Twitter and the limits of free enterprise

[chewybrian]

A fire in a crowded theater requires immediate action; there is no time to validate the claim. There is plenty of time to evaluate claims about COVID vaccines.

At the time when COVID was rising to its initial peak, I don't think there was time to evaluate the vaccines. Too many people were dying, too fast.

I don't think he is referring to scientists validating the efficacy of the vaccine. He means that listeners to Aaron Rogers or Alex Jones or DeSantis or whoever had (or have) enough time to try to validate or disprove the claims being made by those anti-vaxxers before getting vaccinated or not. The listener is not in the position of the guy who hears "fire" and needs to react before verifying the claim to possibly save himself in time.

I think it is a mistake, however, to assume that everyone has the education in how to think and debate to protect themselves from these folks, though. Trump proves that the idea is wrong, if nothing else. GE seems to project his own ability and background onto others who are clearly not in the same position to defend themselves intellectually or financially. If, instead, we see and admit that others have different experiences, education, resources and such, then instead of fairness we can see the worst kind of exploitation without empathy.

"They can think for themselves, the same information is out there for everyone, they can go to school or get a better job..." DeSantis or Ayn Rand or GE might say. There is an element of truth to all that, but it ignores and exploits the inequity already there, and the way that inequity came to be. The folks who have the education and money and other resources should be telling the others the truth and helping them rather than spreading false fear and exploiting lies to hold them down.

[GE Morton]

Coercion is perhaps too severe a word to describe what we're talking about here? For a start, when most people agree that X (say murder, but it could be anything) is undesirable, is it coercion if social pressure is applied to those who would prefer not to co-operate?

Well, "social pressure" is a vague term. I take coercion to be violations of someone's rights --- to their lives, health, liberties, or property --- via the use or threat of physical force.

And, if our example is murder, is it coercion if our law enforcement and courts send murderers to prison?

Yes indeed. One may always use force to prevent or resist unjustified force, or to redress its use. That is the only justified use of force.

Or, to take your example, is it really coercion if some form of pressure is applied to try to prevent the spread of misinformation (assuming it is misinformation, of course)?

Again, you'd need to spell out just what this "social pressure" involves. For example, boycotting a bakery because it refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, or a bookstore because it sells books denying the Holocaust or condemning abortion is acceptable. Trashing the bakery or store or assaulting its employees or owners is not.

[GE Morton]

I think it is a mistake, however, to assume that everyone has the education in how to think and debate to protect themselves from these folks, though.

Well, that --- voter ignorance --- is the classic argument against democracy. People make unwise decisions every day, usually because they lack relevant information, or because they are incapable of evaluating it, or just because they hold beliefs or desires which compel them to reject it. But if you consider them equal moral agents you must allow them to act in accordance with what they perceive to be their own best interests, no matter how unwise you consider those decisions to be. They still get one vote. If you reject that then you're advocating some sort of oligarchy or elitism, Huxley's Brave New World, where the Alphas make all the decisions and the "lower classes" obey.

"They can think for themselves, the same information is out there for everyone, they can go to school or get a better job..." DeSantis or Ayn Rand or GE might say. There is an element of truth to all that, but it ignores and exploits the inequity already there, and the way that inequity came to be. The folks who have the education and money and other resources should be telling the others the truth and helping them rather than spreading false fear and exploiting lies to hold them down.

Nothing wrong with telling the truth and helping --- as long as you're not using those terms as deceptive euphemisms for forcing.

Nor, BTW, is there anything "inequitable" about public ignorance and stupidity. Intelligence, like most other animal traits, follows a bell curve.

[chewybrian]

Nor, BTW, is there anything "inequitable" about public ignorance and stupidity. Intelligence, like most other animal traits, follows a bell curve.

It's both unkind and inaccurate to attribute differences between people of different social and economic status to differences in intelligence.

This is the world as you see it:



This is the real world:



When you pretend otherwise, it seems to reveal some sinister agenda that seeks to deny the justice you say you seek. Why would we not deal with reality? How are we talking philosophy if we willingly deny reality?

Inequalities at the Starting Gate finds that the most socioeconomically disadvantaged children lag substantially in both reading and math skills, and that these skill levels rise along with social class. As such, poor children face substantial obstacles to school success. For example, children in the highest socioeconomic group have reading and math scores that are significantly higher—by a full standard deviation—than scores of their peers in the lowest socioeconomic group.

A combination of greater income gaps across social classes, much less support for parents from both workplace and government, and disparate access to quality early education, which would narrow them, leads to larger gaps both between low- and middle-SES children and also between middle- and top-SES US kids compared to their peers in similar countries.

https://www.boldapproach.org/lesson/bba ... -and-gaps/

IQ and Wealth
A nationwide study has found that people having low intelligence levels were as wealthy as the ones having high intelligence levels if they are provided with the same circumstances.

https://www.chess.com/blog/romanchesnok ... and-wealth

[GE Morton]

It's both unkind and inaccurate to attribute differences between people of different social and economic status to differences in intelligence.

Oh, there are other innate differences as well, in temperament, ambition/motivation, interests and tastes, etc.

When you pretend otherwise, it seems to reveal some sinister agenda that seeks to deny the justice you say you seek. Why would we not deal with reality? How are we talking philosophy if we willingly deny reality?

You're probably equating "justice" with "equality." People are NOT equal in any of those traits I mentioned above, and there is nothing unjust about it.

"Inequalities at the Starting Gate finds that the most socioeconomically disadvantaged children lag substantially in both reading and math skills, and that these skill levels rise along with social class. As such, poor children face substantial obstacles to school success. For example, children in the highest socioeconomic group have reading and math scores that are significantly higher—by a full standard deviation—than scores of their peers in the lowest socioeconomic group.

"A combination of greater income gaps across social classes, much less support for parents from both workplace and government, and disparate access to quality early education, which would narrow them, leads to larger gaps both between low- and middle-SES children and also between middle- and top-SES US kids compared to their peers in similar countries."

All analyses and laments along those lines beg the question: Why are there "social classes" in the first place? Of course parents from "advantaged" classes will confer advantages on their kids, some biologically and others instructionally. But you need to explain those initial advantages. No one can gain a "social" advantage unless they come into the world with some innate advantages. The alpha male in a wolf pack is not elected to that position, nor promoted into it by by some dominant caste or clique (and if there was such as class or clique, how did it become dominant?)

"IQ and Wealth
A nationwide study has found that people having low intelligence levels were as wealthy as the ones having high intelligence levels if they are provided with the same circumstances."

Same question-begging. Of course low IQ persons may be wealthy --- if they inherited it. And, again, IQ is not the only innate variable that is relevant.

[chewybrian]

All analyses and laments along those lines beg the question: Why are there "social classes" in the first place? Of course parents from "advantaged" classes will confer advantages on their kids, some biologically and others instructionally. But you need to explain those initial advantages. No one can gain a "social" advantage unless they come into the world with some innate advantages. The alpha male in a wolf pack is not elected to that position, nor promoted into it by by some dominant caste or clique (and if there was such as class or clique, how did it become dominant?)

You are missing at least half the answer because you clearly WANT to miss it. It is not an "advantage" or a virtue that some folks are willing to take advantage of others, to take more than their fair share, to lie to people through religion and politics and try to trick them into submission, to discriminate based on race, sex, age, and such. Colonialism, slavery, Jim Crow, unfair lending, redlining, voter intimidation and suppression, anti-gay laws... There are way too many past and present injustices to list.

A huge chunk of the advantages people hold over others today is a direct result of these past injustices that you want to ignore. Further, the rich folks holding that unfair advantage today have twisted the system even further to their advantage. For just one example, the wealthy rarely pay taxes. They can grow their wealth indefinitely and receive tax-free income through diversified investments, selling some winners and some losers for tax-free spending money as their total basket of investments continues to grow.

[GE Morton]

All analyses and laments along those lines beg the question: Why are there "social classes" in the first place? Of course parents from "advantaged" classes will confer advantages on their kids, some biologically and others instructionally. But you need to explain those initial advantages. No one can gain a "social" advantage unless they come into the world with some innate advantages. The alpha male in a wolf pack is not elected to that position, nor promoted into it by by some dominant caste or clique (and if there was such as class or clique, how did it become dominant?)

You are missing at least half the answer because you clearly WANT to miss it. It is not an "advantage" or a virtue that some folks are willing to take advantage of others, to take more than their fair share, to lie to people through religion and politics and try to trick them into submission, to discriminate based on race, sex, age, and such. Colonialism, slavery, Jim Crow, unfair lending, redlining, voter intimidation and suppression, anti-gay laws... There are way too many past and present injustices to list.

You're missing the point. You have to have an advantage in order to successfully take advantage. Of course people lie, try to trick others, and discriminate. Those moral failings are present in all populations and all "social classes." "The poor" lie to and cheat one another (and to "the rich") just as often, if not more so, than "the rich" lie to and cheat them. That fact cannot account for why some are rich and some poor; that difference does not, and cannot, result from moral failings. Similarly for colonialism and slavery --- why were Europeans the colonizers of Africa and the Americas, instead of Africans and native Americans colonizing Europe?

Of course those practices are deplorable. But the point is that were such practices to miraculously disappear from human behavior you would still have inequality, still have rich and poor --- because the various innate traits that contribute to the production of wealth are not equal.

In his "Theory of Justice" John Rawls wrote, "The natural distribution [of natural assets] is neither just nor unjust; nor it is unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are just natural facts. What is just or unjust is the way institutions deal with these facts."

What Rawls fails to explain is why, if the natural distribution is neither just nor unjust, "institutions" must deal with it at all.

A huge chunk of the advantages people hold over others today is a direct result of these past injustices that you want to ignore.

That is false; indeed it is nonsense (which is not to deny that there have been past injustices, and that some today still benefit from them). Injustices, however, cannot create wealth. Some talents, imagination, ambition, and effort --- and sometimes good luck --- are required. Elon Musk emigrated from South Africa to Canada at age 17 (his mother was Canadian), and for a year worked on farms and in a lumber mill. He'd sold his first computer program, for $500, at age 12. At age 24, after graduating with degrees in physics and economics U. of Pennsylvania, he founded a software company he sold 4 years later to Compaq for >$300 million. No "injustices" were involved. Neither were there in the careers of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or most other billionaires. Bezos was the adopted son of a Cuban immigrant and a 17 year-old mother, who worked at McDonald's as a burger flipper while in high school, where he was valedictorian and a National Merit Scholar. He graduated from Princeton summa cum laude with a BS in engineering. No "injustices" there, either.

Further, the rich folks holding that unfair advantage today have twisted the system even further to their advantage. For just one example, the wealthy rarely pay taxes.

Oh, they do pay taxes. The wealthiest 10% of taxpayers pay 71% of the income tax the federal government collects. They also pay 8 times as large a percentage of their incomes as the bottom 50% of taxpayers. They may not pay what lefties think they should pay, but that is because lefties hold a nonsensical notion of what they "owe."

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page ... come-taxes

[LuckyR]

Further, the rich folks holding that unfair advantage today have twisted the system even further to their advantage. For just one example, the wealthy rarely pay taxes.

Oh, they do pay taxes. The wealthiest 10% of taxpayers pay 71% of the income tax the federal government collects. They also pay 8 times as large a percentage of their incomes as the bottom 50% of taxpayers. They may not pay what lefties think they should pay, but that is because lefties hold a nonsensical notion of what they "owe."

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page ... come-taxes

Well since the top 10% own 76% of the wealth, paying only 71% of the taxes is getting off very easy since the first $28,000 of income isn't taxed at all.

[chewybrian]

Further, the rich folks holding that unfair advantage today have twisted the system even further to their advantage. For just one example, the wealthy rarely pay taxes.

Oh, they do pay taxes. The wealthiest 10% of taxpayers pay 71% of the income tax the federal government collects. They also pay 8 times as large a percentage of their incomes as the bottom 50% of taxpayers. They may not pay what lefties think they should pay, but that is because lefties hold a nonsensical notion of what they "owe."

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page ... come-taxes

Well since the top 10% own 76% of the wealth, paying only 71% of the taxes is getting off very easy since the first $28,000 of income isn't taxed at all.

First, this only reflects income tax. Many other taxes, like gas tax, license plates and such, are terribly regressive, representing a much bigger chunk of the average man's income than the wealthy man's.

Second, we have conceded, as you say, that nobody should pay taxes on money needed for survival, but only on discretionary income. The median income in the U.S. is about $45,000. So, Joe Sixpack is paying on about $17,000 of the $45,000, which effectively triples the bill for the regular guy.

When we try to see the percentage that people pay on money that could be used to eat out, go on vacation or buy fidget spinners, and we consider other taxes besides income tax, then we see a very different picture emerge of who is paying their fair share (or not!).

[GE Morton]

First, this only reflects income tax. Many other taxes, like gas tax, license plates and such, are terribly regressive, representing a much bigger chunk of the average man's income than the wealthy man's.

Calling those taxes "regressive" is a peculiarly lefty characterization. Per ordinary definitions, those taxes are fair --- perhaps the fairest taxes to which Americans are subject. Why is that? Well, because a fair tax is one levied in proportion to the value of the benefits each taxpayer receives from the service for which the tax pays. Automobile fuel taxes, which pay for highways, satisfy that criterion --- the more you use the highways, the more you pay. License tabs (in most states) are similar --- the heavier your vehicle, the more wear and tear you inflict on roads, and thus the more you pay.

Second, we have conceded, as you say, that nobody should pay taxes on money needed for survival, but only on discretionary income. The median income in the U.S. is about $45,000. So, Joe Sixpack is paying on about $17,000 of the $45,000, which effectively triples the bill for the regular guy.

Huh? I've "conceded" no such thing. What you need for survival is irrelevant --- a fair tax is one which you pay in proportion to the benefits you receive from the government services they buy. "Progressive" taxes based on "ability to pay" is a redistributionist scheme conjured up by lefties in the 1920s, and is manifestly unfair.

[LuckyR]

First, this only reflects income tax. Many other taxes, like gas tax, license plates and such, are terribly regressive, representing a much bigger chunk of the average man's income than the wealthy man's.

Calling those taxes "regressive" is a peculiarly lefty characterization. Per ordinary definitions, those taxes are fair --- perhaps the fairest taxes to which Americans are subject. Why is that? Well, because a fair tax is one levied in proportion to the value of the benefits each taxpayer receives from the service for which the tax pays. Automobile fuel taxes, which pay for highways, satisfy that criterion --- the more you use the highways, the more you pay. License tabs (in most states) are similar --- the heavier your vehicle, the more wear and tear you inflict on roads, and thus the more you pay.

Second, we have conceded, as you say, that nobody should pay taxes on money needed for survival, but only on discretionary income. The median income in the U.S. is about $45,000. So, Joe Sixpack is paying on about $17,000 of the $45,000, which effectively triples the bill for the regular guy.

Huh? I've "conceded" no such thing. What you need for survival is irrelevant --- a fair tax is one which you pay in proportion to the benefits you receive from the government services they buy. "Progressive" taxes based on "ability to pay" is a redistributionist scheme conjured up by lefties in the 1920s, and is manifestly unfair.

Well you are trying to lump fees and taxes into the same bin. Fees are, of course regressive or separated from income, that is they are as you described, keyed to the service desired. Whether driving on the highway, fishing or camping at a campsite. Taxes OTOH, go into a general fund that gets tapped for an incredibly diverse number of things. The key to tax revenue is to acquire enough resources to pay for what needs to be paid for. If the goal is to pay for services, would any logical system seek to get those resources from a part of the economy that doesn't have hardly any financial resources?

You throw around "fairness" quite a bit, but a flat tax is statistical sleight of hand designed to fool the simple to support their paying for more than their historical share. For all the talk of "leftist" this and that, when income taxes were invented before 1920, the taxation rates for high incomes were higher than they are today (in the post Reagan era).

[GE Morton]

Well you are trying to lump fees and taxes into the same bin. Fees are, of course regressive or separated from income, that is they are as you described, keyed to the service desired. Whether driving on the highway, fishing or camping at a campsite. Taxes OTOH, go into a general fund that gets tapped for an incredibly diverse number of things. The key to tax revenue is to acquire enough resources to pay for what needs to be paid for. If the goal is to pay for services, would any logical system seek to get those resources from a part of the economy that doesn't have hardly any financial resources?

No. But if you can't collect the funds to pay for a service from those who benefit from it, then you re-examine what "needs to be paid for."

You throw around "fairness" quite a bit, but a flat tax is statistical sleight of hand designed to fool the simple to support their paying for more than their historical share. For all the talk of "leftist" this and that, when income taxes were invented before 1920, the taxation rates for high incomes were higher than they are today (in the post Reagan era).

I've not suggested a flat (income) tax. Income taxes are inherently unfair, as they bear no relation to the extent a taxpayer benefits from the services they buy.

When the income tax was first introduced following ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 the rate was 1% on incomes above $3000, 3% above $50,000, and 7% on incomes above $500,000 --- rates widely touted as innocuous. Only about 10% of Americans would pay any income tax, a fact which encouraged the state legislatures to ratify the Amendment. But, with no limits set in the Amendment itself, politicians, being the slimy creatures they are, immediately began to raise those rates.

And I think we all understand what "fair" means, in all cases except with regard to taxes. If you leave the supermarket with a 6-pack of beer, you pay for a 6-pack. If you leave with a case, you pay for a case. We'd think it unfair if the grocer charged us for a case when we bought only a 6-pack, "because we could afford to pay it." If you buy 10% of the stock in a business, you get 10% of the profits. You don't get 20% because you're poorer than the other investors. In short, a "fair" distribution of the benefits of a cooperative endeavor is one proportionate to the value of each participant's contribution to it.

"Fair (adjective):

(2): consonant with merit or importance : DUE"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair

[GE Morton]

When the income tax was first introduced following ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 the rate was 1% on incomes above $3000, 3% above $50,000, and 7% on incomes above $500,000 --- rates widely touted as innocuous. Only about 10% of Americans would pay any income tax, a fact which encouraged the state legislatures to ratify the Amendment. But, with no limits set in the Amendment itself, politicians, being the slimy creatures they are, immediately began to raise those rates.

$3000 in 1913 would be about $90,000 in 2022 dollars.

[Dlaw]

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu ... ip-2022-11

This is a wild but sad story that seems to be getting worse by the minute. Musk (eventually) bought Twitter and then fired thousands of employees and threatened the rest such that now many key employees are choosing severance pay over the idea of working in his shadow. He seemed to think he could intimidate everyone into working double time in order to boost profits, and this strategy has clearly backfired on him to the most spectacular extent imaginable (he is on record as saying the company may go bankrupt, though he was willing to buy it for something like 40 billion just weeks ago!).

I think it is clear that these developments have not been good for customers, employees, the company or the rest of humanity. It looks like he's destroyed billions in equity and disrupted thousands of lives for nothing but perhaps ego.

So, the question is, should we ever let someone have this much unchecked power? We have all sorts of checks and balances in government (the wisdom of these safeguards has been made crystal clear in recent years!). So, why do we not have some sort of check on the power of the uber-wealthy? Why do we just assume that he has the 'right' to cause so much destruction just because he is already wealthy? Perhaps this incident could shine a light on the need for some safeguards. I'm not sure what they could or should be. Further, I have no hope that they are coming soon, as we don't even make the wealthy pay taxes or follow many laws. Still, if we could reign them in a bit, should we, and how would you say we should proceed (just pretending that we would)?

I THINK the issue here is an oldie but goodie: negative obligation vs positive obligation. In terms of a negative obligation, Musk is dealing with two: first his negative obligation not to fire tons of employees and act tyrannical towards them. How strong that negative obligation is we have to parse later. Second is the negative obligation he perceived not to close down Twitter speech that some people might find offensive.

His main positive obligation is to make Twitter a beneficial and viable entity. I think positive obligations are always more difficult to parse.

[GE Morton]

I THINK the issue here is an oldie but goodie: negative obligation vs positive obligation. In terms of a negative obligation, Musk is dealing with two: first his negative obligation not to fire tons of employees and act tyrannical towards them. How strong that negative obligation is we have to parse later. Second is the negative obligation he perceived not to close down Twitter speech that some people might find offensive.

His main positive obligation is to make Twitter a beneficial and viable entity. I think positive obligations are always more difficult to parse.

Several hidden (and false) premises there. First, firing an employee is not "tyrannical." Most employment is "at will," which means the employment relation can be ended at any time by either party, with some agreed upon notice.

Secondly, he has no obligation, positive or negative, to allow or disallow any speech on his platform. What to allow is entirely discretionary, and any use he allows is a privilege he extends to users, not any sort of "right" they have.

Nor does he have any positive obligation to make the service beneficial to anyone, or, other than to stockholders, to make it (economically) viable.