David Brubeck has Died.

[Diogenes]

Don't know how many jazz fans are out there in TalkPolywell land, but I am certainly one of them.


Dave Brubeck, legend who helped define jazz, dies

The pianist and composer behind the group, Brubeck died Wednesday of heart failure at a hospital in Norwalk, Conn. He was a day shy of his 92nd birthday.

I felt this quote was germane to many discussions on this website.



"Jazz is about freedom within discipline," he said in a 2005 interview with The Associated Press. "Usually a dictatorship like in Russia and Germany will prevent jazz from being played because it just seemed to represent freedom, democracy and the United States.

"Many people don't understand how disciplined you have to be to play jazz. ... And that is really the idea of democracy — freedom within the Constitution or discipline. You don't just get out there and do anything you want."





The Dave Brubeck Quartet - Take Five (live 1961)





http://news.yahoo.com/dave-brubeck-lege ... 45267.html

[MSimon]

I turned #3 son on to Brubeck when he had just taken up the drums. About age 13. He loved/loves the time changes on "Take Five." He teaches drums and also has a nice EE job. He designs vacuum furnace controls.

[MSimon]

People get self discipline from making mistakes. The more paternalistic the system the worse for the inhabitants thereof.

We are lucky to have two paternalistic parties in America.

Ever notice how neither party rolls back the work of the other?

[kurt9]

Speaking of paternalism, Robin Hansen did a convincing defense of it on his blog "Overcoming Bias". His argument is that benevolent paternalism exists to protect your self from your present self.

Fair enough.

However, my experience with paternalism, at least from the perspective of being involved in life extension and cryonics, is that much of it is devoted to actually killing your future self.

This can be described as malevolent paternalism.

[MSimon]

Malevolent paternalism.

Feature or bug?

[Blankbeard]

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/10/p ... t-you.html

I see where he's coming from. I think that argument has a few problems.

kurt9 has pointed out the elephant in the room. Most who seek power over others do so because exercising power fulfill their own needs.

Edit: removed unneeded "either"

Even if you believe that a paternalist has your future self's best interests at heart, are they likely to know what those interests are? In my experience, the person who has had the best knowledge of my current interests has been my past self. Thus, my current self is more aware of the interests of my future self than any paternalist is likely to be. Even if my discount rate is higher, how can we be sure that the paternalists lower discount rate balances out his lower amount of knowledge?

I think the biggest problem is that paternalism is based on the idea that people are incompetent to manage their own affairs. Thus the paternalist takes on your affairs as their own. However, if paternalism is correct, the paternalist is incompetent to manage his own affairs. Given the history of paternalism, I'd say that's about correct.

[mvanwink5]

BB, there is a more fundamental problem and that is all value is subjective (valuation varies with time place, person, circumstances, etc), there is no objective value. We reveal our valuations by the choices we make ourselves. If we are not the ones making the choices then how can anyone know what our interests are much less our best interest?

Without objective value central planning is impossible.

[rjaypeters]

Back to Jazz:

Well, I, for one, am shocked! shocked! Diogenes promotes this hedonistic, sensual, long-known-to-be-associated-with-dissolute-living form of barely-recognizable music known as jazz.

Doesn't he know those musician types were and are in the forefront of drug use and culture? Shocked, I tell you!

[Blankbeard]

BB, there is a more fundamental problem and that is all value is subjective (valuation varies with time place, person, circumstances, etc), there is no objective value. We reveal our valuations by the choices we make ourselves. If we are not the ones making the choices then how can anyone know what our interests are much less our best interest?

I'm no fan of central planning, but I'm not convinced this is right. For instance, I could reveal my interests to someone. Investment bankers, trainers, life coaches work this way. We can also use statistics and observation to close in on a person's values. This works best with widely shared values. We can also use common sense. You're more likely to appreciate an intervention that increases your well-being than one that decreases it. None of these methods are perfect of course.

Without objective value central planning is impossible.

Again, I'm not sure I agree. Various limited forms of central planning do work reasonably well. Most businesses employ central planning. Also families and community groups are often centrally planned. The key seems to be to either be remarkably focused in controlling only a very small range of behaviors or to limit wide ranging control to a very small group of (willing) people. This is not an argument for society wide central planning which remains as ineffective as ever.

On the subject of jazz, I'd note that in the other thread Diogenes refused to concede a difference between persuasion and coercion, so I'm not surprised he doesn't see a difference between working within a self-imposed framework of limitations and being forced to live subject to arbitrary rule.

[MSimon]

Back to Jazz:

Well, I, for one, am shocked! shocked! Diogenes promotes this hedonistic, sensual, long-known-to-be-associated-with-dissolute-living form of barely-recognizable music known as jazz.

Doesn't he know those musician types were and are in the forefront of drug use and culture? Shocked, I tell you!

This.

[mvanwink5]

Blankbeard,
"but I'm not convinced this is right."
It is at the heart of Austrian economics. Theory of value being subjective does not mean arbitrary. Rather than poorly reinventing the wheel, here is a fairy good and short article on value:
http://mises.org/daily/6001/The-Measurement-Chimera

Best regards

[Diogenes]

People get self discipline from making mistakes. The more paternalistic the system the worse for the inhabitants thereof.

The sort of mistakes you make when you play with dynamite do not provide any useful life lessons. You don't usually survive the first one.

We are lucky to have two paternalistic parties in America.

Ever notice how neither party rolls back the work of the other?

As neither one is based on any real guiding principle beyond the belief that they need to have power and control, why would you expect them to do anything outside of their primary goal?

[Diogenes]

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/10/p ... t-you.html

I see where he's coming from. I think that argument has a few problems.

kurt9 has pointed out the elephant in the room. Most who seek power over others do so because exercising power fulfill their own needs.

To most of you libertarian types, the notion that someone wants to "control" other people is like a religious mantra. You completely overlook/discount the idea that people want their neighbors to act responsibly because irresponsible behavior by their neighbors ends up harming them.


Case in point. We are all in favor of letting people have as much sex as they want, But what do you do about someone that makes their sex life into YOUR PROBLEM?

GOD FORBID that someone should tell them to control themselves!!!!! Pray tell, what is the "libertarian" solution? That the rest of us should pay for this? I would love to hear an answer.

I think the biggest problem is that paternalism is based on the idea that people are incompetent to manage their own affairs.

HEL-LO-O-O!!!

[Blankbeard]

Blankbeard,
"but I'm not convinced this is right."
It is at the heart of Austrian economics. Theory of value being subjective does not mean arbitrary. Rather than poorly reinventing the wheel, here is a fairy good and short article on value:
http://mises.org/daily/6001/The-Measurement-Chimera

Best regards

I'm not disagreeing with the statement that value is subjective. That seems to me to be very likely to be true. I disagree that because values are subjective, they can not be effectively communicated or utilized. The statement "I'd rather have steak than chicken" is subjective but nonetheless easily understandable. You may have different ideas and interpretations but the statement remains intelligible.

And this from the link:

Marginal utility does not posit any unit of value, since it is obvious that the value of two units of a given stock is necessarily greater than, but less than double, the value of a single unit.

is only true when a good does not have a minimum threshold for utility. A man who is trapped in a desert and needs 4 gallons of water to stay alive long enough to be rescued will pay almost any price for a single gallon of water. Will he value the second less? No. Will he pay less per gallon if he is offered all four? No. If anything the fourth gallons is *more* valuable than a single gallon because it removes the uncertainty of acquiring more water in the future. In economic terms, acquiring four gallons individually has higher transaction costs because the future is uncertain.

Another example of the same situation is that if I need 3 yards of cloth to make a sweater, I will value the third yard as much as the first two. The fact that a single yard could make a hat and gloves is of little value to my sweater valuing self. The Mises Institute is home to some very useful stuff, but like anyone else, they are pushing a viewpoint and their claims need to be evaluated.

[mvanwink5]

Blankbeard,
It is more involved than that. Take something as simple as buying apples. Which store, what type of apple, how many, how crisp, what size, of a particular size and type, which ones? Or maybe include some pears? Should they be organic, grown in USA, etc. All decisions, but price per pound may be the same.

Worse, a pile of parts to one person is scrap, but to some one else with imagination, its is a chair waiting to be assembled. Two engineers with the same degree, same school, hired for the same salary, but one makes the company $300 million.

The world is so complex and people are so varied that it is impossible to centrally plan anything. You have heard location, location, location, but to a bureaucrat, it is what is on the books. What is on the books is meaningless. GDP is meaningless. It tells you nothing about what will happen a year from now from a competitive point of view. But I won't belabor the point further. I see you scanned the article, but grasping what it means is not something that is given just because the words are read.

Look, I am not scoring points or winning or losing an argument, I just thought you might want to digest the fundamentals of Austrian economics and pointed to an article that would nicely give insight into something you may not have explored, but it will take contemplation. Good luck on whatever you do with it.

Best regards