Any reader who visits Nolan Chart (NC) knows about the nine charts that adorn its main page. The top of the page is taken up with Top 5 charts for each of the political communities on NC: Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, Conservative, and Statist. Down the left side runs a chart of Most Visited articles for the last two days; down the right, one of Most Popular articles in the same two-day period.
What readers may not know of, though, are the morally unacceptable practices on which the NC charts are based. The Top 5 charts, and the Most Visited chart, reflect the number of unique visitors to a page: how many "reads" it has. The Most Popular Chart reflects the number of "thumbs" an article receives: how many readers enjoyed the article. The dirty little secret that the charts reveal is that those "reads" and "thumbs" are being distributed unequally.
A glance at the core data from which the charts are compiled is enough to confirm that as fact. While no cumulative data exists for "thumbs," that for "reads" shows unequivocal evidence of inequality. For instance, the October, 2008 data shows that one columnist (Timothy K. Perry) had 35,515 reads for the month, while another (Helio) had only three. Ten columnists together had 118,981 reads, while 10 others managed only 94.
Not just inequality, but incredible inequality. And that, my friends, is morally unacceptable!
At this point, the reader may not immediately see just why it is morally unacceptable. I have to confess that I did not see that myself until yesterday. That was when my eyes were opened, by reading Joel Hirschhorn's NC review of Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly's recent book, Unjust Deserts (New Press, 2008).
According to Hirschhorn's review, Alperovitz and Daly (A&D) have made "the central argument for such policies" as "higher rates of federal taxation on the highest incomes and capital gains, as well as on accumulated wealth by higher inheritance taxes." In his words (but put into argument form by this writer), that "central argument" seems to be:
Premise 1. "a huge fraction of the success of the wealthiest people results from inherited knowledge that society at large owns."
-----------
Conclusion: "The incredible economic inequality we see today, therefore, is morally unacceptable."
Because of that moral unacceptability, Hirschhorn continues, it is incumbent on us to find and take "the morally correct and necessary action to rectify the unjust and immoral ownership of wealth that a relatively small fraction of the population has improperly (though legally) attained."
And, he tells us, A&D conclude the same:
Therefore the proper role of government is to ensure that many more people get some of this wealth. And the practical way to do this is through higher taxation of the unjust deserts now enjoyed by the Upper Class.
An argument can fail in two ways: either its premises can be false, or its conclusion may not follow (it may be invalid).
There seems little sense in attacking the central argument's premise. Hirschhorn quotes A&D as stating, quite unequivocally, that "ever-increasing knowledge, accumulating across the generations, is central to the creation of all wealth" and, he tells us, they make a very sound case that "considerable research demonstrates" the truth of that. Some rich people may be intelligent, some creative, some hard workers, and some just lucky; but, the authors found, all of that is ultimately irrelevant: "smartness, creativity and hard work cannot explain their disproportionate wealth. It largely results from inherited, accumulated knowledge from the past." Case closed, it looks like.
Examining the central argument's validity is a bit more productive. It is not obviously valid: it does not obviously follow, just from the fact that something was accumulated using "inherited knowledge," that such accumulation is "morally unacceptable." But, just as obviously, A&D do consider it valid; as does Hirschhorn; so rather than simply dismiss it as invalid, the better course is to repair it so that it is a valid argument.
Fortunately, all that is required for A&D's argument to be valid is the addition of another, hitherto hidden premise:
[Premise 2: If there is incredible inequality in the possession of X, and inherited knowledge is central to the possession of X, then that inequality is morally unacceptable.]
Adding that new premise (or more accurately, making that hidden premise explicit) makes A&D's central argument valid, and assuming its truth makes it sound as well. However, assuming the truth of Premise 2 also forces us to look at Nolan Chart and its nine charts in a different light.
For does the same glaring inequality not show up here? Last month, the top ten writers received more than 1,000 times as many reads as the bottom ten. The ratio between the first-place and last-place writer was more than 11,000 to one! That cannot be described as anything but "incredible inequality."
But, some might object, this is to misapply A&D's argument: they were discussing inequality of wealth, not inequality of reads. Unfortunately, that objection fails, as reads are equvalent to wealth at NC. Authors are paid monthly royalties, and the amount of the royalty is a function of the number of reads: the more reads, the more income.
Therefore, inequality of reads is inequality of wealth. Last month's top ten writers were paid more than $75, while the bottom ten collectively earned 9 cents; a ratio of more than 800 to 1. Mr. Perry received almost $25, while Helio earned $0.00; here the ratio approaches infinity!
So, since inequality of reads means inequality of wealth, A&D's argument does apply. All that remains is to show that inherited knowledge is central to the accumulation of reads, and the injustice of any and all inequality in that accumulation follows with the inexorability of logic.
And does not the collection of reads depend, largely, on "inherited knowledge" that the individual writer did not create? Indeed it does: various forms of inherited knowledge play a central role in any writer's output.
First, and most important, is knowledge of the English language itself. The language plays an absolutely essential role: No writer could collect any readers without knowing a language. Yet no writer invents the language he uses; all of us were taught it, as were our readers. A writer may invent new words from time to time, but still has to define them using previously existing words. Language, then, is not only absolutely esential, but also nothing but inherited knowledge.
Next comes all the past literature in that language: everything from dictionaries and reference books, to yesterday's newpaper clippings. Writers continually rely on that, not only in producing their articles, but even in deciding what to write about. So the literature seems almost essential as the language. And it is equally true that no writer creates all that literature, but that we all inherit it instead.
Next is the Internet. That is clearly "inherited knowledge" -- aside from Al Gore, no writer invented the Internet for himself. As clearly, the internet is as central to a Nolan Chart columnists' accumulation of reads as his command of the language: how else would his readers be able to read him in the first place?
Finally, of course, is NC itself. One columnist (Walt Thiessen) did create the magazine; but for the rest of us, it is no less "inherited knowledge" than all the rest. And it also plays a necessary role in our accumulation of reads.
The inescapable conclusion is that inherited knowledge is central to any reader's acccumulation of reads; in Hirschhorn's words, "a huge fraction of the success" of NC writers "results from inherited knowledge that society at large owns."
Yet, some writers may object, they had to do something to attract more reads than others: they had to write a lot of articles, and make them interesting to read. They had to demonstrate intelligence, creativity, and hard work. Maybe the writers who attracted less leads demonstrated less of all three? For instance, maybe poor Helio received only three reads (and 0 cents in royalties) in October because he has not written anything here, and has not even been a columnist here, for months? Shouldn't creativity and hard work count for something?
Well, no, by the thesis of Unjust Deserts they should not. A writer's claim that they should is an understandable reaction; but it is only a gut reaction, one not based on any "research." While A&D, who have done the "research," claim the exact opposite: "smartness, creativity and hard work cannot explain disproportionate wealth. It largely results from inherited, accumulated knowledge from the past."
So Nolan Chart practices are clearly morally unacceptable; nothing but rank injustice. Then, as V.I. Lenin said, what is to be done?
First, the charts (which institutionalize these morally unacceptable practices) should be eliminated. As a replacement, I would suggest a list of all columnists, either in alphabetical order or (better yet) changed daily on a random basis, so that all writers have an equal shot to be #1 on any given day.
But that only attacks the symptom, not the disease itself: the underlying inequality of reads, and therefore of royalties. That is no less morally unacceptable, and morality and justice demand that something be done about it. Just as "the proper role of government is to ensure that many more people get some of this wealth" that is based on inherited knowledge, the proper role of NC must be to ensure that many more writers get more of these reads that are similarly based on inherited knowledge.
The most moral thing would be to institute complete socialism: for NC to take away all of a writers' reads and thumbs each month, and redistribute them equally to all writers. However, such a radical step may be too extreme for many at this time.
Therefore, I would like to propose only (as A&D do) a system of progressive taxation.
I suggest that NC tax away a progressively higher portion of each article's reads -- starting at 5% for the first 100 reads, rising to 90% of every read over 1,000 -- and redistribute those reads equally to all other writers on NC. This redistribution would be calculated at the end of each month, prior to the determination of the writer's revenue share. I propose -- nay, I demand! -- that this new system of allocating reads, and paying royalties, begin by the start of 2009.
Such a reform would be against my own self-interest: as one of the top five writers on NC, I would undoubtedly lose reads and royalties under it. However, when there is a conflict between self-interest on one side, and morality and justice on the other, one should choose what is moral and just.
I count on NC, and its many columnists, to similarly repress all thoughts of self-interest, and to take a stand here for morality and justice.
----------
©2008 George Dance, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Sunday, November 23, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of George Dance only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by George Dance of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By George Dance |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-11-23 11:19:42
I'm curious...since I'm the owner of the Nolan Chart website (through my company Nolan Chart LLC) and since I'm the one who is supposed to do this readership taxing you refer to, how exactly do I redistribute the readership?
Perhaps I should jimmie the links so that when someone clicks on a popular article's link, they get taken to an unpopular article instead, perhaps on a random basis to distribute readership equally? I'm sure our readers will love that! There's nothing like clicking on an article link and getting something other than what you were expecting as a reader.
This is important under the thesis you outline because it isn't just income that is unequal at the Chart. Dissemination of information is also unequal. Surely, just because an idea isn't as interesting or as well researched doesn't mean it shouldn't be read!
Or maybe when someone visits a popular article I should just credit a columnist who hasn't even contributed an article! Yes, that would be the most fair, don't you think?
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-23 11:54:53
Dear George,
This article read like someone strung out to the max on caffeine! You could read the unrepressed eagerness to put down another word in every sentence without even editing or thinking through what you were saying. Just LET IT FLY! There was more gibberish here than in a roomful of baboons! I realize you were writing under the topic of SATIRE, but I think it should have been more accurately labled as FANTASY ~ with delusional overtones!
First, you need to know that there is a difference between "wealth" and "income". You seem to use them interchangeably and there's a vast difference between them. I have plenty of "wealth" no matter what kind of "income" I receive from NC or anywhere else. Wealth is ACCUMULATED INCOME and OWNERSHIP of ASSETS. I don't think NC enters into that picture for ANY of us.
You seem to mix up "reads" with "hits". If someone clicks on a story to "read" it but realizes very quickly (as I did with this one of yours) that it's going to be boring, hastily written, full of incomplete and misleading logic, full of grammatical, spelling, or factual errors, meanders as hopelessly through stream of consciousness writing as blindly as a wounded deer might engage in wandering through the woods, "readers" usually become "browsers" and many often become "leavers".
Just because someone clicks on an article doesn't mean that they "read" it, or that they even thought it was worth their time. And, I don't believe those "thumbs up" ratings are limited to one-per-reader, and they certainly don't exlude repeated "thumbs up" votes by friends, supporters, or authors.
QUALITY is not measured by any of the criteria you mentioned. And, for those who may offer a viewpoint that is NON-LIBERTARIAN, the likelihood of finding support or even CIVILITY is very limited. Some articles are researched and referenced, some are just opinions or even rants. To put any kind of meaning on "hits" would be like determining which magazines are desired by how many people pick them up to look through them. Wouldn't the "girly" mags and the "hot rod" mags attract more browsers than National Review or Vanity Fair?
How is "morally acceptable" determined? Could you explain that one to me? Is there some INDEPENDENT criteria we can use, or is it purely YOUR conclusion? When you say that something is "morally UNacceptable", how did you determine that?
What is "inherited knowledge"? Anything of substance would surely require an expert in a certain field to even understand it. If it had to do with immune systems and cellular decay, or nuclear fission, or astronomy, or complex mathematics, we wouldn't even KNOW if there was KNOWLEDGE being expanded, let alone what it is. If, on the other hand, it's knowledge about how to make your FRENCH FRIES crunchy, that may be something we ALL want to know more about.
Not only was your article vacuous in many ways, it used no real thinking to produce it. You just rambled on and on about factors that were unexplained, relationships that did not exist, and purported to DEMAND that the system be changed.
I would nominate THIS article as an example of one that may receive MANY "hits", but has absolutely NO VALUE. It certainly is "morally UNacceptable" to me!
Master C
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-11-23 12:06:48
I think it may be easier to admit inequality exists and then mask it rather than construct its elimination through redistribution schemes. Just randomize the "top" lists and quit publishing readership. Those numbers could be misleading. How does the counter know if I'm reading an article or if I'm just visiting someone's article every 5 minutes to see their reaction to my wiseass comment? Should such behavior drive revenue in any sane world? I'm not a paid contributor because I don't want to care about the numbers.
I really like the thumbs up but I wish there were also thumbs down. Knowing that only 1% or less of my readers like my articles enough to click the thumb button is interesting but it would be more interesting to find out that 93% of readers would click the thumbs down. Then I'd know I'm on the right track.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Posted By: trd
Date: 2008-11-23 12:25:37
Walt & M.C.: I thing George was trying to write satire.
Geroge: Were you writing satire? or these thoughts are for real?
I did not know writers got paid here. I thought that the only writer that got paid was Walt because of all those advertising links on the right side of the page and on the top part. But he gets paid as an owner, not as a writer.
Walt: Do writers get paid here? If so, can I be a lousy writer and get paid anyway? What are the morally wrong practices that George is writing about? I don't understand.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2008-11-23 12:35:30
Geroge:
I don't know or understand about these practices that you are writing about. maybe they are true, maybe they are unintended consequenses. However, the internet is as free market as you can get so there is always a solution. Either build your own website with your own rules to compete against this one; OR make suggestions to the owner Walt on how to improve so that if he wants he can implement them or not; OR buy the company from Walt and make your own changes. Make him an offer; everything is for sale even if there is no 'FOR SALE' sign. Of course, when there is no 'FOR SALE' sign, it will cost more, but there is always a price.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2008-11-23 13:41:08
What surely is true for this site is what is true for virtually all other sites that publish articles submitted by just about anyone. And that is this: every site appeals particularly to a relatively narrow range of values and beliefs of their readers. In the case of NC it is a Libertarian and right-wing political orientation; I bet, therefore, that the most popular articles and authors on NC fit this political orientation and, vice versa, that the least popular fit a more leftist or liberal framework. My point is that success on NC, I bet, has little to do with the talents of the most successful authors, either as writers or researchers, but mostly has to do with appealing to the vast majority of site users that fit into the Libertarian/rightest category. THEREFOR, APPLYING THE SATIRICAL THINKING OF THIS ARTICLE I URGE THE NC PUBLISHER TO PAY A ROYALTY TO AUTHORS THAT IS LOWEST FOR THE LIBERTARIAN/RIGHTEST CATEGORY AND HIGHEST FOR THE LIBERAL/LEFTIST ONE; THIS WOULD TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE THAT THE FORMER CATEGORY ENJOYS DUE TO THE BIAS OF THE SITE'S READERSHIP.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-11-23 13:54:55
trd: I realize that he was writing satire. I was responding in kind.
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-23 15:42:10
Dear All,
Is it still SATIRE if it doesn't make a point, isn't funny, and confuses many issues? I thought that was called GIBBERISH.
Master C
Posted By: Jonathan
Date: 2008-11-23 17:14:02
just call me stupid because this article made no sense to me
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-11-23 19:29:03
That's the last time I'm going to post an article and then go out for the day. I see I'll have to write individual replies to each person. Let's start with Johnathan, as a one-sentence letter looks like the easiest.
I'm rather glad the argument made no sense to you; it doesn't mean you're stupid, but the opposite. It's quite logical, given the hidden premises, but since the conclusion is absurd, you're right to be skeptical.
The point or "sense" of the article is that this is the same argument that's being advanced for the higher taxes on "the rich" the Obama administration will be bringing in, and the intent was to show the absurdity of those.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-11-23 19:58:59
Walt: I'm curious...since I'm the owner of the Nolan Chart website (through my company Nolan Chart LLC) and since I'm the one who is supposed to do this readership taxing you refer to, how exactly do I redistribute the readership?
Well, I was suggesting only that you keep freedom of choice for the readers, while taxing away the readers (just by having the program redistribute numbers) at the end of the month. However, you do make a good point about inequality of information:
it isn't just income that is unequal at the Chart. Dissemination of information is also unequal. Surely, just because an idea isn't as interesting or as well researched doesn't mean it shouldn't be read!
You're right of course: once a government tries enforcing equality in one area, that opens the door to enforcing it everywhere. Vonnegut wrote an interesting story on that called (IIRC) "Harrison Bergeron" - do you know it?
Or maybe when someone visits a popular article I should just credit a columnist who hasn't even contributed an article! Yes, that would be the most fair, don't you think?
Well, why not? Notice that A&D's argument for taxing the "rich" at higher rates to distribute to the "poor," the focus is entirely on whether the "rich" deserve their wealth or not; there's not one word on whether the "poor" deserve any of it. Presumably, though, since the goal is equality, then the person who's done and earned nothing should benefit the most from the redistribution.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-11-23 20:09:00
trd: Geroge: Were you writing satire? or these thoughts are for real?Gimme a break, guy; the article was clearly marked as 'satire.'
However, the thoughts are real enough, in the book and review that I was satirizing; and the tax hikes that they're meant to justify will be quite real, too.
I did not know writers got paid here. I thought that the only writer that got paid was Walt because of all those advertising links on the right side of the page and on the top part. But he gets paid as an owner, not as a writer.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-11-23 20:14:26
trd again: I did not know writers got paid here. I thought that the only writer that got paid was Walt because of all those advertising links on the right side of the page and on the top part. But he gets paid as an owner, not as a writer.
Not all writers get paid; you have to register, sign a contract, fill in the tax forms, etc. If you do, you get your percentage (based on your share of "reads") of half the ad revenue. (Walt pays the bills out of the other half.)
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-11-23 20:19:03
Joel: I'm glad you took the article in the spirit it was written. Your extension of it is more in the right direction, and fits well with Walt's suggestion: as the Statists would be paid the most, and those guys haven't written anything in months.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-11-23 20:52:04
Jahfre: How does the counter know if I'm reading an article or if I'm just visiting someone's article every 5 minutes to see their reaction to my wiseass comment? Should such behavior drive revenue in any sane world? I'm not a paid contributor because I don't want to care about the numbers.
Well, the counter does count page visits rather than actual readers, as there's no way to distinguish between the two, but it does limit that to unique visits: hit an article 100 times and it still counts as only one "read."
I'm interested in the numbers because I'm interested in being read, and the numbers give me some idea of whether an article of mine has been read or not. When I complete an article, that gives one form of satisfaction; when that article goes over 1,000 "reads," that's another.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-11-23 21:34:16
Master C: This article read like someone strung out to the max on caffeine! You could read the unrepressed eagerness to put down another word in every sentence without even editing or thinking through what you were saying. Just LET IT FLY!
That just shows you how misleading a first impression can be! Of course, I already knew that: that's the reason why, though my first impression of everything you've write is that you were constipated at the time you wrote it, I've never brought up your bowel problem before!
First, you need to know that there is a difference between "wealth" and "income". You seem to use them interchangeably and there's a vast difference between them. I have plenty of "wealth" no matter what kind of "income" I receive from NC or anywhere else. Wealth is ACCUMULATED INCOME and OWNERSHIP of ASSETS.
Well, thanks for POINTING OUT the "diference" between "income" and ACCUMULATED INCOME; in return, I'll POINT OUT that "difference" is IRRELEVANT here -- as your boy Obama is being advised to eliminate disparities in WEALTH by taxing away INCOME, and my proposal mirrored that "logic."
You seem to mix up "reads" with "hits".... Just because someone clicks on an article doesn't mean that they "read" it, or that they even thought it was worth their time.
Who said it meant any such thing? Did you even read my article?
QUALITY is not measured by any of the criteria you mentioned.
So what? What does QUALITY have to do with ANYTHING that WAS mentioned in the ARTICLE?
How is "morally acceptable" determined? Could you explain that one to me? Is there some INDEPENDENT criteria we can use, or is it purely YOUR conclusion? When you say that something is "morally UNacceptable", how did you determine that?
If you'd READ THE ARTICLE attentively, you'd know that the phrase came from Mr. Hirschhorn, who presumably got it from A&D. Whether they used DEPENDENT or INDEPENDENT criteria or NO CRITERIA AT ALL is unclear, since Hirschhorn doesN'T get into that in his review.
What is "inherited knowledge"?
Again, that's Hirschhorn's (and A&D's) phrase. From what they say, it sounds like "any knowledge which the possessor acquired (rather than created or invented independently)".
Not only was your article vacuous in many ways, it used no real thinking to produce it.
That's possible; however,it's possible that you used no real thinking when youread"hit" my article. Rereading it and your response, I'm thinking that's more likely the case.
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-24 06:47:09
Hey there, George,
No one could have given you the kind of specific feedback that I did without having digested that horrid meal of grease and roughage that you put together. Your attempt to parallel the clever witticisms I use only makes you look like it's your first time on a surf board. Although, having seen you paddle out to a moderate wave before, I know how wobbly and artless you can be.
I wondered, when I first read your article, whether you were attempting, in some convoluted way, to make a point about taxation. Just smearing some slimey exaggerations on excess and some looney assertions on equal results barely measures up to a clever satire of taxation. You seem to dislike taxation so much that you show how little you even know about it.
The purpose of taxation isn't to OPPRESS or DISGUST people, nor even to achieve EQUALITY, it's to USE the benefits that have been accrued by some sectors of the economy to provide help in other sectors. It's actually a very NATURAL process. As in Nature, where there is abundance, things are nourished and grow. Where there is scarcity, things whither and contract. The purpose of taking things from the UPPER ENDS of the spectrum isn't to PUNISH THEM, it's like a tree that is overripened with fruit ~ there is MORE than can be used by the tree, so it is spread around to others before it is wasted.
I realize that TAX-HATERS hate ALL TAXES ~ anywhere, anytime, wherever, whenever. But, just HATING taxes doesn't present an argument for NOT PAYING THEM, or NOT REALIZING that taxes produce many BENEFITS for EVERYONE. As I've said endlessly ~ roads, highways, police, fire, schools, hospitals, sewer and lights, airports, et. al.
And, my direct comments about your use of the terms "unacceptable morality" and "inherited knowledge" was to show that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THOSE TERMS MEAN. And, I was right! Just to say that you got them from someone else is like saying that you stole that motorcycle from someone else so it's yours to use.
Get some logic, Aristotle! If you want to try to surf with the BIG BOYS, why don't you put a little effort into it? This was a clumsy, ill-conceived idea from the start.
Master C
Posted By: Jake
Date: 2008-11-24 16:19:08
George - lol, well done!
Posted By: Jonathan
Date: 2008-11-25 07:27:31
Thanks George for the response and clarification.
good job, you are very creative. Hard to find people who think outside the box
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-11-26 11:38:49
Thanks, Jake.
Thanks, Jonathan.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-11-26 12:02:06
MC again: No one could have given you the kind of specific feedback that I did without having digested that horrid meal of grease and roughage that you put together. Your attempt to parallel the clever witticisms I use only makes you look like it's your first time on a surf board.
I have been copying your ECCENTRIC use of CAPITALS! Plus your OVERUSE of Exclamation MARKS! And your engaging habit of NOT managing complete SENTENCES!
And, of course, your ad homs. If none of that looks "clever" when coming from someone else; well, maybe it wasn't that clever in the first place.
The purpose of taxation isn't to OPPRESS or DISGUST people, nor even to achieve EQUALITY, it's to USE the benefits that have been accrued by some sectors of the economy to provide help in other sectors.
Of course the PURPOSE is to take resources from some for the benefit of others. EQUALITY is a JUSTIFICATION, not a purpose: do you understand the difference?
It's actually a very NATURAL process.
Oh, sure: tapeworms and mosquitos do something quite similar.
And, my direct comments about your use of the terms "unacceptable morality" and "inherited knowledge" was to show that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THOSE TERMS MEAN. And, I was right!
Well, demonstrate that. I gave you a definition of "inherited knowledge:" "any knowledge which the possessor acquired (rather than created or invented independently)". You ignored it. (Perhaps it didn't get digested properly?)
You didn't ask for a definition of "morally unacceptable" -- you asked for a criterion, which is not the same thing -- but I'll give you one: "a situation is morally unacceptable if it ought not to happen." If you think that's not what the phrases mean, let's hear what you think they do mean.
Just to say that you got them from someone else is like saying that you stole that motorcycle from someone else so it's yours to use.
What a stupid analogy, given what I said in the article about the language. You wouldn't be able to talk or write without using phrases and definitions that we got from someone else. That's what languages are.
It's clear to me that you did not understand any of what you read in the article, and (since you seem bright enough) the best explanation is that you didn't even try.
Posted By: Tom
Date: 2009-01-17 13:26:53
Thanks for your article George. Though satirical, it is the very first negative review that I've seen of the concepts in the book "Unjust Deserts". The theme and conclusions of the book seem like a fantasy world "thought problem" rather than a serious discussion on the realities of wealth distribution in the western world.