-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:52 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology

Ignoring the choice of political scientist as source, this purports to

be the basis for an ontology.

What is the basis for this high-level taxonomy? What are the

distinguishing properties of the 2nd level classifiers?

And how do those properties relate to "self-interest"?

All organizations have self-interests, and their human components

typically share some of those interests, either out of ideology -- what

the organization does is "good" -- or out of pragmatism -- I will do

well only if the organization does well (even though the definition of

"x does well" is quite different for x=me vs. x=the organization). But

there are also cases in which the self-interest of the individuals may

be to the detriment of the organization -- I can use the organization to

do well -- as in the leveraged buyout game. And a lot of work is

motivated by "pride in accomplishment" -- personal fulfillment, which

may or may not be "useful accomplishment" -- organizational value.

Bureaucrats commonly mistake making a contribution for making a useful

contribution. So, it is not at all clear to me how position in an

organization affects the self-interest of either the individual or the

organization.

This is a would-be taxonomy without classification criteria, or

consequent properties, which makes it ontologically useless.

Alternatively, one can see it as an itinerary of places to be visited on

the way to formulating some kind of political science ontology.

-Ed

Rich Cooper wrote:

>

> If we limit the Self Interest Ontology to just the players Chomsky

> mentions (directly or indirectly), the set of agents could be

> organized thusly:

>

>

>

> -government

>

> -legislators

>

> -judiciary

>

> -cabinet level executives

>

> -employees

>

> -NGOs

>

> -corporate

>

> -stockholders

>

> -directors

>

> -executive management

>

> -lobbyists

>

> -employees

>

> -individuals

>

> -taxpayers

>

> -adults

>

> -minors

>

> -beneficiaries

>

> -adults

>

> -minors

>

>

>

> This gives one view for the Ontology which identifies the agents that

> participate in the Chomskyesque materials. Does anyone want to

> suggest additions, deletions, or changes to the list above?

>

>

>

> Activities of the Self Interest Ontology might include:

>

>

>

> -government

>

> -taxation

>

> -regulation

>

> -legislation

>

> -enforcement

>

> -judgments

>

> -corporate

>

> -markets

>

> -monopolies

>

> -competitors

>

> -persuasion

>

> -operations

>

> -finance

>

> -capital

>

> -revenues

>

> -costs

>

> -lobbying

>

> -employment

>

> -taxation

>

> -Individuals

>

>

>

> One way to develop materials for filling in the lower levels of the

> ontology might be to process NLP from Chomsky’s books and articles,

> and news stories, including daily news articles from individual

> reporters, articles from corporate news sources (e.g., WSJ, NYT, LA

> Times, etc). By identifying the named entities that correspond to the

> agent classes above, it should be possible to organize news stories to

> deepen the Self Interest Ontology to include lower level subclasses.

> This is a very limited first step in identifying the actors and

> activities that play identifiable roles a la Chomsky’s viewpoint. It

> should also identify the news sources which are biased in each

> direction for each class of agents.

>

>

>

> Has anything serious been left out of the top level for the Self

> Interest Ontology? Again, suggestions are appreciated,

>

>

>

> -Rich

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Rich Cooper

>

> EnglishLogicKernel.com

>

> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

>

> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> *From:* ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Rich Cooper

> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:46 AM

> *To:* '[ontolog-forum] '

> *Subject:* Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology

>

>

>

> Chomsky’s theories of the corporate-state partnership, and how it

> concentrates power in the hands of large corporations, are well known,

> especially:

>

>

>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TieGj2Yi5r8

>

>

>

> But neither Rand nor Hayek subscribed to corporate-state partnership.

> In both cases, they value the individual, not the corporation and not

> the state and certainly not the combination of the two. So I don’t

> think that is the reason why he is unhappy with both Rand and Hayek.

>

>

>

> From the above video “elections are always bought”, “President Obama’s

> election was funded by corporate interests”, and numerous other

> examples indicate his deep displeasure with the state-corporate binding.

>

>

>

> I would like to see quotes from Chomsky that specifically describe his

> displeasure with both Rand and Hayek rather than trying to predict his

> rationale. Chomsky is always very deep in his rationale, so I don’t

> think that we can simply say the corporate-state binding is why he is

> against either Rand or Hayek.

>

>

>

> Mike Pool quoted this short paragraph from the article, which is

> somewhat enlightening:

>

>

>

> "Hayek was the kind of 'libertarian' who was quite tolerant of such

> free societies as Pinochet's Chile, one of the most grotesque of the

> National Security States instituted with US backing or direct

> initiative during the hideous plague of terror and violence that

> spread over the hemisphere from the 60s through the 80s. He even sank

> to the level of arranging a meeting of his Mont Pelerin society there

> during the most vicious days of the dictatorship. "

>

>

>

> But that critique is not directed at Hayek’s ideas about economics in

> general, only about his interpretation of Hayek’s poor showing in the

> political area, specifically in supporting Pinochet and the US methods

> of supporting property owners at the expense of the average citizen.

>

>

>

> His description of how democratic groups in Haiti were overturned by

> the US government and a dictator was reinstalled under US actions, is

> typical Chomsky, and very clearly in line with his past work. But in

> broad brush strokes in the article, he paints both Rand and Hayek

> (neither of whom are known for their political wisdom) as evil without

> considering the kudos they gave to the individuals.

>

>

>

> -Rich

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Rich Cooper

>

> EnglishLogicKernel.com

>

> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

>

> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> *From:* ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Chris

> Menzel

> *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 5:30 AM

> *To:* [ontolog-forum]

> *Subject:* Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology

>

>

>

> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Rich Cooper

> <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

>

> Thanks – a very interesting article. I’m surprised at how vehemently

> Chomsky shrugs her off as evil. He doesn’t give any explanation in

> the article; do you have any information about WHY he thinks Rand is

> evil?

>

>

>

> It's obvious if you read Chomsky's (vast) work on political theory and

> American social and political history, especially his writings on

> social security, taxation, corporate welfare, the massive

> redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top income

> brackets engineered by conservative tax policy over the last dozen

> years, etc, all of which are in vehement opposition to the social

> darwinism that lies at the heart of Randian economic theories (and

> current GOP economic politicies).

>

>

>

--

Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx

National Institute of Standards & Technology

Manufacturing Systems Integration Division

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,

and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."

_________________________________________________________________

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/

Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/

Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/

Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J