What Niall Ferguson left out: Human rights with Marlene

My voice and noise on subprime bank regulations: What Niall Ferguson left out: "What Niall Ferguson left out
Niall Ferguson in “Civilization: The West and the Rest” argues that the west's ascendancy, is based on six "killer apps": competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the work ethic. Those are indeed ingredients, but unfortunately he misses the willingness to take risks... the oxygen of development.
Perhaps he does not remember psalms calling out “God make us daring”… and that is why he fails to understand how the bank regulators, with their stupid nanny-scared capital requirements, based on doubling the importance of ex-ante perceived risk, are now slowly but surely taking the Western World down.
Ps. Here’s a link to… Who did the eurozone in? http://bit.ly/t3mQe0 and as you will read, it really was the butlers… and here´s also a video that explains a fraction of the stupidity of our bank regulations, in an apolitical red and blue! http://bit.ly/mQIHoi"

(from LinkedIn http://lnkd.in/9qvnNj )
Human Rights  
Here's the problem: No one has defined human rights. Or, more correctly, there are too many definitions of human rights.
Is there a fixed list? Or are human rights emergent? (developing as technology, philosophy, and civilization develop?)
Even if there were a universally (or at least world wide) definition of human rights, who's going to enforce them? If the answer is governments, then we have a problem. What governments define is civil rights - rights defined under law.- and that becomes problematic. There is no higher civil power than government defined law, right?

So first we need a list of human rights.
The UN has one, but it keeps growing. Access to the Internet has become a human right according to the UN.
FDR put one together that extended the US Bill of Rights. It looks like the list of all the topics under attack in political debate.
Is there a list that can be acceptable to most, if not all?

Are human rights emergent?
If we assume human rights are emergent, then we don't need a complete list. We still need compliance.

There is no way to enforce human rights on individuals in one-on-one or one-on-many situations.
Your discussion of nurture vs nature begins here.
For example, if we assume human rights are enforced by nurture - which would include humans rights emergent with technology, philosophy and civilization - then how long will it take to nurture a generation that understands human rights? Based on recent events, there's been no such nurturing so far. You're talking about starting a whole generation - not just part, but whole - on a very different child development concept.

If that's not difficult enough, assume human rights are enforced by nature. Here you're not talking about training just one generation, but possibly many.

How many generations does it take before someone recognizes natural human rights?

Based on history, it took about 98,250 years for someone to even declare there were inalienable rights endowed by a creator.
Of course, now we have to figure out for everyone if there was a creator.

Nurture or nature?
Whether assumed to be either nature or nurture, or some combination, human rights are still emergent as technology and the shared understanding of human rights is defined. New human rights are defined based on previous human rights.

For example, if we assume - as has been declared by the UN - that the Internet is a basic human right, then we must assume access to some sort of connection - wireless or wired - and some source of energy are also human rights.

The human right to self-rule was such an emergent human right. It emerged as a reaction to monarchies and merchants, and the declarations of the Reformation, as the Enlightenment.
At one time it would have been considered a human right to have a king, for example, along with an aristocracy and nobility.

Many of the human or civil rights we think of as "natural" to day were really emergent rights.
Property rights, for example, is the basis of all economies today. But it wasn't always true.
While it makes easy logic to understand how a king can own or rule everything within the borders of his/her kingdom, the idea of individuals owning small parcels has always been problematic.
As the American Indians will tell you, the idea that a man can own the land is ridiculous.

Governments and emergent human rights
In order to have property rights, you have to have some form of government.

It was the rise in the financial power of mercantilism and banking during the 10th to 14th centuries that provoked the emergent right to property. These classes became more wealthy than the kingdoms. Their wealth put the kingdoms in the position of having to ask these classes to finance state functions, such as wars.

It was the emergence of the new social technologies of trade and banking the kingdoms had to deal with.

In the UK and Australia today, it's still true officially that the king or queen actually owns and rules over all the land. Land ownership is only a grant that can be withdrawn at any time.

Even in supposedly capitalist countries, the government defines limits to property ownership. Taxes are the way governments assert their control, and can reclaim ownership. There are mineral and air rights defined that can limit the individuals' ownership.

Yet merchants and banks can't exist unless some government(s) defines money.

And then there's the media...
Allen Funt, host of a popular show, Candid Camera, was once asked what was the most disturbing thing he had learned about people in his years of dealing with them through the media. His response was chilling in its ramifications:

"The worst thing, and I see it over and over, is how easily people can be
led by any kind of authority figure, or even the most minimal kinds of authority.
A well dressed man walks up the down escalator and most people will turn
around and try desperately to go up also...
We put up a sign on the road, 'Delaware Closed Today'. Motorists didn't
even question it. Instead they asked: 'Is Jersey open?'"

'via Blog this'

Time or Understanding

Marlene,
(taken from a LinkedIn discussion on the White House group http://lnkd.in/9qvnNj )

How many ways has this been said? And by how many people? Is the answer simply reflection? Or is it some structural change?

Your post refers to the Moral Molecule, psychopaths and sociopaths. The references discuss all of those topics along with narcissism.
The problem is two fold:
 ♦ The words psychopath, sociopath and narcissist are meaningless buzzwords to most people.
 The terms are understood to be negative, somehow, but what do they really mean? Or do they all mean the same thing? Do the terms describe different aspects of the same mental disorder? -- Because most people cannot answer these questions, the terms drift into cognitive dissonance.
 ♦ Is there enough time to make the changes that seem necessary?

Over 35 years ago, I submitted an essay to my teachers relating the fact that people think in dichotomies and models. I was just a high school student in a small California high school.

Essentially, the paper said people's perceptions are not one-sided. For every Yes, there's a No; for every black, a white. I argued that language tended to describe only one side of a discussion without becoming bogged down, overwhelmed by volume, and was inadequate to describe the whole meaning of an issue as the author or speaker perceived it.
I put forward the idea that the real meaning of any words required some statement about the perspective and experience relating to the development of the topics and ideas discussed in order to understand the dichotomies involved.

The most controversial idea in the essay was the people do say what they mean. In fact, because there is always a dichotomy involved, the apparent meaning has both meanings: affirmation and the opposite.

Therefore, people often say one thing and do another, but it's unfair to expect anything different.
I went on to say that people form models from these dichotomies that are applied to other issues. In order to understand a person's words, it was necessary to understand the models they had formed.

You can imagine how my high school literature teacher, who was teaching from Shakespeare's plays, reacted.

What I didn't realize is I was talking about aspects of pathological thinking; that the models became ideologies which serve to allow the person to place any sense of conscience into mental bins of denial or cognitive dissonance. In effect, the person is training themselves into mental illness.
We call that training personality.

We admire those who walk the talk because it is rare.
Most people say one thing, or many things, charming and evocatively, but will do something anathema to their words. It's not just individuals. It's groups and parties and nations that do the same thing.
It's human nature.

 Game theory offers an interesting insight. (from a link off the pages you refer to)
 ◄In short, in this game, the government always does better by not being ethical and we can predict the government's choice of strategy because there is a single strategy - no ethics - that is better for the government no matter what choice the public makes. This is a "strictly dominant strategy," or a strategy that is the best choice for the player no matter what choices are made by the other player.

What is even worse is the fact that the public is PENALIZED for behaving ethically. Since we know that the government, in the above regime, will never behave ethically because it is the dominant strategy, we find that ethical behavior on the part of the public actually costs MORE than unethical behavior.◄
Official Culture - A Natural State of Psychopathy?
 by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
 http://bit.ly/rQmYce

 The concepts are not new. They go back to the beginnings of civilization.
◄(T)he warnings of Innanni (Ishtar) from ancient Suma, 5500 years ago.
 ====
 (T)he goddess Innanna brought the arts of civilization from the god of wisdom, Enku Eridu, like a Pandora's box
 Here were the delights of society exquisite craftsmanship, beautiful clothes, the arts of sex and music, But civilization has a darker side. said Enki, which has to be accepted along with the good. There is the art of being mighty; the art of being kind; the art of straightforwardness; the art of deceit; the art of kingship, justice, and the enduring crown; the resounding note of a musical instrument; the rejoicing of the harp; the kindling of strife; the plundering of cities; the setting off of lamentations.

Fear, pity, terror - all this is civilization, said the god of wisdom. All this I give you. And you must take it all with no argument. And once taken, you cannot give it back. ◄

 This is from TechRepublic today.
 ◄That’s why the premise of The Sociopath Next Door, a book by Martha Stout, gives me the major creeps. Stout claims that as many as 4% of the population are conscienceless sociopaths who have no empathy or affectionate feelings for humans or animals. Sociopaths (or the more politically correct term, someone with antisocial personality disorder) show a lack of regret in their actions, with a common trait being the violation of the rights of others.

This book was brought to my attention by a friend of mine in response to my telling her about one of my son’s friends being bullied at work by her boss. I don’t know if Stout’s 4% metric is accurate but I know that I hear an awful lot from readers of this blog who are dealing with bosses that I believe could be characterized as sociopaths.◄
Your boss could be a sociopath. No, really.
 TechRepublic
 http://tek.io/uGQvGi

 ♦Evil Genes 
It's not just the 4% who have the sociopath gene that's the real problem. It's the fact that people have learned the advantages of this model of behavior, and train themselves to it.

We call these people 'leaders', 'visionaries', and 'professionals'. Subject the concept of professional to the merest scrutiny and you can see the concept is sociopathic. In fact, narcissistic.

In short, we reward and admire most in our society that learn to lie best: lawyers, actors, and salespeople. 

Based on the reception my essay got and the 5500-year old warning from Ishtar, is it realistic to assume there is time to make the changes you propose?

From the LI White House forum, Prayer Group

Heavenly Father. Please hear our prayers.
We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs from under Thy table.
But Thou art the same Lord whose policy is always to have mercy. Have Mercy on us, Oh Lord, for we are sorely troubled and deeply afraid.

We do not know the world as You see it; nor America; nor even ourselves. We do not know our hearts, our souls, even our minds, as You see them.

We cannot pretend our understanding of the world around us is adequate to the tasks before us. Without Your guidance and help, the world we deal with is beyond even the greatest of us.

 We know that all the peoples of the world are Your Children. We beseech You, Heavenly Father, to help us find courage in the words of Your Son, Jesus Christ, to always remember that.

We seek, and strive, and stumble. more than anything else, Oh Lord, we seek to follow the teachings and examples of Your Son, Jesus Christ, and are always wanting.

There are a few things that we see. Although we understand Your vision is much broader, we can only ask for those things we can understand.

Heavenly Father, guide us by Your Grace and Mercy, that we may find common ground with each other- within our country, and with all of Your Children.

There are too many who seek to find only fear and hatred, division and discontent. They seek power more than love. Do not turn Your eyes from them, Heavenly Father. They are not that different from any one of us.

Come to them, Oh Lord, and take the scales away; take the motes and the logs from their eyes, -- and ours.
If any of us can be the instrument of peace, let us find the modesty and humility to serve you.

Let us all find mercy in each other. Let us find the courage to be gentle with our neighbors, whether avowed friend or avowed enemy, or whatever. For as we are gentle with them, they may be gentle with us; and we may both find redemption in the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.

 And especially find our besieged President, Barack Obama, in these difficult and confusing times. Grant him wisdom and courage, Heavenly Father, that he may lead our great nation into the future. Heavenly Father,
grant him a voice that he may convey the joy of Your wisdom to all Americans.

These things we ask, Heavenly Father, in the name of Your Son, Jesus Christ, Our Lord. These few things are what we see, Heavenly Father. We know that Your Vision is much greater. We must trust in You, and Jesus
Christ, Your Son.

 As always, Heavenly Father, we place ourselves in Your Hands. As always, we know that Your policy is always to have mercy. Have mercy on us, Heavenly Father, for we are oppressed and angered with each other. We greet each other not in peace and courage, but in rancor and fear.
With each word, we know we are wrong. But we are afraid and lonely. Take us where You will, Heavenly Father, and we will find the Faith to follow. We will find the courage.

We place ourselves in Your Hands. In this we pray, in the name of Jesus Christ, Our Lord.

Amen

A New Testament?

(from LinkedIn, White House forum discussion)
There is more than adequate evidence to support the existence of King David and Solomon, and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Both were conquered repeatedly and recorded.
The lost years of Jesus are a subject for an interesting debate, especially when you consider some of the writings from Jesus brother about his childhood and adolescence. The young carpenter may have gone to India and learned from the Buddhists.

I think your point about Moses may have some credence. Jesus was not shy in demonstrating his disgust for certain practices of society and its leaders. But that insight only emphasizes the reason Jesus and the New Testament are a change from the Old Testament.
Moses (and the brutal, self-centered Kings) were fulfilling an earlier, brutal covenant to provide the Israelites with land and a homeland.

Genocide, mass murder, and slavery were all part of the social order in those days. If you think about it, we have not removed these elements from modern society. They still exist. Modern society at least identifies and condemns such practices. -- That fact is at least in part because of the influence of Jesus and Christianity.

Jesus stepped forward to say here is a different, less brutal, empathetic way of life. And he was crucified for it.
Simple logic applied at that point - the very Roman purpose - would make anyone wonder why Christianity ever grew. But the reason was as simple as the Arab Spring.

Neuroscience finally supports the power and importance of empathy in society. Slowly we are learning how civilization and culture abuse empathy this powerful emotive force. The greatest of lies is that culture requires power and force.
Like a new science, the structures of society, culture, and civilization come open raw under the new light. The power of empathy far exceeds every other force. When all the decoration, grandeur and weapons are gone, there will still be people banding together to learn and live.

This is the deeper truth to Christianity, IMO.
Christ truly defines a new covenant. One that is obviously misunderstood by many; and abused by many others as a reason for un-Christian acts. It is a new covenant with ourselves, others, civilization and perhaps nature itself.

If we were to follow Christ's teachings, we may finally be free of the warnings of Innanni (Ishtar) from ancient Suma, 5500 years ago.
====
(T)he goddess Innanna brought the arts of civilization from the god of wisdom, Enku Eridu, like a Pandora's box
Here were the delights of society exquisite craftsmanship, beautiful clothes, the arts of sex and music,
But civilization has a darker side. said Enki, which has to be accepted along with the good. There is the art of being mighty; the art of being kind; the art of straightforwardness; the art of deceit; the art of kingship, justice, and the enduring crown; the resounding note of a musical instrument; the rejoicing of the harp; the kindling of strife; the plundering of cities; the setting off of lamentations.

Fear, pity, terror - all this is civilization, said the god of wisdom. All this I give you. And you must take it all with no argument. And once taken, you cannot give it back.
===

Generosity without Affluence, and Butterflies

There are many of us who would like to see things change. The vexing question comes down to How? and Where to begin?
Or, to put it another way, Where do we find the butterfly to bring on the tsunami?

I know that people can be generous even when they have very little. That was the paradigm of life for vast numbers of Americans during the years of the Great Depression. My parents showed me innumerable examples when I was growing up.

I live in a country now, Australia, that takes national pride in its generosity towards others. I will not say it is perfect, since they have some of the same problems as the US with mental illness, aging, and disability. But the national heritage is to help each other.
It's something I no longer see in America, and it saddens me.

Constitutional Limits of Representation

The most important issue never resolved was the issue of fairness. In particular, the discussion of fairness was cut short by the imposition of ideology - mostly on constitutional terms.

In these ideological debates, a great deal is made of the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the first 10 Amendments, but very little attention if paid to the intrinsic wisdom in other areas.

If you step back from the Constitution and look at it as a system of governance, not government, much of the ideological barricading is quickly lost. 

Testing, pedagogy, andragogy and beyond

(Like many of my posts here, this is taken from forums. This one comes from a LinkedIn forum called The Economy, under the thread 'There must be a fairly simple some way to regulate a fundamentally capitalist economy .." in response to Brian Miller, who started the thread.)


@Brian
I agree with everything in your post with the exception of these two sentences.

>> I propose teachers be compensated based on a track record of consistent excellence. The yardstick for excellence would be state-wide or nation-wide standardized test performance, adjusted for variations ini the overall performance in a given school district.<<

As one of those who excels at testing, I'm almost speaking against my peers here - and, I imagine most of the participants in this forum.
There is no doubt there is a place for testing. There is a core of knowledge necessary to continue education and to function in modern society. I would argue that this core knowledge should be taught and tested from a vocational perspective, where the teacher is required to assure the students learn the material. Largely, you're describing this vocational perspective.

Generalized testing is just that: generalized. The term describes about 40% of the population. Bringing only 40% of the population to a level of testable competence can not be considered a successful strategy.
Language skills required by all testing become problematic. The testing includes language skills, yet language skills are required to do the tests. That reasoning is circular and false prima facia.

Milton Freidman on Hong Kong

It's interesting that Milton Freidman is often cited by proponents of free markets. Friedman often conveniently overlooked facts, unfortunately. Here is an excerpt from the Aisan Correspondent about Hong Kong.

>So determined was Friedman to defend his rosy version of Hong Kong’s economy, which he attributed to its 1960s Financial Secretary John Cowperthwaite, that just weeks before his death he claimed to be seeing state intervention that it “would no longer be such a shining example of economic freedom”.


At one time 60 percent of the people lived in subsidized housing, mostly rented cheaply from the government, and some in Home Ownership Scheme flats, provided with cheap land and sold to lower-middle-income households. Even now that public housing has low priority and the home ownership scheme has ended, some 50 percent of the people still benefit from this massive intervention in the marketplace.

The intervention also partly accounts for the low apparent ratio of spending to gross domestic product. If the cost of the subsidized housing land were accounted for at market prices in the government budget, the ratio would be significantly higher.

Hong Kong people have also enjoyed almost free medical treatment at government clinics and hospitals. Friedman was against “free” medicine elsewhere but failed to notice it in Hong Kong. Likewise, education, at least up to the secondary level has long been almost entirely funded by the government.

In the days when Friedman was writing his praises for Hong Kong, the territory also had a relatively youthful workforce compared with western countries and thus less need for spending on pensions and help for the aged.

Nor did Hong Kong have to spend anything significant on external security, the responsibility of London and now Beijing.

Friedman could actually have helped Hong Kong if he had criticized rather than ignored the excesses of these interventions in the marketplace. They had originally been spurred by fears of social unrest as the then-colony attempted to absorb waves of migrants from the mainland with nowhere but squatter huts to live.

It was necessary intervention in the marketplace. The government’s lack of ideological commitment to laisser faire was summed up by Cowperthaite’s successor, Philip Haddon-Cave, as “positive non-interventionism.” This bit of semantic gobbledegook essentially meant that it preferred not to intervene but had a paternal duty to do so on occasion.

Hong Kong’s problem now is that policy change has not kept pace with changing economic and social circumstances. It is hooked on high land prices for the private sector as a revenue-raising measure, which leaves a large proportion of the public trapped in the subsidized housing sector.<

Paul

David Suzuki from the Weekend Australian

"Today, there are corporations that are bigger than many governments in the world. They may produce something we need, make something very useful, but they exist to make money, and all kinds of things happen in the name of money."

"Follow the money trail and it is crystal clear that corporations and rich neo-conservatives are funding a campaign that is what I call an inter-generational crime in the name of profit now. In the name of short-term profit they are knowingly leaving enormous problems for all future generations."
* avowed atheist and award-winning scientist David Suzuki

Paul

Humans

I've always been fascinated by the idea that human beings became the dominant species.

Based on Darwinian theory, we shouldn't be.

We are not the strongest or the fastest. We have no natural protection from the elements.
In any climate, we require some sort of covering for our hairless bodies. We are not naturally camouflaged. Our faces and skin shines in the night. Our eyesight and hearing are not superior to most other animals.
We cannot swim without a lot of effort. Nature has given us no special advantage in the water.