoring any other considerations, the released car thief would have to steal 5 cars per year to justify the cost of imprisonment. But there are other considerations: 3 out of 5 stolen cars are recovered (partially mitigating the damage); the thief creates some of the cost to society, but the chop shop that purchases the car also bears some responsibility; a fair number of released car thieves never re-offend (recidivism rates are high, but nowhere near 100%).

$6,000 does not remotely cover the costs of the crime. There are the ex ante costs expended by car owners to prevent the crime or mitigate the harm -- car alarms, lojack, theft insurance, hunting for one's keys (all of which is deadweight loss) -- and the ex post costs of dealing with the theft. Setting aside the out-of-pocket costs, which may or may not all be covered by insurance, there's the time spent dealing with the police, insurance company, and car dealer. Figure, conservatively, twenty hours of time filling out paperwork, talking with adjusters and police officers, and replacement car shopping, and you're talking about thousands of additional dollars. I am not even including non-economic costs like emotional trauma from having one's car stolen. Let's not forget the costs to replace the contents of the car, which are typically stolen with the car. Plus the salaries of the police officers. $25 - $30K doesn't sound unreasonable. Which means he has to steal one car a year, not five.

To bring in baseball tangentally, I think I'd go with a slightly different take and agree with Bill James that psychology is more of a ######## dump than a junk science. I think there's value in psychological study, but it's inherent vagaries allow people to dig in there and pull out whatever they want to see.

The beauty of the Rorschasch test.

People in ######## dumps shouldn't throw stones.

'National security' is an abstraction that should make a libertarian blush.

No contradiction. The first one is speaking of a country function under the US Constitution, the second about a dystopian future where medical advances have led to huge inequalities based on life expectancy. In that case, you throw the Constitution away.

So you don't see the contradiction in having the right to not purchase health insurance, but not having the right to purchase advanced medical techniques to keep yourself healthy?

Yes, the entire discipline of psychology is junk science.

Much worse than economics, forensics, or for that matter, medicine? What about human-computer interfaces? What is your criteria for "junkyness"?
Oh, I forgot you think Climatology and Ecology are junk too.

Hard problems are hard, and the question for any model is not how rigorous it is but how useful it is. Cosmology and String Theory are rigorous mathematical disciplines. That doesn't make them useful or relevant.

Probably sometime after we achieve nigh-biological immortality, neurobiology/psychiatry/psychology will be merged in a more rigorous science. I hope tin foil hats still work!

Much worse than economics, forensics, or for that matter, medicine?

Yes. There's disagreement on this point?

Yes, the entire discipline of psychology is junk science.

You're just saying this because you weren't breastfed as a baby.

I don't know about everything else, but lining up something like economics against psychology as if the former offered some greater level of accuracy is plain hilarious.

There were plenty of communists and Marxists saying it in all Western countries. Especially in academia.

Oh whatever. It's not Communism or Marxism or Fascism or Nazism or Catholicism or Conservatism or Ethicism or Islamism or Capitalism* that's bad and you know it. It's people who do bad things to other people**. If you want to make a global argument that, in general, having ANY IDEOLOGY WHAT SO EVER is unhealthy for society and leads to violent conflict and bloodshed - fine, I won't argue. But seriously your need to defend butchers because they were against other butchers is too much.

How many Commie Academics (or for that matter, Movie producers/actors/writers) went on a pogrom or burned a church? I know lots of communists and ex communists and they hardly even foment revolution. Mostly, like everyone else, they sit around and ##### about stuff they don't like, and waste a few sundays with billboards marching in the streets.

What's sick and twisted is not dumb ideas and bad models of how the world works but rather when people in power - on both sides - suppress free thinking and dissent, by means violent or economic.


* I left off Libertarianism, because at least they believe in leaving people alone -- to a fault.
** Of course, it's not their fault, but societies.

Hard problems are hard, and the question for any model is not how rigorous it is but how useful it is. Cosmology and String Theory are rigorous mathematical disciplines. That doesn't make them useful or relevant.

I agree with this sentiment (although I think rigor and utility tend to correlate). And I'm criticizing psychology because, generally speaking, regardless of rigor, I don't think it is useful. (On the specific topic that CrosbyBird is raising -- rehabilitation, e.g., evaluating chances of recidivism -- there's mucho evidence that it is not, that you'd do just as well flipping a coin.)

I don't know about everything else, but lining up something like economics against psychology as if the former offered some greater level of accuracy is plain hilarious.

Economics is the attempt to hide Jungian collective unconsciousness theorizing behind a sheen of math, to avoid the uncomfortable fact that for the most part, you're doing Jungian collective unconsciousness theorizing.

What's sick and twisted is not dumb ideas and bad models of how the world works but rather when people in power - on both sides - suppress free thinking and dissent, by means violent or economic.

So Nazism isn't that bad as long as it's confined to paper? I'm afraid I can't agree. Ideas matter. People in power are able to enact these philosophies because someone came up with them first. That's not to go all John Lennon and claim that if we imagine there's no ___, then nobody will be mean to anybody else. There will always be hate, greed, and violence. Until Sam Hutcheson is dead, anyway. But what enables people to translate individual acts of violence to organized mass violence is some of the -isms you list.

And I'm criticizing psychology because, generally speaking, regardless of rigor, I don't think it is useful.

I thought he was a Libertarian. When did he become a Scientologist?

I thought he was a Libertarian. When did he become a Scientologist?

A love of Katie Holmes will change a man.

So you don't see the contradiction in having the right to not purchase health insurance, but not having the right to purchase advanced medical techniques to keep yourself healthy?

I fully recognize the contradiction. Under extreme circumstances, peoples' rights may have to be violated. In WWII the US firebombed innocent civilians because it was considered an exigent circumstance. During the Cold War we stood willing to annihilate the planet, b/c it was the only way we could figure to deter Soviet aggression.

The inefficiency of our healthcare system doesn't rise to that level of exigency, as can be seen by the fact that life expectancy goes up every freaking year.

If advanced technology ever would allow people to live to 150 or 200, and that had a hugely negative impact on society, we'd have to stop it, rights be damned. In that extreme condition, I'd support a single payer health system that wouldn't supply such treatments, and a ban on private provision of those treatment.

Oh whatever. It's not Communism or Marxism or Fascism or Nazism or Catholicism or Conservatism or Ethicism or Islamism or Capitalism* that's bad and you know it. It's people who do bad things to other people**.

My point about Communism was meant exclusively to deride the idea of the "inevitably" of a huge longevity gap between rich and poor.

Nothing in human affairs is inevitable.

Speaking of therapy specifically, I believe it helps some people. I also believe that doing X (talking to a close friend; talking to a parent; reading a book on the issue; tackling the problem by deciding to change on one's own; etc.) helps some people.

The problem is I don't see that therapy helps any more than these other things, on balance. It does cost more, though.

Best therapist ever.

So Nazism isn't that bad as long as it's confined to paper? I'm afraid I can't agree. Ideas matter.

What disgusts me is not the same as what hurts me. I know you don't believe in the restriction of dangerous, poisonous, or evil ideas.... so you can stipulate that certain credos/manifestos can be used/abused by people in power. So what. They are neither necessary nor sufficient.

If advanced technology ever would allow people to live to 150 or 200, and that had a hugely negative impact on society, we'd have to stop it, rights be damned. In that extreme condition, I'd support a single payer health system that wouldn't supply such treatments, and a ban on private provision of those treatment.

Aren't we already at that point? Isn't there a negative impact on society because of the amount of folks who are living longer right now?