ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self Interest - was intangibles (was RE:

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:08:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <52156.173.70.146.171.1313003293.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, August 10, 2011 9:51, Rich Cooper said:    (01)

> Let's add these topics to the proposed ontology of
> self interest:    (02)

I suggest that we start with a generic ontology of self-interest,
defining types of self interest relative to individuals and groups
to which levels of self-interest apply.  The concept of it being
in the self-interest of A for something to occur that would be
counter to the self-interest of B should be part of this.    (03)

This most general level would not specify the types of groups
to which self-interest applies other than person, organization, self,
family, voluntary association, group one is born into, group that
one is obligated to be in, and maybe a few more such groups.    (04)

Separate microtheories would identify more classes of agent:
corporation, government, labor union, interest organization,
lobbyist, attorney, etc. and roles they are engaged in.    (05)

Various theory microtheories could lay out competing views of
the interactions of various of these groups.    (06)

I'll post something more fleshed out in a couple days.    (07)

-- doug f    (08)

> 6-corporate manipulation of government and unions;
> 7-union manipulation of government and
> corporations.
>
> I had forgotten those topics over the last few
> days.  Are you also willing to participate in the
> proposed ontology of self interest, as a small and
> hypothetical instance of a self interest ontology?
>
>
> If so, that brings us to five participants: DF,
> JS, AA, RW and RC.  But I volunteered the other
> three; lets see if they agree on the pursuit of
> this ontology.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:16 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE:
> Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy)
>
> Big companies get what they want from both
> parties:
> - no anti-trust action
> - no shareholders rights
> - increased regulation to swamp small companies in
> paperwork and staff
> overhead
> - low corporate tax rates to increase profits so
> that higher bonuses can
> be paid to executives
> - anti-union laws (right to work - for less) so
> that the middle class
> does not eat up too much of the corporate profits
> and reduce bonuses
>
> Ron
>
> On 10/08/2011 12:05 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
>> On Tue, August 9, 2011 16:38, Rich Cooper said:
>>
>>> I agree that forced and exclusive regulation is
>>> SOMETIMES necessary, but I prefer the way the
> ISO
>>> 9000 and ISO 9001 standards committee operates,
>>> where companies that claim to practice their
>>> standards are audited by ISO-accredited
> auditors,
>>> and given a certification only if their
> practices
>>> pass the audit.  Buyers can then purchase from
>>> accredited companies or not, depending on their
>>> needs and predilections.
>>>
>>> But chemicals in food or in food packages that
> can
>>> be scientifically shown to harm people should
>>> certainly be prohibited by law or regulation
>>> though, since they do violence to individuals
> who
>>> don't suspect anything is wrong, as you pointed
>>> out.  But most regulations and regulatory
> bodies
>>> are not (IMHO) best forced upon the public
> without
>>> alternatives.  The ISO 9K pattern is one I
> would
>>> prefer for products and services that are not
>>> inherently dangerous.
>>>
>>> There are other cases of damaging products and
>>> services which should also be prohibited, but
>>> knowing where to draw the line needs a closer
>>> look.
>>>
>>> Have you seen the recent NASA study
>> This is not a NASA study, but a paper by a
> long-term climate change
>> denier, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of
> Alabama, who works with NASA
>> and is also a creationist.  He says he became
>>    "convinced that the theory of creation
> actually had a much better
>>     scientific basis than the theory of
> evolution".
>>
>> He is on the board of the Cornwall Alliance for
> the Stewardship of
>> Creation, "a conservative Christian public
> policy group that promotes a
>> free-market approach to care for the
> environment".
>>
>> It appears to me that he has a religio-political
> agenda.
>>
>>> that says global warming alarmism is not
> justified,
>> The article does not mention "global warming
> alarmism" at all.
>>    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
>> Given your description, i'm wondering if you
> read it.  The article does
>> not say that anthropogenic global warming is not
> occurring.  It does state
>> that various feedback mechanisms are complicated
> to model and that current
>> climate models do not accurately model such
> feedback.
>>
>>> and that the earth is emitting heat into space,
>> The Earth always does this.
>>
>>> and also
>>> adapting to higher levels of CO2 by emitting
> more
>>> heat and pushing the gas higher in the
> atmosphere?
>> Isn't this part of the standard models?
>>
>>>
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8278523/n
> asa_says_computer_models_wrong_about.html
>> I note that this is a political website, not a
> scientific one.  The actual
>> article is at
> http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
>>
>> Dr. Spencer's credibility is debunked in
>>
> http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/
> 07/30/is-roy-spencer-a-credible-voice-on-global-wa
> rming-research/
>>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43949972/ns/us_news-en
> vironment/
>>
>> Actually, if you go to the actual article
>>    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
>> you find that he starts with an equation which
> assumes that the
>> heat capacity of the oceans is unchanged --
> i.e., that negative
>> feedback balances any heat input.  He states
> that a variation of
>> the equation would be necessary for the heat
> content of "the
>> system" to change with time:
>>    "Cp d&#916;T/dt = S(t) +
> N(t)&#8722;&#955;&#916;T (1)
>>    Equation (1) states that time-varying sources
> of non-radiative
>>    forcing S and radiative forcing N cause a
> climate system with bulk
>>    heat capacity Cp to undergo a temperature
> change with time away
>>    from its equilibrium state (d&#916;T/dt), but
> with a net radiative feedback
>>    'restoring force' (&#8722;&#955;&#916;T)
> acting to stabilize the system.
>>   ... the heat
>>    capacity Cp in Equation (1) is assumed to
> represent the oceanic mixed
>>    layer. (Note that if Cp is put inside the
> time differential term, the
>>    equation then becomes one for changes in the
> heat content of the
>>    system with time."
>>
>> Given an incorrect analysis of what the article
> says, the conclusions
>> drawn from this analysis (in the next paragraph)
> have no support.
>>
>>> That indicates that the UN committee of global
>>> warming alarmists are just pursuing a political
>>> agenda, especially with the administration and
> the
>>> UN promoting cap and tax in the US, and other
> 1st
>>> world countries, at US and 1st world expense,
>>> while redistributing the funds to 3rd world
>>> governments (not 3rd world citizens).
>> This is a very curious proposition to be
> included in a scientific
>> paper (unless the topic is political science).
>>
>>> I am in favor of helping 3rd world citizens,
> ...
>> The point of trying to limit CO2 emissions is
> not to
>> help 3rd world citizens, but to avert a
> catastrophe.
>> Of course, some of the most affected countries
> are
>> poor, but the Kyoto Protocol and other measures
> were
>> designed for everyone, not as wealth
> redistribution
>> measures.
>>
>>> For another example, the Obama administration's
>>> intended policies of prohibiting drilling of
> oil
>>> and coal resources, even if research has shown
>>> ways to clean up the coal,
>> Sulphur can be cleaned out of the coal exhaust,
> but
>> CO2 can not be.  "Clean coal" is an oxymoron,
> which
>> Obama evidently is willing to waste limited
> govt. money
>> on because it is corporate welfare.
>>
>>> is economically
>>> counterproductive.  It has hurt the economy,
>>> killed (by some estimates) five million jobs in
>>> the industry,
>> Where do such ridiculous estimates come from?
> Five million is about
>> the number of jobs that have been lost in the
> recession.  The increase
>> in jobless since Obama took office is less than
> five million.
>>
>> Obama added temporary
>> restrictions on deep ocean drilling while BP was
> spewing tremendous
>> amounts of crude oil directly into the Gulf of
> Mexico, but there
>> never have been millions of Americans working on
> deep ocean drilling.
>>
>>> and diverted our focus from what it
>>> takes to get energy independence at reasonable
>>> prices.
>> Funding for wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and
> wave generation
>> of energy coupled with co-generation, efficiency
> improvement, and
>> reduction of excessive use of energy could
> safely put us on the
>> way to energy independence.
>>
>>> Yet NASA's evidence shows that its not a
> problem.
>> Climate disruption is probably the largest
> danger to our society.
>> It will cost the economy tens of trillions of
> dollars.
>>
>>> Its just another way to use regulation
>>> to crowd out the small oil producers and
> refiners,
>>> and raise the cost of entry.
>> Do you actually believe that the Democrats want
> to eliminate
>> small businesses?
>>
>>> That is one example
>>> where stated remedies, like the new gas mileage
>>> the Obama admin has forced on all of us by
>>> regulation
>> The Bush Administration hurt US auto
> manufacturers as well
>> the atmosphere by stalling gas mileage increase
> requirements.
>> Low gas mileage vehicles require the US to
> import more fuel,
>> hurting our balance of trade, and end up costing
> consumers
>> more because their vehicles burn more gasoline.
>>
>>> with no alternative for those who knew
>>> the GW alarmists were up to no good with no
> good evidence.
>> Do you believe that the vast majority of climate
> researchers
>> around the world are involved in a massive
> conspiracy to
>> produce false science for some evil purpose?
>>
>>> There are only a few huge auto companies
>>> which dominate the market for good reason -
>> because small producers were bought out by
> larger ones.
>>
>>> political pressure and donations that
>>> suck funds from taxpayers struggling to make
> ends
>>> meet.
>>
>>
>>> Watch alternative news, such as Al Jazeera,
> Russia
>>> Today, and other country opinions of US actions
> to
>>> get the countervailing view as opposed to just
> the
>>> mainstream media which stays politically
> correct.
>>> The other side of the story is very informative
> if
>>> you are interested in the topics they discuss.
>>> One viewpoint is nearly guaranteed to be wrong
> in
>>> certain ways, and only by stepping outside of
> the
>>> prevailing views will you get a balanced
>>> understanding.  Even Fox Business Channel,
> which
>>> focuses almost solely on financial issues,
>>> provides a countervailing view to CNN, for
>>> example.
>>> These compelling regulatory bodies are usually
>>> populated with people from huge companies in
> the
>>> industry being regulated.
>> Certainly when pro-corporate, anti-consumer,
> presidents
>> appoint board members.  We need strong laws
> banning
>> revolving door employment between regulatory
> bodies and
>> the companies regulated.
>>
>> -- doug f
>>
>>> Guess what?  The huge
>>> companies become huger and the smaller
> companies
>>> with better products and services disappear.
>>
>>
>>> JMHO,
>>> -Rich
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Rich Cooper
>>> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>>> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>>> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On
>>> Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:32 PM
>>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was
> RE:
>>> Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy)
>>>
>>> On 8/9/2011 11:50 AM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>>>> Just how much does each of us value safety,
>>> honest advertising,
>>>> cleanliness, and other honest and fair
>>> practices?
>>>
>>> I would rate those things extremely high.  Most
>>> people are willing
>>> to pay extra for safe, sound, and effective
> food,
>>> drugs, restaurants,
>>> hotels, homes, cars, and appliances.  But there
> is
>>> no way to ensure
>>> safety without standards and inspections.  And
>>> there is no way to
>>> ensure that the information people get is
> reliable
>>> without laws that
>>> prosecute false claims and counterfeit labels.
>>>
>>> If you want to see what happens without
> effective
>>> gov't regulation,
>>> just look at what happened with the food and
> water
>>> system in China.
>>> People there are terrified that they can't
> trust
>>> their food and
>>> water supply.  Look at the disastrous levels of
>>> casualties caused
>>> by earthquakes and mine disasters in areas with
> no
>>> building codes.
>>>
>>> The Chinese gov't has imposed some drastic
> capital
>>> executions
>>> for managers responsible for food that killed
>>> people.  But I'd
>>> much rather have standards and inspections in
>>> advance than harsh
>>> penalties for the people who killed me.
>>>
>>> You can call that the "nanny state", but I call
> it
>>> common sense.
>>>
>>>> I disagree with one-size-fits-all regulation.
>>> The European Union has prohibited BPA as a
> plastic
>>> softener for
>>> food containers and children's toys, and
>>> California is trying
>>> to do the same.  But the US still allows BPA.
> The
>>> Chinese produce
>>> plastic with and without BPA.  The cost
> difference
>>> is minimal, but
>>> many manufacturers will shave pennies.  So they
>>> produce both kinds,
>>> and they ship the BPA versions to the US.
>>>
>>> I am all in favor of freedom, especially for
>>> myself.  But if
>>> there is no regulation, the contaminated stuff
>>> dominates the market.
>>> Worst of all, the people who produce the
>>> contaminated stuff don't
>>> want any regulations that would force them to
>>> disclose what's
>>> in their product.
>>>
>>> That is not freedom for me.  That's freedom for
>>> the people who
>>> produce the contaminated goods.  I have no
> choice.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
> __________________________________________________
>>> _______________
>>> Message Archives:
>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>> Config Subscr:
>>>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>>> orum/
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>> To join:
>>>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
>>> ge#nid1J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
>>> Message Archives:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>> Config Subscr:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
> orum/
>>> Unsubscribe:
> mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>> To join:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
> ge#nid1J
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> ==================================================
> ===========
>> doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>>
>> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own
> nation. The great
>> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative
> to stop it must be ours."
>>      - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>>
> ==================================================
> ===========
>>
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
>> Message Archives:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
> orum/
>> Unsubscribe:
> mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
> ge#nid1J
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
> Message Archives:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
> orum/
> Unsubscribe:
> mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
> ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>    (09)


=============================================================
doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (010)

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================    (011)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (012)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>