Thursday, November 24, 2011

The Psychology of Political Change

[Update 25 Nov 2011] The Crooked Timber liberals finally decided to publish this comment.  They published plenty of later comments before publishing my comment so now I'm even more curious what their hesitation was.


Those cheeky Crooked Timber liberals.  They are "cheeky" because they are over in the UK and because they deem it necessary to block a few of my comments.  Here's the first comment of mine that they blocked...Crooked Timber Liberals and now they've gone and blocked another comment of mine.  Here's my comment which I tried to post on their entry on Fatalism, Polling Data and Experimental Philosophy.

It's really no big deal that they block some of my comments...but I can't help but be curious how they rationalize their decisions to do so.


Locus of control, which has already been mentioned, is the first thing that comes to mind...but Self-efficacy and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs are two relevant psychological concepts that haven't been mentioned yet. Well...then the debate probably just boils down to nature versus nurture.

Obama promised everybody "change" but certainly the OWS protesters don't seem to feel like any real change was delivered. Does anybody feel like Obama followed through with his promise of real change? What would qualify as real change?

In the Bible "miracles" were possible if people had enough faith... "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done." Mathew 21:21

How many people have lost faith in the current political system? How pervasive is political alienation? Who has the real power?

In ancient times people believed that the king had "divine authority". Then some Barons lost faith in the king and took the power of the purse away from the king. Did that qualify as real change? Since then we've learned how scarce resources are efficiently allocated. Yet...parliament still maintains the power of the purse.

If we truly want real change...if we truly want to empower people...then we should allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes...aka pragmatarianism. Your ability to genuinely consider the validity of this idea reflects the degree to which your thinking has conformed to traditions. Conforming your thinking to traditions restricts your ability to think outside of the box.

Contrary to the bible...real change is not the result of is the result of doubt.

Tradition, thou art for suckling children,
Thou art the enlivening milk for babes;
But no meat for men is in thee.
Then --
But, alas, we all are babes. - Stephen Crane

There is no logical or rational basis for 535 congresspeople allocating people's taxes. The only way to ensure the efficient allocation of taxes is to allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. This would force taxpayers to consider the opportunity costs of their taxes. Millions and millions of taxpayers deciding whether they wanted to have their cake OR eat their cake would reveal their true values and guarantee the best possible use of limited public funds.


  1. It's really no big deal that they block some of my comments...but I can't help but be curious how they rationalize their decisions to do so.

    They think you're incompetent?

  2. That's entirely possible. But what would give them that idea?

    Here's my latest comment that they did not publish...Economic Fairytales?

  3. Hello , can you help me and tell which is best university to persue course or practice related to Psychology