![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Goodnight Irene
Aug. 15th, 2005 01:32 am
Irene has taken a right turn; could hit St. John's as a tropical storm in a couple of days. It's the third Atlantic/Caribbean/Gulf hurricane of the season, one off the record for this point.
Three days of heat and humidity today. Whoop dee doodle.
High temp here, two days ago: 27. Dewpoint then: 23. High dewpoint: 23.
High temp in TO two days ago: 27. Dewpoint then: 23. High dewpoint: 23.
High temp yesterday, here: 25. Dewpoint then: 19. High dewpoint: 19.
High temp yesterday in TO: 26. Dewpoint then: 18. High dewpoint: 20.
High temp today, here: 22. Dewpoint then: 16. High dewpoint: 17.
High temp today in TO: 23. Dewpoint then: 17. High dewpoint: 17.
Long-range forecasts don't have temperatures above 28. Looks like the long hot summer may be over.
On the Greyhound on Friday, read Brian Zumlinksi, "Nozick's Anachronistic Libertarianism" (Dialogue 44, 2005). It doesn't have much particularly to do with Nozick--it's concerned with arguing, against right libertarians generally, that the unemployed in modern capitalist economies deserve an income derived from state taxation because modern capitalist economies need unemployed people to keep inflation down and so forth--in other words, unemployed people are doing everyone else a service, so everyone else should pay them for it.
You'd think this was a joke, but evidently it isn't. The trick, of course, is to avoid saying just how much the unemployed should be paid. Mostly he says things to the effect that they should be paid enough that they are free to choose not to work, though at one point he says they should be fed, sheltered, and not naked, which seems to imply that maybe they should get something near to or less than current welfare levels. Anyway, if it's the former, then of course the argument blows itself up, because people who are satisfied being unemployed, and not competing for jobs, are not doing anything to keep wages and inflation down. And if it's the latter, then, I dunno, it's not much payment for their valuable service, is it? I was almost convinced that this was actually a spoof against capitalism altogether, but he says things about how markets are good and necessary and/or whatever....
I think my next main project may be bad faith, partly because it seems like it intersects well with moral luck. In the next couple of days I'll assess whether I can do anything with that Eyes Wide Shut paper inside a couple of weeks. Otherwise, maybe the old Foucault-Habermas paper ought to be next on the agenda.
Three days of heat and humidity today. Whoop dee doodle.
High temp here, two days ago: 27. Dewpoint then: 23. High dewpoint: 23.
High temp in TO two days ago: 27. Dewpoint then: 23. High dewpoint: 23.
High temp yesterday, here: 25. Dewpoint then: 19. High dewpoint: 19.
High temp yesterday in TO: 26. Dewpoint then: 18. High dewpoint: 20.
High temp today, here: 22. Dewpoint then: 16. High dewpoint: 17.
High temp today in TO: 23. Dewpoint then: 17. High dewpoint: 17.
Long-range forecasts don't have temperatures above 28. Looks like the long hot summer may be over.
On the Greyhound on Friday, read Brian Zumlinksi, "Nozick's Anachronistic Libertarianism" (Dialogue 44, 2005). It doesn't have much particularly to do with Nozick--it's concerned with arguing, against right libertarians generally, that the unemployed in modern capitalist economies deserve an income derived from state taxation because modern capitalist economies need unemployed people to keep inflation down and so forth--in other words, unemployed people are doing everyone else a service, so everyone else should pay them for it.
You'd think this was a joke, but evidently it isn't. The trick, of course, is to avoid saying just how much the unemployed should be paid. Mostly he says things to the effect that they should be paid enough that they are free to choose not to work, though at one point he says they should be fed, sheltered, and not naked, which seems to imply that maybe they should get something near to or less than current welfare levels. Anyway, if it's the former, then of course the argument blows itself up, because people who are satisfied being unemployed, and not competing for jobs, are not doing anything to keep wages and inflation down. And if it's the latter, then, I dunno, it's not much payment for their valuable service, is it? I was almost convinced that this was actually a spoof against capitalism altogether, but he says things about how markets are good and necessary and/or whatever....
I think my next main project may be bad faith, partly because it seems like it intersects well with moral luck. In the next couple of days I'll assess whether I can do anything with that Eyes Wide Shut paper inside a couple of weeks. Otherwise, maybe the old Foucault-Habermas paper ought to be next on the agenda.
