Robert Baratheon

Michael, I didn't make any sweeping statements about the types of people who become arbitrators. I know full well there are a wide variety of people who enter that profession. I made an informed statement about the way the arbitration system functions in the United States under the law. Beyond that, I explained specifically why the outcome of the U.S. arbitration system can be no other than it is. Will you acknowledge that's a bit different than claiming all lawyers are reprehensible people?

It's foolish to make sweeping statements about a profession with millions of people in it. Enough said.

The snake has served as a symbol of healing and rebirth far longer than Christians have used it as a symbol for evil. It's almost as if such symbolism is completely arbitrary! As the 10-year caretaker of a very gentle python that has never harmed anybody, this is a deeply PERSONAL issue for me.

It's also unclear why he feels snakes are "deceitful" and "deceptive" more than any other animal.

I respectfully disagree - there are major problems with arbitration. Arbitrators are agreed upon (either directly or indirectly through a process of elimination) by the parties based on how favorably each side believes the arbitrator will rule. The sides look up earlier decisions of the arbitrator or published statistics and eliminate anyone they feel is likely to rule against them. This appears to be making the process more "objective," but in reality it favors arbitrators who rule down the middle ("split the baby") all of the time without regard for principle. The reality of the judicial system is that most cases aren't close on the merits and don't call for a middle solution. A truly impartial judge is free to dismiss frivolous claims or rule wholly for one side or the other, but an arbitrator who depends upon repeat business is forced to reach an unnatural compromise position or face the inevitable reality of never being selected again. This is how public unions are routinely awarded raises their citites cannot afford through arbitration - the city brings an offer of 0% on the basis they are broke, the unions ask for the moon, and the arbitrator comes down in the middle with a 3-10% raise. In the employment context, arbitration results in employees who can't be fired, even for egregious infractions, because the middle position is always reinstatement with some minor penalty or loss of backpay.

I was going to full-court-press Greg on completely avoiding the substance of my post, but the idea of him accosting his clients with a lengthy values questionnaire is such a funny image that I'll just let it linger for a while.

Oh really, Greg? You don't pay anyone for their labor, or exchange your labor for payment with anyone who doesn't share 100% of your moral values? Then logically you must be a subsistence farmer, buy nothing from stores, perform all of your own services, and generate all of your own heat and electricity. Do you really expect us to believe that, or would you care to revise your absolutist statement a bit?

One issue you might explore is that some of the most repressive countries in the world have a Constitution and Bill of Rights very similar to ours. Obviously, culture, history, and civic involvement play key roles in determining whether limits on government are taken seriously or whether they are just so many words on paper.

Michael, Not for nothing, but working under Sunstein doesn't mean I admired the man. Not everybody likes their employer, or all of their customers for that matter.

For all the brilliance and insights of the framers, they failed to recognize the potential for government to expand its boundaries and weaken restrictions on its power over time. I don't blame them for their failing; there is no way in 1790 they could have foreseen the growth of a massive fourth branch of government - the unelected and unaccountable administrative state. They also could not have appreciated the potential for state governments to expand in size and authority and become tyrannies in themselves. In the founding era, the only recognizable threat was concentrated federal power. I'm a proponent of decentralized knowledge and consumer choice, so the idea of states as laboratories is appealing to me. However, we don't want the mad scientists in our more progressive states getting too crazy experimenting on our citizenry, so it's necessary to establish some floor of inalienable rights that cannot be violated by any state. My regret is the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution generally, isn't stronger and more explicit on what government may not do (or become for that matter). We've seen how something as seemingly straightforward as the Commerce Clause can be warped beyond all recognition through incrementalist encroachment until it becomes a de facto general policing power for the U.S. Congress.

I ask a clarifying question and my comment gets sent to purgatory?

No. The U.S. military is more powerful, and Americans wouldn't tolerate a Chinese presence here.

I've never seen a blog make a "like" or rating system work.

Rules number 1 and 2 are straightforward (in fact they're the same rule) and I have no issue abiding by them. Your house, your rules, as you've made abundantly clear. Rule number 3 is the real head-scratcher for me because, as much as I'd like to shake hands and be done with the whole thing, what constitutes a "power game" remains so ill-defined in this context that I can't offer a good-faith commitment unless there is some clarification of what I'm binding myself to. For example, Is trying to influence somebody's opinion a "power game"? Is questioning a tenet of Objectivism a "power game"? It's just not clear to me at what point eliciting a response or reaction becomes "power game" behavior. I will agree to any given point you specify, but I just don't know what that point is right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/health/affluenza-youth/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 While I was visiting my wife at the superwealthy household I described earlier, their 17-year-old son answered the door to find a pizza delivery man standing before him. The boy took the pizzas and closed the door behind him. My wife took him aside later and explained that somebody has to PAY for the pizzas that appear at the residence.

If the Chinese were maneuvering their warship in the Gulf of Mexico, I hope we'd initiate a standoff with them as well.

Michael, I have some thoughts on that, but I don't know how I can respond in a way that will survive moderation. If you give me some rules or guidelines for posting I can abide by them, but I'm flying in the dark at the moment.

Michael, I'm not looking to control Greg. In fact, I'm convinced Greg is in a mental place where he can no longer be influenced by anything we say to him. You seem to be viewing this as a strength of character - being immune to any "control" behavior - but I view Greg's unplugging of himself from external logic sources as a serious long-term liability. The way I put it to SB privately is Greg has shut off the learning parts of his brain so his ideas are no longer being checked or reigned in by any objective reality. The callous lack of empathy he displays toward victims of attacks, combined with his puzzling inability to recognize the randomness and vicissitudes in all of our lives, should be setting off tripwires and lighting up the intuitive defenses in our monkey brains like a Christmas tree. Something is not *right* here, and I think that's what is causing the harsh responses in this forum, not any kind of resentment. It's like a case of someone hearing voices from God; the fact that the voices haven't suggested harming anyone is little consolation when confronted with a decision of whether to trust such a person.

To be fair to Greg, Kacy takes it one step to far by deducing a justification of assaults on other people from Greg's morality. Greg is clear in his message that those who assault others are evil - he just also believes the recipients had it coming. I do want people to be accurately represented. Michael, poke fun all you want, but there is something fundamentally unhinged about believing the 9/11 victims deserved to die for their vulnerability or evil thoughts. It's not Greg's specific ideas that are the danger per se, it's his mode of thinking. To take one example, I wouldn't allow Greg to babysit my children, and if you would be comfortable doing so, I'm wondering why your emotional-intelligence sirens aren't going off, as ours all are.

Michael - I'm not fully convinced of your impression that Greg is content to live and let live. He posts here for a reason (having repeated this pattern on many other forums), and we know it's not to check his own premises, in light of his acknowledgement that he holds a fundamentalist philosophy that cannot be logically challenged or disproved. Your assumption that the forum attacks him because it seeks control raises the question of why Rand felt so threatened by religion or those who claim A=B, even when they otherwise go about their business. I think her response might be that there are dangerous implications in the ideas themselves that strike at the foundation of a functioning moral society. In other words, Greg hasn't overtly aggressed against anyone here, but we sense a greater disturbance in Greg's "force" all the same. Train this boy, the Jedi Council shall not.

Kacy, Greg has explained that he doesn't use banks and anyone who does use them... well, you can probably figure out the rest based on his responses. I liked your 9/11 example better because it's purer and gets straight to the heart of the issue - no additional examples necessary. The gaping hole in his framework is its requirement of perfect knowledge. You are correct in your conclusion - Greg believes every victim on 9/11 deserved what they got. What type of a person believes that? Well, you can draw your conclusions there as well.

Kacy, Greg describes himself as a fundamentalist.

There is no such thing as a "victim" in Greg's personal religion.

Yes, I recall the conversation, and I made him aware of the Microaggressions website privately.

"Microagression usually involves demeaning implications and other subtle insults against minorities, and may be perpetrated against those due to gender, sexual orientation, and ability status. According to Pierce, “the chief vehicle for proracist behaviors are microaggressions. These are subtle, stunning, often automatic, and nonverbal exchanges which are ‘put-downs’ of blacks by offenders”." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression