Ten oz

I disagree. Money in politics allows certian candidates to stay in various races longer because they have the support or a special interest or two. The longer a candidate can stay the more influence they have on what's being discussed. This just played out in the 2012 primary process. No hopers backed by billionaires stayed in the race state after state and influenced debate. Ultimately pushing the lead canidate in a more extreme direction. I just meant that states should be divided up geometrically with consideration given to population. Sure that could be tinkered with some but have you seen the way districts current look? Congress has the lowest approval rating in all of government yet maintains the highest re-election rate. Nothing is ever perfect but between an improvement and nothing I will take an improvement every time.Major rule doesn't work because many states are large and regionally very different. Large bodies should be able to elect to representation they want. Which is why you need 4 parties. A third party typically just plays spoiler. Four parties allows for the scale to get weighted from both ends. Some things are a matter of opinion. Calling someone immoral, lazy, naive, inexperienced, dishonest, and etc will allows be part of the political system. However there should be a penalty for outright lying. Claiming things that are more than matters of opinion. Using superpac money to organize efforts to popularize lies.

I agree. With intelligence comes more cognitive ability. The analogy I used early was comparing light from a match flame to that from the sun. How much greater the sun is should not make one consider the match flame to be zero. The match flame does produce like however inferior to the sun that light be defined. Taking inputs (vibrations, tempurature, light, smell, etc) from the outside environment and using that information to make choices I think requires conciousness. I think conciousness act as a processing point for competing chemical triggers. Being hungery, tired, cold, and etc all at the same time requires some basic form of management. That management is consciousness. Plants obviously responds to environmental conditions but those responses are automatic like a program. So there does not seem to be consciousness there. A field mouse however makes choices (when to eat, sleep, hide, run, etc) all day. I believe a field mouse is conscious. Of course a mouse may be more akin to the match stick flame than to our more sun like human mind. It really is not that tall of an order. Chemical reactions how the human brain works today. How do you know when you are hungry? Why does drinking alcohol make you drunk or coffee make you awake? How is depression treated with medicine? Despite intelligence the human mind is still chemically driven.

Good post. Right to the point of the thread. People often conflate intelligence and consciousness.

@ Phi for All, I agree that we shouldn't tailor this discussion in such a way that only humans qualify. I am not sure I agree with the awareness of the future part though. I think anything capable of making a choice qualifies as concious. Plants respond to there environment but that response is entirely chemical and reactionary. Plants do not have a central system that makes choices. Where as an insect does. An insect can choose to sit still or move. Insects may not have the cognitive ability to think even 1 second into the future but in real time they do make choices. Those choices are mostly reflexive but do require a central system that is aware choices have been made.

Humans are clearly the most cognitive species on the planet. In my opinion human intelligence should not be used to create a curve or bar that conciousness is messured against. The Sun produces far more light that a match stick but that doesn't mean we should consider the match stick's light production as zero. In starting this thread I was hoping to discussion what the consciousness in its most basic form. At what point does an environmental awareness response go from being a chemical reaction and become conciousness?

Morality is not a useful concept to this discussion in my opinion. Dogs are clearly self aware they clearly have conciousness.

So is lying.

I never said you that. That isn't even a possible misreading of what I have said. I have not personally attacked, mocked, or otherwise demeaned any of your posts. I have done nothing to provoke such provocations. Intentionally misquoting my posts isn't appropriate and does nothing to further this conversation. There is not a full proof method. You are using an impractical example. How does it speak to the real life application of law? The question is arbitrary. All crime is not treated the same. Misdemeanor assualt is different than felon assualt, justifiable homicide vs manslaughter, and etc, etc, etc.

Yes, dangerous people should be kept off the streets. That should be the function of a prison system. I never posted that I do not believe in punishment. I said that the function of laws should be about safety not punishment. There are contexts where punishing someone can help them be more safe. Like fining a resturant that violates codes or ticketing someone for speeding. Those punishments are designed to effect future behavior. They are not about retribution. Context matters.

How would you "deem" that someone who exercised such poor and dangerous behavior as robbery would never do it again? Robbery issomething that posses a threat to society. People who perform robbery should be policed. I do not believe that someone who kills for a reason other than defense is of no risk to ever do it again. Killing another human crosses a major ethical and moral line. So I can not imagine a scenario where a murderer would not be a risk. Of course there are degrees to everything which is why manslaughter is treated differently than first degree murder.

Defending once self or others is not the same thing as executing someone who has already been detained. What purpose do laws serve in your opinion? For me they ideally help structure society in a way that provides everyone the security to flourish. They should be aimed at preventing bad things from happening. I do not think they should be aimed at punishing the wicked. Prisons should be used to keep dangerous people off the street. Getting even or getting revenge are not tangible goals. Safety and security is what I expect from my government. Once I am safe from an individual or a group the government does not need to take the extra step of killing those people.

This, of course, assumes you were a white male in the 1950's.

In order to give someone the DP they must already be in custody. So in terms of public safety that person is no longer a threat. As for what to do with them, life without parole. The majority of states in the U.S. have life without parole.

@ Sensei, stock market price and company health are not equals. Assuming self interest will translate into best practices for the long term is a fallacy. One that following the collapse of the world economy in 2008 former Fed chair Greenspan admitted to. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=0 Countries can not extend their laws to other countries but they can prohibit product sold in their country that are produced under practices they do not approve. The agruement against has always existed. Complaints about hurting business were around when slavery and child labor were end too.

I don't think the answer here is really that incredibly complicated. The exploitation at any given time of a specific market and or group of people is generally what drives inequality. Here in the U.S. we have a two part problem. As part of his too marginal tax cut in 1981 Reagan allowed for stock options given by companies to employees (CEOs) not to be taxed as regular salary. With capital gains being so much lower than income tax corporations quickly moved to stock option based salaries and CEO compensation skyrocketed. That is the first problem. Companies are managed by people who are more interested in stock value than long term stability. That encourages more risky behavior and stronger hunger to exploit every exploitable thing. The second problem is free trade. Despite countries like the United States having reasonable labor laws we allow our corporations to exploit countries that don't. So many of the luxuries enjoyed by the more economically stable countries come from the exploitation of poor countries where workers have fewer rights. This helps drive the stock market price which in turn compensates the CEOs. So the system is set up as a race to the bottom. Where can companies get to cheapest materials, pay employees the least, pay the least taxes, and etc. Solution; tie stock compensation value to income tax for corporation employees and extend federal workers rights of a corporations home country to all of that corporations employees regardless of where they are located. Short term growth may slow but long stability will increase.

Revenge, retribution, and all concepts of justice through killing are insidious. It is what drives terrorists to act, gang members to battle, and etc. All the death penalty does is validate the idea that killing people somehow creates justice. The more popular that idea and the more firmly supported as a meme within society I believe the more it will considered as a resolution to conflicts and differences of belief. Killing "bad" people seems like a good idea but who is defining "bad"? By some people's definition bad may be a women who allows her hair to be seen on public. I believe it is far better to just all agree that killing anyone for any reason is terrible.

I don't disagree with any of that. Problem is I can't, most can't, predict that Aluminum will be up 40% in a year. By buying both aluminum and tobacco ( in theory I don't own stock in either) I have a greater chance of success. Instead of all my eggs on one basket it is better to diversify. The more I limit my field the less likely my odds at success become. So I fully acknowledge that it is possible to make satisfactory return on investment with clean businesses but feel that doing so is more difficult and by virtue of being more difficult also comes with more risk. So the risk vs reward table gets changed.

@ cladking, what is it you believe? Rather than continuing to debate the definitions of words why not lay out a theory? From what I have gathered you are saying that evolutions as it is popularly understood could not have happened? You seem to believe in adaptation but not necessarily speciation? So how did life get here? Please be specific; if a guiding hand was used please explain whose hand and how. If DNA was made by an intelligent life form please explain how that intelligent life form made it. Then explain where that intelligent form came from and how it was made. Because if you can't provide those specifics your belief is far more vague than evolution is. It describes less and explains nothing.

@ Delta1212, I appreciate the comments you have made. My response was not argumentative. I was just playing out the pros and cons. @ Swansot, tobacco companies are actually doing well right now. After years of well earn negative press and stiff taxation electronic cigarettes have given them a boost. I am not fan of tobacco but I do see promise in E-cigarettes because they seem to remove the dangers of second hand smoke. Whatever health risks are involved using an E-cigarette seems isolated to the user. To me that makes it more of a personal choice and less of a public hazard. I also see the E-ciggarette as having lots of room to grow as marijuana slowly become legal across the country. While I am not fan of marijuana use I rather see it legal than see my government continue to imprison people for it. So such an investment, tobacco companies, isn't as obviously unethical as they may seem. There is good with the bad. To be more specific the companies I personally struggle with in terms of investment are oil and military contractors. Both are currently low. The cost of a barrel has fallen and long military actions are ending. Unfortunately I do not believe either will last. Oil always spikes and my government always finds a reason to fight. It is sad but true. So presently I see a huge buying opportunity in the market. Acting on that opportunity though would mean betting against outcomes I would prefer in order to make money on outcomes I suspect are more likely.

@ Phi for All, I actually am invested in LEDs. I missed the boat on Tesla but have been researching various battery makers who specialize in technology for long range auto mobiles. Problem is, as you pointed out, it isn't always clear which of these companies will succeed. Great products and market success are not the same thing. I do research but at the end of the day certian companies are more of a sure thing. I think in starting this topic I had hoped, or rather naively assumed, most would say the game already has a set of rules in place to play by and that is how it needs to be played. That separately I could lobby for changes but ultimately would be foolish to behave as if those changes I desired already existed. That dichotomy, the world as is vs the world hoped for, allows for a person to be honest toward both. Investing is no sure thing and adding ethical challanges only lowers the probability of success. I am starting to see that perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am a hypocrite. We aren't talking about millions of dollars. I am investing against my principles for the difference between a 3% and 10% return on investment in many cases. It is the right way to invest per the current system. So perhaps I shouldn't be investing? Because I can't imagine feeling comfortable handicapping my position by evaluating companies by personal principle rather than earnings reports. It just isn't how the game is structured. @ Delta1212, what you describe is very difficult. For example I am concerned about global warming but at the end of the day sometimes I still must board a plane fly, climb in a car and drive, eat food produced at the expense of the natural environment, and etc. I am still part of this world regardless of my personal beliefs about the world. Is buying gasoline to put in my car any worse than buying stock in an oil company?

The majority of my money is in CDs. I don't invest anything in the stock market that I can not afford to lose. I have been investing on and off for about 15yrs. My personal experience is that the market provides higher rates of return than savings accounts do at all levels of risk. It is just a matter of time. Oil for example is current low. It won 't stay low forever. So a patient investor could make money there. Buy cheap and wait for a rebound then sell. That said laddering CDs is a safer more consistent means of saving. It just doesn't grow money the same way.

Good point.

@ Phi for all, return on investment is my focus. It always was only I limited which industries I invested based of my personal views of those industries. I stopped doing that and my returns improved. However I feel guilty about it. Like John Cothber pointed out some of these industries pass their costs on to the government and future generations. So I am trying to decide for myself what's ethical. If I should proceed. The expireince as also opened my eyes (even more so) on just how different corporations priorities are than that of the general public.

You are not factoring in random happen stance. Most species will go and have gone extinct. Of those who did not often it was right place at the right time. There is no adapting when a volcano blows your environment up. Evolution is a zero sum game. The cream is not constantly rising to top. Today for example we are living in a time of mass extinction. We are witnessing an extinction rate that is a thousand times faster than natural rates. Yet while some animals are being pushed by humans into extinction other ones are being purposefully spared. Cows and Pigs for example have nothing to worry about. Humans think they are tasty. Meanwhile polar bears which are far more intelligent and mobile than Cows are heading up that preverbal creek without a paddle.

Lately I have become more active in market investing. In the past I have invested in solar and wind turbine industries. Things I was hopeful about for the future. Mostly I have gained percentages on my investments not much greater than a typical savings account. More recently I have been putting money into industries that I view as far less desirable. Industries that are bad for the environment and that produce products I believe are bad for society. These investments have been exceedingly profitable. Thus far I have justified this in my own mind with the following equivalency; an athlete who disagrees with a specific set of rules that govern a sport still must play the game as it is structured. So while I may advocate against various industries those objections are played out politically. In terms of investment I am merely doing the most profitable for myself within the confines of the system as it exists. Am I fooling myself? Does investing money in things I politically/socially object to make me a hypocrite?