<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "Freedom Metric" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/855]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from zhanba33]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1901546]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in. 
Welcome to , variety, low price and good quality, and the sales price
is low , Move your mouse to work shopping! Hey hey Believe you will love it.
 Welcome to ====  http://www.luckygrip.com ==
Jewelry wholesale, custom-made samples
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&amp;G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $9
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18  
FREE SHIPPING
 http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 

  http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 
 http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 

  http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SunPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1901546]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from operagost]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1890542]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Well, considering that what you call a &quot;group of parasitic cells&quot; is, by definition, alive, you way wish to rethink your statement.  The debate is not whether it's alive, right?  A biologist can confirm that an embryo is.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1890542]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Shimmerville]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1888341]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Freedom, like any aspect, can be overdone.  I believe that there is a point at which any increase in general personal freedom only has the effect of facilitating evil.

People should recognize and be aware of their personal setpoint at which they believe increased freedom means increased evil.  Unfortunately, people are in great denial about this.  Pro-abortion people use the euphemism &quot;choice&quot; because they are, in a subconscious human way,  ashamed of their position, but they don't even know it let alone admit it.

And of course we have plenty of those people who think that evil is kind of cool.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1888341]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from ceprn69]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1888271]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&quot;If freedom were my top priority, would my opinion on abortion rights change?&quot;

I know mine wouldn't a person who is living always triumphs a groups of parasitic cells.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1888271]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from operagost]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1885531]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&quot;On the rights of a fetus... It is free to do whatever it likes, but not demand that someone sustain it. If it can survive on its own, it has the rights and freedoms of all Americans. &quot;

Oh my.  Well, at least we can save trillions by eliminating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare for all those freeloaders that can't survive on their own.  Not to mention that we can perform 40th-trimester abortions on all those little kids who refuse to earn their keep in a sweatshop.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1885531]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from EMU]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1885073]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&quot;maximize cumulative human freedom&quot;: Too loose. You want to reach a compromise between equal freedom for everybody and maximize /that/ freedom.

&quot;a billionaire would be taxed extra for keeping money sitting around in treasury bills&quot;: Billionaires very rarely have T-Bills. They have lots of investmens that paid off. The only big T-Bill holdes are foreign national banks. Good luck with taxing the chinese government.

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1885073]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from dilbertSpawn]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1884382]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I like some of your ideas, but bringing potential freedom into play is tricky; would you force people to have children to maximize the potential freedom of their egg/sperm cells?  I don't think your &quot;maximal freedom&quot; strategy does as good a job of eliminating the question of when life begins as you seem to.

I do think that's a neat tax idea though.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1884382]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from language]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1884060]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Delius,

Self-revelation (or if you want &quot;reduction in personal privacy&quot;) only increases freedom if the info you revealed is forced upon others: an edict.

Simply telling the world your favorite color reduces your total power. If revealing your favorite color means they have to paint statues of you in that color, then you could say info flowing from you increases your power.

Generally, info proceeding from a person reduces their options. Which is why peasants in this country are spied on and data collected by big brother, and big brother hides his own info, pretending like we (and Issa) are invasive trolls when asking about &quot;Fast and Furious&quot;.

You start with premise that privacy will be reduced in uniform manner across ppl and organizations, and it isnt, nor will it be.

Ending privacy is a massive power grab by whoever happens to be in power. Its only acceptable if you disregard reality and impose your own morality onto its projected application. You aren't in charge. Engineers arent in charge. Not even point-haired bosses are in charge. Those in charge think differently than all these.

This undermines the whole reason for the 2nd amendment. The right of the people to overthrow their govt. Ppl cant do that without guns or privacy. This kind of thing destroys the failsafe.

Apparently the true failsafe is &quot;fiscal solvency&quot;.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1884060]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from delius1967]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883881]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[[ It was just yesterday, you were arguing that we should surrender all privacy in the interest of larger efficiency. Now you say, we should reorganize to maximize freedom. Which one is it, Scott - because Freedom and efficiency don't go together. ]

Surrendering privacy isn't antithetical to more freedom.  In fact I would say it adds to it.  Privacy is just a fancy way of saying &quot;we have a lack of information about you&quot;.  But as I said before, that knife cuts both ways.  Having sufficient information is the most powerful tool in the world for guaranteeing your freedom; the people who would take it away are afraid of it.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883881]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from BobNL]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883804]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[More to the point: I question the whole concept of maximizing freedom. Most people don't need a maximum of freedom, they function very bad when they can do whatever they want. It is very comfortable to not be free all the time and to not have to make decisions.

Do you think you live in a free country? I don't. When you are responsible for your children because you're a parent, that limits your freedom extremely. Having to work for money limits your freedom extremely. Having to live amongst other people in a society limits the freedom to act however you want extremely. Why do you need 15-20 years to learn how to behave in the society? To prevent you from doing things that are not appropriate.

The difference in freedom between a citizen in the U.S. or in Europe and a citizen in a dictatorship is not as big as you think, if you take all thes things into account. (I'll make an exception for women living under traditional Muslim government, they are much more restricted.) This difference is basically limited to the freedom of speech and the right to vote.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883804]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from mouffett]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883803]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[On the rights of a fetus...  It is free to do whatever it likes, but not demand that someone sustain it.  If it can survive on its own, it has the rights and freedoms of all Americans.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883803]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from BobNL]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883766]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Ignoring the usual impracticality of your ideas (when is an investment risky, is a risky investment really better for the economy, how exactly is freedom defined and who defines it, etc..) where is your disclaimer when you need it?! You're arguing along the way that having an affair is o.k.  for a man. I mean, you don't say it literally, but we all know that people will read it that way.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883766]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Dingbat]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883469]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@Phantom II

&quot;When you have a position of extreme authority, one of the things you need to constantly demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt is good judgment. The fact that General Petraeus put his libido and ego ahead of his country's best interests removed any doubt that the General had ceased to honor his oath and had demonstrated extremely poor judgment.&quot;

I could not disagree more. I take this issue very personally because I have a son who will graduate in a couple of years as an Army officer and deploy shortly thereafter into some conflict area or another. 

Hyperbolic political ravings aside, we don't feel particularly threatened at home. While that is a very good thing in general - for our military the unfortunate result is that we tend to tolerate a good deal of incompetence in our leaders. 

Now here we are throwing away an excellent leader who has demonstrated rare, significant and much-needed competence because of a personal scandal that never posed a threat to national security and in fact was uncovered by highly intrusive digging into personal e-mail accounts. I find the whole situation, to say the least, deeply disturbing. 

This is why I think we need someway to force more Americans to pay attention to the military - through a military tax or some other scheme. I readily admit that I probably would not pay much attention if I did not have a son who could potentially suffer the consequences of this sort of lunacy. 

In the event of a real threat - we will all pay a price. 
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883469]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from micklat]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883372]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[You assign a degree of happiness to each individual (present and future), and then sum over all individuals. Why take the sum and not the average? If you take the average, then the future potential of unborn persons increases not just the numerator (which is the total happiness) but also the denominator (which is the number of persons). Different outcome then. The difference is crucial: if you make the mistake of regarding more people as a generally better outcome, then even without considering abortions, you end up with policies that encourage overpopulation - which is the world's biggest problem already.

I suggest that you read John Rawls' &quot;A theory of justice&quot;. His suggestion was that when we consider the aggregate welfare of different people, we should aim to maximize the welfare of the worst-off among them. Perhaps this sounds like communism, but Rawls was no communist. His idea was that capitalism is better for the poor as well as the rich. His approach, too, would not lead to policies that promote greater reproduction.
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883372]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Stui]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883343]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[WOW. I can't believe there is even debate on abortion these days. Surely it's self evident that a woman has an absolute right to abort an unwanted pregnancy provided it's done at an early enough stage in the pregnancy?

What kind of nit wit would try to force someone to continue through a pregnancy for a baby they don't want?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883343]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from marcoklaue]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883006]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Yeah, this idea of politicians &quot;on both sides of the aisle&quot; over issues as diverse as taxation and abortion is a very American problem, caused by the polarized thinking brought about by a two-party system.  Why can't someone be pro-life and also favor a more socialized approach to taxes?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1883006]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Raskolnikov]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1882994]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[And now General John Allen is being investigated.  How do we know Iran isn't parachuting in hotties wearing hi-tech pheromones? The entire top structure of the Armed Forces could be gone in a week, leaving a huge power vacuum.

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1882994]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Phantom II]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1882993]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[One quick thing concerning General Petraeus: this is an area where Scott has a paucity of expertise in the area he's attempting to address. In effect, Scott is saying that the General's only problem is a puritanical reaction to his affair by the rest of us, and thus if we'd just be a little more tolerant of a guy betraying his wife, family and country, this would be a non-issue.

While I disagree with Scott on that level, that isn't the reason that the General had to resign, nor is it the reason his resignation had to be accepted.  Here's the reason why:

When you have a position of extreme authority, one of the things you need to constantly demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt is good judgment.  The fact that General Petraeus put his libido and ego ahead of his country's best interests removed any doubt that the General had ceased to honor his oath and had demonstrated extremely poor judgment.  

We have every right to hold our leaders and those in positions of extreme importance to our country to understand that taking on the responsibility means acting appropriately, no matter how hot your biographer is.  

And Scott, we're not France.  If you doubt this, please do some historical research.  Compare the American Revolution with the French Revolution.  Our country expects more, and this hopefully serves as a reminder to others in whom we put our trust.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1882993]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from jasntmason]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1882992]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Unless the wealthiest among us also happen to be investment/venture capitalist gurus, not sure having them invest &quot;riskier&quot; necessarily helps anyone but their brokers and snake oil salesmen pitching the next wave of vaporware. Personally, I'm more interested in a study showing how many people really need to work to keep our country running. My guess is that most people have dead-end jobs, created to make someone else rich, reduce unemployment to get someone elected, or some unholy mix of both -- which means these jobs could dry up and blow away tomorrow, and the world would be just fine. Keeping in mind our economy is just one big mental exercise, how 'bout we find a new way to promote economic and product creativity, and social growth rather than the lure of a fatter wallet, which, for most of us, is about as likely as dating a supermodel, chaperoned by a leprechaun on unicorn-back?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1882992]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from whtllnew]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1882991]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@blampow

Been tried.  Its called 'printing money', aka, 'causing high inflation'.  Doesn't work too well.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1882991]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
