The Fourth GOP Debate: Sounding a Small Techno-Future Note


Recommended Posts

The Fourth GOP Debate: Sounding a Small Techno-Future Note

By Edward Hudgins

November 11, 2015 -- The fourth GOP presidential primary debate is worth noting in part because Marco Rubio sounded a note on the topic of our techno-future, which should be a central theme for all the candidates. Sadly, the note did not grow into a symphony.

Marco Rubio: minimum wage means minimum jobs

Rubio observed that “If you raise the minimum wage, you're going to make people more expensive than a machine. And that means all this automation that's replacing jobs and people right now is only going to be accelerated.” Putting aside for the moment the ambiguous meaning of the word “replacing,” let’s note that it is best for businesses to decide how many humans versus machines to employ based on free-market prices rather than on prices distorted by governments. When governments drive up the cost to employ workers, fewer workers will be employed.

The line for which Rubio got the most attention concerning jobs was, “I don't know why we have stigmatized vocational education. Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers.” Given that authoritarian, anti-reason leftist philosophers dominate academia, the fewer of them warping the minds of young people the better. But what is needed is philosophers who promote freedom and reason.

Rubio and economic transformation

Rubio later picked up an aspect of our techno-future when he noted that “We are living through a massive economic transformation. . . . This economy is nothing like what it was like five years ago, not to mention 15 or 20 years ago. And it isn't just a different economy. It's changing faster than ever. . . . It took the telephone 75 years to reach 100 million users. It took Candy Crush one year to reach some 100 million users.... (Read further.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Techno-future" as a central campaign theme? Ed, are you completely delusional?

How about freedom?

How about WAR?

How about the economy?

How about gross government malfeasance?

The techno-future is already on us in a rush, but the proper President is the top cop foreign and domestic and, in today's world, is supposed to get the monstrosity of Leviathan off the backs of the citizenry.

--Brant

patty cake, patty cake--

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how about protecting this great country from the overseas vermin, bent on destroying us?

-J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Techno-future, yes! This is the positive vision of the world as it can be and should be, a vision that should excite and inspire people on the one hand and, on the other, infuriate them because politicians are robbing them of that future. Freedom is always "about" something, about what we want to do and to have. And to have a prosperous, fantastic, non-fiction future save for politicians getting in the way can strongly motivate individuals to fight for freedom as well as its moral prerequisites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how about protecting this great country from the overseas vermin, bent on destroying us?

-J

Vermin. When I call them something like that, that's hate speech and bigotry. Okay maybe it's not their fault that they are vermin; they are victims of their religion. If they can be rescued from their religion, maybe they can become powerful allies against it. Ali Sina is a case in point.

The most powerful single weapon against Islam is to tell the truth about it. But it is difficult to tell the truth about Islam in a politically correct way. It is difficult to tell the truth about Islam without mentioning in passing that it is evil.

How is it possible to win a war against an enemy that you are not allowed to say anything bad about? I guess to call Islam an enemy would be politically incorrect and hate speech and bigotry. So how do you go about winning a war against Islam in a politically correct way? Like you are fighting a war against something that is not an enemy.

If the truth about Islam could be told, straight out of the Koran where Muhammad proves by his own words that he is a dirty rotten slimy [..insert whatever bad thing you can think of..], maybe that would be enough; maybe war would be unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Techno-future, yes! This is the positive vision of the world as it can be and should be, a vision that should excite and inspire people on the one hand and, on the other, infuriate them because politicians are robbing them of that future. Freedom is always "about" something, about what we want to do and to have. And to have a prosperous, fantastic, non-fiction future save for politicians getting in the way can strongly motivate individuals to fight for freedom as well as its moral prerequisites.

Thanks for hitting the Turbo button, Ed. That's exponentially better.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Muslim political state is a religious state de jure and because of that it must because of its particular doctrines periodically degenerate into effective fascism. (This is overly simple.)

In today's world a Christian state is not a religious state making it secular de jure. It can't fight other religions for that contradicts secularity. That's why very religious President Bush the Younger could not fight a religious war with United States assets. So he called it a "war on terror" and invaded two countries. He lacked the ideological knowledge that illustrated that as a strategic mistake for that kind of war can never end. He needed to declare war on fascism--fascism at home and fascism abroad that didn't keep it in house. That would have educated the Muslims that their religion was safe if they got rid of their fascism. Then they would find freedom injected into their bones, albeit over generations.

And we could have had a splendud war!

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom is always "about" something

If Ed wrote it, I'm agin it. Freedom is about limiting government power, period.

You're both right and you're both wrong. Ed has the productive side and you have the protective side. So it's neither "always" nor "period."

--Brant

but Ed, the President presidency is on Wolf's side--forgive me Wolf--mine too, so you're outvoted 2 to 1 as my original criticism still stands proud though battered a little

Link to post
Share on other sites

JTS said "Vermin. When I call them something like that, that's hate speech and bigotry. Okay maybe it's not their fault that they are vermin; they are victims of their religion"

Considering many of them actually enjoy beheading women & children, I'd say I was being quite reserved in calling them vermin.

Hate? yes. I remember seeing the vermin dancing in the streets of Iran as the Twin Towers fell.

-J

Link to post
Share on other sites

JTS said "Vermin. When I call them something like that, that's hate speech and bigotry. Okay maybe it's not their fault that they are vermin; they are victims of their religion"

Considering many of them actually enjoy beheading women & children, I'd say I was being quite reserved in calling them vermin.

Hate? yes. I remember seeing the vermin dancing in the streets of Iran as the Twin Towers fell.

You hate them, they hate you. Let's find out why [Wikipedia snippets]

By the mid-1930s, Reza Shah's rule had caused intense dissatisfaction to the Shi'a clergy throughout Iran. In 1935, a backlash erupted in the Mashed shrine. Responding to a cleric who denounced the Shah's "heretical" innovations, corruption and heavy consumer taxes, many bazaaris and villagers took refuge in the shrine, chanting slogans... The standoff was ended when troops from Iranian Azerbaijan arrived and broke into the shrine, killing dozens and injuring hundreds, and marking a final rupture between Shi'ite clergy and the Shah. The Shah intensified his controversial changes following the incident, banning the chador and ordering all citizens – rich and poor – to bring their wives to public functions without head coverings.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power during World War II after Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized, under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, until a US and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms.

With a pro-Western Shah and the new pro-Western Prime Minister, Fazlollah Zahedi, Iranian oil began flowing again and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954, tried to return to its old position. However, public opinion was so opposed that the new government could not permit it.

Under pressure from the United States, British Petroleum were forced to accept membership in a consortium of companies which would bring Iranian oil back on the international market. It was incorporated in London in 1954 as a holding company called Iranian Oil Participants Ltd (IOP). The founding members of IOP included British Petroleum (40%), Gulf Oil (8%), Royal Dutch Shell (14%), and Compagnie Française des Pétroles (later Total S.A., 6%). The four Aramco partners—Standard Oil of California (SoCal, later Chevron), Standard Oil of New Jersey (later Exxon), Standard Oil Co. of New York (later Mobil, then ExxonMobil), and Texaco—each held an 8% stake in the holding company.

This group of companies at various stages came to be known as the Supermajors or the "Seven Sisters" or the "Consortium for Iran" cartel and dominated the global petroleum industry from the mid-1940s to the 1970s.

[end Wikipedia snippets]

Slave wages, bribery, invasion, abdication and coup d'etat implemented Winston Churchill's campaign to convert the British Navy from coal to oil, by obtaining a secure British-owned monopoly of oil in Persia [The Fateful Plunge]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant - Not sure how your original criticism is in fundamental conflict with what I wrote. I never said freedom is not important; indeed, I've promoted it for decades along with its moral foundations. And in this piece I highlight what's at stake and suggest that this is a crucial way to promote and excite people about the importance as well as the moral nature of freedom in a country where so many people are comfortable with limits on their liberty and government taking care of them. freedom. I end my piece with "policymakers of whatever party must get out of the way and allow individuals and new technologies to flourish in freedom."

And in many other pieces posted on these pages I've argued that a good way make Millennials--who are cynical about so much but who love technology and want to start the next Facebook, Apple, or Uber--advocates of individual liberty is by focusing on the potential for a fantastic, non-fiction future. This approach also highlights the centrality of reason and achievement. Simply standing on a streetcorner or in the blogosphere repeating the word "freedom" over and over hasn't worked as well as we'd like.

As I posted elsewhere, just in the past few days we have a story of "Algae engineered to kill cancer cells & leave healthy cells unharmed." http://www.sciencealert.com/algae-has...

And here's another one one on "Scientists breached blood-brain barrier for 1st time to treat a brain tumour." http://www.sciencealert.com/scientist... This is important also because it opens the way both for nanotech and chemical cures for brain ailments.

These are achievements that should be trumpeted and celebrated. It's this vision of the world as it can be and should be that candidates should hold up as our possible future if the country remains free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, you want a candidate with a Reaganesque vision. Fine. He is not running. Long term that positivity will win out--for the billions of people who are alive today all over the world albeit with exceptions unless there is the horrific natural disaster of an asteroid deciding to kiss the planet. This will not change even if the United States is destroyed. No one, however, is running for President of the World--except some radical environmentalists or some stupid European ruling elite. They should be running for the United States not to be destroyed and protected from its enemies and do not know it. I don't think you know it either. Everything is the same. Work, eat and pray. Then everything is different. Pray, pray, pray--if you are still alive. (Some are running for war here, there, everywhere [Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the South China Sea]--who knows? All at once? Glory! Wait! The United States strides the world, rules the world as its greatest power on land, sea and air [and outer space].) The worst effective insanity is generated by cowardice, ignorance and denial. That's what caused World War Two.

--Brant (the fanatic)

who is your candidate--Rubio?--I don't have one; it might be Trump (but such a wild card!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll look. Yup, all authors on government payrolls. What's the fascination with cancer cures, Ed? Lemme see if I understand the pitch to Millennials. Young people are going to get old and sick, very very soon, so we need higher taxes to find a cure for brain cancer. We also need to explore Jupiter's moons, send people to Mars, subsidize high speed rail between Fresno and Merced, repair or replace a couple thousand bridges and dams, and do something about Detroit. Oh, shit, I forgot -- Amtrak needs Positive Train Control.

 

150513071502-amtrak-train-derail-thumbna

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant - War, bad world, blah, blah, blah. Okay, but I'm not sure where you contradict my points.

In any case, I like Rand Paul but don't think he'll win. The GOP will probably get a Rubio or Cruz, maybe Fiorina as VP. Trump would be bad in any case. If he doesn't win in the general election, we have Pres. Hillary. If he does win, his policies in many cases are wrong and the adverse consequences would be fast in coming. Looking for a path forward, I would hope a Republican president, other than Trump or Carson, would give priority to domestic issues where their policies are far better than the status quo.

What would really constitute fundamental change in the long run is if a president made crippling the current crony system, which is supported by Republicans and Democrats, a priority. Fiorina was harping on this idea before she jumped into the race, so maybe she as VP could head up that effort. (Of historic interest: Under the generally awful Bush Sr., the Council on Competitiveness under VP Quayle actually did important work on deregulation and market liberalization. Too bad Sr. didn't make that a priority rather than raising taxes and slapping on new environmental regulations.)

And, of course, a GOP president would do well to offer the optimistic vision of the world as it can be and should be that will to attract and inspire folks, especially young people, and counter the pessimism of the culture, paternalism of the Democrats, and generally old man grumpiness, "Get off my lawn you kids" kvetching of some libertarians and conservatives, some found--shockingly!--even on this very website!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Rubio is the real leader now insofar as projecting the winner.

I can't translate "blah, blah, blah" beyond that's your not caring for what I said.

I didn't contradict your points. I merely pointed to points you did not make.

--Brant

old man gumpiness is old man value--for whomever

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom is always "about" something

If Ed wrote it, I'm agin it. Freedom is about limiting government power, period.

Well, directly yes. Indirectly and all-inclusively, freedom is to be free of other people.

Government is a man made idea, men-operated and men-elected, its power lies in the bulk of the people.

It is their power one has to be free of, thus individual rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just not into establishment Republicans supported by hidden Super PAC money. Especially Rubio, who runs on one policy, then does another once elected (gang of eight, anyone?).

What establishment Republicans say and what they do is always different. Always. And we keep falling for it over and over. (Ronald Reagan was slightly different, but he was more of an outsider than a backroom boy and that was his saving grace.)

I'm not swallowing the deception game this time around.

I'm with Trump.

:)

Trump does what he says. And when there is a difference, usually because he says something bad, what he does leaves great traces on our planet. Some of the most iconic real estate in existence, and it's all over the world. That's been his history so far.

Trump does not make war profits. He makes profits from stuff that people actually use to make their lives better. Including clothing, entertainment and a whole slew of things.

I operate from the principle that when there is a difference between what someone says and what they do, what they normally do will be the better indicator of what they will do in the future.

Buy politicians? That's what he's done, so OK. There's that argument.

But tell the truth about it? That's what he's done, too, so there's that argument, too.

I like what Trump has done more than I like what the other candidates have done. I think as president, any one of them will do more of what they have already done.

And Rubio has betrayed campaign promises in seeking power right out of the gate. I have a feeling I know what he will do if he ever becomes president.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now