Gee, so passionate and so petty. Portraying "capitalism" and "socialism" as some sort of either/or, binary, Manichean distinction is so last-century. And equating "capitalism" with "meritocracy" is at best a horrid over-simplification.
(See the book "The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?")
Appreciate the review. Your ethical and legal theories seem a bit underbaked. For ex., I don't think you mean "ethical realism". And consider the worth or value of a life—you seem to me to conflate its price or cost, under simplifying utilitarian assumptions, with its worth, which is a question of values. Likewise, it's at best circular to identify the most valuable things as those for which people are paid the most–your chosen examples (like health) ignore effects like Baumol and public choice and agency costs, and you ignore seemingly valueless things that are highly-compensated (Tulip-manias etc.), and anyway not all that is valued can be priced.
That you're a crude consequentialist is ironic given you spend so much time tilting against Marxists and their ilk, who tend to be crude consequentialists who are convinced that equity is the true summum bonum.
Emil, what do you consider the best career choices for the IQ range you and (most) of your readers are in. I'd say that in general, you are in the +1 to almost but not quite +2SD range(would like to be corrected if you have tests of course). So not stupid enough too be happy with menial tasks but also not smart enough to be a groundbreaking or for that matter even successful researcher/engineering innovator/creator. I would guess a lot of people reading this would identify with this subgroup on the IQ scale, we've seen it in other rationalist communities. What's the best suited for this type of ability?
"murderers bad; philanthropists good"
But for real ... are murderers *actually* worse than philanthropists? :-P
https://im1776.com/2021/11/16/lets-be-uncharitable/
Gee, so passionate and so petty. Portraying "capitalism" and "socialism" as some sort of either/or, binary, Manichean distinction is so last-century. And equating "capitalism" with "meritocracy" is at best a horrid over-simplification.
(See the book "The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?")
Appreciate the review. Your ethical and legal theories seem a bit underbaked. For ex., I don't think you mean "ethical realism". And consider the worth or value of a life—you seem to me to conflate its price or cost, under simplifying utilitarian assumptions, with its worth, which is a question of values. Likewise, it's at best circular to identify the most valuable things as those for which people are paid the most–your chosen examples (like health) ignore effects like Baumol and public choice and agency costs, and you ignore seemingly valueless things that are highly-compensated (Tulip-manias etc.), and anyway not all that is valued can be priced.
That you're a crude consequentialist is ironic given you spend so much time tilting against Marxists and their ilk, who tend to be crude consequentialists who are convinced that equity is the true summum bonum.
Emil, what do you consider the best career choices for the IQ range you and (most) of your readers are in. I'd say that in general, you are in the +1 to almost but not quite +2SD range(would like to be corrected if you have tests of course). So not stupid enough too be happy with menial tasks but also not smart enough to be a groundbreaking or for that matter even successful researcher/engineering innovator/creator. I would guess a lot of people reading this would identify with this subgroup on the IQ scale, we've seen it in other rationalist communities. What's the best suited for this type of ability?