Prevent predatory foxes from ravaging your Free- range poultry without destroying the Fox Fox Problems:
If you are American, SSC endorses voting in this presidential election. Andrew Gelman, Nate Silver, and Aaron Edlin calculate the chance that a single vote will determine the election ie break a tie in a state that breaks an Electoral College tie.
It ranges from about one in ten million if you live in a swing state to one in a billion if you live in a very safe state. The average American has a one in sixty million chance of determining the election results.
The paper was from the election, which was a pro-Obama landslide; since this election is closer the chance of determining it may be even higher. But Presidents do shift budgetary priorities a lot. Neither of these are pure costs — Obamacare buys us more health care, and military presence in Iraq buys us [mumble] — but if you think these are less or more efficient ways to spend money than other possible uses, then they represent ways that having one President might be better than another.
In order to add signal rather than noise to the election results, we have to be better than the average voter.
I recommend the Outside View — looking for measurable indicators correlated with ability to make good choices. IQ might be another. Suppose you live in a swing state.
If you value the amount of time it takes to vote at less than that, voting is conceivably a good use of your time. SSC endorses voting for Hillary Clinton if you live in a swing state.
OK looking at the raw numbers from that SNAP publication. The stat cited is households, not individuals. Individuals, it is 16, White Americans on food assistance and 10, Black Americans on food assistance. % of Welfare recipients are White and 23% are Black. If you answered yes, you were probably using a form of moral reasoning called "utilitarianism." Stripped down to its essentials, utilitarianism is a moral principle that holds that the morally right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over. Animals and Ethics. What place should non-human animals have in an acceptable moral system? These animals exist on the borderline of our moral concepts; the result is that we sometimes find ourselves according them a strong moral status, while at other times denying them any .
If you live in a safe state, I endorse voting for Clinton, Johnson, or if you insist Stein. If you want, you can use a vote-swapping site to make this easier or more impactful.
I think Donald Trump would be a bad president.
Partly this is because of his policies, insofar as he has them. But the latest news says: This is going to be close. And since the lesson of Brexit is that polls underestimate support for politically incorrect choicesthis is going to be really close.
But if some of my blogging on conservative issues has given me any political capital with potential Trump voters, then I this is where I want to spend it. So here are some reasons why I would be afraid to have Trump as president even if I agreed with him about the issues.Trade barriers; Tariffs; Non-tariff barriers; Import quotas; Tariff-rate quotas; Quota share; Import licenses; Customs duties; Export subsidies; Technical barriers.
Losing Ground: American Social Policy, [Charles Murray] on urbanagricultureinitiative.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. This classic book serves as a starting point for any serious discussion of welfare reform. Losing Ground argues that the ambitious social programs of thes and s actually made matters worse for its supposed beneficiaries.
While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within - Kindle edition by Bruce Bawer. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets.
Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within. The Illuminati and The Council on Foreign Relations One-World-Government Conspiracy.
and. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The Social and Moral Development Index concentrates on moral issues and human rights, violence, public health, equality, tolerance, freedom and effectiveness in climate change mitigation and environmentalism, and on some technological issues.A country scores higher for achieving well in those areas, and for sustaining that achievement in the long term.
Trump’s not in that crowd. But does anyone think he disagrees with it? Can anyone honestly say that Trump or his movement promote epistemic virtue?