I have briefly returned to let y'all know that I just found out Google Chrome comes with a wide variety of time management applications. Some apparently cut you off from certain sites after a certain length of time. Some apparently only allow you to access certain sites at certain times a day. 

Arahant is right. With all these applications available by switching browsers, site-specific tools are overkill.  I simply had not known of these wonderful browser applications before.

Thanks all. I will be away for a while: I have a most unpleasant task to take care of in the near future. I suspect Katie's departure had me emotional.

OK. So my idea was stupid. Or wicked. Or both.

I'm not sorry I asked. Asking stupid questions is embarrassing, as I knew this one would be. But asking stupid questions can also be a quick way to figure things out.

I have my answer now.

Thank you all. Bye.

____________________________

PS:

If anyone remembers the name of this software and wants to PM me, please do. Otherwise, I should be able to figure out what it is on my own.

I was thinking of this not as a control enforced by a central authority, but rather as an option for controls that individuals enforce -- literally enforce -- on themselves over time.

That is, a present self who knows the weakness of his future self does something to make it impossible for his future self to do certain things. That's not so uncommon, actually. The point of built-in settings to do this would be to have less to keep track of.

That makes the idea qualitatively different from control exerted by a central authority, even if the idea nonetheless remains a bad, or even wicked, idea.

As it is, I do keep control over myself, more or less, by long periods of total absence from the site. If I were the only one I knew who did this, I would have said nothing, figuring that I simply had an eccentric way of controlling an eccentric personal weakness. It was finding out about others that prompted me to ask.

After KatieVs's revelation -- and knowing that I, too, tend to find prolonged absences most satisfactory means so far of self-regulation, I wondered if this might be common enough that more people would use the site more regularly if it allowed users to force self-rationing on themselves in advance.

I figured there was no harm in asking, even if the question turned out to be a really stupid one.  In fact, I figured it  would  prove a silly, impractical idea.  Nonetheless I was curious. So I asked.

Ooh!!! I"m all ears! (Snakes don't have ears -- you know what I mean.)

Speaking for myself, no. This is the first site I've ever found too tempting.

Do we consider people who control their eating habits by buying single-serving treats rather than the more economical bulk portions as lacking in personal autonomy? Or are they exercising personal autonomy by choosing the products that successfully keep them away from temptation?

Yes, Basil, I know what you mean. But if there is a market for "stupid gadgets" to help people with their self-control in the areas where it is weak, is that really such a bad thing? Conservatism is also about market cooperation, no?

I have a cousin who believes that anyone who has to rely on an alarm clock to get out of bed in the morning is lacking in personal autonomy. No joke.

PJ O'Rourke?

"Trout Antler Estates"

I suppose if people could set their own limits for the month, or something, that would be OK.

But, if you can make time for an extended conversation one day, an arbitrary limit...

(I use Ricochet a "stay-cation" during bouts of ill health or in between furious periods of work.  Of  course  I should be also more disciplined...)

...I do not think, somehow, that centralized control is the answer.

Settings that allow you to impose various levels of rationing on yourself might be. Of course, the most flexible way of doing that is with prices -- you pay more if you comment more. Though that would wreck the whole "price of a Grande Latte at Starbucks" thing.

Of course a decline in literacy plays a role.

But let's be honest: It's not  just  the intellectual and literary sophistication that makes the Federalist Papers hard for a modern youngster to understand. Language also changes over time. (Chaucer is no more sophisticated than the Federalist Papers, but a lot harder to understand.)

We have a vested interest in maintaining a widespread understanding of the English our Founders used in our founding documents, no matter how much language changes. But we shouldn't be surprised or outraged that the passage of time also takes its toll.

For that matter, I have mixed feelings about historical graduation tests. My studies concentrated on the sciences at the expense of other things, and a lot of the topics I studied weren't even around by 1900. Does that make my education worthless?

Who's Maury Povich? I think that gives you my answer right there.

Obfuscation at any level is possible. But I think a flashy vocabulary does make it easier to razzle-dazzle 'em, especially those folks who aren't deep thinkers but take pride in their own vocabularies. (Many educated people fall into this category.)

I love, love, looove PG Wodehouse. And he's got a lot of great lines. (“The voice of Love seemed to call to me, but it was a wrong number.” )

I love John Mortimer's "Rumpole of the Bailey" series, and they come with a lot of great lines. (Hearing of an "unsavoury scandal", Rumpole "“wondered what a savoury scandal would be: a scandal fried on toast, perhaps, with an anchovy and a dash of Worcestershire sauce.")

But I can't think of any lines, off the top of my head, to top, "You have debauched my sloth."

Katie,

I totally understand. That's why I mysteriously disappear for months at a time from Ricochet, too.

But... if it's possible... consider giving yourself "holidays" now and then when you can come back. Because I will miss you very much, and I know I'm not the only one.

If you are leaving forever, please let us know if there will be any opportunities for occasional private correspondence with you, or whether we can visit you at the Personalist Project website.

Love from all of us, I'm sure,
Midge

I think he tries to compensate for the stereotypical "heartless Martian" image of libertarians by being folksy and cute.

Unfortunately, libertarianism... isn't folksy and cute. It's not heartless. It's not Martian. But it isn't folksy and cute. Which is why his strategy backfires on him so often and he comes off sounding much more like a raving loon than he actually is.

So they're measuring word and sentence length?

It's easy to dress up inadequate ideas with big words and convoluted sentences.

On the other hand, being able to put big ideas into plain words is quite a talent. Dr Sowell does it well. I would hardly call Sowell's ideas unsophisticated just because he's good at expressing them in everyday language.

A large vocabulary extends expressive power: the right word can make everything clear. But it also extends obfuscatory power: a barrage of overdone verbiage often serves the same purpose as a squid's ink -- cover while you get away.

If I had the choice, I'd rather have politicians who put clear, honest thinking into plain speech than politicians who put muddled, dishonest thinking into fancy speech.

Way to snag both so-cons and libertarians? Get them both to wear pantyhose.

Hmm... so putting gay marriage on the ballot was a way of bribing social conservatives into voting for Bush, a not-very-conservative guy?

That's something to think about.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be easier to "bribe" the base by being a good candidate than by constantly having to find peripheral issues to cram onto the ballot?