'Experts'

[1sttruck]

"It shows that the Court is fallible."

You're still hand waving, pointing to two centuries of government, law, rulings, etc., noticing that the court sometimes reverses a previous ruling, and then leaping to the conclusion that the federal government has vastly overstepped it's authority in a vast conspiracy involving all branches of governemnt as well as the states. This is a logical fallcy, as you still haven't filled in the blanks between say step 5 and step 500.

You've made your 'small government ideology' clear, and instead of starting with a specific law with a relevant set of rulings that you have s chance of suggesting are questionsbale you continue to point to all of the government and say that it's all bad. Your dogma is forcing you to run head first into a solid wall, again, and again, and again.....

 

[jmac]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Whether the Supreme Court has overturned a previous ruling is beside the point

No, it is not. It shows that the Court is fallible. How and why the Court decides what it does is important.


Heck, the Court can't even be trusted to be correct in their majority ruling on who the plaintiff was in the case sometimes.

 

[1sttruck]

"Look at the post about the bio-lab safety. I most certainly DON'T want the average person to make those kinds of decisions. Give me the expert please."

You need to match the type of problem with the right type of 'expert'. If it has unclear boundries, seems kind of open ended, unclear cause, etc., then you might be better off with an expert who is less dogmatic. With an established set of procedures over a known set set of circumstances you don't need to be as concerned.

I sometimes tell people that our processes at work don't care where you went to school, what your degree is, how much experience you have, or what your position is, they only respond to rational management and rational problem solving.

 

[TooManyWheels]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"Look at the post about the bio-lab safety. I most certainly DON'T want the average person to make those kinds of decisions. Give me the expert please."

You need to match the type of problem with the right type of 'expert'. If it has unclear boundries, seems kind of open ended, unclear cause, etc., then you might be better off with an expert who is less dogmatic. With an established set of procedures over a known set set of circumstances you don't need to be as concerned.

I sometimes tell people that our processes at work don't care where you went to school, what your degree is, how much experience you have, or what your position is, they only respond to rational management and rational problem solving.


I completely agree about divergent versus convergent problems. The problem is (to make a very sweeping generality) that the degree of discernment about how to think about thinking about those problems is pretty rare, at least in my experience.

To make that kind of decision correctly, the people (the general population) deciding which to employ (committees vs experts) need to have a level of complexity equal to or greater than those who they would choose to engage. Unfortunately, by definition, the average intelligence of the population isn't equal to the above average problems it allowed to ever come into being.

As a side note, the hedgehog and fox descriptions correspond to two broad categories within the Meyers-Briggs personality theory. This is a great example of how people are differentiated by their ways of perceiving and acting upon the world.

 

[1sttruck]

"Unfortunately, by definition, the average intelligence of the population isn't equal to the above average problems it allowed to come into being."

Yeah, and that's why we tend to rely upon regulatory agencies, professional societies, peer reviews, etc., but as we've seen those can be circumvented by political processes so dogma gets implemented instead.

 

[oilyriser]

An interesting thing about the US constitution is a little loophole that lets government do whatever it wants, as long as it can be proven to promote the "common good". And neither term is defined.

 

[Anduril]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
.....The expert on experts is Philip Tetlock, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. His 2005 book, “Expert Political Judgment,” is based on two decades of tracking some 82,000 predictions by 284 experts. The experts’ forecasts were tracked both on the subjects of their specialties and on subjects that they knew little about.

If he, too, is an expert, then why should we believe him?

 

[oilyriser]

I liked what the late Bill Cooper used to say, between rants:

"never believe anything I say until you prove it with your own research"

 

[oilyriser]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Distributed expertise, where everyone makes their own decisions over their own lives, based on a common set of rules of interaction, might work.

EXTREME RADICAL!!

That is the very definition of anarchy - or hardcore libertarianism at the least, for what's it's worth; assuming the "common set of rules of interaction" is established at a community level by direct democracy.


It's actually how Evolution/God has arranged things in our own bodies. Our bodies are made of cells. Each cell knows all the rules for running the whole system. All other creatures use the same method. Why can't it work for a society? We have rules so thick it's physically impossible for any individual to even process a small fraction of it. The result is a system out of control, with the instruction set growing like a cancer, using up all the processing ability of the individuals involved.

 

[Pablo]

Humans have free will. Cells don't. End of analogy.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Cells don't.


Although some academic types are saying electrons do.

 

[oilyriser]

We live on the border between order and chaos, and so do all of our parts, and the systems formed by them, and us.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"It shows that the Court is fallible."

You're still hand waving, pointing to two centuries of government, law, rulings, etc., noticing that the court sometimes reverses a previous ruling, and then leaping to the conclusion that the federal government has vastly overstepped it's authority in a vast conspiracy involving all branches of governemnt as well as the states. This is a logical fallcy, as you still haven't filled in the blanks between say step 5 and step 500.

You've made your 'small government ideology' clear, and instead of starting with a specific law with a relevant set of rulings that you have s chance of suggesting are questionsbale you continue to point to all of the government and say that it's all bad. Your dogma is forcing you to run head first into a solid wall, again, and again, and again.....

In your opinion, does the Supreme Court of the US have the Constitutional authority to use foreign law in determining their decisions? That is a simple yes or no question.

 

[Gary Allan]

One swallow does not the summer make.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
An interesting thing about the US constitution is a little loophole that lets government do whatever it wants, as long as it can be proven to promote the "common good". And neither term is defined.

Those words and others such as "general welfare" are written within the context of the limited, enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government. The 10th Amendment clarifies this well.

You will not find health care, income redistribution, retirement accounts, and give away programs anywhere in the Constitution as these are contrary to individual liberty.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
One swallow does not the summer make.

You are free to answer the question as well, Gary.

 

[1sttruck]

"In your opinion, does the Supreme Court of the US have the Constitutional authority to use foreign law in determining their decisions?"

If the United States sees itself as a nation among others in ths world it is required to do so. This applies to legal precedence, some of which predates the formation of this country, and law regarding lands, treaties, native Americans, commerce, money, etc.

This is obvious, as sections of the Constitution below inidcate.

Is this your 'proof' that the United States government is illegal, that it has vastly overstepped it's authority, and all branches of the government as well as the various states have supported the conspiracy for over two centuries now ? Either come thru with some sort of coherent reply or just forget it.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
You will not find health care, income redistribution, retirement accounts, and give away programs anywhere in the Constitution as these are contrary to individual liberty.


Nor does it include provisions for the Air Force. Should we dismantle it since it's not specifically mentioned?

Now I know that you're conforming to the letter of the constitution by being a full card carrying member of a well organized militia ..but will accept the flawed ruling of the same defective Supreme Court when it ruled that this extended to those not so organized in their right to own firearms.

Our do you support ONLY those being part of an organized militia having that right?

 

[jmac]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
You will not find health care, income redistribution, retirement accounts, and give away programs anywhere in the Constitution as these are contrary to individual liberty.


Nor does it include provisions for the Air Force. Should we dismantle it since it's not specifically mentioned?

Now I know that you're conforming to the letter of the constitution by being a full card carrying member of a well organized militia ..but will accept the flawed ruling of the same defective Supreme Court when it ruled that this extended to those not so organized in their right to own firearms.

Our do you support ONLY those being part of an organized militia having that right?


1. The right to keep and bear arms existed prior to the Second Amendment. This right had many facets, including both self-defense and common defense (i.e. militia service). There is no reason to understand the right as being only limited to self-defense or only limited to militia service. 2. The Constitution gave Congress the power to "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia..." 3. The Second Amendment was drafted because people were concerned that this Constitutional power could be misused to disarm the militia. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." 4. Regardless of the particular reason for enumerating it, the Second Amendment did not confer, create, expand or narrow any rights. Instead it prohibited the abridgment the of an existing right--"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 5. The right to keep and bear arms, including both its self-defense and militia-service elements, remains a right retained by the people. (See the Tenth Amendment.) 6. The fact that the Second Amendment includes the particular reason for enumerating the right it in the Bill of Rights should not be construed as creating a substantive limit on that right. (See the Ninth Amendment.) 7. Judge Posner is fundamentally mistaken in his conclusion that--instead of this being a preexisting right which the people retained--this a "right that the second clause confers on the 'people.'" His entire analysis is based on this incorrect premise. 8. At the state level, the right to keep and bear arms--not limited to militia service--was commonly understood at the time of its ratification to be one of the privileges and immunities of citizens that was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Regardless of the particular reason for enumerating it, the Second Amendment did not confer, create, expand or narrow any rights.


So you say. While I agree with you, it's only opinion sustained by consensus. That is, accepted as "taken for granted" and not specified in the text itself.

Hence, when consensus dictates that the confines of the text need massaging to be practical, it's done.

It's only when that consensus falls out of YOUR view that you protest that massaging.

That about it?