ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Digging out the Rabbit People

A few people have asked me what I mean by "Rabbit People".  It is a term that derives from an outmoded, but still relevant concept from biology, r/K selection theory, which was coined by the famous biologist E.O. Wilson and refers to evolutionary pressures causing population groups to evolve in one of two different directions.  There are a lot of problems with this, both empirically and logically, but that's beside the point.  A useful metaphor doesn't depend on its literal truth, much less the current scientific popularity of the theory from which it derives.

The fact that it does not actually "rain cats and dogs" in either the scientific or the colloquial sense does not render the expression either inexplicable or useless, although one does tend to wonder how it was originally coined.

Anyhow, Wikipedia explains r-selection as follows: "In unstable or unpredictable environments, r-selection predominates as the ability to reproduce quickly is crucial. There is little advantage in adaptations that permit successful competition with other organisms, because the environment is likely to change again. Traits that are thought to be characteristic of r-selection include: high fecundity, small body size, early maturity onset, short generation time, and the ability to disperse offspring widely.  Organisms whose life history is subject to r-selection are often referred to as r-strategists or r-selected. Organisms who exhibit r-selected traits can range from bacteria and diatoms, to insects and weeds, to various semelparous cephalopods and mammals, particularly small rodents."

Rabbits are one of the more commonly cited examples of an r-selected species and a number of people have taken r/K selection theory, traced out the logical consequences of it in modern societal terms and applied it to politics.

"Obviously, from avoiding conflict and competition, to single parenting, to low-loyalty to in-group, this r-selected Reproductive Strategy is the psychomotive origin of the Political Left, or as it is known in America, Political Liberalism. It produces a model of human which is cowardly, competition averse, promiscuous, supportive of single parenting, supportive of earlier sexualization of young, and which has no real embrace of loyalty, honor, decency, or any other pro-social trait designed to foster group cohesion and functionality, or success in group competition. Females will become manly, to provision and protect their young, which they raise alone, while men become effete castrati, designed for fleeing and fornication, and capable of little else of meaning.  As we see in any society which begins to produce resources freely and copiously, it will gradually begin to trend "r" as time goes on, further highlighting this relationship of resource availability to political psychology, and reproductive strategy."

It doesn't hold up perfectly and its scope is excessively broad as one would expect from any binary heuristic, and yet it is much more strongly supported by the empirical evidence than many familiar political tropes such as the idea of a causal relationship between poverty and crime or the fear that carry laws will result in increased firearms homicides, road rage-inspired gun fights, and blood running in the streets.

Now, my minor contribution to the concept came about when I was reading Aristotle's Rhetoric last summer.  One part in particular caught my attention, namely, this paragraph towards the beginning:  "Rhetoric is useful because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly. Moreover, before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct."

I realized that there is a very strong correlation between the people identified r-selected and the individuals that Aristotle described as being incapable of dialectic.  In other words, rhetoric is the language of the Rabbit People, just as their preferred form discourse is alternatively described as postmodern and sensitivity-driven.

Now, it is important to note that theory notwithstanding, the communication-based division is observably not a direct function of politics, ideology, sex, religion, or even intelligence, although there are clear patterns and relationships that can be observed in those regards.  Most people have at least a bit of rabbit in them, and although insufficient intelligence restricts many people to the rhetorical level, there are many highly intelligent people of both sexes who are capable of the dialectic who nevertheless shun it, or worse, utilize a perverted, rhetorical form of it.

In my next post on the subject, I'll explain how the Rabbit People communicate, how one must communicate with them, and provide some examples of rabbitry both high and low.

Labels: ,

118 Comments:

Blogger Nate January 22, 2013 1:43 PM  

"The fact that it does not actually "rain cats and dogs" in either the scientific or the colloquial sense does not render the expression either inexplicable or useless, although one does tend to wonder how it was originally coined."

Alcohol was involved.

Blogger Giraffe January 22, 2013 1:43 PM  

So the low church leftists are the rabbits.

What do we call the liberal elites that pen the rabbits up to live off them?

Anonymous Daniel January 22, 2013 1:52 PM  

OT: The origin of cats and dogs, I don't know, but it first appears in Henry Vaughan's comic poem Upon A Cloak Lent Him By MR. J. Ridsley. It is a verse about a kind of roof that was wanted by merchants that was so sturdy it could keep out a heavy storm.

My guess from the OED is that it was simply creative inspiration: the poet "heard" the pounding on the sturdy roof and imagined it to be akin to cats and dogs landing on it in a storm.

The pedlars of our age have business yet,
And gladly would against the Fair-day fit
Themselves with such a roof, that can secure
Their wares from dogs and cats rained in shower.

Blogger Giraffe January 22, 2013 1:52 PM  

The metaphor needs some work.

We have rabbits, whose sole reason for existence is to keep the elites in power. In return they get fed and get to breed like rabbits. If they get to be a problem starvation will take care of it.

Then we have the dogs. They are wolves who have been domesticated and put work to feed the rabbits and the elite.

The dogs don't remember what it was like to run free.

Anonymous Anonymous January 22, 2013 1:54 PM  


One problem - a lot of rabbit people abort freely. So they aren't actually reproducing directly at all.

Perhaps that accounts for why so many rabbit people wind up in primary education? In order that they can proxy-parent?

I wish I could recall when I first read this term in writing by Jeff Cooper. It was probably some time in the 1990's. I do not know when he first used it.

Borderline Anonymous

Anonymous Signe January 22, 2013 1:57 PM  

Thanks for the explanation, Vox. I kinda-sorta of got the idea before, but now I'm very clear.

Blogger Giraffe January 22, 2013 1:59 PM  

One problem - a lot of rabbit people abort freely. So they aren't actually reproducing directly at all.

Helps keep the rabbit population down. We've removed all the predators. We just need their votes, we don't want them overrunning the place.

Anonymous Anonymous January 22, 2013 2:06 PM  

A somewhat recent film, a comedy, portrays the rabbit people well -- Idiocracy. This is surely our future.

Blogger The Deuce January 22, 2013 2:07 PM  

One interesting difference is that in real life, it's perceived resource safety, and with it the taking for granted of those social institutions and morals that made the resources available in the first place, that produces the rabbit people, rather than resource instability as per the theory. The foolishness of the rabbit people, in turn, produces resource instability (aka slaps some sense into the population), which produces wolf people again.

Anonymous Josh January 22, 2013 2:07 PM  

One problem - a lot of rabbit people abort freely. So they aren't actually reproducing directly at all. 

It's not about actually reproducing, it's about how selective they are when it comes to sexual partners.

Anonymous Daniel January 22, 2013 2:10 PM  

Giraffe's dead on. Tell them it's a "choice" and they suddenly think they've come up with what they were told to do by their masters ("think about your career!" "you are too young!" "Not with that guy!")...all on their own.

Don't get too bogged down in biomechanics, though. It is their mindless rhetoric and hive mentality that they seek to pass on via their comfort channels: universities, media, celebrity.

Blogger ajw308 January 22, 2013 2:31 PM  

One problem - a lot of rabbit people abort freely. So they aren't actually reproducing directly at all.
Guilt can be a powerful element of control. Make your bones, join the club. Once in, it can't be undone, only forgiven, but that takes a leap of faith that the club discourages.

Blogger tz January 22, 2013 2:44 PM  

It isn't just the low-church leftists. If you look at the campaigns since Reagan republicans are trying to appeal to rabbits and conducting their campaigns as such - remember the Republican Convention where the non-rabbits were purged? And there are a lot of Republican Rabbits. Just read some of the recriminations over Romney's loss - those trying to point out Romney was stupid and odious were met with the the same emotional non-arguments. Worse (appropriate for Roe+40 day), I've had some strange encounters with pro-lifers when I even question about the republicans (e.g. Santorum's insuring Spectre got another term). Well not strange. They were rabb-publicans.

(Over at AG, I've just noted we've taken to importing rabbits since technically the r-selected as actually practiced is rather sterile as opposed to fecund).

Perhaps a better question is if there is a cure for such bunnification. The result might not be nice but at least it would be honest (Thinking of the conclusion of Shutter Island - some would prefer to be a lobotomized rabbit (if that is not redundant) instead of an admitted gamma or even realize your nice fellow rabbits won't allow you to stay around if you begin thinking).

Blogger Log January 22, 2013 2:45 PM  

I can't remember - was it here that I ran into this from?

Anonymous feral1404 January 22, 2013 2:47 PM  

Rabbits, eh? Well, even my little nephew up in rural Wisconsin thinks it's pretty easy to run these annoying lapin bastards to ground.

Save your rounds: a composite bow is quieter and doesn't tend to alert the rest.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 22, 2013 2:48 PM  

Lol! This post is great!

Blogger foxmarks January 22, 2013 2:48 PM  

As the rabbit people are the less productive element of the complete society, when the divergence reaches economic separation, all the rabbits starve.

Tell that to a rabbit and he'll call you mean.

Anonymous Anonymous January 22, 2013 2:48 PM  

This article has that link entitled "applied it to politics" above.

Anonymous DrTorch January 22, 2013 3:05 PM  

OT, but biology related: vaccine related to narcolepsy

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-evidence-grows-narcolepsy-gsk-swine-flu-shot-070212916--finance.html

Blogger JDC January 22, 2013 3:07 PM  

Save your rounds: a composite bow is quieter and doesn't tend to alert the rest. Kudos to you or anyone who can successfully hunt rabbits with a bow. For rabbits, I prefer my two chocolate labs, and a mod choke on my Mossberg 12-gauge. For rabbit-people, I find using the cylinder bore preferable to a choke, cuz I'm just looking to injure and maim, not kill.

Anonymous Porky? January 22, 2013 3:09 PM  

Rabbits eat their own crap, devour their own children, and carry the plague.

The very embodiment of the progressive movement.

Anonymous Hood January 22, 2013 3:10 PM  

silly rabbits, rhetoric is for effeminate liberals

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 22, 2013 3:15 PM  

One thing that doesn't fit calling the Left r-selected is the Left is not terribly fecund.

Wny else do we need to import more "workers" to support the "elderly" (Which the Left really doesn't give a shit about, but tries to use as a weapon against the Right.)?

Anonymous Cryan Ryan January 22, 2013 3:15 PM  

Very interesting conversation and observations.

What I'm wondering is this...what will be the result of widespread male birth control?

And what kind of reaction can we expect from the various interest groups?

If societies trend toward wabbity make-up, can we expect massive resistance to male birth control?

Blogger Giraffe January 22, 2013 3:16 PM  

Now, it is important to note that the communication-based division is not a function of on politics, ideology, sex, religion, or even intelligence, although there are clear patterns and relationships that can be observed in those regards.

I got distracted by the politics. The left does use emotional arguments most of the time though.

I'm wondering why you chose rabbits in the first place? They don't communicate. Rabbits don't make any noise, till you catch one and then they just squeal. And they don't travel in herds.

Chickens work though. Chickens are deeply stupid, and highly emotional. When a chicken encounters something scary, like the wrong idea, they go apoplectic, and the whole flock starts clucking when one gets excited. Throwing handfuls of sawdust into the coop gives them fits, and they never get used to it. The fact that you aren't trying to hurt them doesn't break through the fear.

Plus, PZ is a chickenshit.

Anonymous Daniel January 22, 2013 3:17 PM  

For rabbits, I prefer my two chocolate labs, and a mod choke on my Mossberg 12-gauge.

Speaking of weapons, JDC, if you could only have one in your bug-out bag, and would therefore need it for hunting, defense, offense, ammunition (if applicable. I dunno, maybe you'd pick a kukri) and durability, what would you pick?

Anonymous Daniel January 22, 2013 3:20 PM  

I'm wondering why you chose rabbits in the first place?

It is these traits: high fecundity, short generation time, and the ability to disperse offspring widely. Also, if you've ever read Watership Down - the bit with the butcher's "hutch rabbits" - then it is an instant metaphor.

Blogger JDC January 22, 2013 3:20 PM  

Nate and others are way more knowledgeable that me when it comes to something like this - but a shotgun in my lay-person opinion is a good option. You can load it with bird shot (partridge and rabbit people), slugs (stopping power- deer), buck shot, rock salt. A shotgun allows for home defense, and pretty much any kind of hunting you want to do. For anything beyond 30 yards, you might want to go with one that can be modified to take a sabot round.

Blogger James Higham January 22, 2013 3:22 PM  

Well, we learn a new thing every day.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 3:35 PM  

Then we have the dogs. They are wolves who have been domesticated and put work to feed the rabbits and the elite.

The dogs don't remember what it was like to run free.


For rabbits, I prefer my two chocolate labs, and a mod choke on my Mossberg 12-gauge.

Bullshit.

You are happy to live your life feeding the rabbits, passive/aggressively, as long as they don't take yer... liberty teeth.

Blogger Doom January 22, 2013 3:38 PM  

Hmm, come to think of it, I think that was one of the topics taught in biology when I was in high school. I am almost sure of it. I sort of stopped following biology until later, then I realized they were just making something new up every few years while getting no closer to, and it looks like they are actually backing away from, a better understanding as politics not science increasingly shut out common sense and the scientific method, well, and any notion of God.

It reminds me of whichever of the Monty Python movies had the opening writers berated, fired, rehired, had it rewritten, on and on, etc. I got bored with that, too, and don't remember what the final score on it was either.

Blogger JDC January 22, 2013 3:39 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Giraffe January 22, 2013 3:49 PM  

It is these traits: high fecundity, short generation time, and the ability to disperse offspring widely. Also, if you've ever read Watership Down - the bit with the butcher's "hutch rabbits" - then it is an instant metaphor.

My library is woefully lacking.

So, does high fecundity mean they spread ideas well, short generation time means they spread quickly, and dispersing widely means people are susceptible to their emotional arguments through the mainstream media or are we still talking about political ideologies?

Anonymous kh123 January 22, 2013 3:56 PM  

Version I'd heard had something to do with roofs being thick enough with thatch and rafters so as to house several strays of any variety, which would all jump ship into the living space the rains being heavy enough.

Blogger IM2L844 January 22, 2013 4:01 PM  

It doesn't really matter much, but I always thought the concept of timid, rabbit people, riddled with angst, was around for a long time and was then popularized by the Updike novel "Rabbit, Run" which predates E.O. Wilson's work by several years. It must have evolved into meaning something more with Wilson's work.

Love,
Thumper

Blogger JDC January 22, 2013 4:06 PM  

@Mr. Pea
So are you saying I don't like hunting rabbits? Do you make it up to mid-MI very often? If so, I'll take you to a few farms where I can show you how to successfully hunt rabbits.

I already stated that I prefer a cylinder bore for humans (e.g. rabbit people). Wider shot pattern and all. If you're going to attack my assertions, please do it correctly.

Anonymous Anonymous January 22, 2013 4:13 PM  


Daniel - shotgun, and not a semiauto. Either the Mossburg or the Rem 870 pump with 18 inch barrel. Shoot birdshot, your choice of buckshot, and simple or complex slugs.

You don't need anything special to shoot sabots, or better still Brenneke slugs out to 100 yards.

Needs a carrying strap, and either a side saddle or a cuff on the buttstock for some extra shells. If you want to spend more, a light would be good but not needful.

Patterning the shotgun is essential. You need to know where your blunderbuss places the shot. Cylinder or modified choke will work fine.

The other way to go would be with one of the Kalashnikov 12 guage semiautos, if you can find one, because the detachable mags offer some interesting options in case of a fight. But the basic 12 gauge short-barreled pump is simple to run, easy to maintain. Hard to beat, for "one gun" in a bugout bag.

Borderline Anonymous

Anonymous Daniel January 22, 2013 4:14 PM  

Thanks JDC. Mostly a question out of curiosity.

Anonymous Daniel January 22, 2013 4:15 PM  

Oh, and Borderline, too.

Blogger James Worrad January 22, 2013 4:15 PM  

"no real embrace of loyalty, honor, decency, or any other pro-social trait designed to foster group cohesion and functionality"

Thankfully, it was this very socio-genetic deficiency in liberals that won Romney the election.

Blogger JDC January 22, 2013 4:19 PM  

Tks borderline - I was told that the accuracy of a sabot round in a smooth bore greatly decreases accuracy. My favorite rifle now is my savage 12 gauge - took a buck at 125 yds this winter. In MI you can only use shotguns in the southern part, and rifles north of midline. I prefer my 30-06 for u.P. huntin.

Anonymous 11B January 22, 2013 4:34 PM  

OT:

Vox in your post on gun bans on January 16, dh wrote this in the comments:

It's also comical how much these trends point against what we are always told here. Just a week ago, it was that the minorities in America with their violence and bad genes and bad culture were the reason for all the crime and murder. Now, homocides are down, at the same time that the share of non-Anglo Whites has been decreasing for decades.

You then replied to him:

They don't. Do you not understand how statistics work? But I'll put a post together on this just for you.

Question: Are you going to do a post on this? I would like to see your opinion on this. Thanks

Blogger Nate January 22, 2013 4:37 PM  

"Speaking of weapons, JDC, if you could only have one in your bug-out bag, and would therefore need it for hunting, defense, offense, ammunition (if applicable. I dunno, maybe you'd pick a kukri) and durability, what would you pick?"

I don't understand the constriction. You need a bigger bugout bag. Though I confess I don't keep firearms in the bugout bag anyway.

In the bugout bag.. you will find... a handy sized axe... a machete... and a tough ass fixed blade knife. While going out the door I'll be grabbing the 12 guage and a shitload of ammo... the ARs and the .22 will already be in the truck.... and the handguns will already be on my person.

Blogger JDC January 22, 2013 4:45 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Beau January 22, 2013 4:59 PM  

OT

Today was my first day out at at public function since my stroke; the annual United Way campaign wrap-up luncheon, attended by three hundred or so civic leaders. When the speaker announced the organization I was with, the guests heard a joyous and boisterous, "Jesus!" Gauging the response, I believe others to be encouraged to acknowledge Jesus publicly themselves in the future. Today is a marvelous day.

God hasn't given us a spirit of fear! Joy, yes. Peace, yes. Love in abundance that drives out fear. Yes, O yes. Our sweet savior Jesus, redeemer of the lost and broken. Friend of sinners - when nothing else could help, love lifted me.

Blogger JDC January 22, 2013 5:06 PM  

And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" (Rom 10:15)

A blessing upon you and your feet, may your ambulation and balance equal your love for the gospel.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 22, 2013 5:10 PM  

I already stated that I prefer a cylinder bore for humans (e.g. rabbit people). Wider shot pattern and all. If you're going to attack my assertions, please do it correctly.

No, no, no, no! You can not take my guns! You can take whatever liberties you want and enslave me! But my guns are my liberty teeth!

Yep.

Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it. – John Adams

He has already repented.

Anonymous Idle Spectator January 22, 2013 5:25 PM  

Speaking of communication, Phred Reed's new column is utterly ridiculous.

"There has always been a divide, though usually an invisible one, between on one hand those of high intelligence and intellectual curiosity, who read a book or two a week of history, politics, the arts and sciences and, on the other hand, those who can't, don't, and haven't read anything."

Nonsense Phred. It is four or five books. A day. And your column is... 3-4 minutes.

Blogger JDC January 22, 2013 5:28 PM  

Mr Pea - please indicate where I have even hinted at being fearful of having my guns taken away? Or is your brush so wide that you paint anybody with a love for guns with a paranoia that someone will come and seize them? Pretty intolerant and ignorant of you.

I would think a liberal and progressive minded person as yourself would think twice before making such prejudicial generalizations. (See what I have done here - because you rant against gun lovers, I automatically assume you are a silk pajama wearing, NPR listening, Chamomile tea drinking, Rachel Madow admiring, same-sex marriage supporting, abortion loving, gun hating, gun confiscating loving, Obamacare supporting, libertarian mocking, tax-hike loving, NFL hating pussy liberal).





Anonymous Koanic January 22, 2013 5:52 PM  

Couldn't have said it any better. Thanks for the unbelievably tolerant modding on the other thread, also.

Anonymous Anonymous January 22, 2013 6:22 PM  

I would add maybe Truth Evading, but yeah :)

Anonymous Will January 22, 2013 6:53 PM  

r/K selection as a theory doesn't explain 'rabbit people' the way your linked anonymous author would hope. As food and resources have become more plentiful and the environment more stable, k selection should be the dominant strategy.

Blogger Desert Cat January 22, 2013 6:54 PM  

It reminds me of whichever of the Monty Python movies had the opening writers berated, fired, rehired, had it rewritten, on and on, etc. I got bored with that, too, and don't remember what the final score on it was either.

Oh c'mon! That was comedy gold! "Ralph the Wonder Llama" got the gig in the end.

Anonymous VD January 22, 2013 7:02 PM  

r/K selection as a theory doesn't explain 'rabbit people' the way your linked anonymous author would hope. As food and resources have become more plentiful and the environment more stable, k selection should be the dominant strategy.

No, you need to re-read the theory. You understand that r-selection tends to be herbivorous rodents, now, do you think that grass is not plentiful?

Blogger Clint January 22, 2013 7:05 PM  

o/t

Interesting quote from an old book on female suffrage. Written by a woman, against the practice. Seems a bit prophetic. Here is a snippet: "The family, the foundation of the State, will disappear. The mothers, sisters and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into epicene. “


http://conancimmerian.blogspot.com/2012/05/female-suffrage-book.html

Anonymous Rantor January 22, 2013 7:21 PM  

Even though we think of them as rabbits, they are still not for eatin'.

Just a friendly reminder.

Anonymous Anonymous January 22, 2013 7:40 PM  

r/K selection as a theory doesn't explain 'rabbit people' the way your linked anonymous author would hope. As food and resources have become more plentiful and the environment more stable, k selection should be the dominant strategy.

K selection is analogous the ant, r selection to the grasshopper. When resources are plentiful it's more fun to be a grasshopper, more work to be an ant. Fun is more popular than work, especially free fun.

To paraphrase that great philosopher, Barbie:

"K-selection is hard!"

Borderline Anonymous

Anonymous Elmer Fudd January 22, 2013 8:06 PM  

Shhhhhh, be vewy qwiet.... I'm hunting wabbits!

Anonymous Anonymous January 22, 2013 8:08 PM  

Clint
o/t
Interesting quote from an old book on female suffrage............
http://conancimmerian.blogspot.com/2012/05/female-suffrage-book.html


If I recall correctly, the link in that post may be broken/dead.

But great days, as that is the first time my link fest has been mentioned in this den of iniquity.

-Conan Cimmerian

Anonymous Jack Amok January 22, 2013 8:13 PM  

Folks are overthinking (or maybe just mis-applying) the metaphor. r-selection is really about group survival, not individual survival. The fecundity is partially to create lots of rabbits, but it's mainly about spreading the individual rabbit genes uniformally around the warren. Kill a bunch of rabbits and their genetic linage mostly lives on in other rabbits.

K-selection is about maximizing individual success, each individual investing the maximum in it's own survival and carrying the burden of continuing it's genetic lineage.

r-selection, group survival, prizes harmony, consensus, and mediocrity. Excellence isn't sought, because excellence would require heavy investment in a small number of individuals, exposing the population to high risk if those individuals meet with an untimely demise. Besides, not even "elite" rabbits are a one-on-one match for even an omega wolf.

K-selection, individual survival, prizes excellence, challenge, achievement. Survival is vested in the best of the species. A stable environment is important because it takes time to develop excellence, to optimize for the challenges, and an environment that undergoes drastic changes means the fundamental challenges may change and render that investment irrelevant. "Stable" doesn't mean "plentiful", it just means consistent.

Blogger Phoenician January 22, 2013 8:33 PM  

Well, let's see if we can check this theory against the facts, shall we?

Top 5 US states by population growth

North Dakota (-19.6), Texas (-15.8), Utah (-48.0), Colorado (5.4), Alaska (-14.0)

Bottom 5 states

Rhode Island (27.5), Vermont (35.6), Michigan (9.5), Maine (15.3), Ohio (3.0)

Top divorce rates

Nevada (5.7), Arkansas (-23.7), Wyoming (-30.8), Alabama (-22.2), Idaho (-31.9)

Bottom divorce rates

Massachusetts (23.1), Georgia (-7.8), Illinois (16.9), North Dakota (-19.6), Pennsylvania (5.4)

Richest States by individual income

Connecticut (17.3), New Jersey (17.7), Maryland (26.1), Massachusetts (23.1), Virgina (3.8)

Poorest States

Mississippi (-21.5), West Virginia (-26.8), Arkansas (-23.7), Kentucky (-22.7), Idaho (-31.9).

The numbers for each state represent the percentage lead of Obama over Romney in the 2012 election, as a rough figure for how 'liberal' (positive) or 'conservative' (negative) they are.

So it seems the 'liberal' states are more likely to consist of people pump out fewer children, cleave to their spouses, and are productive and wealthy, while the 'conservative' states are more likely to consist of people who have large litters, run around and divorce their spouses, and are unproductive and poor.

So which group were the rabbits again?

Anonymous Anonymous January 22, 2013 8:43 PM  

O.T.

http://tinyurl.com/avlttg3

Gateway Pundit link.

Make this powerful video go viral, please.

Anonymous E. PERLINE January 22, 2013 8:55 PM  

When eggs became a target for sneaky predators, Mother Nature, always alert, tried using a Mammalian Brain. Young were carried in the womb and born alive and fed, for a while, by mammary glands.

You would think this under-production would. like the egg layers, be risky, but look at what numbers certain r animals can achieve.

The Obama elite wants lots of r candidates to back the new order. Obama himself makes hypnotic speeches so that these r people will accept whatever happens next.

After my disappointment with the election results, I've had a revelation that Obama's success might play a part in the faster development of technology.

For instance, the denial of oil and coal will force us to find alternate sources of energy. We will have to get minerals from the iron-rich billions of asteroids. Who would have thought the r politicians would have made us hurry even faster than the pace we were comfortable with?

Anonymous cherub's revenge January 22, 2013 9:07 PM  

JDC: Kudos to you or anyone who can successfully hunt rabbits with a bow. For rabbits, I prefer my two chocolate labs, and a mod choke on my Mossberg 12-gauge.

Kudos to anyone who can get labs to properly run rabbits. But then again I had a beagle that was half decent at kicking up pheasants.

Rabbits with an arrow isn't that hard. Just carry a light self-climbing stand and when you see some promising brush piles or tree tops left over from logging just set up there. 8 feet up is enough to fool a rabbit.

I used a Judo point and be sure to paint your arrow fluorescent whatever if you plan to use it again. Use your older arrows you don't trust for deer any more. 45 lbs of pull is plenty. It's great practice and if you select a hot spot you can lay down three or four off one brush pile.

Don't get down to collect your quarry after the first kill. Where there's one there are usually a few and you'll spook the rest to not come out.

Next rabbit thread should be recipes.

Anonymous ivvenalis January 22, 2013 9:32 PM  

I thought it was from Solzhenitsyn.

Anonymous Stilicho January 22, 2013 9:41 PM  

Giraffe: read more at the linked website (anonymousconservative) he has a linked blog that is worth perusing. It explains more of the social/political theory. As Vox said, it's not a perfect metaphor, but it really explains a lot about why the rabbit people act the way they do and why they don't even understand what is happening when opposed with logical argument. They just are not wired that way and only understand emotions. Example:

Wolf--concealed carry laws have been shown to cause a decrease in violent crime.

Rabbit 1--you don't care that a child might hurt himself playing with daddy's gun!

Rabbit 2--(high fives Rabbit 1) Dude, you just destroyed that gun nut's argument!

Anonymous Orville January 22, 2013 10:03 PM  

Chickens are deeply stupid, and highly emotional. When a chicken encounters something scary, like the wrong idea, they go apoplectic, and the whole flock starts clucking when one gets excited.

Yeah, my dad threw firecrackers into a bunch of hens, and it blew the head off one that still ran around till it bled out. Then there is Mike the headless chicken who lived 18 months with no head http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.php.

Mike, PTBH, is a fine allegory of the United States of Rabbit.

Blogger Clint January 22, 2013 10:32 PM  

If I recall correctly, the link in that post may be broken/dead.

But great days, as that is the first time my link fest has been mentioned in this den of iniquity.

-Conan Cimmerian


Well, I aim to please.

Anonymous dh January 22, 2013 10:48 PM  

Now, it is important to note that theory notwithstanding, the communication-based division is observably not a direct function of politics, ideology, sex, religion, or even intelligence, although there are clear patterns and relationships that can be observed in those regards. Most people have at least a bit of rabbit in them, and although insufficient intelligence restricts many people to the rhetorical level, there are many highly intelligent people of both sexes who are capable of the dialectic who nevertheless shun it, or worse, utilize a perverted, rhetorical form of it.

Is there more to be on said on this bit?

Anonymous 11B January 22, 2013 10:59 PM  

So it seems the 'liberal' states are more likely to consist of people pump out fewer children, cleave to their spouses, and are productive and wealthy, while the 'conservative' states are more likely to consist of people who have large litters, run around and divorce their spouses, and are unproductive and poor.

Interesting, however, a general cursory overview would suggest you need to examine more closely your conclusions. For example, North Dakota has high population growth because everyone and his brother is going there for an oil job. I don't think it is driven by births. Utah is receiving a ton of white flight from California.

Also, a lot of the poorest states are heavily black which drives their poverty rates.

I am not saying there is no dysfunction in so called red states. I am just saying you can't judge a state by how their overall vote went. It would be better to break it down by counties so you can account for the diverse racial and ethnic populations and take socioeconomic factors into account.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 22, 2013 11:11 PM  

Rabbit 1--you don't care that a child might hurt himself playing with daddy's gun!

Realist: It's OK as long as some child also hurts daddy playing with daddy's gun

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 23, 2013 12:35 AM  

* Elmer FuddJanuary 22, 2013 8:06 PM

Shhhhhh, be vewy qwiet.... I'm hunting wabbits!

My girlfriend, Lennay Kekua (whom I've seen naked/slept with),insists I tell the following joke :

Q. What is the difference between a wicker basket and a wicker box?
A. A wicker basket is a handmade basket made from sweetgrass that you can by from old ladies at the Charleston (SC) City Market. Wicker box, on the other hand is Elmer Fudd's girlfriend's favorite thing for Elmer to do......

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 23, 2013 12:39 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Question January 23, 2013 12:43 AM  

I think this r/K thing is a good idea to look into. The more secular and educated a country gets the lowers its birth rate while at the same time the most religious countries in the world also have some of the highest birth rates. Rabbits like religion and I could use some tips on how to communicate with alot of you guys.

Anonymous Question January 23, 2013 12:53 AM  

Phoenician:So it seems the 'liberal' states are more likely to consist of people pump out fewer children, cleave to their spouses, and are productive and wealthy, while the 'conservative' states are more likely to consist of people who have large litters, run around and divorce their spouses, and are unproductive and poor.

So which group were the rabbits again?


Somebody beat me to it. Clearly if your going to be assigning labels the religious right are the rabbits. Emphasis on family and against abortion and birth control. Texas, where I live, has the 4th largest teen pregnacy rate in the country and is home to such luminaries as Rick Perry and Ron Paul, who even is an obstetrician.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 23, 2013 12:56 AM  

Fascinating, looking forward to it.

Forgive the FS or female solipsism hamster spin...I wonder to what degree the R factor is present in me and those around me. Maybe this could assist me in dealing with the more frustrating people offline, just the same I wonder if I'm the problem and not them.

Either way, further exploration into this matter must be viewed as educational and illuminating but the very people that need to hear or read the most will react in a defensive mode and thus rejecting any changes or adjustments in their precious yet wrong (emo) beliefs.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 23, 2013 1:13 AM  

Either way, further exploration into this matter must be viewed as educational and illuminating but the very people that need to hear or read the most will react in a defensive mode and thus rejecting any changes or adjustments in their precious yet wrong (emo) beliefs.

Indeed, lately I've been noticing that frequently the only value in explaining a concept is clarifying your own thoughts on it. Other people either grasp the essential point almost immediately (whether they agree or not), or else will never understand it, no matter how many different ways you explain it to them.

I mean, the simple fact that an astonishing number of people - who know perfectly well they have to balance their own checkbook every month - don't think it's a problem for the country to have runaway deficit spending...

Anonymous Question January 23, 2013 1:22 AM  

Jack Amok: I mean, the simple fact that an astonishing number of people - who know perfectly well they have to balance their own checkbook every month - don't think it's a problem for the country to have runaway deficit spending...

Bleh this kind of folksy analogizing between personal finance and government policy is what amounts to economics amoung alot people. You could just as easily say that most people understand that if you take in more money you can pay off your debts but yet a good portion of the population is against higher taxes. Comparing the national government to a family household is stupid.

Anonymous Toby Temple January 23, 2013 2:08 AM  

♫ Mama's wittle baby woves wabbit, wabbit, Mama's wittle baby woves wabbit stew! - Elmer Fudd

Anonymous Agent Mongoloid January 23, 2013 3:28 AM  

"I could use some tips on how to communicate with alot of you guys."

I can typing.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 23, 2013 3:48 AM  

Bleh this kind of folksy analogizing between personal finance and government policy is what amounts to economics amoung alot people. You could just as easily say that most people understand that if you take in more money you can pay off your debts but yet a good portion of the population is against higher taxes. Comparing the national government to a family household is stupid.

Thank you for helping me make my larger point, which (in case you need a reminder) is that some people will never understand certain concepts no matter how you 'splain it to them, because those concepts don't line up with their group-centric model.

There's nothing wrong with the budget analogy, except that it doesn't support your rhetorical needs. "More outflows than inflows" is unsustainable regardless of the scale. Pretending there's some magical transformation when the leaky bucket gets big enough is... nonsensical. But so many rabbits are willing to do that, because it means they don't have to make hard choices.

Belittling the analogy as "folksy" helps illustrate Vox's point as well (I'm sure he'll get around to thanking your at some point. Maybe you can remind him if he forgets). You can't provide any logical reason that the "folksy analogizing" doesn't work, just unsupported rhetoric for why you don't like it. Clueless rhetoric at that, if we examime your claim about voting to increase taxes being the same as increasing the family income.

You can't vote to increase your salary, you have to earn the increase. You have to produce more value if you want more money. The only people who can vote themselves a pay raise work for the government (ah! Perhaps we're onto something...). But for the people who pay the frieght, the only way to take home more is to be more productive, or else cheat, steal or scam the money from someone else.

So the real analogy would be that the voters aren't willing to either ashcan the mountain of regulations strangling our economy, or else invade another country and take their stuff instead of giving them more of ours to apologize for the inconvenience.

Of course in the larger sense you are still helping me make my budget point by observing that many voters do stupid things as part of the crowd that they wouldn't do on their own. The rabbit mentality kicks in and so long as the whole warren is doing it, they'll go along. Of course something bad is going to happen eventually (they probably sense that, ever notice how nervous rabbits are?), but maybe it will happen to someone else. And if it doesn't, if it happens to them? Well, that's the cycle of life eh? Every rabbit ends up stew at some point.

Blogger Phoenician January 23, 2013 5:37 AM  

I mean, the simple fact that an astonishing number of people - who know perfectly well they have to balance their own checkbook every month - don't think it's a problem for the country to have runaway deficit spending...

This is possibly because these people are educated in basic economics instead of assuming that right-wing moralizing about "business good, government bad" actually makes any economic sense.

A government is not a business or a household - it can print or destroy money at will. To a household, money is a constraint; to a government, money is a tool.

Further, a business is concerned with improving its position in an economy. The government is concerned with the economy as a whole, and a salient fact to always keep in mind is that what works for an individual has perverse effects on the macro level. To be specific, every transaction requires a buyer as well as a seller, and increasing profits by reducing money spent on wages ultimately leads to less demand for products as wage earners lack the money to buy.

Further, in order for the private sector to increase net financial assets (which is a Good Thing when you have a demand-driven recession - you want people to get out of debt and start consuming again), the government has to run a deficit. This is straightforward macroeconomics 101

http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/06/government-deficits-and-national-accounting-identities/

Further, about that "run away spending" - yeah, nah.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/the-non-surge-in-government-spending/

So, in short, you do have a problem - but that problem is the sort of people who are unaware or ignore the very basics of macroeconomics, substitute moral scolding for actual economic reasoning, confuse the role of the referee with that of the players in the economy (clue - who prints the money?), and operate from a basis of "everyone knows" instead of the actual facts.

And as shown by this whole stupid, racist and factually challenged "rabbit" analogy, you don't have to look too far to find those sorts of people.

Anonymous Josh January 23, 2013 9:48 AM  

You just brought up Krugman?

You must be new here.

Anonymous Anonymous Conservative January 23, 2013 10:13 AM  

Thank you for the link Vox.

"And as shown by this whole stupid, racist and factually challenged "rabbit" analogy,"

I love Liberals. I never associated r or K with race, and am quite clear you can find Black and White K's and r's everywhere. But what the hell? Let's call it racist anyway, and say the author never pays attention to facts because he is stupid.

On reproduction, r and K are not outcomes. They are urges, which in the state of nature they evolved in, produced outcomes. So an urge to have sex as often as possible, promiscuously, and not invest in offspring will, in a state of nature, produce lots of offspring. But add in abortion, and birth control (great ways to massively diminish investment in offspring), and it just produces rich contraceptive producing companies, and old feminist cat ladies with lots of abortions, duffle-bag sized vagina's, and epic notch counts.

While we are on the subject, I was talking with someone about this, and he raised in my mind one of the most interesting questions about the r/K issue. What is it Liberals see in this theory which many Conservatives do not?

It seems so simple. In nature, you have three models of psychological/behavioral drives. The two major models of drives, r and K, match those driving Liberalism and Conservatism to a tee. The third minor drive, where r/K breaks down due to density dependency, matches the individualistic desire to be left alone of Libertarianism – exactly. I see no way these three ideologies are not adaptations to resource availability. They even crop up in increasing amounts in their respective environments.

Plus, most people can't just agree to just leave each other alone – they demand everyone adhere to the model of society produced by an r or K behavioral drive. It fits. It sounds good, it has a certain elegance, and it would explain so much in our political world, easily and effortlessly, from where ideologies came from, to why we pursue them so aggressively, to why our present civilization is going to collapse. Looking backward, it will almost certainly prove predictive going forward.

As my friend pointed out, tell this theory to a Conservative, and they will pick it up, sniff it curiously, turn it over, shake it, and knock on it with their knuckle, all while nodding interestedly. Then they will put it down, eyeing it curiously, and say it doesn't seem that bad.

Show it to a Liberal, and they will emit a shriek, and proceed to run around screaming as if you are trying to stab them on a bare ass with a red hot branding iron. What do they see? Why is their reaction so different from a Conservative's? Do they immediately see themselves out-grouped? Do they need to believe they are superior intellects, and Liberalism is their evidence of that? Does accepting this strip them of a vitally needed psychological crutch propping up a fragile ego, by making their pursuit of Liberalism something not borne of a planet-sized intellect, but rather, a pea-sized brain structure?

If anybody knows why Liberals see and its implications so clearly, and why Conservatives seem so cautious in examining it, I'd love to know. I have a feeling figuring that out would speed the widespread acceptance of this in the Conservative community immensely.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 23, 2013 10:58 AM  

Silly me. I thought it was because rabbits are coprophagic

Anonymous Jack Amok January 23, 2013 1:35 PM  

A government is not a business or a household - it can print or destroy money at will. To a household, money is a constraint; to a government, money is a tool.

A Keynesian. Oh dear, you won't like it here. Not only do we know you're full of crap, we're willing to point it out.

If you think what you wrote has anything to do with budgets, you're - as my main point said - beyond the help of discussion. You'll never get it. If you think printing or destroying money at will excuses a society from the consequences of consuming more than they produce, there's no help for you.

Anonymous Desiderius January 23, 2013 2:23 PM  

AC,

Why does a lion roar?

They're not stupid. They're predatory.

You're the prey.

We live in late Numenor.

Anonymous Anonymous Conservative January 23, 2013 3:15 PM  

Desiderius,

I know the difference between roars and shrieks. I am definitely looking at shrieks. Truthfully, I don't even think a bunnyman can roar.

Plus I have never known a Liberal who could prey. All the one's I've known needed another K to do the preying for them, while they hid somewhere safe. It's why they need government to hide behind. Deep down, if it comes to fighting, the Lib will just Stockholm Syndrome it back to safety, assuming their enemy gives them the mercy. Look at Al Qaida, and the whole "We need to ask what we did to make them so angry" debate.

Seriously, most Conservatives love this, but there is a contingent, which seems somewhat cautious in examining it, though they are open to it, and ultimately accept it. If any of those Conservatives here can tell me why they don't get as immediately jazzed up as every Lib gets immediately jazzed down, I would be very interested to know.

I suspect they are perceiving the world slightly differently, and I am curious to know more about that.

Blogger Phoenician January 23, 2013 4:06 PM  

As my friend pointed out, tell this theory to a Conservative, and they will pick it up, sniff it curiously, turn it over, shake it, and knock on it with their knuckle, all while nodding interestedly. Then they will put it down, eyeing it curiously, and say it doesn't seem that bad.

Show it to a Liberal, and they will emit a shriek, and proceed to run around screaming as if you are trying to stab them on a bare ass with a red hot branding iron.


Uh-huh.

I see a lot of pretentious, idiotic rhetoric from a whole bunch of people on one side - and I see only one person on the other side testing the theory against the real world.

And it fails.

But continue with the pretentious, idiotic rhetoric in lieu of facts - it's why people are laughing at you.

Anonymous Anonymous Conservative January 23, 2013 6:09 PM  

Hmmn. Don't r's mate promiscuously, have short relationships, and diminished urge to invest in rearing? And bear in mind these guys are Liberals. As I have said, give rabbits contraception, and tell them it will allow for more mating and less rearing, and combined with the lower rearing investment urge leading to a lower desire for offspring, it will produce fewer rabbits. Notice Libs want fewer kids. That is diminished rearing investment drive.

http://neuropolitics.org/defaultdec07.asp

Diminished Loyalty to in-group – and this is Jost saying it, who is himself a Liberal. Do Rabbits show high loyalty to in-group? Do wolves? r/K.

http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/Jost%202006%20The%20End%20of%20the%20End%20of%20Ideology_American%20Psychologist.pdf

Competition avoidance/ Docility – Have you seen the gun control debate? Would wolves want guns freely available? Would Rabbits?

Also, check my blog posts examining the neurological and genetic correlates of homosexuality and Liberalism. The same gene associated with predisposition to Liberalism is associated with Homosexual encounters, and diminished mate selectiveness. The brain structure differences between gays and Liberals are also strikingly similar. Very much like the reversal of sex specific behaviors you see in r/K, only taken to the extreme.

"But continue with the pretentious, idiotic rhetoric in lieu of facts - it's why people are laughing at you."

Ah, the old Joe Biden - pretend to laugh, so the crowd may think you are right. A classic!

This is what I mean. Phonycian here is freaking out, and livid, even falling back on the laughing thing to try and intimidate without actually kicking ass. Conservatives meanwhile, are still looking interestedly, and assessing this. Why does one side immediately react, like they just had acid thrown in their face, while the other just carefully examines?

Blogger Good Will January 23, 2013 6:13 PM  

VD: "The fact that it does not actually "rain cats and dogs" in either the scientific or the colloquial sense does not render the expression either inexplicable or useless, although one does tend to wonder how it was originally coined."

I believe the term derives from animals sliding off of slickened thatched roofs when it rained in medieval times or, during floods, from animals seeking shelter on rooftops, hence "raining cats and dogs".

Anonymous Asher January 23, 2013 6:14 PM  

@ PHoenician

he government is concerned with the economy as a whole, and a salient fact to always keep in mind is that what works for an individual has perverse effects on the macro level.

Someone's channeling Hegel. You're just asserting that the government is a unified mass of objective actors who have nothing but "the good" as their purpose. The evidence suggests otherwise. Government is its own biggest special interest group.

What you are doing is trying to exempt government behavior from critical and rational analysis through declaring by fiat that it is concerned with the overall good.

To a household, money is a constraint; to a government, money is a tool.

Money is a medium of exchange. Printing money doesn't create value. Money doesn't behave differently when used by government, and the only reason you can present this argument is via your fiat declarations that government is "different".

keep in mind is that what works for an individual has perverse effects on the macro level.

Keep in mind that what works for government has perverse effects on the macro level. You are conflating government with "the macro level".

Anonymous Asher January 23, 2013 7:26 PM  

@ Vox

I am quite sure you realize that there is far more rabbit-ness amongst the ilk than you care to let on.

Consider the numerous claims for the necessity of objective (sic) standards - it's absolute, not objective, but people don't seem to grasp the distinction. Whatever.

Anyways, the problem is that K-selection understanding of truth envisions the dialectic as always agonistic and an unending competing between different theories held by different actors. K-selected truth is inherently competitive.

On the other hand, r-selected truth is cooperative, i.e. there is only one truth and we all cooperate to implement it. Truth is an objective (sic) given and we all work together to put it into action. So-called objective (sic) truth IS rabbit truth.

Consider the thread about gun control in New York state, where I had probably a half dozen people diagnosing me as having Aspsberger's. That is clear rabbit behavior. Instead of striving to compete with better arguments and theories they simply exclude via rhetoric.

Face it, Vox, you got a bunch of rabbits running around your comment sections who have deluded themselves into thinking they are wolves.

When one is a rabbit everything looks like a wolf. A perfect example is of people who equate Tad and dh, when there is a world of difference between the two. But the scared little bunnies interpret all "non rabbit" as wolf and their herd think cannot differentiate between things that are, in reality, different.

Anonymous Asher January 23, 2013 7:28 PM  

In other words, moral relativism IS K-truth, that IS what it is.

If you are searching for objective (sic) truth then you are a rabbit.

Blogger tz January 23, 2013 9:12 PM  

If the herbivorous are favored in the r/K when grass is plentiful, it explains the bipartisan legalization of marijuana. As well as my Immigration riff (remembering Green Acres "Marijuana from Tijuana").

Giraffe: Chickens are a form of very fast breeding pheasant. Eggs are part of that. Like Jack Rabbits or rats that normally eat bamboo (so once every 48 years there is a famine).

Somehow I want to remember or not remember the scene from Monty Python & the Holy Grail just after the Knights encounter "Tim the enchanter". Except that the rabbit was fictional. Rabbits who actually try end up as stew. I haven't quite traced the etymology of "coney", but maybe "hot dogs" were not made of carnivores but herbivores.

Blogger tz January 23, 2013 9:49 PM  

Watership Down had a point. It is not that rabbits interpret heterogeneous organisms as wolves, they properly interpret them as threats. I wish those which are flattened with tire-tracks were more xenophobic. I would get more life out of my shock absorbers.

Yet this is the point. Rabbits require a squad of apex predators to protect them as well as eat them on occasion (the other article mentioning cannibalism is all too close). They have their Wolf PACs - on both sides.

(Though I do wish Vox would have picked some other passive-agressive organism as I suffered through "The Hobbit - an Unexpected Journey" and I really, really wish to purge my memory).

Blogger Phoenician January 23, 2013 9:59 PM  

"To a household, money is a constraint; to a government, money is a tool."

Money is a medium of exchange. Printing money doesn't create value. Money doesn't behave differently when used by government, and the only reason you can present this argument is via your fiat declarations that government is "different".


You still haven't grasped the obvious point. A government gets to print money; you don't. Try paying for your groceries with an "AsherBuck" and see how far you get.

A (monetarily sovereign) government is indeed different, and all the right-wing pouting in the world doesn't change that simple fact.

Money "behaves differently" for a government than for an individual because a government is concerned with maintaining money's function AS a medium of exchange rather than just exploiting it FOR exchange. To give an analogy, a referee gets to hand out goals and points as they see fit; they are concerned with keeping the game fair and interesting, whereas a player is only concerned with earning points.

So now that we've established that you are missing the point because you're busy arguing with the phantoms in your fevered imagination, did you even bother to look through this link?

http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/06/government-deficits-and-national-accounting-identities/

Did you bother to try grasping the equation "(S-I) + (T-G) = (X-M)" and what it means for government policy?

Or are you too busy ranting about "rabbits" and ignoring reality?

Blogger Phoenician January 23, 2013 10:19 PM  

Money is a medium of exchange. Printing money doesn't create value.

By the way, if you bothered reading instead of ranting in ignorance, you'd see that monetary theory is well aware of the fact that the government doesn't create value when it prints money.

It appropriates value for that money by taxation - removing money, and therefore spending ability, from the private sector. This is also the answer to the blindingly stupid question that is always asked when you explain the facts of monetary life to right wingers "why don't they just print all the money instead of taxing then?".

Of course, it can also create value through (a) what it spends that money on and (b) ensuring that the wider economy functions up to capacity. But these are separate issues.

Anonymous Asher January 23, 2013 10:22 PM  

@ tz

. It is not that rabbits interpret heterogeneous organisms as wolves, they properly interpret them as threats

Last I checked blue jays are not threats to rabbits. Look at the rabbits among the ilk: they cannot distinguish a non-threat, myself, from a threat, Tad, because they interpret everyone apparently unlike themselves as threats.

Anonymous Asher January 23, 2013 10:36 PM  

@ Phoenician

A government gets to print money; you don't.

No shit. Is that your entire point? At some point of printing money it loses its status as a source of value and then no one will take the government's money, either.

because a government is concerned with maintaining money's function

It does until it doesn't. You may be unaware of the agent/principle problem. There is no such *thing* as the government proper. What there is are groups and individuals operating under the label of government. Sure, if the government was more than an abstraction, yes, abstractions are important and real, then you'd be correct. What happens is that over time in any social space the inhabitants of that space tend to form their own culture, i.e. interest group, separate and different from other social groups.

Over time government workers and the political class will loot via policy. Your a priori that government is concerned with maintaining the value of money and the integrity of the system is false. It is an unwarranted premise.

a referee gets to hand out goals and points as they see fit; they are concerned with keeping the game fair

Metaphors only go so far. In the real world the referee is betting on the score and making money off of throwing the game.

Did you bother to try grasping the equation "(S-I) + (T-G) = (X-M)

My undergrad was econ. I'm quite familiar with the equation and what it means. What it misses is the nature of human beings as inherently tribal and status-oriented.

In a "pure" theory of government where the government was an actual unitary entity that equation makes sense. In the real world, people form tribes to loot outsiders and elevate their status relative to others.

The father of modern economics, Adam Smith, wrote one of the most highly underrated books of social philosophy titled The Theory of Moral Sentiments. I highly recommend it.

An equation is a tool, nothing more. And like any tool it can be used for the benefit of the user. The political class uses that tool to enhance their prestige and loot outsiders.

Anonymous Asher January 23, 2013 10:46 PM  

@ Phoenician

ranting

The term "ranting" does not mean what you seem to think it means.

monetary theory is well aware of the fact that the government doesn't create value when it prints money.

I'm quite aware of this. What you don't seem to be aware of is that the political class uses monetary theory for its own purposes to loot the rest of us and to increase its prestige. Again, if government were some unitary passion-free entity you would be entirely correct.

"why don't they just print all the money instead of taxing then?"

I have only heard this a few times and it was always extremely asked in sarcasm, a reducto ad absurdum.

it can also create value through (a) what it spends that money on and (b) ensuring that the wider economy functions up to capacity. But these are separate issues.

I believe it was Ricardo who noted that capital is the ability to command labor. When government taxes it diverts capital, in the long run, from one use to another. That very action makes money as a store of value less stable, it changes the nature of money. Money is being used to both facilitate capital formation as well as to reallocate capital.

This is because money is being used to by the political class to loot the rest of us.

Anonymous Desiderius January 23, 2013 11:13 PM  

AC,

The wail of the Banshee then.

"We need to ask what we did to make them so angry"

By "we" they mean "you", not them.

They've conquered your culture, your schools, your government. They're well on the way to your corporations as well.

At what point do you give up the fantasy that you're dealing with stupid cowards?

Misunderestimating to the grave.

Anonymous Desiderius January 23, 2013 11:23 PM  

Phoenician,

"they are concerned with keeping the game fair and interesting, whereas a player is only concerned with earning points."

That's, that's impressive.

I've known first-graders more wise in the ways of the world. Washington's Farewell Address might be a good starting point toward a more robust understanding.

"The father of modern economics, Adam Smith, wrote one of the most highly underrated books of social philosophy titled The Theory of Moral Sentiments. I highly recommend it."

LotR : Wealth of Nations :: The Silmarillion : Theory of Moral Sentiments

Anonymous Asher January 24, 2013 8:38 AM  

@ Desiderus

At what point do you give up the fantasy that you're dealing with stupid cowards?

Mmm, the left are cowards, not stupid. Conservatives are the stupid cowards. Consider the so called pro life movement: the Left is out to conquer them and all they want to do is save the left's children. It's not that I'm some blithering pro choicer who believes in some sacred "woman's right to choose", but it seems rather beside the point to be obsessed with saving someone else's children when they are making war on you.

In a war between cowards and stupid cowards my money is on the cowards.

Anonymous Asher January 24, 2013 8:41 AM  

@ Desiderus

Tad is correct when he taunts the ilk about no one starting a shooting war over gun control. He's correct, no one will. Why not? They are cowards; liberals and conservatives are just two different species of rabbits.

Anonymous Anonymous Conservative January 24, 2013 10:12 AM  

Desiderius,

"They've conquered your culture, your schools, your government. They're well on the way to your corporations as well."

You miss my point. r's have conquered nothing, technically, under this model. At some point, the environment changed, providing free resources. This tripped some ancient switch in our species, perhaps selected for initially by the spread after the bottleneck, and later by repeated periods of alternating resource availability favoring the ability to adjust one's strategy to the environment.

Here, the switch has produced a psychological shift which evaporated the resistance to r in the populace, and allowed r's to advance unhindered. I wouldn't say they conquered, as in my view the environmental shift removed the forces r's would have had to conquer.

"At what point do you give up the fantasy that you're dealing with stupid cowards?"

Stupid cowards is a gross oversimplification. Cowardly specialists is probably more accurate. IQ plays no role here, in the model, as we all ride the waves produced by resource availability. Make every Conservative a genius at K, and supply free resources, and they will be helpless to stop the slide into r – it is programmed. Make every Liberal a genius at r-strategizing, and restrict resources, and they will be equally helpless to stop the fights which will crop up, or convince everyone to give them free stuff to spread to indigents.

"Misunderestimating to the grave."

Again you see a winner and a loser, which implies an end, which means you didn't read my stuff fully. If this is r and K, it is an endless cycle, which will go on until the death of our species. We are presently at a nearly unprecedented apogee of r, probably fueled by an unprecedented infusion of free resources, courtesy of an unprecedented credit expansion. What is happening is similar to the Roman Empire just before the fall, where foreign booty and slaves had provided the free resource availability to fuel r.

Once the economic mess fully manifests, the resources will contract, and Conservatism will re-emerge organically within the populace. Once resources are limited, they will hold high value (and may even be in such short supply they will be necessary for survival). Under those conditions, men will become less willing to see their resources taken, and they may be willing to die to keep them, if resources are short enough. That means violence may not be an option - it may be a necessity. That will cue an instinctive truculence/group-centrism which will produce Conservatism, and a desire to attack r.

What remains to be seen, is if the split between left and right, which has grown so large, will disappear with a disappearing left, or remain with a resistant left, and lead to a level of violence which is presently unnecessary due to resource availability. Of that, I have no idea. r/K would imply somebody will have to die/emigrate, so if I were forced to predict, that would be it.

Anonymous Anonymous Conservative January 24, 2013 10:24 AM  

@Asher

Apathy is the child of free resource availability. When the resources are pulled, the apathy will wane, at least amongst some - it will have to because it will be the only way to survive.

You don't get a K-selected population in an r-selected environment for a reason. Aggressive K's tend to die back and die out. I think K's recognize this inside at some level, and grow apathetic as a result.

Blogger Phoenician January 24, 2013 4:57 PM  

My undergrad was econ. I'm quite familiar with the equation and what it means.

Uh-huh.

It WAS you that made the following comment, yes?

"Money is a medium of exchange. Printing money doesn't create value. Money doesn't behave differently when used by government, and the only reason you can present this argument is via your fiat declarations that government is "different"."

So are you SURE you realise what the equation "(S-I) + (T-G) = (X-M)" is saying? Really? Where exactly did you say you got your degree?

Anonymous Asher January 24, 2013 5:43 PM  

@ AC

At some point, the environment changed, providing free resources.

This is a little too epicycle for my taste. How did the explosion of resources cause the Supreme Court to rule restrictive covenants unconstitutional?

I think what we've seen is two groups of K-selecteds competing and one using r-selected as foot soldiers.

Apathy is the child of free resource availability.

Well, I suppose that might explain the rabbits infesting Vox's comment sections dressed up like wolves.

this is r and K, it is an endless cycle

If everything is just an endless cycle then whatever will be will be and commenting here is pointless. In fact, all involvement in politics is pointless - ashes to ashes, I am Ozymandias, look on ye mighty and despair.

Yes, the end of free resources is inevitable, but the route from here to there is one I contend we can shape. Were it otherwise I would not be commenting here.

Anonymous Asher January 24, 2013 5:43 PM  

@ Phoenician

University of Washington - Seattle campus

Anonymous Asher January 24, 2013 5:45 PM  

@ Phoenician

Sorry, but a debate or any form of conversation requires both sides addressing each other's points. Your referee analogy was laughable, and until you address my response to it this entire conversation is pointless.

Anonymous Asher January 24, 2013 6:11 PM  

@ Phoenician

That equation is not intellectually difficult to comprehend. Anyone with an IQ of 120 and access to google is capable of comprehending it in under 30 minutes, if they desired.

A few weeks ago Vox wrote a long post about how private credit has collapsed as government credit has ballooned. Does that equation say why that would occur? Of course not. That equation is a tautology, as are all equations, and can say nothing outside of what it is specifically measuring. That equation assumes, as do you, that government is a fair referee, interested in maximizing what the consumption of things that people are willing to labor for in order to make purchases.

That assumption is faulty. Paul Krugman, himself, makes this assumption as evidenced by his claim that the only reason why the economy is not on the path to full capacity is that Republicans are "obstructionist" in that they refuse to accept that government is nothing besides a fair referee, your terms but that is the gist of his position.

Anyways, that equation, like all equations, is tautological and is incapable of addressing anything outside of itself; it is definitionally true and only gives us a "still" snapshot of what is the current state of affairs at any one particular point in time.

Anonymous Desiderius January 24, 2013 10:27 PM  

"I think what we've seen is two groups of K-selecteds competing and one using r-selected as foot soldiers."

More accurately one group of K-selecteds on top employing a cultural strategy that impedes K-selection among, and thus competition from, the rest of the population.

K for me, but not for thee.

Anonymous Desiderius January 24, 2013 10:32 PM  

AC,

"a psychological shift which evaporated the resistance to r in the populace, and allowed r's to advance unhindered. I wouldn't say they conquered, as in my view the environmental shift removed the forces r's would have had to conquer."

This is my observation as well.

Likewise the recognition of scarcity among the rising generation is discrediting the r propaganda among them. They are piecing K back together as best they can, but the channels of K-norm propagation have become seriously degraded/compromised in the academy and church.

Anonymous Anonymous Conservative January 25, 2013 7:17 AM  

"I think what we've seen is two groups of K-selecteds competing and one using r-selected as foot soldiers."

I'd say yes if I thought it was predicative, but I don't. And I have thought of this, though in my version, the lower r's were initially just a buffer maintained to protect the K's from real K-selection.

If you look at behaviors, with an eye to where these strategies came from, even the intellectual Liberal apparently follows an r-mating strategy, which, combined with numbers of partners, would probably be a more r-rearing strategy too, were birth control and contraception not an option (see neuropolitics link above, though GSS and gallup also point in this direction in different ways). They also exhibit the diminished loyalty thing, and a desire to avoid direct violence (which, believe it or not, not all humans have), which I see as important, since that is where these things evolved (and may return to again). So I tend to see the Left as merely an r-movement with stratified intellect and conscientiousness, which mixed with birth control allows for a top tier leadership with increased mating/rearing ratios beyond what nature alone would allow.

Thus I wouldn't say high-level Liberals are K, because when the collapse comes, and true K returns, I think they will have to gather their wealth and flee to Switzerland, or some similar enclave. I don't see them staying and slugging it out in what may even be a dirty revolutionary war by some well positioned States, which will seek to secede to escape US debt obligations. If they won't fight, I hesitate to label them K, as it implies traits which aren't there in this model, and which wouldn't persist under true K-selection by the carrying capacity of the environment. But I'll think more about it.

“Apathy is the child of free resource availability. “

Well, I suppose that might explain the rabbits infesting Vox's comment sections dressed up like wolves.”

My guess is Vox's followers work for their resources, would actually turn down handouts, and will fight rather than starve. If everybody here is on welfare, and will meekly go to their graves when big brother orders it, that is news to me.

“Yes, the end of free resources is inevitable, but the route from here to there is one I contend we can shape. Were it otherwise I would not be commenting here.”

My main point is, if you understand the cycles which produced these ideologies, what they really are, and the cues they evolved to respond to, you understand the system and what affects it. That is the first step in learning how to hack it, at the population level. I don't think you can alter the cycle completely since there is a smaller genetic element that nature will want to house clean periodically (and we may be overdue for that now), but you can buy time here and there, and maybe press buttons in the masses which will allow you to avert disasters. I really think this has predicitive and practical utility.

Anonymous Anonymous Conservative January 25, 2013 7:24 AM  

Desiderius

"Likewise the recognition of scarcity among the rising generation is discrediting the r propaganda among them. They are piecing K back together as best they can,"

Agreed. I think if jobs were everywhere, and we were in a bubble, the Alt-right would be much less vociferous, and have a lot fewer followers. What gives me a sense of Zen is that we are at or near the apogee of r, and we've survived it. Now the resources are tightening, people are sensing it (and stocking up on Ar-15's), and the Alt-right is rising. I expect a much different nation in fifteen or twenty years, and I look forward to the change.

Anonymous exseveritate February 08, 2013 12:29 AM  

As plenty of others have pointed out, the rabbit analogy is amusing, but misses a key issue.

The "rabbit" elites are "r-selection for thee but not for me" people. They promote r-selection values, and the lower classes take these up with enthusiasm, but most of the elites practice a great deal of K-selection values in their personal lives. (Or at least the ones smart enough to be hypocrites do, those who don't probably soon cease to be elites).

They just have a massive problem with promoting their private values in any public way.

In fact they are so K-selected in their reproductive habits that, when combined with their female career dogma, they have sub-replacement fertility.

So really your targets are frauds. Their non-judgmentalism leads to an overwhelming cultural tone of r-selection, but they secretly and shamefully maintain values that allow them to resist many of the effects.

Didn't some racist recently write a whole book about this?

Anonymous AC August 28, 2013 3:08 PM  

It is a lot more than just funny. Reproductive stratgies are real, and play out in humans just like in animals. Look here:

http://neuropolitics.org/defaultdec07.asp

Even the higher Liberals do mate like rabbits, and have low rearing drives (as evidenced by deciding to have fewer kids through birth control and abortion). It is just the new technology which is altering the outcomes, and it will have an effect on the actual evolution of the strain.

What is fascinating is that the human r-strategist is now undergoing a selective process, right before our eyes. Those with the intelligence to connect cause with effect, the responsible nature to take action by using birth control, and those who are wealthy enough to afford birth control are all crushing their own replacement numbers.

What will now fill the ranks of the r-strategist population in the coming decades will be Rachel Jeantel clones, all lacking in the ability to avoid popping out a new kid with each new playa who drifts through their lives.

Idiocracy, here we come.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts