What is your opinion on Redistribution of Wealth?

[Henrin]

Why shouldn't a local property owner be free to sell me a minimal property I can afford to buy?

People don't have to pay any mind to demand if that is what they decide. I'm not sure that is in their interest though. If I can sell to someone for X amount then I will probably not think of selling to someone for less. I'm sure some people are different though.

 

[papertrader]

Can you explain what you mean by "buying property in increments".

Sure...generally there are minimum size requirements for real estate transfers, and home purchase is therefore not scalable.

You can buy or sell a typical 1/4 acre property and house, but generally a 1/10 acre property would be unbuildable or unsaleable.

This has the effect of preventing many low-income people from buying starter homes they can afford.

Zoning is largely about excluding people poorer than the incumbent property owners.

 

[papertrader]

Lew Rockwells 30 day plan should be a good start. Rockwell's Thirty-Day Plan by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

state and local governments will then ramp up their class warfare, because they will have greater incentives to dump their poor on other state and local governments, by encouraging them to vote with their feet. Thus a race to the bottom will ensue.

 

[Quik]

state and local governments will then ramp up their class warfare, because they will have greater incentives to dump their poor on other state and local governments, by encouraging them to vote with their feet. Thus a race to the bottom will ensue.

Elaborate and be specific? What do you mean "ramp up class warfare?"

 

[papertrader]

People don't have to pay any mind to demand if that is what they decide. I'm not sure that is in their interest though. If I can sell to someone for X amount then I will probably not think of selling to someone for less. I'm sure some people are different though.

Property owners generally are not allowed to subdivide their property and sell off the parts separately.

I can look for a home to buy in my neighborhood. and find on the market many properties...P1, P2, P3, etc.

But if I can't afford to buy any of them, the owner of P1 can't divide his property and sell me 1/2 or 1/4 of P1. The parts of a subdivided property could often be sold for more than the whole, if subdivision were allowed.

 

[papertrader]

Elaborate and be specific? What do you mean "ramp up class warfare?"

States compete to attract desirable (rich, productive, taxpaying, job-providing, law-abiding) residents, and to repel undesirable (poor, unproductive, tax-consuming, lawbreaking) residents.

For example, not having a personal income tax is an excellent way to attract wealthy people to a state. Regressive taxes and stingy safety nets are ways to encourage te poor to vote with their feet and stay away or move elsewhere.

States would have increased incentives to encourage the poor to stay or go away.

Local zoning codes often engage in social engineering by favoring, disfavoring, regulating, and prohibiting, various types and densities of housing, these incentives would increase.

 

[Quik]

States compete to attract desirable (rich, productive, taxpaying, job-providing, law-abiding) residents, and to repel undesirable (poor, unproductive, tax-consuming, lawbreaking) residents.

For example, not having a personal income tax is an excellent way to attract wealthy people to a state. Regressive taxes and stingy safety nets are ways to encourage te poor to vote with their feet and stay away or move elsewhere.

States would have increased incentives to encourage the poor to stay or go away.

Local zoning codes often engage in social engineering by favoring, disfavoring, regulating, and prohibiting, various types and densities of housing, these incentives would increase.

Ok but this contradicts your previous statement that "state and local governments will then ramp up their class warfare, because they will have greater incentives to dump their poor on other state and local governments, by encouraging them to vote with their feet. Thus a race to the bottom will ensue."

Are you saying that state governments will reduce their government programs? If so, that's a great thing!

 

[trisha613]

Everyone should take 5 minutes to read this article. It's a perfect example of how redistribution destroys our economy and ruins opportunities for the rich and the poor.

The CEO Who Built Himself America's Largest House Just Threatened to Fire His Employees if Obama's Elected

 

[RabidAlpaca]

That's a very unfounded assertion. I don't see how capitalism is practical. A whole lot of people are really poor. And exercise almost no power. Remember this?

View attachment 67146688

What's practical about that? Especially when compared with a mentality that can be summed up by admonishing a basketball player who showboats too much and makes his team look bad. One person acts selfishly, and the whole team suffers. He revels in his own success at the expense of everyone else. Sure, maybe his career is fine, but the team in general goes down.

But you wanna talk practical solutions, we'll talk practical solutions.

1) Those dreaded taxes and social programs. They're necessary. Completely necessary. Especially education. And we have to pay for it. It's an investment, not theft.
2) Money out of politics. Totally publicly funded elections. No lobby money, no wealthy donors, no PACs, no special interests. No outside campaigning and keep it within a short span of time. Yeah, it's a first amendment issue. But abridging a little freedom can lead to a lot more effective freedom. Just like abridging the freedom to murder people. There's obviously a line, but the principal is sound. The UK has something like a 6 week electoral process, instead of our two year long presidential elections. This also has the effect of allowing a lot more candidates into the election, since an independent can campaign on the same bankroll as a D or R.
3) Living wages. We should not have a lower class. At all. I don't mean no lowest class. That's impossible. But we need a real minimum standard, and it ought to be what we consider middle class. That's what our vision of America is. Middle class people. Nobody should be below that. That's how we have a healthy, wealthy, and powerful citizenry.
4) Holding businesses accountable for a lot of things they get away with. Shipping money to avoid taxes and jobs overseas should not be allowed. Businesses need to owe a duty to the community and country, not just to one to make as much money as possible for shareholders. That profit is business' only motive isn't a natural law. It's a rule we made up and can change.
5) Change in culture. We are too obsessed with owning things. With material possession. The US has a really messed up idea that property is freedom. It's not. We aren't free because we have this little bit of land that we live on and nobody else can come on and we'll shoot them if they do. That is a backwards 18th and 19th century idea that should be left where it belongs. We're free because we secure our freedom through our common efforts. We're free because there's 300 million other free people watching our backs. We need to curb this out of control individualism to a more reasonable level, and stop obsessing about owning property.

That's just a few points. None of them are terribly difficult. All the framework already exists. It's all 100% constitutional (except maybe the campaign stuff, though we could place it all into a time/place/manner restriction on election-related speech). That might not even displace capitalism, but would at least shape it into something more egalitarian.

And yet your proposal is still theoretical, because there has yet to be a system that has proven more effective at providing a higher standard of living for the average family, than with capitalism. Sure, this is a horribly bastardized version of capitalism, but it's still better than the horribly bastardized version of socialism.

Socialism is inherently highly corruptable, because an inordinate amount of power is given to government officials, which are human. Capitalism, although, yes, still ****ty, at least provides an element of choice and freedom for the individual.

I desperately yearn for something better, but there have been no practical examples or suggestions.

 

[Paschendale]

And yet your proposal is still theoretical, because there has yet to be a system that has proven more effective at providing a higher standard of living for the average family, than with capitalism. Sure, this is a horribly bastardized version of capitalism, but it's still better than the horribly bastardized version of socialism.

So, you can't try something new? People keep tossing out "well, socialism hasn't worked" as if that means anything. Capitalism, democracy, human rights, and equality hadn't worked before someone tried them and made them work. Nor is capitalism working well enough to warrant defense. The average family is not doing well at all. And they are suffering mainly because of the excesses of capitalism.

Socialism is inherently highly corruptable, because an inordinate amount of power is given to government officials, which are human. Capitalism, although, yes, still ****ty, at least provides an element of choice and freedom for the individual.

That's completely unfounded. There is nothing inherently different about a democratic socialist system than a democratic capitalist one in terms of government. The same amount of power is given to government officials as is now. Nor does public ownership (which wasn't part of my list of ideas) preclude choice or individual freedom. It's a completely arbitrary and unsupported assertion to claim that it does. Choice and individual freedom disappear in a dictatorship, not because of public ownership. They disappear when someone with power takes them away. You fear that government officials can do that, despite being prohibited from doing so by a constitution, laws, competing branches of government, and elections keeping them beholden to the people, yet don't fear that wealthy people can and are doing it right now with their private power, and are beholden and accountable to no one.

I desperately yearn for something better, but there have been no practical examples or suggestions.

I'm getting the sense that no, you don't. You're making up reasons not to allow better methods a chance.

 

[Mach]

So, you can't try something new? People keep tossing out "well, socialism hasn't worked" as if that means anything. Capitalism, democracy, human rights, and equality hadn't worked before someone tried them and made them work. Nor is capitalism working well enough to warrant defense. The average family is not doing well at all. And they are suffering mainly because of the excesses of capitalism.

The average family, compared to the rest of the world and history, is doing fan-****ing-tastic. People still immigrate here for a reason right? It's relatively great. I'd rather earn $0 income in the U.S. than make the average wage in many other parts of the world. Suffering? Please, that shames the North Koreans, you think they are "suffering" compared to the average Americans "suffering"? Your comment is so callous. Stop that relativel language nonsense, and compare apples to apples, else, don't compare at all.

Countless stories of immigrants who come here and learn a trade and earn a living off the god damned plane. How-ever can they do this? Recession makes it harder today, on average, it's just better.

yet don't fear that wealthy people can and are doing it right now with their private power, and are beholden and accountable to no one.

I've only had property and freedoms taken from me by government or outright criminals (And family!). Gates has never robbed me, he's actually got the largest philanthropic organization in history, he works for us. I use windows, it's about a what, $300M piece of software I get OEM for maybe $100. And he's screwing me? I need some examples, else, you're not communicating anything here.

 

[SocialEngineer]

My opinion on redistribution of wealth is that the topic is a distraction from the root issue.

The root issue is that our economic system often rewards detrimental forms of participation, and barriers to participation in the economy are artificially high.

Basically, if you make money the right way, by providing goods and services, engaging in good faith competition with your competitors, in a setting where informed consumer choice dictates your success or failure, then you've earned the right to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Too often, however, people make huge amounts of money playing hedge funds, charging usurious levels of interest on loans, and generally manipulating the economy without adding a dime of real value in exchange.

Advocates for redistribution of wealth cite the latter as reason for redistribution, while opponents cite the former. Both have valid points, but the more effective solution to the problem is to establish rules that make our economic system more resistant to manipulation, and lower barriers to participation so that people can succeed in the economy on their merits.

The trouble is, we can't actually fix the problem because our partisan political discourse has us so divided with wedge issues like "redistribution of wealth", that we're too distracted to recognize the root cause and unite against it.

 

[humbolt]

Too often, however, people make huge amounts of money playing hedge funds, charging usurious levels of interest on loans, and generally manipulating the economy without adding a dime of real value in exchange.

Yeah. George Soros comes to mind in that regard.

 

[polgara]

Yeah. George Soros comes to mind in that regard.

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

Speaking of redistribution of wealth...I read an interesting newsbit this morning..

The Treasury reported yesterday that they were going to pay down the national debt by $35 billion dollars.

It seems that Congress was so shaken by this horrifying news that they immediately called for an additional $223 billion dollars in borrowing for the July-to-September quarter! It's not the trillion they were shooting for, but hey, it's close.

This is sarcasm on my part, but sadly the numbers are correct. Way to go, idiots! :thumbdown:

 

[Amadeus]

I believe in the redistribution of wealth. So does every fiscal conservative.

 

[humbolt]

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

Speaking of redistribution of wealth...I read an interesting newsbit this morning..

The Treasury reported yesterday that they were going to pay down the national debt by $35 billion dollars.

It seems that Congress was so shaken by this horrifying news that they immediately called for an additional $223 billion dollars in borrowing for the July-to-September quarter! It's not the trillion they were shooting for, but hey, it's close.

This is sarcasm on my part, but sadly the numbers are correct. Way to go, idiots! :thumbdown:

Hey. What do you want? The sequester brought the nation to a standstill - children starving, businesses bankrupt, the military without as much as a single bullet, and so on and on. Imagine what $35 billion could do thrown in on top of that debacle. It only makes sense to borrow over six times that $35 billion in order to achieve equity and avoid societal collapse. In a related topic, how's your garden?

 

[polgara]

Hey. What do you want? The sequester brought the nation to a standstill - children starving, businesses bankrupt, the military without as much as a single bullet, and so on and on. Imagine what $35 billion could do thrown in on top of that debacle. It only makes sense to borrow over six times that $35 billion in order to achieve equity and avoid societal collapse. In a related topic, how's your garden?

It finally dried out enough to rototill, so I plan to have that done today. The plants are so anxious to taste some real soil instead of the germinating mix they've been living on, that I feel guilty. But the weather has been so weird that I've been reluctant to chance it until now. We had frozen blocks of ice in the animals' water bowls a few days ago! Radioman reported that his tomatoes are thigh high with small tomatoes on them, but he is in California, and I'm moping along here in NE Ohio! ...sigh...You all planted in your area?

 

[humbolt]

It finally dried out enough to rototill, so I plan to have that done today. The plants are so anxious to taste some real soil instead of the germinating mix they've been living on, that I feel guilty. But the weather has been so weird that I've been reluctant to chance it until now. We had frozen blocks of ice in the animals' water bowls a few days ago! Radioman reported that his tomatoes are thigh high with small tomatoes on them, but he is in California, and I'm moping along here in NE Ohio! ...sigh...You all planted in your area?

No. I should be. When it's been dry, I've been busy, and when it's been wet - a lot lately - I've been walking around mumbling to myself. Most everything I've germinated is ready to plant too. I didn't plan a cool weather garden this year, and I'm kicking myself for that as well with the cool spring we've had. I have a new quarter acre garden to plant as well, and it's beginning to look like I'll be planting alfalfa or something other than what I had in mind originally. I'm afraid that when it does warm up, it's going to go from the 60's to the 90's in a heartbeat. We'll see.

 

[imagep]

My opinion on redistribution of wealth is that the topic is a distraction from the root issue.

The root issue is that our economic system often rewards detrimental forms of participation, and barriers to participation in the economy are artificially high.

Basically, if you make money the right way, by providing goods and services, engaging in good faith competition with your competitors, in a setting where informed consumer choice dictates your success or failure, then you've earned the right to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Too often, however, people make huge amounts of money playing hedge funds, charging usurious levels of interest on loans, and generally manipulating the economy without adding a dime of real value in exchange.

Advocates for redistribution of wealth cite the latter as reason for redistribution, while opponents cite the former. Both have valid points, but the more effective solution to the problem is to establish rules that make our economic system more resistant to manipulation, and lower barriers to participation so that people can succeed in the economy on their merits.

The trouble is, we can't actually fix the problem because our partisan political discourse has us so divided with wedge issues like "redistribution of wealth", that we're too distracted to recognize the root cause and unite against it.

Welcome to debatepolitics.com!

I look forward to seeing your further thoughts on this, you seem like a reasonable poster and not the typical ideolog that we have here.

 

[imagep]

I believe in the redistribution of wealth. So does every fiscal conservative.

Tell me more about that, I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the topic.

And welcome to debatepolitics.com!

 

[SocialEngineer]

I agree, and the solution is to refocus on the real problems.

For example, just this year the patent system was changed to "first to file". Before, if someone cheated you out of your idea and filed a patent before you were able to, you could go through a process to prove that you had invented it, and gain your rights back. Now, if you don't have the $15,000 or so that it takes to file a patent for your idea, then anyone you would have previously gone to for investment capital can now turn right around and file the patent without you, and take the credit. Europe has used this system for decades, and it's why virtually nothing new comes out of Europe anymore.

And I'll bet dollars to donuts that NONE of the cable news networks, or any of the corporate media made more than the slightest mention of this fact. As an engineer, it pisses me off so bad that I could turn around right now and join a secessionist movement, and I'm as far from a stereotypical secessionist as it gets.

The fact of the matter is, that you, me, and everyone else that's on this forum right now, could fix every problem we have, and we wouldn't need to secede to do it. We just need to realize that the problem is our leaders, not us, and the reason we're losing the fight is because each of us is fighting the wrong enemy.

The solution is to let the wedge issues fall on the state and local governments to resolve, and for people to start fighting together on the big issues. Having known people both in the TeaParties, and in OWS, I'm pretty damned certain that if those two groups realized that they were actually on the same side, the people who are causing the real problems for their own personal gain would have a real problem of their own to deal with. My guess is that's why there's so much effort put in on the mainstream media to label the Tea Parties as racist ole white men, and the OWS movement as idiot, stoned children.

 

[Mach]

I agree, and the solution is to refocus on the real problems.

No way that happens. Once government got involved to the extent it has, it simply cannot happen. We were lucky to have had such a good system for so long, but it will never improve dramatically from the status quo. To really solve those problems, you'd have to basically devote much of your life to a single cause, and work long hours for MAYBE a chance to SLIGHTLY ADJUST policy. Meanwhile, if you don't like your broadband provider, you call them and cancel and get a better offer from the competition as a bonus. You have far more incentive to find workarounds to avoid government corruption and mismanagement, than to try to meet it head-on. It should never have had the authority to get so involved in the first place, that was supposed to be the firewall that prevent this, but it broke and that's that.

It is far easier to just start a business and succeed wildly in the market, and buy your way past all the terrifying hurdles that these absolute fools put in your way. They want to cut that avenue off too, maybe cap your salary so you're forced to whatever age they raise SS retirement to...
Or, if you want to help people for example, to go volunteer and learn the ropes and try to start a non-profit in your community, etc. That can have dramatic results in our own lifetime. Trying to solve problems via government...an exercise in futility.

I'm a closet optimist I swear , welcome to DP.

 

[SocialEngineer]

No way that happens. Once government got involved to the extent it has, it simply cannot happen. We were lucky to have had such a good system for so long, but it will never improve dramatically from the status quo. To really solve those problems, you'd have to basically devote much of your life to a single cause, and work long hours for MAYBE a chance to SLIGHTLY ADJUST policy. Meanwhile, if you don't like your broadband provider, you call them and cancel and get a better offer from the competition as a bonus. You have far more incentive to find workarounds to avoid government corruption and mismanagement, than to try to meet it head-on. It should never have had the authority to get so involved in the first place, that was supposed to be the firewall that prevent this, but it broke and that's that.

It is far easier to just start a business and succeed wildly in the market, and buy your way past all the terrifying hurdles that these absolute fools put in your way. They want to cut that avenue off too, maybe cap your salary so you're forced to whatever age they raise SS retirement to...
Or, if you want to help people for example, to go volunteer and learn the ropes and try to start a non-profit in your community, etc. That can have dramatic results in our own lifetime. Trying to solve problems via government...an exercise in futility.

I'm a closet optimist I swear , welcome to DP.

The problems that are cause by the government can only be solved by fixing the government.

The biggest problem is that our political system has been usurped, and the partisan discourse has been turned into a tool to keep us divided and distracted so that we are unable to collectively fight the usurpation. Economics, race, sexuality, religion and science. Look at the issues. Everything is framed by the discourse in a way that promotes arguing over a small sticking point, instead of ignoring or bypassing the sticking points to address the larger issues.

Example: The patent system just got changed this year, to make it impossible for an inventor to protect his patent if someone manages to steal their idea and patent it before they can. Before, you had a period of time to challenge a patent if you could prove that you invented it first. That allowed inventors to pursue the funding to get a patent from investors without the risk that the investor would hamstring them and file the patent for themselves.

Did you know about that? I'll bet that the members of this forum spend YEARS worth of man hours every day bitching back and forth about whether the insurance mandate in ObamaCare is Constitutional, justifiable, or otherwise beneficial to society, when the actual result makes so little difference compared to larger issues, that it is basically irrelevant. But I'd bet that almost every single member of this forum can take one look at what I just mentioned, and see that it's a HUGE economic problem.

And the patent system is just the tip of the iceberg that this nation is currently plowing into. Industries are being strangled with unnecessary regulations that only megacompanies can comply with, while the important laws that reinforce competition and market choice in our economy are being eliminated in the name of "deregulation". These detrimental changes always seem to pass with a bipartisan majority, while efforts to fix the damage fail.

The Tea Parties and OWS BOTH understand this problem. Both OWS and the Tea Parties know that the problem exists in both parties. And both have been villianized by the mass media. The "teabaggers" are just a bunch of white racist rednecks, and the occupiers are just unemployed stoners in their 20's that want the government to solve all their problems. It's bull****. Both movements want the exact same thing. They want to eliminate the stranglehold that the partisan political discourse has on our individual political power, restore our ability to control our government, and take control of our own social mobility again. They get demonized and polarized by the media and the political discourse because the people who use those tools to cover for their own bull**** don't want those sides to see that they're actually on the same team.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

So, you can't try something new? People keep tossing out "well, socialism hasn't worked" as if that means anything. Capitalism, democracy, human rights, and equality hadn't worked before someone tried them and made them work. Nor is capitalism working well enough to warrant defense. The average family is not doing well at all. And they are suffering mainly because of the excesses of capitalism.

I agree new things can be tried, however, when I tally up the approximate body count of government, compared to the approximate body count of corporations, I tend to favor the latter. Why don't we try to cleanse our politics of money and corporatism first? I'd like to see that happen before we massively restructure the entire system. We can't trust the government to do the jobs they have now, why would we implement a system where they have massively more power?

The majority of the unfair advantages the rich, banks, and corporations have are from government intervention. For example, you can't legally invest in a startup company unless you are already rich. You have to have a special license to be a venture capitalist. This is all for your protection of course. Or how about the Fed that will loan to banks at .1% interest, so that the banks can turn around and loan to the people at 6%? We're giving them free money.

That's completely unfounded. There is nothing inherently different about a democratic socialist system than a democratic capitalist one in terms of government. The same amount of power is given to government officials as is now. Nor does public ownership (which wasn't part of my list of ideas) preclude choice or individual freedom. It's a completely arbitrary and unsupported assertion to claim that it does. Choice and individual freedom disappear in a dictatorship, not because of public ownership. They disappear when someone with power takes them away. You fear that government officials can do that, despite being prohibited from doing so by a constitution, laws, competing branches of government, and elections keeping them beholden to the people, yet don't fear that wealthy people can and are doing it right now with their private power, and are beholden and accountable to no one.

I may make some assumptions on a few things, because we have no positive example for me to go off of. Socialism, by its very nature, requires the state using force and coercion to redistribute things. All of this is done at gun point, whether literal or figurative. The state having that kind of power, is inherently susceptible to corruption.

I'm getting the sense that no, you don't. You're making up reasons not to allow better methods a chance.

Hey man, I get it, our system is totally ****ed. There are a lot of things that need to be changed, because this is simply not working. I truly, truly do want to see a better distribution of wealth, but the only ways I've seen this implemented have had drastic negative effects.

As I stated before, our system is the shiniest turd in the world. I desperately want something else, but I've yet to see viable alternatives.

I agree, and the solution is to refocus on the real problems.

For example, just this year the patent system was changed to "first to file". Before, if someone cheated you out of your idea and filed a patent before you were able to, you could go through a process to prove that you had invented it, and gain your rights back. Now, if you don't have the $15,000 or so that it takes to file a patent for your idea, then anyone you would have previously gone to for investment capital can now turn right around and file the patent without you, and take the credit. Europe has used this system for decades, and it's why virtually nothing new comes out of Europe anymore.

That really bothers me as well. I'm in the process of developing two different products and building a small startup off of each. I need to figure out how to protect myself when the time comes. I simply can't drop $15k on every new design, especially when I have no idea if it'll sell or not.

By the way, what kind of engineer are you? (Don't say social.)

 

[SocialEngineer]

I agree new things can be tried, however, when I tally up the approximate body count of government, compared to the approximate body count of corporations, I tend to favor the latter. Why don't we try to cleanse our politics of money and corporatism first? I'd like to see that happen before we massively restructure the entire system. We can't trust the government to do the jobs they have now, why would we implement a system where they have massively more power?

The majority of the unfair advantages the rich, banks, and corporations have are from government intervention. For example, you can't legally invest in a startup company unless you are already rich. You have to have a special license to be a venture capitalist. This is all for your protection of course. Or how about the Fed that will loan to banks at .1% interest, so that the banks can turn around and loan to the people at 6%? We're giving them free money.



I may make some assumptions on a few things, because we have no positive example for me to go off of. Socialism, by its very nature, requires the state using force and coercion to redistribute things. All of this is done at gun point, whether literal or figurative. The state having that kind of power, is inherently susceptible to corruption.




Hey man, I get it, our system is totally ****ed. There are a lot of things that need to be changed, because this is simply not working. I truly, truly do want to see a better distribution of wealth, but the only ways I've seen this implemented have had drastic negative effects.

As I stated before, our system is the shiniest turd in the world. I desperately want something else, but I've yet to see viable alternatives.



That really bothers me as well. I'm in the process of developing two different products and building a small startup off of each. I need to figure out how to protect myself when the time comes. I simply can't drop $15k on every new design, especially when I have no idea if it'll sell or not.

By the way, what kind of engineer are you? (Don't say social.)

I'm an electrical engineer with a concentration in control theory. Most of my work involves control systems for aerospace applications at the moment, but I'm also interested in non-linear intelligent control methodologies like Fuzzy Logic. I use the name "SocialEngineer" because I'm a big fan of using sound engineering principles in the creation of our laws to create a stable society, much like the principles of control theory apply feedback to a mechanical or electrical system to eliminate instabilities and detrimental behaviors. Fuzzy Logic was originally introduced to describe social systems, in fact.