Comments on: “One bad apple” http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/%e2%80%9cone-bad-apple%e2%80%9d.html Liberty in an unfree world Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:36:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jim http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/%e2%80%9cone-bad-apple%e2%80%9d.html/comment-page-1#comment-7836 jim Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:25:33 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=877#comment-7836 The underlying story here is that there was an attempt to shake down the vaccine companies, after the style of silicone scam, and the attempt failed, because the vaccine companies threatened to fold their tents and go out of business, unless the government gave them special protection against lawsuits, which the government did, elevating vaccine companies above the unjust and capricious law that affects all other businesses, which action would have been a massive violation of the rule of law, were it not for the fact that judges and lawyers have already destroyed the rule of law. <em>Because</em> the vaccine companies were elevated above lawsuits, <em>then</em> it became possible for science to function. If shaking down vaccine companies was still a possibility, the externality would remain salted, and science would remain forbidden in the pages of the Lancet. Science is not self correcting when money and power depend on it. Science was not corrected by the Lancet. It was corrected by government intervening to shield the assets of vaccine companies. The underlying story here is that there was an attempt to shake down the vaccine companies, after the style of silicone scam, and the attempt failed, because the vaccine companies threatened to fold their tents and go out of business, unless the government gave them special protection against lawsuits, which the government did, elevating vaccine companies above the unjust and capricious law that affects all other businesses, which action would have been a massive violation of the rule of law, were it not for the fact that judges and lawyers have already destroyed the rule of law. Because the vaccine companies were elevated above lawsuits, then it became possible for science to function. If shaking down vaccine companies was still a possibility, the externality would remain salted, and science would remain forbidden in the pages of the Lancet.

Science is not self correcting when money and power depend on it. Science was not corrected by the Lancet. It was corrected by government intervening to shield the assets of vaccine companies.

]]> By: jim http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/%e2%80%9cone-bad-apple%e2%80%9d.html/comment-page-1#comment-7834 jim Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:15:47 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=877#comment-7834 <blockquote>Isn’t this call to arms a bit like the class warrior who says he is not causing division but responding to it? </blockquote>Isn’t someone who in 1938 says the Nazis intend to rule the world a bit like someone in 1938 who says the Jews intend to rule the world? No.<blockquote>Aside from that, calling for imprisonment and confiscation on the basis of fraud sound like fun.</blockquote>If you salt an ore body, you are likely to go to jail and lose your house. Salting an externality is a similar fraud, with similar, and often enormously greater, rewards, so should have similar penalties. Incentives matter. If the rules are that if they win, they get to rule a theocratic world state, and if they lose, it is business is normal, then science has absolutely no chance of prevailing against fraud. If there was no penalty for salting an ore body, all ore bodies would be salted. Because there is no penalty for salting an externality, all externalities get salted, which destroys science, thereby greatly slowing technological progress.

Isn’t this call to arms a bit like the class warrior who says he is not causing division but responding to it?

Isn’t someone who in 1938 says the Nazis intend to rule the world a bit like someone in 1938 who says the Jews intend to rule the world?

No.

Aside from that, calling for imprisonment and confiscation on the basis of fraud sound like fun.

If you salt an ore body, you are likely to go to jail and lose your house. Salting an externality is a similar fraud, with similar, and often enormously greater, rewards, so should have similar penalties.

Incentives matter. If the rules are that if they win, they get to rule a theocratic world state, and if they lose, it is business is normal, then science has absolutely no chance of prevailing against fraud. If there was no penalty for salting an ore body, all ore bodies would be salted. Because there is no penalty for salting an externality, all externalities get salted, which destroys science, thereby greatly slowing technological progress.

]]> By: Occupant http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/%e2%80%9cone-bad-apple%e2%80%9d.html/comment-page-1#comment-7824 Occupant Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:57:17 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=877#comment-7824 Related to the theme of corruption in science, the Lancet has finally retracted its publication of the Wakefield autism study. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/index.html Related to the theme of corruption in science, the Lancet has finally retracted its publication of the Wakefield autism study.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/index.html

]]> By: Occupant http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/%e2%80%9cone-bad-apple%e2%80%9d.html/comment-page-1#comment-7823 Occupant Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:48:52 +0000 http://blog.jim.com/?p=877#comment-7823 Isn't this call to arms a bit like the class warrior who says he is not causing division but responding to it? A call to war is apt to alarm the onlooker, and most people consider themselves "environmentalists". I am not saying that such a call is unwarranted--environmentalism is a tailor-made justification for the meglomaniacs among us (YOU'RE KILLING MOTHER EARTH. YOU DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE)--but such a call is apt to be problematic. Aside from that, calling for imprisonment and confiscation on the basis of fraud sound like fun. Isn’t this call to arms a bit like the class warrior who says he is not causing division but responding to it?

A call to war is apt to alarm the onlooker, and most people consider themselves “environmentalists”. I am not saying that such a call is unwarranted–environmentalism is a tailor-made justification for the meglomaniacs among us (YOU’RE KILLING MOTHER EARTH. YOU DON’T DESERVE TO LIVE)–but such a call is apt to be problematic.

Aside from that, calling for imprisonment and confiscation on the basis of fraud sound like fun.

]]>