Jump to content

Ferguson, The Stock Market and The Way People Behave


AzCactus
 Share

Recommended Posts

"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people." Isaac Newton

 

Using the quote mentioned above as a segue into the behavior of crowds in Ferguson, we can probably safely say that people are more apt to do things wrong when they are surrounded by tons of people.  Sadly we saw this in Ferguson the past two nights as people expressed their displeasure regarding the fact that their will be no trial for Officer Wilson. 

 

With stocks a similar mentality seems to exist as people talk to their friends or relatives who are dabbling and doing well in stocks and then decide to join.  Warren Buffett talks about people at the cocktail party and someone watching his neighbor get rich quicker than him even though the neighbor is dumber.  We all know the story ends with stocks going very high and then the subsequent downfall that inevitably ensues.

 

Ultimately, for anyone who wants to chime in about either their Ferguson, the way people behave in large crowds or their opinion about the stock market that would be much appreciated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted this before, but I like the science fiction author L. Neil Smith's equation*: 

 

Ieff = Imax / n

 

Where:

    Ieff is the effective intelligence of any group of human beings

    Imax is the intelligence of the most intelligence member of the group

    n is the number of people in the group

 

He calls the facts that strength is additive (more people are stronger than fewer) and intelligence is not (quite the opposite as the effective intelligence of any group is equal to the intelligence of its brightest member divided by the number of people in the group) as one of the largest tragedies of the human condition.

 

 

*He first mentioned this in a speech to the Boulder County Libertarian Party in 1989 which he called "The Tyranny of Democracy - Majoritarianism Versus Unanimous Consent", but others have referred to it as his "Pizzacracy" speech or "Pizzacracy as Hyperdemocracy".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted this before, but I like the science fiction author L. Neil Smith's equation*: 

 

Ieff = Imax / n

 

Where:

    Ieff is the effective intelligence of any group of human beings

    Imax is the intelligence of the most intelligence member of the group

    n is the number of people in the group

 

He calls the facts that strength is additive (more people are stronger than fewer) and intelligence is not (quite the opposite as the effective intelligence of any group is equal to the intelligence of its brightest member divided by the number of people in the group) as one of the largest tragedies of the human condition.

 

 

*He first mentioned this in a speech to the Boulder County Libertarian Party in 1989 which he called "The Tyranny of Democracy - Majoritarianism Versus Unanimous Consent", but others have referred to it as his "Pizzacracy" speech or "Pizzacracy as Hyperdemocracy".

 

I think evolution designed people for being very efficient in small groups, not in large groups. Evolution did not technically design anything, but you get my drift.

 

If you have a small group of people with some very smart people in that group who listen to the smart ones, then that group is going to be very efficient. But with larger groups there will be more divide. That is why the army has such strict discipline and is not a democracy. And that is why democracy works better in some scandinavian countries where tough decisions are handed over to small groups of highly educated people. It is very interesting to think about. We could probably fine tune democracy a lot better if a lot of people at least realized this concept and the importance of knowing your circle of competence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted this before, but I like the science fiction author L. Neil Smith's equation*: 

 

Ieff = Imax / n

 

Where:

    Ieff is the effective intelligence of any group of human beings

    Imax is the intelligence of the most intelligence member of the group

    n is the number of people in the group

 

He calls the facts that strength is additive (more people are stronger than fewer) and intelligence is not (quite the opposite as the effective intelligence of any group is equal to the intelligence of its brightest member divided by the number of people in the group) as one of the largest tragedies of the human condition.

 

 

*He first mentioned this in a speech to the Boulder County Libertarian Party in 1989 which he called "The Tyranny of Democracy - Majoritarianism Versus Unanimous Consent", but others have referred to it as his "Pizzacracy" speech or "Pizzacracy as Hyperdemocracy".

 

I think evolution designed people for being very efficient in small groups, not in large groups. Evolution did not technically design anything, but you get my drift.

 

If you have a small group of people with some very smart people in that group who listen to the smart ones, then that group is going to be very efficient. But with larger groups there will be more divide. That is why the army has such strict discipline and is not a democracy. And that is why democracy works better in some scandinavian countries where tough decisions are handed over to small groups of highly educated people. It is very interesting to think about. We could probably fine tune democracy a lot better if a lot of people at least realized this concept and the importance of knowing your circle of competence.

 

I'd agree with all of that.  You can think of a small group of friends in a room deciding to order pizza as an efficiently sized group, anything larger than that becomes less and less efficient, until finally you are dealing with a mob (in every meaning of the word).  Pizzacracy works!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its is apalling  to watch the video and see how a peaceful man was killed. He did not attack and cried out several times that he can't breathe.

The brutality of policies and procedures which lead to this are disgusting.

 

What else minorities should go through to even have a grand jury to initiate a case ?

The U.S. constitution said that black people are 3/5 of person.

It is 1/21 today in usa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted this before, but I like the science fiction author L. Neil Smith's equation*: 

 

Ieff = Imax / n

 

Where:

    Ieff is the effective intelligence of any group of human beings

    Imax is the intelligence of the most intelligence member of the group

    n is the number of people in the group

 

He calls the facts that strength is additive (more people are stronger than fewer) and intelligence is not (quite the opposite as the effective intelligence of any group is equal to the intelligence of its brightest member divided by the number of people in the group) as one of the largest tragedies of the human condition.

 

 

*He first mentioned this in a speech to the Boulder County Libertarian Party in 1989 which he called "The Tyranny of Democracy - Majoritarianism Versus Unanimous Consent", but others have referred to it as his "Pizzacracy" speech or "Pizzacracy as Hyperdemocracy".

 

Shoot. How many users do we have on this board, Parsad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an attempt to be objective, there appears to be a lot of grey area in the Ferguson situation because it boils down to eye witness testimony and the forensic evidence.  In that case, I truthfully believe the police officer thought his life was threatened and acted accordingly.  Remember that shortly before the incident occurred Brown violently attacked someone (caught on camera). 

 

However, in the Garner case which I do not know a lot about (other than the video)--it seems evident that the officer went WAY over the line and abused his power.  In my judgment he should be prosecuted for at least (voluntary manslaughter), and maybe something harsher. 

 

It is honestly hard for me to think that a lot of injustice existed in the Ferguson case.  The fact that more publicity exists regarding it does not alter the facts.  However, the Garner case is really a sad example of police misconduct and someone at least being tried for what appears to be a crime caught on video.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That video is basicly a commercial targetted at sociopaths for the police force. Hey you can kill black people on camera, and get away with it! Feel like bullying someone, or just taking out your bad child hood on a random bystander, and get away with it even when it is all on camera, join the police force!

 

And if that does not sound good enough, you will also get paid for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted this before, but I like the science fiction author L. Neil Smith's equation*: 

 

Ieff = Imax / n

 

Where:

    Ieff is the effective intelligence of any group of human beings

    Imax is the intelligence of the most intelligence member of the group

    n is the number of people in the group

 

He calls the facts that strength is additive (more people are stronger than fewer) and intelligence is not (quite the opposite as the effective intelligence of any group is equal to the intelligence of its brightest member divided by the number of people in the group) as one of the largest tragedies of the human condition.

 

 

*He first mentioned this in a speech to the Boulder County Libertarian Party in 1989 which he called "The Tyranny of Democracy - Majoritarianism Versus Unanimous Consent", but others have referred to it as his "Pizzacracy" speech or "Pizzacracy as Hyperdemocracy".

 

Shoot. How many users do we have on this board, Parsad?

 

A good example.  Many of us do pretty well, but then again we make our own decisions and no one is forced to participate.  Would you like a system where the users of this board (not just the frequent posters, but all users) took a vote on which stocks you had to buy and when you had to sell?  How about a system where everyone in the country gets to vote on how you must save for retirement?  Oh wait we already have that, it is called Social Security.

 

That is the basic premise of Pizzacracy.  Everyone is free to discuss the situation, then only those who wish to act may act, those who wish to form smaller groups to discuss other options may do so, and those who wish to opt out all together may do so without consequences.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That video is basicly a commercial targetted at sociopaths for the police force. Hey you can kill black people on camera, and get away with it! Feel like bullying someone, or just taking out your bad child hood on a random bystander, and get away with it even when it is all on camera, join the police force!

 

And if that does not sound good enough, you will also get paid for it!

 

Not only that the police have all kinds of surplus military equipment which you can play with now!  Some departments even have tanks!

 

At a time when private non-government violence has been falling dramatically the police are more heavily armed and shooting more people than ever. And unlike private thugs they can get away with it, because the other police officers will gladly look the other way or even lie to protect each other.

 

Given all of this, ask yourself: What personality type is most likely to want to become a police officer? 

Because those are the people who do.

 

Back to Pizzacracy, Can you opt out of police "protection"?  Can you refuse to fund them?  Hire another protection service which you think better suits your needs and moral values?  Get together with your neighbors and decide to provide a different solution for the defense of your neighborhood?

 

Try telling a cop that you pay his salary, that he works for you, and he's fired.  See what that gets you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is honestly hard for me to think that a lot of injustice existed in the Ferguson case. 

 

I don't mean to single you out, but it's kind of sad to me that many people think it's "just" for a police officer to kill you if he feels scared.

 

Ham,

Don't worry about it.  I have my big boy pants on.  If you read my post--which it appears you did, it is not really a definitive statement. The key to something being justified however is based on the circumstances.  When you say "feels scared" that really means his life is in imminent danger.  Based on the testimony (some from African Americans)---Brown attacked the officer in his patrol car and reached for his gun, then after walking away from the officer he turned back towards him in something resembling an aggressive posture.  In my opinion this classifies as imminent danger. 

 

I would be curious to hear in your judgment how close the officer would have to be to dying for his actions to be justified.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, that might be ambigious, but there are a lot of cases where it seems they should have been punished. Like when they invade the wrong house, accidently get blinded by a flashbang and then kill a 7 year old because he started shooting in panic. How the fk are they getting a paid leave? That type of thing would not happen as much in Europe I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, that might be ambigious, but there are a lot of cases where it seems they should have been punished. Like when they invade the wrong house, accidently get blinded by a flashbang and then kill a 7 year old because he started shooting in panic. How the fk are they getting a paid leave? That type of thing would not happen as much in Europe I think.

 

The way I look at it is this.  A police officer is a human being just like you or me.  Therefore a police officer has no right to kill other than the rights that you or I have to kill, which is in self defense or immediate defense of an innocent 3rd party.  Therefore in every instance of police officer involved violence the question I ask myself is "What would happen to me if I did that?"  If the answer is "It would be ruled a justified use of force in self defense" then the police officer acted appropriately.  If the answer is "I'd be in deep shit", then the officer did not act appropriately and should also be in deep legal shit.  I know this isn't the way it works (the police practically have a license to kill), but it is the way it should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I look at it is this.  A police officer is a human being just like you or me.  Therefore a police officer has no right to kill other than the rights that you or I have to kill, which is in self defense or immediate defense of an innocent 3rd party.  Therefore in every instance of police officer involved violence the question I ask myself is "What would happen to me if I did that?"  If the answer is "It would be ruled a justified use of force in self defense" then the police officer acted appropriately.  If the answer is "I'd be in deep shit", then the officer did not act appropriately and should also be in deep legal shit.  I know this isn't the way it works (the police practically have a license to kill), but it is the way it should work.

 

RK,

I could not agree with you more.  The fact as you alluded to above is that police officers (at least in the US) may have a greater degree of leniency than other parts of the world.  The issue with the Garner case (which I have not really researched) is that everything is on video and the officer should be on leave and almost definitely should go prison or at least be tried be tried for a crime.  In that case the officer's life never appeared to be threatened at all.  I know if I did that to someone there is no doubt in my mind I would be on trial and probably in prison for a while.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think the war on drugs is responsible for the police behavior.  It's why in their minds every black kid is about to reach for their gun.  Imagine if we'd never had the concept of a criminal drug user or a criminal drug dealer.  What are the police biases towards blacks today and where in the law might they be cultured?  Who do they feel they are in mortal combat with as footsoldiers in this "war on drugs".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A government program to pay starting bonuses to incentivize white kids to drop out of school and become armed street-level drug criminals should help to improve police relations with the black community.

 

We don't have enough racial diversity in armed drug-related street crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See what that gets you.

A brutal police beating, and paid vacation (for the officer administering that is)

 

Yes. A bat to the head and a boot to the face.  That is what 'customer service' looks like whenever participation in the 'customer/service provider' relationship is forced rather than voluntary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think the war on drugs is responsible for the police behavior.  It's why in their minds every black kid is about to reach for their gun.  Imagine if we'd never had the concept of a criminal drug user or a criminal drug dealer.  What are the police biases towards blacks today and where in the law might they be cultured?  Who do they feel they are in mortal combat with as footsoldiers in this "war on drugs".

 

The war on drugs goes along way to explaining how things got this bad, this fast.  Just look at no-knock raids.  The only reason for a no-knock raid is to prevent drugs from being flushed as the police knock on the door.  But this goes against everything the founders envisioned about warrants being necessary describing the place to be searched and the evidence to be seized.  This implies that the warrant is available to the property owner to review before the search.  I highly doubt having gangs of men in ninja suites, break down doors with battering rams and stomping through the house with automatic rifles is what the founders meant by "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."

 

When masked police officers dressed in black break down your doors in the middle of the night and you shoot at them thinking it is a home invasion (by private thugs, not public thugs), why is this not a legitimate use of force by the home owner?  Why wouldn't it be legitimate even if the cops had the right house?  Yes, sometimes these cases end up with juries or grand juries freeing the person, but they are always arrested by police and either charged with crimes or put before grand juries.  And sometimes imprisoned or even sentenced to death for murder as in the case of Cory Maye.  And sometimes they are just shot dead at the scene.

 

Then there is police departments funding themselves by seizing property (most times without even enough evidence to ever charge the owner with a crime). 

 

Then there are the cops that are on the gangs' payrolls.

 

That said, war on drugs or not, police corruption will always exists to one extent or another as long as police work is a government 'service'.

 

We can thank the smartphone for shining the light of day on a lot of this stuff.  Go to facebook and search for 'cop block' and like the page, you will be horrified to see posts daily with pictures, videos, and local news stories of police doing horrendous things.  Before everyone carried a video camera in their pockets, it was the victims' & witnesses' words against the police.  And every good law abiding citizen just knew that the police wouldn't lie and those nutty dark skinned criminal types were just crazy when they talked about police abuse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is honestly hard for me to think that a lot of injustice existed in the Ferguson case. 

 

I don't mean to single you out, but it's kind of sad to me that many people think it's "just" for a police officer to kill you if he feels scared.

 

Ham,

Don't worry about it.  I have my big boy pants on.  If you read my post--which it appears you did, it is not really a definitive statement. The key to something being justified however is based on the circumstances.  When you say "feels scared" that really means his life is in imminent danger.  Based on the testimony (some from African Americans)---Brown attacked the officer in his patrol car and reached for his gun, then after walking away from the officer he turned back towards him in something resembling an aggressive posture.  In my opinion this classifies as imminent danger. 

 

I would be curious to hear in your judgment how close the officer would have to be to dying for his actions to be justified.

 

I don't know the exact line of demarcation that separates a just cop killing from an unjust one. I only strongly believe it's much farther than "turned away from a fight, then turned back around and stood in an aggressive posture." Just to be clear, I'm making a distinction between what I think is legal and what is just.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...