This is not a political site. This is an anti-political site. We agree with the goals of individual liberty, free markets, and peace.

11/28/11

Baseball Fans are Geniuses Compared to Politicians - From Babe Ruth to Marxism With Thomas Sowell

Part four in our five part video interview with Dr. Sowell explains why he remained a baseball fanatic long after he lost his interest in Marxism. This one has an analysis of the swings of Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth. Political junkies and sports enthusiasts both will enjoy this one.


9 comments:

Lista said...

I almost didn't Listen to this One because I'm not a Sports Fan, yet I Knew it to be Political as well.

Dr. Sowell made a Very Interesting Point about "the Dead Ball Controversy". Apparently, Babe Ruth Swung the Bat in an Upward Motion, with Both Hands Together at the Bottom of the Bat and was never Corrected because he was the Pitcher and "No One Cares how Pitchers Bat".

As it Turns Out, this was a rather good "Risk and Return Decision", that is, though this Style of Batting is Risky in that there is Less Control Over the Bat, if Contact with the Ball is Made, the Return is Significant.

Which Leads us to the Next thing that I want to Quote that is Actually Quite Profound...

"As so Often Happens, when there is a Strong Preconception Shared by Many People, No Alternative Explanation was Considered, much Less Tested Empirically." (Quoted from the Book, "The Thomas Sowell Reader")

Yes, this is an Interesting Point, Grant Davies; Very Interesting, In Fact, yet I Think that there have been Things within Capitalism that have been Tested and have Failed, such as the Poor Factory Conditions that Ended Up Leading to the Development of the Unions.

Lista said...

Also in Relation to "Risk and Return Decisions", when the Risk involves the Winning or Losing of a Base Ball Game, or Actually, the Success or Failure of just One of the Players, who also Happens to be a good Pitcher, this is much Less Significant than the Risk of Starvation because of a Person's Inability to Find and Keep a Job in a Pure and Totally Unregulated Capitalism in which no Government Assistance Programs are Offered.

I am again Talking about the Extremes of Libertarianism, yet until you Explain to me how your Views are Different then the Ones I Fear, I'm going to Keep Talking that Way. As I get to Know you better, I'll Modify the way in which I talk to you.

Anyway, before I Close this Comment, I better Tell you that I have just Made a Post on my Blog that is a Response to the Quote below your Title by the Russian Immigrant, Svetlana Kunin. Here's the Link, if you would like to Check it Out...

Capitalism & Socialism, Driven by Greed & Envy

Or just Copy Paste...
http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2011/11/capitalism-socialism-driven-by-greed.html

Grant Davies said...

Thanks for visiting the blog Lista. And thank you for the comment.

I would just say a few things about poor factory conditions and regarding capitalism.

Capitalism is not the cause of poor working conditions. Poor working conditions are the result of many factors, the circumstances of the private ownership of companies and private property are not to blame for how some humans fail to provide "good" working conditions. Human failings are not caused by one system or the other.

Poor working conditions are much more prevalent in other systems such as socialism, communism, fascism, and other totalitarian systems.

Capitalism is not a panacea for mankind, it is only the least destructive arrangement of societal affairs that has yet been discovered. When people live in a society that largely protects their rights they generally have better conditions than they otherwise would have because they are able to choose a different employer if one exists.

It's a bigger topic than can be adequately covered here on this comment forum.

Lista said...

Once again, I am not Opposed to Capitalism in General, just the Extreme of Zero Regulation/Zero Government Assistance Capitalism. What is so Wrong with a Few Regulations that Relate to the Humane Treatment of Workers? When there are no such Regulations, it is Possible for the Strong to Bully the Weak.

Well, Why can't they just get another Job, you ask. Because of Genetic Disadvantages; That's Why. As Odd as it may seem to some who are Mentally Gifted and/or High Energy Types, there are People who do not have the Ability to Work much more then a Minimum Wage Job, or for that Matter, do not have the Energy, Stamina and Academic Efficiency Required to Work Two such Minimum Wage Jobs, while Raising a Family and also Going to School, in Order to Dig themselves Out of the Financial Predicament that they are in.

Yeh, I Know, there are some who have done just that, yet that doesn't mean that there are not those who just don't have the Genetic Resources Required, in order to Accomplish this Monstrous Task.

The Basic Problem with the Capitalism Idea is the Phrase, "All Men are Created Equal". The Unfortunate Reality is that this just isn't so. We may all have Equal Value before God, but that does not Make us Equally Able to Thrive within a Capitalistic Society.

Once Again, that is the Reason for the Social Programs that are in Place and though I do not Believe in Total Socialism, which Ultimately will Lead to Communism, that does not Mean that ALL of the Social Programs that are Currently in Place should be Removed, nor should ALL of the Regulations that Protect the Workers be Removed.

Lista said...

Forgive me if I am too Long Winded. I Noticed in my Second Time Reading your Response that your Focus was on "Private Ownership" in Relation to Companies and Property. My Focus is on "Regulation" and/or the Absence thereof.

"Human failings are not caused by one system or the other."

No, but the Failure to Intervene Contributes to Additional Injury as the Result of the Misbehavior of a Bully Picking on someone Weaker then Himself. It's not Unlike a Parent Standing by and Watching an Older Sibling Beating Up a Younger one and not Stepping in to Stop it.

"It is only the least destructive arrangement of societal affairs that has yet been discovered."

Perhaps it is the Least Destructive among the Extremes, yet my Belief is that there is lots of Stuff in the Middle that is even better still because of the Balancing of the Powers.

"They are able to choose a different employer if one exists."

Yes, indeed, "If One Exists" that the Person has the Necessary Genetic Gifting to Acquire, while Competing with Others who may be more Gifted then themselves.

Yeh, I Know, I've Said quite a lot and I hope that I haven't Over Whelmed you. I'll try and just be Quiet now until you Respond.

Grant Davies said...

Lista,
You are right, you have a lot of questions and I'm going to do the best I can to answer them. But let's start with what I had referred to several times as misconceptions.

In your last comment you said:
"I am not Opposed to Capitalism in General, just the Extreme of Zero Regulation/Zero Government Assistance Capitalism."

I'm not sure where that notion came from that such a philosophy is being espoused by anyone. I would like you to answer these questions to yourself. (not to me, you owe me no answers. This is not a challenge, nor is it a debate. It is an exercise in the intellectual discovery process.)

Where and when has this been tried on earth? Who has proposed such a thing? Who in American politics is running for office based on the notion of zero regulation or zero assistance? Do you think there is any chance that such a governing plan is in danger of being enacted since no one is proposing it and no one would support it? Do you think that people who agree to be identified as "libertarians" have that proposition as their goal?

These things are among the misconceptions I have expressed concern about. You are not alone in these mistakes however. Those who oppose freedom because they support bigger government (as opposed to smaller, NOT NON-EXISTENT government) have been trying to foster the idea that libertarians advocate anarchy. The notion is widespread in the media even though it is preposterous.

I will assemble some links for you which may make it easier to understand what is true and what is false about the philosophy of "non-forced based cooperation" instead of government force and coercion to address societal problems.

But please keep one very important thing in mind as we forward; utopia is not an option.

Thanks for waiting a bit as I assemble some links and answers for you. Your interest in learning more about liberty is appreciated.

Lista said...

"I'm not sure where that notion came from that such a philosophy is being espoused by anyone."

There are Libertarians that believe this Way.

"Do you think that people who agree to be identified as 'libertarians' have that proposition as their goal?"

Yes. I have Met some that Talk as if that is Exactly what they are Striving for. As far as Zero Government Programs, there are Libertarians that don't even believe in Public Libraries, Parks or even Police and Fire Protection. In Other Words, Nothing and I mean Absolutely Nothing is offered to the Public, or to the Poor for Free, not even Police and Fire Protection. To me, that is Anarchy.

I'm not saying that that is what you Believe, but what I am saying is that Yes, there are those who do Believe this way.

The Extremists are the Ones who are Seeking Utopia. I am a Moderate. Moderates Compromise and Compromise is not Utopia because someone, and Actually if done Right, Everyone is Sacrificing a little something.

I Actually Appreciate the Fact that you are Taking your Time. Too Often on the Web, Answers are Rushed and very few are Really Thinking about what they are saying, cause they just don't Take the Time.

Contrary to what you have Suggested, I have not Developed my Notions about Libertarians from the Media, but from Talking to Actual Real Life Extreme Libertarians on the Web. Trust me, they do Exist.

Grant Davies said...

People out on the fringe do exist everywhere. I hope that isn't what we have been talking about.

I thought we were talking about significant numbers of people who had the inclination and the possibility of changing the direction of the country.

As to things for free, no such things exist. Everything is provided by someone. And since government had no funds of it's own, if government "gives" something to someone it must first be taken away from someone else.

We would all be well off to think about that each and every time government provides something.

I'm sorry that your notions about mainstream libertarians and the philosophy behind their thinking have been formed by talking to people on the fringe.

I have provided you with some links and answers. Since I have invested a fair amount of time and effort to do so, I wonder if you would be kind enough to comment back with some specific impressions after you have availed yourself of them.

Thanks. I'll have some questions for you after you do. I'll be interested to learn about what I need to compromise about in order for our country and our lives to be better than they now are. This is, I hope, a two way street.

Lista said...

"I thought we were talking about significant numbers of people who had the inclination and the possibility of changing the direction of the country."

Interestingly, I used a Similar Argument with someone that I was Talking with about Extreme Cases of Forbidding Abortion in the Case of Rape or when the Women's Life was in Danger and in Reality that is not what most Pro-Life People Believe and I don't really want this Subject to be Changed to a Discussion about Abortion. I'm just saying that I Recognize your Argument because I myself have used it.

What gets Confusing at Times, though, is that sometimes I am Talking about Politics and Sometimes I am Talking about the Approach of Certain Individuals. People with Extreme Ideas have a Tendency to Turn People Off, so that those who are more Reasonable have greater difficulty getting their Point Across. This even Happens in the Churches, in that a Few Radical Pushy Idiots Turn People Off to Christianity.

The Other Subject that I have been Discussing with Extremist Types is the Subject of Compromise and I have Found the Word Compromise used on the Web is like a Dirty Word, yet the Truth of the Matter is that without Compromise, very Little Gets Accomplished in Washington.

I have Arguments to Justify the Progressive Tax System and yet am a Little too Tired to Repeat this right now. Perhaps I'll get to that Later.

I do Understand that nothing is Free, though, and that is why I said Free to the Public and/or to the Poor. This is a Little Different then saying that it is Free. Period.

Since I've Repeated some of my Arguments relating to this subject several Times with various Libertarians. I'm going to Take a Break from some of it for now and not take the time to say all that I could. I'm sure we'll be in touch and will be Talking more along these Lines.