Michael Egnor, brain surgeon and Discovery Institute shill, has weighed in on the discussion of whether Intelligent Design is creationism. As low as my expectations are when this man puts pen to parchment, he managed to surprise me yet again with a new level of inanity here at the misnamed "Evolution News and Views", a site for ID syncopants to take turns pretending they know more about biology than biologists, despite none of them doing any science.
In this article, Egnor misses the point of Mike Dunford's article here that discusses the dishonest nature of the ID movement Wedge Document (it's creationism with the overt religious references removed to attempt to pass legal challenge), and instead tries to defend Denyse O'Leary's contention that ID is not creationism:
"Intelligent design is the theory that some aspects of living things are more reasonably explained as the product of intelligent design rather than as the product of random variation. It’s a scientific inference, open to evidence, and it might be right or wrong. Creationism is the belief in the literal truth of the Bible, particularly in the Book of Genesis. It’s a religious inference, and creationists believe it cannot be wrong."
That's all well and good, until one pays attention to what IDers actually do rather than taking them at their word for what they claim they do. Then it becomes clear that the only reason IDers make the claims they do is because they believe in the Biblical creator. This is why an overwhelming proportion of IDers are fundamentalist Christians.
There is nothing scientific about their approach. They make no falsifiable predictions, nor do they perform any falsifiable experimentation, nor do they publish in the peer-reviewed literature. So the claim of being open to evidence is empty at best, dishonest at worst. They ignore the criticisms of their positions, such as the fact that . Most glaringly unscientific, they place any questions about their hypothesized designer as off limits. One is not ALLOWED to ask about it - how it works, where it came from, what its origins are, etc. Try imagining scientists discovering an artifact that was clearly deposited by aliens declaring that no one is allowed to ask those questions. The reason they declare these questions off limits is obvious: their designer is the Christian God, and they are trying to hide that fact. The only difference in approach between traditional creationists and IDers is honesty, as Dunford rightly points out.
Not content with that misrepresantation, Egnor defends IDers against Dunford's accusations of being anti-education with the "scientific" method of IDers: MSU - making shit up:
"Most intelligent design advocates are teachers — science professors in universities — and it’s fair to say that most are parents with children in the public schools."
Egnor needs to stop playing with his anesthesia machine. As Project Steve makes abundantly clear, the vast majority of scientists and science educators oppose ID/creationism. If most ID advocates are science professors, then ID's ranks must be small indeed.
"We have a huge stake in good science education, and we believe that the problems with Darwin’s theory should be openly and honestly discussed in public schools. The overwhelming majority of Americans support open discussion of Darwin’s theory in schools."
No they don't. The results of various self-serving surveys notwithstanding, the IDers have lost most of the battles on school boards and curricula whenever the agenda of the school board in question comes to light. Dover was the rule, not the exception.
And if the IDers are so concerned with a scientific discussion of the problems with evolutionary theory, why don't they submit their theses to the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Why attempt the battles in backwoods school districts instead? Simple: the more ignorant the audience, the better their chances of success, and they know it.
Egnor then goes on to a bizarre line of reasoning, even by his standards:
"Given that 80% of Americans reject the strict Darwinist interpretation of human origins, the current system of 'good science education' fails by the Darwinists’ own standards.
How many people accept modern evolutionary theory depends on how the question is asked. The more overtly belief in gods is depicted as being in conflict with evolution, the more people reject it. But so what? If 99% of students reject a science, that doesn't mean the answer is to teach pseudoscience! The answer is better science education. It is highly ironic that those like Egnor that work so hard to water down science education would then lay the blame on the student's confusion on someone else.
"Dunford and his colleagues in the evolutionary-thought-police have enjoyed a federally enforced monopoly on biology education for 50 years. It's a federal crime to question Darwin's theory in a public school."
Classic MSU. There is nothing preventing students from asking questions about science, and indeed, most scientists would argue that encouraging students to approach science critically is highly important. What federal law disallows is allowing religious material like ID to bypass the scientific process and be introduced in science class as science.
"Yet they have convinced less than 20% of their students of the validity of their science. What would we say about the didactic skills of physics teachers who, after 50 years of a monopoly on classroom instruction, only got 20% of students to accept Newton's second law?"
Interesting that Egnor chooses Newton's theories of motion, which were supplanted by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Care to guess which would win at the polls of students? Newtons's, by a long shot. Ditto with quantum physics. 20% of the population thinks the sun revolves around the earth. Is Egnor's proposal to fix these problems to stop teaching relativity and quantum physics, and to give equal time to geocentrism?
Egnor then goes on to completely misunderstand Dunford's accusation of dishonesty with regard to IDer's religion and its basis for their beliefs:
"I deeply resent that assertion. I’m a faithful Catholic, I’m devoted to Christ and to the Church, and I attend Mass daily if I can. My faith in God is of central importance in my life. I recognize that much of God's work is beyond my ability to discern or to understand, and there's no a priori reason that I would expect to be able to discern it in biology."
But that is exactly what you are doing Dr. Egnor: assuming a priori that you can discern the design of your god from the designs of nature. That is the ID you push in a nutshell.
"Neither am I dishonest about my scientific beliefs. I believe that the scientific evidence clearly supports the inference that some aspects of living things (e.g. the genetic code, intracellular molecular nanotechnology) are best explained scientifically as the products of intelligent design. The only way that my religious beliefs influence my scientific beliefs is that as a Christian, I accept the possibility of intelligent design if that's what the scientific evidence suggests.
Wrong. You have no scientific evidence of ID, yet you believe anyway. Where are the ID papers published in the scientific literature? Dembski's explanatory filter, which supposedly can seperate designed items from undesigned ones, would be of great interest to archaeologists, SETI, and forensic scientists. Yet there is none, because it hasn't been subjected to the slightest test or rigorous definition within the mathematical and information theory communities.
"Unlike atheists, I don't restrict scientific explanations to strict materialistic causes if the evidence suggests otherwise."
This is both a lie and a straw man. First, most of the people opposing ID are NOT atheists. Most people have no trouble reconciling their religious views with science. Second, atheist scientists are interested in evidence, period. The reject ID/creationism because there is no evidence supporting it.
Finally, Egnor finishes with a bit of projection, another IDer favorite:
There's clear evidence for design in biology. Dunford’s paranoid style is increasingly a staple of Darwinist rhetoric. They don’t have the evidence to support their theory, so all they can do is accuse those of us who question dogmatic Darwinism of conspiring to “destroy good science education for every child in the public schools of America” and of lying about our faith. Much of Darwinist rhetoric isn’t scientific at all; it’s ad hominem attacks and conspiracy mongering. Darwinists will do anything to avoid debating the science.
Riiiiiiiight. That's why all those scientists (calling them "Darwinists" is Egnor's way of trying to poison the well by implying science is a religion) are debating evolutionary theory every day in the literature: is sexual selection more powerful than natural selection? How prominent a role does evo-devo play? Does all life have a common ancestor, or are multiple trees more likely? IDers have nothing to say on these subjects. Instead they sit on the sidelines muttering "Nuh UH!" and "We knew it would turn out that way" while the scientists actually do the science. It isn't an ad hominem to bring the truth of the Wedge Document to bear on ID and to expose it for the political anti-science movement it is, and those like Dunford who call them out on their dishonesty are right on target.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
New Fossil Finds Confirm what we already knew: Reporters foul up the science again!
New fossils have been found suggesting that Homo erectus and Homo habilis, both thought to be ancestors of modern humans, coexisted for about 1.5 million years. This is interesting news, but it does not carry the implications claimed by Seth Borenstein claims in his AP story on the find. Instead, he inadvertently promotes some common misconceptions about evolutionary theory:
"Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved...it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man."
Far from being surprising, this is old news to scientists, who have long known that the prefect progression shown in common illustrations was overly simplistic. Dead end lineages have long been known, such as the Robustus line, that branched off the line that led to us and died off. The ladder-of-progress symbol of constantly improving evolution is an unfortunate side effect of the belief by some that evolution was a guided process with man as the intended end product. Fortunately a scientist is interviewed and sets the record straight:
"That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team."
But Borenstein doesn't stop there, and promotes another fallacy of evolution with a quote from study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London:
"It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter"
Um, no it isn't. This is a variant of the "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" nonsense. After all, we descended both from our grandmothers and our great grandmothers, so it wouldn't change anything to find they coexisted for a time. I would hope this quote was either somehow taken out of context, or there was some addition information missing from this report that would make it make more sense, because as it stands it looks like a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
It is no wonder evolutionary theory is so poorly understood by the general public when this is how science is reported.
"Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved...it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man."
Far from being surprising, this is old news to scientists, who have long known that the prefect progression shown in common illustrations was overly simplistic. Dead end lineages have long been known, such as the Robustus line, that branched off the line that led to us and died off. The ladder-of-progress symbol of constantly improving evolution is an unfortunate side effect of the belief by some that evolution was a guided process with man as the intended end product. Fortunately a scientist is interviewed and sets the record straight:
"That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team."
But Borenstein doesn't stop there, and promotes another fallacy of evolution with a quote from study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London:
"It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter"
Um, no it isn't. This is a variant of the "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" nonsense. After all, we descended both from our grandmothers and our great grandmothers, so it wouldn't change anything to find they coexisted for a time. I would hope this quote was either somehow taken out of context, or there was some addition information missing from this report that would make it make more sense, because as it stands it looks like a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
It is no wonder evolutionary theory is so poorly understood by the general public when this is how science is reported.
Calling all Homophobes: Gay Mice for You
For all you homophobes out there, check out this article documenting the changes in sexual orientation of mice based on changes in their pheromones.
Mike at Denialism Blog has a nice summary with some more details on the findings. The bottom line is that yet another real-world claim by the theocratic family values people, this time the idea that homosexuality is a choice, turns out to be flat wrong...again.
Mike at Denialism Blog has a nice summary with some more details on the findings. The bottom line is that yet another real-world claim by the theocratic family values people, this time the idea that homosexuality is a choice, turns out to be flat wrong...again.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Eagle Eats Bambi
For Exhibit A on the argument that prey animals should not run in a straight line, consider this video of an eagle taking down a deer. Is it me or does the eagle try to take off with the deer and crash land because of the weight?
Monday, August 6, 2007
A Thought Experiment illustrating the nonrandomness of Evolution
Over at Pandas a common legitimate question was asked about evolution:
"How can an organism respond to a certain stimulus in a certain way without having a concept of that stimulus to begin with?" .
The short answer is that those that dealt with the stimulus best produced more of themselves than those that didn't. If that doesn't help matters, try this mind experiment:
Imagine a robot in the center of simple right-angled two dimensional maze. Assume the robot does the following:
0)Follows a preexisting program if there is one, otherwise
1)Chooses a direction at random (forward, left, or right)
2)Records that choice
3)Moves in that direction to the next intersection in the maze
4)Replicates itself twice
5)Repeat from 1)
Assume two things about the maze:
1)If a robot lands on an intersection that does not lead to the exit, it is destroyed.
2)When a robot makes it out of the maze, the recorded sequence is made into a preexisting program, and the robot turns off.
Now, given enough time, one of the robots will make it out of the maze. Does the robot have any concept of a maze? No, it does not. And yet we could say the robot "knows" the maze, because if we replace it at the starting position and run the same program, it will make it out with no errors. This is a simplified, but reasonable, analogy with how evolution works.
Now the IDer/creationists look at something like this and respond with "But, but, but intelligence was required to write the program!". True, but irrelevant. That criticism would only be valid if the program gave the solution to the maze, and it doesn't. The IDer/creationist's want to claim that complex solutions to complex problems can't arise from simple unintelligent instructions.
This shows they can. "Walk at random and record that action" could hardly be called intelligent. Without the selection process of the maze destroying robots that choose the wrong path, it wouldn't produce anything intelligent (and notice what it produces is different with different mazes). That's the step the IDer/creationists always leave out. Yes, Hoyle's 747 is constructed in the junkyard, but it replicates itself each time a correct piece is added, and the "planes" with incorrect parts crash and burn. That makes all the difference.
"How can an organism respond to a certain stimulus in a certain way without having a concept of that stimulus to begin with?" .
The short answer is that those that dealt with the stimulus best produced more of themselves than those that didn't. If that doesn't help matters, try this mind experiment:
Imagine a robot in the center of simple right-angled two dimensional maze. Assume the robot does the following:
0)Follows a preexisting program if there is one, otherwise
1)Chooses a direction at random (forward, left, or right)
2)Records that choice
3)Moves in that direction to the next intersection in the maze
4)Replicates itself twice
5)Repeat from 1)
Assume two things about the maze:
1)If a robot lands on an intersection that does not lead to the exit, it is destroyed.
2)When a robot makes it out of the maze, the recorded sequence is made into a preexisting program, and the robot turns off.
Now, given enough time, one of the robots will make it out of the maze. Does the robot have any concept of a maze? No, it does not. And yet we could say the robot "knows" the maze, because if we replace it at the starting position and run the same program, it will make it out with no errors. This is a simplified, but reasonable, analogy with how evolution works.
Now the IDer/creationists look at something like this and respond with "But, but, but intelligence was required to write the program!". True, but irrelevant. That criticism would only be valid if the program gave the solution to the maze, and it doesn't. The IDer/creationist's want to claim that complex solutions to complex problems can't arise from simple unintelligent instructions.
This shows they can. "Walk at random and record that action" could hardly be called intelligent. Without the selection process of the maze destroying robots that choose the wrong path, it wouldn't produce anything intelligent (and notice what it produces is different with different mazes). That's the step the IDer/creationists always leave out. Yes, Hoyle's 747 is constructed in the junkyard, but it replicates itself each time a correct piece is added, and the "planes" with incorrect parts crash and burn. That makes all the difference.
Hawk vs Rabbit, and the value of randomness
If you have ever wondered about why flies, june bugs, and a host of other prey animals move in apparently erratic patterns, have a look at this video of a rabbit evading a hawk. Moving in a smooth predictable pattern means certain death from the much faster hawk. The rabbit's only chance is a series of moves that would make Barry Sanders proud. Evolution can create the strangest, most counterintuitive things.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Jonah Goldberg and the Limited Vote
Over at Townhall, Jonah Goldberg has an excellent article on the forbidden topic of all forbidden topics. Kiddie porn? Eugenics? Nefarious NBA referees? Criticisms of religion? Well, that last one is getting close: restricting who can vote.
Any suggestion of such a thing is liable to bring back images of poll taxes and discrimination to keep "them" from voting. Such a reaction, in Goldberg's view, and mine as well, throws the baby out with the bathwater.
"A very high percentage of the U.S. electorate isn't very well qualified to vote, if by 'qualified' you mean having a basic understanding of our government, its functions and its challenges. Almost half of the American public doesn't know that each state gets two senators. More than two-thirds can't explain the gist of what the Food and Drug Administration does.
Now, the point isn't to say that the American people are stupid, which is the typical knee-jerk reaction of self-absorbed political junkies. Rather, it's that millions of Americans just don't care about politics, much the same way that I don't care about cricket: They think it's boring...
And yet, to suggest that maybe some people just shouldn't vote is considered the height of un-Americanism. As economist Bryan Caplan notes in his bracing new book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter," there are few subjects on which Americans are more dogmatic and ideological.
Indeed. This is especially surprising given the fact, as Goldberg notes, that we already limit who can vote. Children are excluded, as are the felonious. And yet the idea that the more people who vote, the better off we will be, has become a secular religion not to be questioned, but to be taken on faith, despite any evidence to the contrary:
"The evidence is that if every eligible voter voted, national elections would probably remain unchanged. 'Simply put,' political scientists Benjamin Highton and Raymond Wolfinger wrote in a 2001 article, 'The Political Implications of Higher Turnout,' U.S. 'voters' preferences differ minimally from those of all citizens; outcomes would not change if everyone voted.'"
This rings true to this actuary's ears. The only way more voters would change the results of the elections is if the sample of people voting now are dramatically different from everyone else in terms of political preferences. I've never seen any data to support that, and yet every few years the get-out-the-vote crew is out there chanting it as if it were as solid a fact as the roundness of the earth. Some have even gone so far as to suggest making voting a paying lottery, or even making it mandatory. Interesting that they would bring up a lottery, because from an entirely short-term self-interested POV, it is more logical to buy a lottery ticket than it is to vote: it costs less (if you count the value of time), is more likely to change the outcome, and brings greater rewards of being "right". If we are to increase voter participation, appealing to monetary self-interest is not the way to go.
But back to the unquestioned premise - why? I am reminded of one of those interviews with "undecided voters" during the presidential campaign of 2000, an event I encourage anyone doubting the wisdom of my and Goldberg's view to witness first hand. It can be quite illuminating. In this case, George Bush had been asked about all the millions of uninsured (relative to health care) people in the country, and his answer was (paraphrasing from memory):
"Many of those people are very young, and have limited funds, and have decided voluntarily that it is in their interests to spend their money on other things rather than health care."
The point here is not to lobby for or against that view, but just to note what he actually said. Yet, one of the undecided voters claimed he said this:
"Young people don't need health insurance"
Now, one does not have to be an anarchist to understand that the nation is not better off having such ignorant people voting. Goldberg sums it up this way:
"So, maybe, just maybe, we have our priorities wrong. Perhaps cheapening the vote by requiring little more than an active pulse (Chicago famously waives this rule) has turned it into something many people don't value. Maybe the emphasis on getting more people to vote has dumbed down our democracy by pushing participation onto people uninterested in such things. Maybe our society would be healthier if politicians aimed higher than the lowest common denominator. Maybe the people who don't know the first thing about how our system works aren't the folks who should be driving our politics, just as people who don't know how to drive shouldn't have a driver's license. "
I can't improve on that. What I think I can improve on is the solution. Goldberg suggests a test on basic government function. I think this would fail for a couple of reasons:
1) The danger of the poll tax experience should not be dismissed lightly. Any test is going to carry the bias of the testmaker, and in cases where one party has a lot of control, that gives one more advantage to incumbancy, and they already have enough thank you.
2) It will be a simple thing for the get-out-the-vote crowd to find out what the questions are, and prep the people they drive to the booths. I can see the scene now in the van, as the undecided voters are told the names of their representatives, for the first time and to be remembered for exactly 90 minutes, that they have two senators, and that Supreme Court justices cannot be voted out of office.
My proposal is considerably more radical, but addresses the problem more directly and neutrally. First, take a cue from Florida, who inadvertantly did it right in 2000. Make the ballot complicated. Design it so that it cannot be filled out correctly without a grasp of logic and the English language. Reject all ballots filled out incorrectly.
Second, heed DeTocqueville's words:
"Democracy can survive only so long as it takes the electorate to realize their vote carries the key to the treasury."
IOW, once everyone starts voting solely on perceived financial interests, rather than by any solid philosophical underpinnings of what government should do and how, then it just becomes mob rule, with everyone wanting to vote themselves more of other people's money, and the Democracy dies. I think we are on the cusp of that transition now, and the answer is strikeingly simple, yet politically suicidal: remove the right to vote from anyone who receives more in government transfer payments than they pay in taxes. Put simply, if you do not contribute to the national GDP pie, you don't get a say in how it is divided. Seems fairly straghtforward and just, but any politician who suggested such a thing assures his own destruction because of four letters: AARP.
I'll leave the details of that aspect of it for another post. In the meantime, consider Goldberg's argument. I think it is a good one, and one we should act on soon.
Any suggestion of such a thing is liable to bring back images of poll taxes and discrimination to keep "them" from voting. Such a reaction, in Goldberg's view, and mine as well, throws the baby out with the bathwater.
"A very high percentage of the U.S. electorate isn't very well qualified to vote, if by 'qualified' you mean having a basic understanding of our government, its functions and its challenges. Almost half of the American public doesn't know that each state gets two senators. More than two-thirds can't explain the gist of what the Food and Drug Administration does.
Now, the point isn't to say that the American people are stupid, which is the typical knee-jerk reaction of self-absorbed political junkies. Rather, it's that millions of Americans just don't care about politics, much the same way that I don't care about cricket: They think it's boring...
And yet, to suggest that maybe some people just shouldn't vote is considered the height of un-Americanism. As economist Bryan Caplan notes in his bracing new book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter," there are few subjects on which Americans are more dogmatic and ideological.
Indeed. This is especially surprising given the fact, as Goldberg notes, that we already limit who can vote. Children are excluded, as are the felonious. And yet the idea that the more people who vote, the better off we will be, has become a secular religion not to be questioned, but to be taken on faith, despite any evidence to the contrary:
"The evidence is that if every eligible voter voted, national elections would probably remain unchanged. 'Simply put,' political scientists Benjamin Highton and Raymond Wolfinger wrote in a 2001 article, 'The Political Implications of Higher Turnout,' U.S. 'voters' preferences differ minimally from those of all citizens; outcomes would not change if everyone voted.'"
This rings true to this actuary's ears. The only way more voters would change the results of the elections is if the sample of people voting now are dramatically different from everyone else in terms of political preferences. I've never seen any data to support that, and yet every few years the get-out-the-vote crew is out there chanting it as if it were as solid a fact as the roundness of the earth. Some have even gone so far as to suggest making voting a paying lottery, or even making it mandatory. Interesting that they would bring up a lottery, because from an entirely short-term self-interested POV, it is more logical to buy a lottery ticket than it is to vote: it costs less (if you count the value of time), is more likely to change the outcome, and brings greater rewards of being "right". If we are to increase voter participation, appealing to monetary self-interest is not the way to go.
But back to the unquestioned premise - why? I am reminded of one of those interviews with "undecided voters" during the presidential campaign of 2000, an event I encourage anyone doubting the wisdom of my and Goldberg's view to witness first hand. It can be quite illuminating. In this case, George Bush had been asked about all the millions of uninsured (relative to health care) people in the country, and his answer was (paraphrasing from memory):
"Many of those people are very young, and have limited funds, and have decided voluntarily that it is in their interests to spend their money on other things rather than health care."
The point here is not to lobby for or against that view, but just to note what he actually said. Yet, one of the undecided voters claimed he said this:
"Young people don't need health insurance"
Now, one does not have to be an anarchist to understand that the nation is not better off having such ignorant people voting. Goldberg sums it up this way:
"So, maybe, just maybe, we have our priorities wrong. Perhaps cheapening the vote by requiring little more than an active pulse (Chicago famously waives this rule) has turned it into something many people don't value. Maybe the emphasis on getting more people to vote has dumbed down our democracy by pushing participation onto people uninterested in such things. Maybe our society would be healthier if politicians aimed higher than the lowest common denominator. Maybe the people who don't know the first thing about how our system works aren't the folks who should be driving our politics, just as people who don't know how to drive shouldn't have a driver's license. "
I can't improve on that. What I think I can improve on is the solution. Goldberg suggests a test on basic government function. I think this would fail for a couple of reasons:
1) The danger of the poll tax experience should not be dismissed lightly. Any test is going to carry the bias of the testmaker, and in cases where one party has a lot of control, that gives one more advantage to incumbancy, and they already have enough thank you.
2) It will be a simple thing for the get-out-the-vote crowd to find out what the questions are, and prep the people they drive to the booths. I can see the scene now in the van, as the undecided voters are told the names of their representatives, for the first time and to be remembered for exactly 90 minutes, that they have two senators, and that Supreme Court justices cannot be voted out of office.
My proposal is considerably more radical, but addresses the problem more directly and neutrally. First, take a cue from Florida, who inadvertantly did it right in 2000. Make the ballot complicated. Design it so that it cannot be filled out correctly without a grasp of logic and the English language. Reject all ballots filled out incorrectly.
Second, heed DeTocqueville's words:
"Democracy can survive only so long as it takes the electorate to realize their vote carries the key to the treasury."
IOW, once everyone starts voting solely on perceived financial interests, rather than by any solid philosophical underpinnings of what government should do and how, then it just becomes mob rule, with everyone wanting to vote themselves more of other people's money, and the Democracy dies. I think we are on the cusp of that transition now, and the answer is strikeingly simple, yet politically suicidal: remove the right to vote from anyone who receives more in government transfer payments than they pay in taxes. Put simply, if you do not contribute to the national GDP pie, you don't get a say in how it is divided. Seems fairly straghtforward and just, but any politician who suggested such a thing assures his own destruction because of four letters: AARP.
I'll leave the details of that aspect of it for another post. In the meantime, consider Goldberg's argument. I think it is a good one, and one we should act on soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
