Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Moral Foundations Test

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Here’s a fascinating online test being conducted by Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues at the University of Virginia that explores the differences in moral values between liberals and conservatives. You can take the “Moral Foundations Questionnaire” here. Here are my results.

Fairness values:

Fairness as egalitarianism (e.g., “ideally, everyone would end up with the same amount of money)

  • Fairness as equity or proportionality (e.g., “people who work the hardest should be paid the most”)
  • Fairness as retribution (e.g., “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”)
  • Fairness as personal responsibility vs. freeloading (e.g., “whether or not everyone is pulling their own weight”)

    • Liberty values:

    • Personal liberty (e.g., “everyone should be free to do as they choose…”);
    • Freedom from government (e.g., “the government interferes too much in our everyday lives”);
    • National autonomy (e.g., “I want my nation to stay clear of treaties that will limit…”)

    Take the test then post your results in the comments section. I’d be very interested to see how regular B.R. commenters (and anyone else who cares to identify him/herself) compare on moral values.

    Share this article

    ADVERTISEMENT

    (comments below)

    ADVERTISEMENT

    (comments below)

    Comments

    76 responses to “The Moral Foundations Test”

    1. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      okay.. how do we "capture" the results and insert them into comments?

    2. Gooze Views Avatar
      Gooze Views

      Jim,
      Not sure how this is all that revealing. Both libs and conservatives like personal liberty. Ok. Libs are less scared of government. Conservatives like to wave the flag. What's the news peg here? Don't we already know this?

      Peter Galuszka

    3. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Peter, No great surprises here. But now we can measure, compare and contrast. It's fun!

      Larry, I think you'll have to transcribe the results like this….

      FAIRNESS
      Equality – 4.5
      Equity — 3.5
      Retribution — 0.5

      And so on…

    4. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      this is a pretty comprehensive set of tests.. and a bit confusing… I just took the

      Part C of the "Moral Foundations Questionnaire"

      which does not appear to be the ones that Jim took…

      I'm sorta with Peter… on the test I took, I aligned higher and then lower than liberals and conservatives… i.e. no correlation at all…

      Peter is on to something also I think.

      Many Conservatives seem to think that people who agree with waterboarding or holding people without charges don't love their country like those that do support those things.

      And it's really 100% the opposite.

      They love there country and that's why they opposed things that they feel don't represent the values of their country.

      but those that favor these things cannot seem to conceive that people who oppose these practices are patriots ….

      so.. I'm not sure what these little tests would really show..but I'm willing to humor Mr. Bacon…

    5. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      well.. the single number doesn't work because don't you also have to show the L and C values also along with your score?

    6. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      for instance.. for the one I took:

      Universalism:

      me: 1.6
      libs: 3.4
      Cons: 2.4

      Lib Purity

      me: 2.2
      libs: 2.6
      Cons: 2.2

    7. Gooze Views Avatar
      Gooze Views

      Larry,
      Let's waterboard Bacon. Just for fun. See what happens and what he reveals.
      PG

    8. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      what Bacon would reveal

      it would be horrible….

      once and for all.. the terrible truth would be exposed for all to see…..

      Bacon… is .. a …. closet….RINO

      He would be immediately drummed out of the Pachyderm Club.. I'm quite sure.

    9. E M Risse Avatar
      E M Risse

      You boys have way too much time on your hands.

      Tom Jacobs did a story of Haidt in Miller-McCune in May-June 2009. (Reprinted in Utne in the fall).

      Interestingly, the take-aways from the story are about what Peter and Larry summarized.

      Reading Jacobs story took a lot less time.

      EMR

    10. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      I couldn;t figure out what o make ofthe questions: either/or choices where both are wrong.

      Examples later.

    11. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      there were several questions and answers that were situational…

      like one about "white" lies…

      okay.. some folks think that no reporting half their income is a "white" lie while others consider it to be telling your kids that Santa is real.

      That's a problem…

      then… for someone to design an algorithm that would determine if liberals or conservatives were more inclined to tell a white lie…

      … well then.. I'd start to think that the person designing the questions is probably pretty young and naive or if older – not very well connected to the real world.

      but they have quite a few of these "tests" so I might wander around a little more…just to see what I can see…

    12. R. Stanton Scott Avatar
      R. Stanton Scott

      I frankly found the Graham/Haidt/Nosek article on the moral foundations of politics far more interesting than the surveys.

      The authors develop a theory of morality which argues that people have developed five "moral intuitions" which give foundation to values and moral choices. Though I disagree with their implication that evolution influenced the development of these particular "intuitions" (I think they were socially constructed), I like their corollary idea that variation in our choice of which to emphasize could distinguish liberals from conservatives.

      People, that is, who place more emphasis on loyalty, respect for authority, and purity as moral values will have a very different view of social organization and interaction than those who emphasize relative harm or fairness.

      And it begs an important question for conservatives: how to reconcile a moral foundation emphasizing these three values with participatory democracy–where the very concept of "rights" has a "fairness" component?

    13. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "… how to reconcile a moral foundation emphasizing these three values…"

      A moral foundation with more than one principal value will eventually be confronted with a moral conundrum that cannot be resolved.

      Start your moral foundation with one principal and build from there.

      RH

    14. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Moral Foundations test:

      "Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called in a new audiotape for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming.

      In the tape, aired in part on Al-Jazeera television Friday, bin Laden warns of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt.

      He says the world should "stop consuming American products" and "refrain from using the dollar,"

      —————————–

      Suppose Bin Laden is correct, and we can save billions of people from disastrous effects of global warming by bringing the wheels of American commerce to a halt.

      What should be our moral imperative towards Bin Laden?

      RH

    15. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      R. Scott Stanton is right on.

      Thank you for the citation.

      JRC

    16. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Mr. Scott – you raise an important point about "fairness." Most people think being fair is important, but I submit that people differ as what constitutes fairness.

      In a basketball game between a very good team and a very bad team of let's say school-aged children in a community league (so we can all have some empathy), what is fair? A well-officiated game where the calls are equal and accurate, but where the kids on the bad team are humiliated and demoralized? Or where the officials "put their thumb on the scale," holding the good team to a tougher standard than they hold the bad team to (a player on the good team can barely bump a player on the other team without being called for a personal foul, while a player on the bad team can hold and push players on the good team while the referees close their eyes)? Or should the referee go so far as to move players between the two teams at halftime so the good and bad teams are not quite so good or bad?

      Fairness can mean procedural equality or equality in the results to different people. A team that has players (again assume school-aged children in a community league) who simply cannot have any chance of winning any game against any other team in the league probably won't think than they had a fair chance irrespective of the quality of the refereeing.

      On the other hand, a team that sees dishonest and unequal refereeing or other application of the rules in order to hold it back, probably won't see the situation as fair either.

      Fairness is complicated, and that's even before we decide that we want every basketball game to be decided by fewer than five points.

      TMT

    17. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      I suggest fair is the Golden Rule.

      Don't do anything to anyone else you would not want done to you.

      You wanna torture someone?
      Abort someone?
      Steal from someone?
      Control their property?

      Willing to give others the same authority towards yourself?

      You can pretty much build the rest of your code on top of that.

      RH

    18. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      " I suggest fair is the Golden Rule."

      yep.. that's what those troopers tell those HOV violators when they ticket them….

    19. E M Risse Avatar
      E M Risse

      A quick review of the study R. S. Scott cited and of the Jacobs story noted above makes it clear:

      The whole Moral Foundations idea is a way to legitimize and sanctify ‘politics.’

      What is needed is a path to avoid ‘politics’ – especially partisan politics.

      Citizens need a more simple, transparent governance process that they can participate in and believe in. That means peer guidance at the Dooryard scale, Cluster scale direct democracy, and representative democracy at all the other organic scales of human settlement and economic activity.

      ‘Politics’ was invented by those with power as a way for a few to control a society where the vast majority could not read or write. In addition the vast majority were far too busy trying to achieve a rudimentary level of substance and shelter to devote time to self-governance.

      Happiness and safety FOR ALL was an inconceivable luxury even in 1790 or 1873.

      For now, humans have the resources to recast governance via Antipartisanship and achieve this goal. See Amitai Etzioni – Get Rich Now.

      Mr. Scott is right, it is not evolution per se that underlie these altitudinal differences. There are reactions to economic and social phenomenon – attempts to maximize resources / wealth and control others. They are greed and power dressed up in moral vestments and they must be outgrown, not sanctified.

      Let us agree that the Golden Rule is the place to start. Everyone is equal. (He / she who has the gold does NOT rule.)

      The second step is to evolve a governance structure the reflects the organic structure of human settlement so that there is a rational nexus between every individual / Household and every Organization on the one hand and the decisions that impact them on the other.

      Next craft a decision system that puts the level of decision at the level of impact with shared responsibility where there are multi-level impacts. Put an end to nation-state control of Cluster, Community or Regional concerns except where the cumulative impact is in fact MultiRegional (aka, ‘national’).

      Establish majority rule at every scale except where a decision will have a direct negative impact on a minority constituency. In these cases require a super-majority plus compensation. (An application of the Golden Rule: “We know it hurts but if our roles were reversed, we believe this decision would be one which we would consider fair under the circumstances.”

      Antipartisanship will require:

      Citizens have far more information, and

      There must be far more discussion at every level to arrive at well considered public judgements.

      The process followed by Sweden to establish sustainability as a nation-state goal (The Next Step) is a useful model for important decisions.

      EMR

    20. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      I appreciate EMR's thoughts.. well considered for sure…

      ..but most folks "out there" consider "governance" as a wonky idea for effete elites.

      Most folks… many folks… "governance" translates into a simple proposition "how much of my money do you want for "govt" services" and what do I get for it in return?

      And I'd posit that, "in theory", probably most folks believe that there are clear benefits to some kinds of tax-paid-for "govt".

      the problems come when the "theory" meets the "practice" and $600 toilet seats start finding their way into the "needs" of governance.

      so then you end up with 3 basic views:

      1. taxes are good.. we get good stuff from them and as I can figure out how to minimize my taxes and maximize my "take". (picture Ray here)

      2. taxes are a necessary evil and I'm too busy to dig into the detail (picture most "independents" here.. Republican RINOS, etc

      3. taxes are an abomination and the only effective way to deal with them is to starve the beast any and all ways that can be accomplished (picture Groveton here).

      alright.. so a lot of folks never think about "governance".. they never really consider the concepts that EMR has painstakingly constructed… AND they are highly suspicious that "change" means … more taxes… so when someone "suggests" that we need to change our governance.. most folks know.. there's trouble ahead… and the do-gooders will infest governance and turn society into a giant commune….

    21. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Larry, there's at least a fourth view on taxes — the Fairfax County business community (dominated by a few large landowner/developers).

      4. Taxes are good, so long as they are raised on a broad basis from the "little people" and I get good stuff from them by manipulating the process. Watch the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce argue for tax increases for transportation, but opposes cost-based impact fees or proffers and adequate public facilities laws. The Washington Board of Trade is even worse, opposing proffers, impact fees and any restrictions on development in Virginia, while not trying to repeal similar laws in Maryland.

      TMT

    22. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      TMT – I _knew_ when I was writing that I had ignored a key area …

      thanks for remembering.

      yes.. there is a hefty contingent of local miscreants whose primary interest in involving themselves in "governance" is not duty to their fellow citizens but rather how to use taxpayer monies to bankroll their own "investments".

      Waste is bad enough.. but appropriating taxes for private use is a time-honored insult

      and now.. thanks to the SCOTUS, we get to give money to corporations who then will use that money to bribes elected officials and call it "free speech".

    23. E M Risse Avatar
      E M Risse

      Larry:

      you might be right about "most folks." I hope you are not becasue if you are and there is not a shift in their understanding of 'governance' then in a century humans that survive will be back living in caves.

      Having attended and led thousands of meetings on hundreds of topics in contexts where your view was NOT what citizens thought 'goverance' is about, EMR has faith that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

      It may be those who have chosen to be 12.5 Percenters who hold the views you see as universal.

      EMR

    24. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      EMR – you need more challenging audiences!

      I suggest you take your show to the tea party folks …but wear your armor.

    25. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Campaign contributions. What if the law would have been only natural persons can make campaign contributions, which must be in the name of the individual and may not be bundled with those of anyone else. No corporate contributions. No labor union contributions. No Sierra Club or Chamber of Commerce contributions.

      I wonder what the SCOTUS would have said to that.

      TMT

    26. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      I thought the SCOTUS was pretty clear.

      They said that GE, GM, et al could add a buck or two to the cost of their products when you buy them and then give that money to candidates AND write it off as a business expense!

      We are turned into serfs paying tribute.

    27. E M Risse Avatar
      E M Risse

      Larry, thank you for the suggestion but we prefer not to deal with idology driven, self-selected groups that have no geographic / locational base.

      It also may be that Larry’s concern is just be an issue of Vocabulary.

      EMR applies the dictionary meaning of ‘governance.’

      The views Larry is talking about may be what RHTC’s think about ‘government.’

      TMT:

      Only natural persons have rights and pay taxes is one of Robert Reich's cures for SuperCapitalism.

      A very good idea.

      EMR

    28. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      re: people and "governance".

      well at the end of the day it gets down to a pretty simple proposition…..

      are you going to convince people to of their own free will – agree to change in governance…

      or will you come up with some other more polite name for tyranny or variants of it?

      Democracy is an ugly compromise between free will and tyrannical solutions to free-will.

      right?

      but at the end of the day.. if you cannot convince enough folks to change their governance.. then what?

      is it sorta like telling the rest of the folks in the lifeboat about the hole in the back and they're too busy manning the oars to listen?

      I wonder if the Moral Foundation Test would offer any insight into this dilemma?

    29. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "What is needed is a path to avoid ‘politics’ – especially partisan politics."

      Precisely.

      Partisan politics is just a way to get what you want, through force, at the expense of someone else.

      It is an excuse to steal.

      RH

    30. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Citizens need a more simple, transparent governance process that they can participate in and believe in. But EMR's prescription of how to do it is all wrong. There is nothing simple or transparent about peer pressure from your neighbors. His perescription is so complicated no one wil have time to participate, and so complicated no one will believe in it.

      RH

    31. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      The thing about changing governance is that you can only do that a couple of ways.

      1. – using the EXITING Governance go through the EXISTING provisions for changing it… which are elections and Constitutional Referenda.

      2. – Revolution/anarchy/etc

      1. means the burden is on those who wish to change – to convince enough of the others to agree.

      This is something even the Tea Party folks either don't get …or.. they really want 2.

      ALL of the things that the Tea Party folks want and EMR want…require that we use our existing process to make those changes… which means.. you have to convince a majority of your fellow citizens to change – and to change to something you are advocating.

      It's not that this cannot happen… Look at Europe … where citizens DID AGREE to FORM A UNION with a new currency – Euro's … so change DOES happen.

      I just get a little frustrated listening to folks who want the system to change but don't seem to want to go through the change procedures we have for change.

    32. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Ambiguous questions from the "tests"

      "Is it wrong for the government to redistribute wealth, no matter what good comes of it."

      What if the wealthy (as well as the less wealthy) become even wealthier as a result of the redistribution?

      This assumes that the government is merely stealing and the government intervention itself has no value.

      Therefore the clause "no matter what good comes from it" must mean that this question can only be answered in the negative. Surely we must be able to imagine SOME circumsatance in which the harm done is more than compensated.

      RH

    33. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "Happiness and safety FOR ALL was an inconceivable luxury even in 1790 or 1873. "

      Some people will NEVER be happy, but that is a personal choice.

      But a reasonable level of happiness and safety is probably more generally achievable now than ever before.

      RH

    34. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      yep.. that's what those troopers tell those HOV violators when they ticket them….

      Its what I TELL SOMEONE LIVING IN A HOUSE who doesn't want someone else to have one.

      RH

    35. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "Let us agree that the Golden Rule is the place to start. Everyone is equal. (He / she who has the gold does NOT rule.)"

      ——————————–

      THAT wasn't the golden rule I HAd in mind.

      As ususal, your proposed second step in no way follows from the first, even theough the first was deliberately mis-stated.

      RH

    36. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      re: " Its what I TELL SOMEONE LIVING IN A HOUSE who doesn't want someone else to have one."

      think of it as redistributing income…. and some good comes from it

      heh heh

    37. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "Next craft a decision system that puts the level of decision at the level of impact with shared responsibility where there are multi-level impacts."

      —————————

      We have a decision system. It is called money and property and trade.

      The level of decision may need to be changed, to more of a systems level view. When county government makes a decision they are restricted by law to considering ONLY the county budget, and NOT the actual welfare of the people.

      This leads to bad decisions because they are not considering the full system.

      But, at the system level, the best decision (available within existing constraints) will be reached as an accumulation of thousands of tiny decisions: decisions that are below the purview of governance.

      What government needs to do is adjust those constraints or market failures, while affecting as few of the other degrees of freedom s possible.

      Therefore the decision hurdle becomes obvious: Can we adjust the constraints such that the winners are able to pay off the losers and everyone is STILL better off?

      RH

    38. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "Establish majority rule at every scale except where a decision will have a direct negative impact on a minority constituency. In these cases require a super-majority plus compensation."

      —————————–

      Thank you.

      Now we are getting somewhere.

      Most decisions will always have a negative impact on someone. Whether that is done by majority or supermajority doesn't make any difference as long as they are fairly and reasonably compensated.

      The compensation decision needs to be automatic and separate from the policy decision. You don't have the same judge issuing a decree for taking and then issuing the decree for compensation.

      RH

    39. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      think of it as redistributing income…. and some good comes from it

      heh heh

      ———————————-

      Fine, show me the redistribution.

      Presumably this redistributes money from those who are prevented from building to those that have built. If some good comes of it, then there should be excess money that can be redistributed back.

      So, I am refused authority to build a house on the grounds that it saves the county $25,000 a year.

      I'm a member of the county, so i get a share of that savings but I endure ALL of the cost. I'm also a minority. Even EMR thinks that compenation is due.

      Pay me 5% interest on the money you are saving – by borrowing it from me through force -, and then I have no problem.

      RH

    40. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "think of it as redistributing income…. and some good comes from it"

      No, think of it as Golden Rule. Are you willing to have house decisions apply equally, whehter the house exists or not?

      The county decides they are better off by $25000 a year for each house they don't have.

      The budget shortfall is $500000, so we need to not populate 20 houses.

      Let's have a lottery.

      The losers still get compensated at 5%, same as before.

      Either way I have no problem, but the current approach is stealing and not an application of Golden Rule.

      RH

    41. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "The thing about changing governance is that you can only do that a couple of ways."

      You assume that we need to change governance. We already have the best, most enduring, most stable system of government in history, with the best institutions in place.

      We already have laws in place to protect minorities and their property, including rich minorities.

      We have just allowed a lot of people to run around with the idea that it is OK to steal if you get enough others to help you.

      That is ALREADY against the law. We don't need MORE Laws, but we need to enforce that one steadfastly.

      RH

    42. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "you have to convince a majority of your fellow citizens to change – and to change to something you are advocating."

      =================================

      Wrong.

      The majority has no right to get what they are advocating unfairly.

      Majority and fair have zero nexus.

      The law already says, no party has to bear an undue burden. PERIOD. In order to do that, all we need is a lot better definition of what is yours and what is mine, and a lot better protection once defined.

      The EURO was created under an elaborate set of rules to ensure that no country was over advantaged or burdened in the crossover.

      Wasn't the EURO originally a parallel currency, with each country setting its own exchange rate? After the SYSTEM achieved its own balance in Euros, eliminating the separate underlying coins made little difference.

      RH

    43. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "It is more important to protect the right of Americans to own____________.

      It is more important to control ____________ownership."

      ===============================

      If you just take out the emotional word "guns" this question is easy to answer.

      RH

    44. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "A fair society would be one in which everyone's needs were met to the same degree."

      Are we talking about minimal, basic, subsistence level, needs for food, clother and shelter, or are we talking about Bernie Madoffs "needs"?

      ——————————–

      The government should increase restrictions on emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories in an attempt to reduce the effects of global warming.

      UMM> How much increase in restrictions? How strong an attempt are we talking about, and what effects are we planning on stopping?

      How do you possibly respond to a statement like that? The only HONEST
      answer is " I don't know."

      RH

    45. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      the need to change governance (or not).

      we do have the supermajority rule for changes in the Constitution and it appears in Congress that a Modern Version of Massive Resistance against unwanted legislation is definitely possible.

      But our Constitution does say that the way we decide major issues is by voting.

      The Constitution protects minorities from inequitable laws but not elections except sometimes with citizen-initiated referenda where judges and legislators also enter the fray.

      and just to point out… a supermajority …. say 2/3 or 3/4 … doesn't change the concept of the majority's treatment of the minority but in fact, reinforces it by saying if the majority is big "enough", then the minority loses anyhow

      … right?

      not sure how you get around this majority thing….

    46. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      The Constitution protects minorities from inequitable laws but not elections ….

      ==============================

      That is why we have redistricting: the Constitution DOES protect minorities from DELIBERATELY inequitable elections.

      There are two levels of voting talked about here: we should distinguish them.

      On one level we vote for our representatives. We may not get the representative we voted for, but whoever is elected is still bound to be OUR representive as well as those who voted for him.

      No matter what his mandate is, it isn't one to discriminate or steal.

      The second level of voting is those votes taken on policy by our representatives. Even there, they are prohibited by law fromencting rules that place an unfair burden.

      Until you have a supermajority DISENACT the existing laws protectig minorities and property there is no "need" to "get around" that majority thing.

      All we need is legislators with the moral foundation to understand taht partisan politics is not a license to steal.

      There is simply no reason for government to enact any policy that does not provide a net public benefit.

      The simple test is this: can you compensate the losers and still come out ahead?

      You make that test universal, substantial, transparent, and fair, and you will see a whole lot less call for dubious legislation in the name of the "public good".

      As a result people will keep more of what they have, be more stable, less insecure, and be more invested in a better society, with more trade.

      RH

    47. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      re: " No matter what his mandate is, it isn't one to discriminate or steal.

      The second level of voting is those votes taken on policy by our representatives. Even there, they are prohibited by law fromencting rules that place an unfair burden."

      If the candidate says that he intends to vote for laws that require development to pay for itself and restrict growth.

      and he/she runs on that basis and wins.. and he/she does what they promise within the confines of the Constitution…

      … then what?

      " Until you have a supermajority DISENACT the existing laws protectig minorities and property there is no "need" to "get around" that majority thing."

      well our existing Governance, basically says that if enough people agree – that they CAN discriminate against the minorities.. as long as they have enough for a super majority vote

      right?

    48. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      " There is simply no reason for government to enact any policy that does not provide a net public benefit."

      sure… now get 10 people to all agree on the same net public benefit.

      For instance, there are quite a few of us who do not believe home mortgage interest deduction produces a net public benefit but the opposite….

      and yet in my view.. government continues to NOT provide a net public benefit on this.

      you're expecting everyone to "know" what is "right" or your version of what is "right" and if things were that simple.. we'd not even need elections.. we'd just all march out to the town square and have kumbaya and lattes every evening.

      we decide these differences by elections and yes.. it is partisan if your basic philosophy is that public benefit is decided best NOT by government – they disagree that government should be the arbiter of public benefit from the get go…

    49. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "sure… now get 10 people to all agree on the same net public benefit."

      No one has to agree on the net amount. It can be one lousy penny,if the legislature is dumb enough to go along.

      All you have to agree is that the TEST for net public benefit is that all the losers are fully and adequately compensated.

      ———————–

      "The latest and worst example of abuse comes from the state Department of Transportation. It notified a landowner in 1996 that it planned to build the Route 7 Brookfield bypass through 17 acres of his property, which was a quarry. So the owner ceased putting money into equipment and contracted out most of the work. The DOT took the entire 108-acre parcel in 2004, and with it, 15 million tons of unexcavated stone.

      The DOT paid $4.1 million for the quarry, even though it had two independent appraisals valuing a portion of the property for $14 million and $18 million. The department's estimate indicated the entire parcel may be worth $30 million. Worse, the DOT hired an out-of-state appraiser with questionable credentials who said that the entire property was worth only $2.36 million. He was paid $240,000.

      The owner sued. The trial judge used the words "misrepresented," "lied," "deceived," "partisan" and "unethical" to describe the appraiser's work for the DOT and his testimony. The judge said the the DOT was "unreasonable," "unprofessional," and "lacking in diligence and less than scrupulous."

      The judge valued the property at $22.9 million and assessed interest on the deficiency of $18.8 million at the rate of 10 percent annually from 2004 to date of payment. It cost Connecticut's taxpayers more than $33 million. The attorney general declined to appeal."

      Route 7 is probably still a public benefit. The only question is whther the guy got paid a fair price for his property, minerals, business, effort, relocation to another livliehood, and all the time and expense to defend himself.

      This should never have happened, and had he been offered a demonstrably fair deal to start with, there would have been no problem.

      RH

    50. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      " All you have to agree is that the TEST for net public benefit is that all the losers are fully and adequately compensated."

      ha ha ha

      whose test? what does it test? who designs it?

      So this candidate tells the voters… "see, I got this test" and if you elect me.. it'll guide me in ALL of my decisions…

      .. no don't ask me nothing about this test.. I'll tell you about it AFTER I'm elected.

      Fair enough?

      ha ha ha ha

      you're such a kidder guy!!!

    51. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "there are quite a few of us who do not believe home mortgage interest deduction produces a net public benefit but the opposite….

      and yet in my view.. government continues to NOT provide a net public benefit on this."

      —————————–

      So what? Who care how many of you there are or what you think?

      If you want to propose that everyone give back all of the home mortgage deduction they ever got, that is one thing.

      But if you want to eliminate it for the new guys after yours is paid for, that is just stealing. The fact that it is temporal doesn't change the fact.

      How is a policy unfair if it is available to everyone? The whole purpose of that law is to keep parity between homeowners and landlords – for whom interest is deductible. That policy benefits everyone with a roof over their head, renter or owner.

      The question of whether that policy ACTUALLY provides a net benfit is moot, since there are no winners taking advantage of losers.

      No one is preventing you from buying another proerty and tking another deduction – whether you rent the property or not.

      It is an ENTIRELY different situation from one whre someone says "hey, remember when you could not build within fifty feet from the streambed that is dry 99% of the time? Well now it is 500 feet."

      Golden Rule, Larry. It isn't that hard: most kindergartners understand it.

      RH

    52. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      " So what? Who care how many of you there are or what you think?"

      but you said we all had to agree what was fair or not and all I'm pointing out is that there is not agreement to start with – before you ever get to the 2nd part of trying to figure out how to compensate….

    53. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      whose test? what does it test? who designs it?

      ——————————-

      That seems pretty simple to me.

      The test is whether a loser is fully and adequately compensated.
      That does not mean that the udge who takes your property under eminent doamin gets to set the price, too.

      It does not mean the price is set by a consultant hired by the state.

      It does not mean the price is zero, as is the case with most regulatory takings.

      It does not mean that the zoning board is exempt from being taken to court.

      Now, there will always be some irrational holdouts, those who think no price is high enough, so you need to have enough people look at it who are disinterested and preferably foreign to the district.

      People who have no compunction at realizing the same thing could happen to THEM someday, and how would they want to be treated, and people who don't have to foot the bill for the compensation.

      We have plenty of ways to evaluate property and do it fairly. We do it all the time. The only reason we do NOT do it when public policy is concerned is becasue we think it is OK for the public to get over on some poor schmuck.

      WE mistakenly thing THAT is for the public good.

      RH

    54. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      If all the losers ar fully and fairly compensated and the public STILL wants the result of the policy enough to pay the costs, then they MUST think there is still a public benefit.

      But, if after seeing the bill for ALL of the costs they are imposing they are no longer interested, then the net benefit probably wasn't so great, was it?

      The only place it REALLY gets murky in the least is the situation we hve now: we impose a policy and claim a public benefit without making any of the compensation. The losses are excruciatingly, even crushingly well known to the losers, and the benefits are tabulated nowhere.

      You claim not to have a problem with losing your building lot, being as it was done by the majority and all.

      But I'll bet you still have in the back of you head a pretty fair idea of what that lot might be worth today.

      RH

    55. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      re: compensating folks for the removal of a tax break

      geeze… you mean all the folks who never got to deduct the interest on the car loan can demand refunds from those that did in the past?

      and tell me again.. what kind of Governance.. we need to do to get this to happen?

      oh yeah.. we just have to get the winners and losers to agree that one of the two groups is dead wrong and needs to join the other side … then start discussing compensation?

      this is why we have elections guy…. and it's no coincidence that 99% of the contested elections do not end up 99% to 1% but rather in the 50-50 range give or take 10 or 20 points – either side.

      And if the elected guy/gal and a majority of his/her elected counterparts agree to do away with the mortgage interest deduction… I would be shocked…yes SHOCKED if they sent bills to all the folks asking to give back the money.

      In fact, I can fairly confidently tell you that in the event that such an absurdity actually did take place that it would likely result in all kinds of unpleasantness …eventually culminating in another election that would summarily and without ceremony deposit the incumbent into the ranks of the unemployed forthwith to be replaced with a less idiotic replacement who would busy himself with other more important duties.

      translation: no way Hos'e

    56. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      HINT – pssssttt …you FIRST have to get folks to agree who the losers are… and that's not a done deal amigo.

    57. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      How can I decide what is fair? You haven't even shown how you lost anything?

      What you are claiming is that there is no way to determine fair, and we shouldn't even try.

      What I am saying is that there are ways to determine fair, but we have not tried to find them because we would rather have the ability to steal.

      Set the rule that says the losers in any public policy have to be fully and fairly compensated. Let that rule be durable, transparent, and ubiquitous.

      Then we can start on how to build a system to decide on fair compensation. But first yu have to agree that stealing is always bad public policy.

      Then make any policy you like: but first do no harm. Your claim on mortgage deductions is that we are all losers. If that is the case then we all need to be compensated: your example does not disprove the rule.

      Our legal system is supposed to be fair and impartial, but videocameras and DNA tests have proven otherwise, so now we are slowly making improvements.

      Nowhere in govenment do we have an adeuate system to deliberately go back and test, measure and improve on our policies: we just depend on advocacy, which boils down to stealing.

      You are saying there is no way to rationally deermine what is fair, and I'm saying we have not tried.

      RH

    58. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      you FIRST have to get folks to agree who the losers are… and that's not a done deal amigo.

      ——————————-

      Why is that so hard?

      I had something before and now I don't have it. I didn't get paid. someone else got something they wanted for nothing.

      ——————————-

      You gonna stand there with a straight face and tell me you cannot see who the losers are when you change the setbacks?

      ================================

      "you FIRST have to get folks to agree who the losers are… and that's not a done deal amigo."

      Nope, all you gotta do is make sure the policy applies to everybody equally. You want to restrict/eliminate development?

      Make it ALL development, not just new development.

      There are ways to do this stuff right, you just prefer the ability to steal for the public benefit, otherwise you would not be fighting the idea.

      Let landowners take the zoning board to court. I have a little game I play. When I'm at the gas pump I'll stike up a conversation with the guy at the other pump.

      "What do you think about….." More often than not the answer comes back, " I think he goat screwed" or "Who cares, let the guy live his life"

      If I thought I had a real beef, I'd trust in twelve other actual people as long as they didn't have a dog in the fight.

      It isn't that we cannot do it, but we have allowed it to become so expensive to get redress that it isn't worth it. As a result it is an accepted stategy to steal a little at a time.

      Your arguments are not convincing me.

    59. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      you mean all the folks who never got to deduct the interest on the car loan can demand refunds from those that did in the past?

      ———————————

      What do you think he statute of limitations is on stealing?

      You got a "tax break" from the government which meant you spent less money for government than otherwise. You kept the money you did not spend and converted it into property which you still have today.

      As a result of the tax break you got, government was insufficiently funded: we passed the bill forward to our children and those awful "new guys" who mysteriously appeared to raise our infrastructure costs.

      Now they are paying our bill with their money and we still have our property. It would be fair for us to pay tax on the property we have now, same as they have to.

      It is called clawback.

      You could not very well eliminate the deduction for interest on car loans on one side of town and not the other, could you?

      Why would you think you can eliminate it on one side of time and not the other?

      You think this is a joke? Whatch what happens to social security.

      RH

    60. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      And if the elected guy/gal and a majority of his/her elected counterparts agree to do away with the mortgage interest deduction… I would be shocked…yes SHOCKED if they sent bills to all the folks asking to give back the money.

      ——————————

      You are talking about mob rule and what actually happens.

      I'm talking about right and wrong.

      RH

    61. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      The wind power industry fears bipartisan legislation that would make the wind blowing across your land a private property right unto itself could upend an industry just finding its groove in Colorado.

      Though bill sponsor Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, said state law already allows wind rights to be separated from the surface rights to a piece of private property, the bill would make the law explicit, allowing wind rights to be “severable” from surface rights.

      That means wind would be treated like oil or gas, which are separate property rights that could be owned by someone other than the landowner, creating a “split estate.”

      ——————————

      Care to figure out how someone is going to put a fair value on that?

      Assuming the wind blowin across your roperty isn't yours, where is the wind owner gong to place his turbine?

      RH

    62. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Two things are amusing about the rants of RH:

      RH yammers about Risse demanding some terrible tribute from citizens and infringing on their rights and privacy but all that Risse has ever asked as far as I can read is that each citizen (and each Organization) pay the fair cost of their actions as determined by democratic processes.

      Then RH says that there is already a ‘decision system’ called the market.

      RH has never understood either the impact of settlement patterns or the reality of Hazel Henderson’s “cake of the economy” which Risse reproduced with permission in The Shape of the Future.

      Get a life RH.

      RJM

    63. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      Ray's problem is that he cannot fathom that two people can honestly disagree as to what is fair or not without one of them being a thief …..

      so he's opposed to "Democratic" resolution of such disagreements because he says this is 'mob rule'.

      But EMR has his own issue also.

      EMR would also "decide" what is "fair" or 'not fair" with respect to settlement patterns …as far as I can tell … ALSO not via Democratic Processes….

      so they're both saying the current system is not fair and they are both saying the way to decide is to have ..essentially a benign "decider" that REALLY knows what is fair or not.

      But Ray is a worse offender because he openly accuses anyone with a different idea of what is fair than his own – as thieves whereas EMR simply says they are misguided.

      But both of them equally refuse to accept Democratic processes as how to resolve differences is what is "right and fair".

    64. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "EMR would also "decide" what is "fair" or 'not fair" with respect to settlement patterns …as far as I can tell … ALSO not via Democratic Processes…."

      "Larry," perhaps you could site one location where Risse has ever advocated decisions on settlement pattern issue other than by democratic processes.

      I have been reading carefully his material for 23 years and have never seen a single reference to such a position.

      You are just affraid if you tried to understand what he is really saying you would have to question your own location decisions.

      RJM

    65. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      RJM – you are correct about EMR and his advocacy but how does anyone advocate "Fundamental Change in Governance" and imply that to do not do so will result in the fall of civilization without giving a hint on how to achieve it?

      He might as well hold up a sign that says " The end of the world is near – and there is not a dang thing any of us can do about it".

      Now why is kind of dialog worth listening to?

      what will we learn from it?

      from a practical perspective, let's say I agree with EMR (as I actually do) .. how can I… be part of the necessary change that must occur?

      Should I go to my local BOS and advocate for citizen committees for each "zentra"?

      should I go to the GA and advocate for a change in the way we draw county boundary lines?

      How about Regional Governance?
      should I support more Regional Governance?

      How could you subscribe to any of this without some idea of how to help move things in the direction they need to go?

      do you "just believe" and that's it?

      Even the tree-huggers do better than that. At least they have principles they believe in and advocate for even if others think them impractical….

      so how do "believe" in something and not pursue it?

    66. R. Stanton Scott Avatar
      R. Stanton Scott

      Well, now. RH has some very interesting thoughts on how to define "stealing." I'm particularly interested in how ending a bad policy (e.g., the home mortgage interest deduction) constitutes a "theft" from those who have collected it in the past and those who will never get a chance to.

      I wonder who the agent is here. For theft to occur, some agent must deprive some other party of resources outside the socially accepted transactional process. Simply changing incentives through the governance process constitutes no theft, since no agent forced resources to change hands.

      Governance is not possible under a requirement for compensation of losers, for the reason several of you mention: disagreement on how to differentiate them from winners. Instead, we settle on a process which mostly agree presents each of us with some brand of equality–of process if not outcome.

      Markets do no better, since as with interaction with government our interactions with buyers and sellers take place without complete information. This means that those with more information fare better.

      Whether or not this process actually treats everyone fairly in the end makes no difference. The best we can do is continue working to find a useful hybrid of free markets and government which generates fair outcomes most of the time.

    67. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Larry said:

      "RJM – you are correct about EMR and his advocacy"

      Thank you

      "but how does anyone advocate "Fundamental Change in Governance" and imply that to do not do so will result in the fall of civilization without giving a hint on how to achieve it?"

      Have you bothered to read what Risse has cited for you to read or do you just like to surf and type while you wait for a neighbor to plow you out?

      Everyone needs to be part of the solution. Risse is doing his best. You need to cut him some slack and try to understand what he calls his "overarching conceptual framework." It is worth the effort.

      RMM

    68. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Sorry, I do not do enough tying.

      Not RMM but RJM

    69. Larry G Avatar
      Larry G

      RJM, I don't "do" 'reading assignments'….

      I expect the individual to provide the references needed to support his argument – .

      I consider such assignments as evading the questions.

      I initially did some of the reading that EMR "assigned" but basically for much of it to be just more generalized propaganda rather than specifics related to the inquiry.

      I have yet to see much in the specifics with respect to how to evolve the current settlement pattern paradigm to what EMR advocates – which, by the way, he does not even specify HOW governance itself should walk and talk in optimized governance.

      I'm certainly willing to look again if you want to give me a couple… but I do feel like I have tried to read some of EMR's "assignments" and afterwards felt not any better enlightened afterwards than before.

      You cannot make something so by saying it must be so because you have carefully derived it.

    70. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "RH has some very interesting thoughts on how to define "stealing."

      ——————————–

      Stealing is when you get something for nothing and make someone else pay.

      Stealing is when you had something before and now you don't have it and didn't get paid for it.

      If that is too hard to comprehend, then your ridicule is misplaced.

      ———————————

      We frequently hear complaints about spending too much now and sending the bill to our grandchildren. This is essentially a complaint about stealing from the next generation, and it isn't my idea.

      ——————————-

      I will readily admit that my argument was an exercise in reductio ad absurdium, but you apparently missed the point entirely:

      If you follow my two simple rules for determining theft, the situation would never have arisen: that situation being that we never paid enough as we went along,and now we are forwarding the bill.

      You call it whatever you want, I call it stealing.

      RH

    71. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Ray's problem is that he cannot fathom that two people can honestly disagree as to what is fair or not without one of them being a thief …..

      ———————————

      Not at all. that is when you walk away — no deal.

      But if you wind up with something I had, and I didn't get paid, then you must have stolen it.

      The fact that you think it is fair makes no difference.

      Thomas Jefferson in fact argued that the government should NOT have eminent domain, for just this reason. His argument was that if the government wanted the land they could raise the price until the OWNER decided it WAS fair.

      End of argument.

      If we had TJ's amendment instead of our present eminent domain laws,then we would have saved several billion on court costs.

      ——————————-

      I understand Larry's point, but the is deliberately obfuscating. we don't need a perfect definition of fairness, just a major overhaul from where we are now.

      For example if yu must move your business under eminent domain, under Virginial law your relocation costs are capped at $200,000, no matter wht youactual costs are.

      What is the justification for that and how is it remotely fair? Or see the example above where the state deliberately and cynically moved to take excess land at bargain prices, knowing that it was nowhere near fair.

      Surely we can devise better systems with better protection than that.

      But Larry's answer is simply that "some people will disagree"

      I had a friend who was sliding into mental illness. As much as I tried to explain to him that normal people didn't act the way he did, he disagreed: I was the one who was all wrong.

      But confronted with a half dozen people who begged him to get help, he suddenly became agreeable.

      We pretty much know what bowling alleys sell for. If someone loses his bowling alley and claims it is worth ten X, then he is probably being unreasonable.

      There ae ways to fix these things, but not if you go about it Larry's way.

      Then again, Larry does not WANT it fixed because more or less untrammelled regualatory takings are a favorite tool of the greenies.

      RH

    72. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      all that Risse has ever asked as far as I can read is that each citizen (and each Organization) pay the fair cost of their actions as determined by democratic processes.

      ———————————-

      You have not read closely enough. What Risse really wants is fair costs according to his calculation or failing that by a democratic prcess of people educated to his particular standard.

      It is a far cry from what I propose which is simply don't treat others differently from how you would be treated. Ask no more than you are illing to give.

      EMR, on the other hand suggested that we pay for educatin by simply taking the profits from entertainment and advertising.

      I'm sorry you think this is ranting.

      I was once an environmental scientist. I got out of it because the name of the game became blame, retribution, and stealing rather than how do we build a better world we all have to share.

      I saw far too many people who approched environmental ethics as Larry does, and it turned my stomach to see the waste it caused.

      RH

    73. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Get a life RH.

      I have one. My finest hour is when I get to confront a pompous ass with his own stupidity.

    74. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      for the reason several of you mention: disagreement on how to differentiate them from winners.

      —————————–

      Sorry, I don't see it.

      You had something before and now you don't.
      You did not get paid.

      Someone else claims that society is better off for your loss.

      In one sentence they recognize your loss, their gain, and deny your right to compensation.

      If there is a societal gain, let them take some of the profit and make compensation.

      If there is not enough gain to make the compensation, and make it gladly and fully, while giving thanks for the reamining societal gain, the WTF are we doing this for?

      You are simply splitting hairs on how to differentiate winners from losers, in order that you do not have to pay. And even if you choose to play that game, you still have to concede that the spirit of the Constitution suggests that we pay for property taken of public use.

      This is so patently obvious that I really do not see any salient argument otherwise. Yes, we should have wetland protection and, yes, we should pay people we take it from.

      The real issue here is one of externlities. some people legitimately feel that THEY are the loser because of some externality which has surfaced.

      But notice this is almost always a new claim, relative to the holdings of those who are actually being damaged.

      We need larger setbacks (after my house is built). What you have here is a NEW claim of property rights. Since that property has never been recognized or recorded before, this claim is ethically indistiguishable from "hands up, this is a robbery".

      Part and parcel of my argument is that we DO NOT have enough property rights and they are not well defined. Which is exactly what those claiming an external damage are claiming.

      As I see it many, but not all of those new rights will have to be carved out of existing rights, and they need to be paid for.

      Economy, Environment, Equality

      RH

    75. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      to have ..essentially a benign "decider" that REALLY knows what is fair or not.

      I've never said any such thing, and yet you continue to repeat this falsehood.

      ——————————–

      All I have suggested is that there are procedures that we can agree will result in fairer outcomes, and that we could agree on what those procedures might look like, without considering the outcomes.

      In fact, as soon as we start doing that, we are engaging in partisan politics designed to create a "win" for our side – otherwise known as stealing.

      So, before you can even agree to try to construct such procedures and systems, yu must first agree that fairness in the sense of the Golden Rule is an objective we want to have.

      Do we agree that winners can compensate the losers and still come out ahead? That this is juat way to make a better society for all, as opposed to a better society at the expense of some?

      Larry does not agree: he believes in mob rule and some peole having superior rights over others. He merely suggests that my proposals are worth nothing because the answers are too nebulous to resolve,or too complex to compute.

      RH

    76. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      "The best we can do is continue working to find a useful hybrid of free markets and government which generates fair outcomes most of the time."

      ——————————-

      That pretty much sums up my beliefs, too.

      I would suggest that government fails more often than markets, because there is no immediate connection between your purchase (your vote) and what you wind up getting.

      True, you do not have perfect knowledge when you make a purchase. You recognize that a vendor needs to make a profit, and that is part of the transaction. But you are making a decision with immediate rmification to your pocketbook and yur "needs".

      Government depends on surveys and polls in which opinions are renedered devoid of personal consequences. I think such opinions are worth exactly what they cost.

      Take an opinion poll on the national parks. Everyone loves them, and they think they should have all the funding they need.

      But now take a survey of people who actually went, how far they traveled and how much they spent, and you get a different picture of what people are willing to REALLY spend.

      All I'm suggesting is that government can do a LOT better job with regard to operating fairly. We have the laws and regulations in place, but we ignore them or hamper them.

      Why is that?

      I'm sorry to say that I think it is because people like Larry believe it is OK to not be fair as long as you get what you want, and it is for the public benefit. It is OK to take what you want as long as you have the votes.

      Which I just call stealing.

      RH

    Leave a Reply

    Read More