That's an awful long way of saying 'no', Low-keyQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
That's an awful long way of saying 'no', Low-keyQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I DO write checks to the government. Huge ones, believe me. And checks to private charities too, not so huge, though. Now listen: If I gave everything I had to the government and to private charities, nothing would be improved. NOTHING. One last time: This isn't about me helping some poor people all on my own, this is about CREATING A MORE HUMANITARIAN CIVILIZATION FOR THE LONG TERM VIA A SENSIBLE SAFETY NET TO HELP PEOPLE WHO CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE. I can't do that myself. I can't write a check to anybody and get a better society. Your argument, your tactic win whatever dumbass game that goes on in your damaged little brain, is STUPID. It does not negate any of my beliefs, any of my ideology, anything on the left at all. It is just a stupid little trap you try and trip me or whoever up with. And it doesn't work. Get it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And of all the broken freaks around here.... God! I appreciate you the least. Right now anyway. The least. You put the Ick in Icky. BlaHHHHHHHHH. :down:
Both are the central tenets of their ideologies. Why should I hold socialists to a lower standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I.E. You don't give a damn about poor people. You only care about some vague notion of "civilization", which you believe is better off if everyone is forced to give more money to the benevolent government. Coincidentally, I do wonder how you reconcile your belief that giving more money to the government won't make a difference and yet believing that if everyone gives more money to the government, civilization will magically prosper.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
You already provided the class with an acceptable answer, there's no need to interrogate your further :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm sure he feels good about himself afterward, so it does work in a way. It might be damaging to society as a whole, might not be, but given his right slant, it's doubtful society at large is very high up the food chain of his concerns. Or he has found a convenient excuse in his mind to pooh-pooh it away, such as efficiency and the finality of the truth of Capitalism, one of nature's truest laws. Or something. We're all just shouting in the wind anyhows.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Yes, your inability to grasp central points of arguments has been very prominent in this exchange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
e: Someone else post something for the love of Cthulhu :(
Your inability to grasp complex concepts like "tradeoffs", "moral hazard", and "perverse incentives" seems like the bigger problem here. You seem to be of the opinion that we should judge the utility of something by the goodness of motives associated with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I agree we should have different metrics on what we allow and don't allow between religion and society. However, on this issue in particular your moral Christian beleifs should impress upon you that society would be committing an immoral act in doing this behavior, and that both society and religion need to universally adhere to this principle. I understand your idea many anime, Death Note, in particular is doing exactly what you're saying. I think though if you thought about the society you'd create not only is at an immoral one, but one not worth living in. A people governed by fear.Quote:
By the same token if someone comes to my home and steals my X-Box I should not try to hunt him down and kill him, as a Christian. However I fully want the government to do that because in order to have a free and orderly society, we should be able to keep the fruits of our labor and prevent criminal acts.
THANK YOU
Well, appearances can be deceiving, my ability to communicate my ideas is notoriously poor. And you're right, I have no idea what "moral hazard" means, is that like "think of the children"? But if we're talking trade-offs, I think having more expensive Axe spray is worth the price of a society whose core tenet isn't FUCK YOU if you can't take care of yourself and your family. I'm also not sure what you mean by the word pair perverse incentives, I know what perversity is and some of those are incentives but I don't think you're talking about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Of course I don't expect a very fleshed out response since your posting seems to indicate you're not at all interested in exchanging ideas or information, it's far easier to ask loaded questions and belittle people.
Go on, I gave you a perfect opening, you can call me a hypocrite and win the thread! Ain't this a great day?
:D If a stupid argument doesn't work the first time, just repeat it ad naseum. That's how propaganda works, no? The very best tool in the conservative box of crap, eh? You totally rock. You're like Dickens says - the best and the worst rolled into one. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
My dream is not to give more money to the government, unless its necessary of course. My dream is for the government to put into place INSTITUTIONS TO ADMINISTER AN EFFECTIVE HUMANITARIAN SOCIAL SAFETY NET TO HELP THOSE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES THEREBY BENEFITING ALL OF SOCIETY. Does capping things help you read them, or notice them? Big red letters? I'm trying.... :(
You live up to expectation :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Laziness and disrespect, pure and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
He might have missed your statement. If you CAP it, bold it, make the font size bigger, and color it red, he might see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Seeing is not believing.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Chaloobi, have you read your own first post in this thread? :noob: I don't think there's any sense to this debate. You refuse to acknowledge the basis for alternate views, in no small measure because of your utter ignorance of the very subject you rant about.
Loki - You are as Broken as You are Freaky. And who the hell is Chaloobi? :mad:
Now this here is a very important point, and I'd like to flesh it out further.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
When you speak of "utter ignorance", is it because Chaloobi questions the superiority of unabashed, free market free reign fuck it all Capitalism?
You've gone on the record to say that to oppose capitalism is akin if not entirely similar to opposing gravity; my witty Wright brothers riposte aside, I take this to mean you think the superiority of Capitalism as the econo-political system of humanity cannot be questioned as the theory of gravity cannot be questioned. (I won't go into the derail about how little we know of gravity for the sake of the analogy.) With the understanding that I am not a professional scientist in the field, I do however note that there isn't a similar consensus among economists and poli sci folk about unabashed, uncontrolled fuck it all Capitalism being the best of the best as there is about gravity within the Coke bottle glasses physics community. Am I mistaken? Does the field of economic science and political science universally agree that unabashed, uncontrolled fuck it all Capitalism is the only reality?
The question we've tried to pose, which you steadfastly seem to ignore in favour of ridicule and contempt, is whether Capitalism is the best system all around. You've made it abundantly clear that unabashed, uncontrolled fuck it all Capitalism is the best method of producing cheap food, Axe spray and alcohol. For a small sub-set of humanity, anyhows. The question, the question, is whether that is the best thing for humanity. Is efficiency the be-all, end-all goal of humanity? It seems like putting the cart before the horse; humanity has to serve the interests of money and capital instead of the opposite. The argument from your side is that serving capital also serves humanity, but Reaganomics, trickle-down and whatnot have shown this to be a lie, a blatant lie uttered endlessly to garner votes. It is not science.
What we're asking, we in the loose sense, is whether it is more sensible to compromise some of that efficiency towards humanitarian concerns. Whether it makes for a better, more stable and healthier society if single mothers don't have to prostitute themselves while working two jobs just so little Jimmy can afford cancer medicine. If Jimmy's older brother doesn't have to fall into a life of substance abuse and crime because his untreated mental illness and parent's poverty prevents him from going to school.
Your answer, you in the loose sense, seems to be that a) these things solve themselves and if they don't the people in question didn't try hard enough 2) if we care so much, we aren't we in there, elbow deep in shit helping people, forgoing sleep, work and sanity in the interest of our alarmist, champagne socialist horror? You, in the loose sense, argue that we are cowardly, that we are hypocrites, that we are infringing on the rights of people to the sweat of their own brow, all these essentially emotional and ethical arguments, the very self-same type that you tell us is unacceptable coming from us. Again, us in the loose sense.
From previous discussions, it seems to me that you have a genuine belief that if only some of us opened up an Econ 101 text-book, we'd all sign onto your flight to unabashed, uncontrolled fuck it all Capitalism without further question. That it is due to our ignorance that we behave in this immoral (in your perception) way, that we haven't seen the light. This is the behaviour of a believer, and by that I mean a believer of a religion.
One of the prime axioms of unabashed, uncontrolled fuck it all Capitalism is that the superior combatant wins. How can you then ask us not to refuse basis for alternate views? We must struggle and compete in the market of ideas, the evolution of human culture, because it is only through struggle that triumph is found. Amalgamation and capital.
A small sentence to go with that text; I find it rather amusing that Loki will denounce other systems of philosophy (regarding government or economics) on the basis that they fail due to human nature, yet he turns a blind eye to how capitalism is brought down by human nature, at least in debates on this forum regarding it.
I also doubt that Loki would be happy with unabashed capitalism, whether he realizes it or not.
It's pretty understandable, he makes least squares models and stuff about human beings and he has to assume some very non-human (not inhuman!) assumptions about humanity for the models to work. I'd be very pissed off too if my electrons started demanding electron rights, votes and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Thank you for that useful insight Mr. Marx. Last I checked, capitalism is alive and well, despite numerous attempts to destroy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
:haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Ladies and gentlemen.
Capitalism is alive and well because it is moderated, and heavily regulated. Again, I'd still doubt that you'd be happy with a system of capitalism lacking moderation and regulation. The bit of slander is a nice touch though, I don't think I've espoused communism as being a good idea either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Edit: I'd also still like an answer to a thought problem I posed to you a while ago, answer using only the tenets of capitalism.
A miracle drug is developed that can cure all known diseases. The side effect of complete sterilization of the third generation of people taking this drug are known only to the company that discovered and intends to sell it (ie. if you take the drug, and your children take the drug, their children will be reproductively sterile). Selling the drug will make the company untold billions of dollars, however, humanity will see a crisis, the likes of which were portrayed in Children of Men, about 3 to 4 generations from now, long after anyone involved in this decision would be dead. The cause of this crisis will not be traceable back to the company.
Should the company disclose the side effects of the drug? (Doing so will result in far less profit than not disclosing the side effects)
Should the company sell the drug? (Not doing so will result in not recouping the cost to develop the drug, in addition to never acquiring potential billions of dollars)
Loki, I recommend that you change your avatar:
http://www.brainygamer.com/photos/un...carecrow_1.jpg
For what it's worth, there are by my count five of us who accuse you of non-stop straw manning. At what point do these observations become meaningful?
Let's create a fake world: (this will be quick, and good written, I have the dumbest sense of humor haha :P). Okay whooo... Alright laughing done. Let's say there are three toothpick makers. Let's pretend tooth picks are very important, they double a person's strength for a day. Bear with me. Of, these three makers one is very smart and improves their product the other makers don't have a chance to copy it before the brand recognition of Tooth Pick Elite X 9000 takes over. They further do R&D make the product better, hire other bright people etc.. etc... They gain a huge lead. Then they have a huge amount of profit, but they still have competitors, trying to compete based on price and other new ideas they come up with. To get rid of them this TPEX9000 company lowers their prices to very cheap, in fact so cheap they are losing money on every sale of their Tooth Pick, but they can weather the storm as their competitors products don't sell, yet they still have huge structural expenses they have to pay. Eventually they are forced to close, they repeat this process for any new companies starting up. They begin to dictate the price of tooth picks as they are the only seller. They keep output low, and keep the price high. This lower progress for all parts of society, and their is also no more need to improve the tooth pick as they have no competitors. This is a possible outcome in a free market situation, it's called a monopoly.
Another outcome, let's say this society has government. People pay taxes and this goverment spends things that all people will benefit from but it is worth it for no one individually to have one, Such as a standing army, large network of roads, public libraries, a convienient way to pool resources, ideas, information, and establish policy. All the reasons goverment is necessary and the logical progression of any sufficiently advanced society. There is small group of representatives designed to take these resources and operate in what maximizes public welfare and needs. Suppose a person per chance comes up with Floss, and it works completely different than TPEX9000, but actually performs the same job better and way cheaper. Now TPEX9000 is behind the curve from seemingly out of nowhere. So what do they do. Well one thing they can do is go to this goverment, our fellow citizens that we've elected, this necessary evil, this very powerful body that is morally and legally obligated to work for us, and aid in certain people that support TPEX9000 views and help get them into office, and for those who don't have views that are pro TPEX9000, to give them perhaps some free Tooth picks, to encourage them to use their voting power to make laws that promote TPEX9000. This will result in 10's of millions from the TPEX9000 giving out, but that money is all saved, many times over, by the company with the new tax exemptions they now have, with the new laws protecting them... perhaps in addition they "convince" these representatives, through supplies of tooth picks, and money that they should make it difficult for Floss to start up (they put imbalanced laws on Floss like start up companies, perhaps launch investigations that eat up Floss's resources and time). TPEX9000 also go to the people starting up FLOSS to try to buy them out, they try to pressure the distribution avenues to not distribute Floss. Some of the techniques are perhaps legitimate, but all of the techinques are anti-competitive, and bad for us socially. Esepcailly the abuse of our own tax payer money, which is their greatest offense.
Now that you can see how when we have goverment, which we need, there are dangers of corrupting those people that we gave so much power to, and entrusted a very noble and complex task to... These dangers monopolies and the like... exist in a completely unregulated free market system.
On a side note:
It is true at one time these goverment leaders were our fellow citizens, but now goverment is largely occupied by the wealthy, not the intelligent, or informed... it's sad and sickening, I think we need to revise how we elect candidates, we need to push our society more toward academics to wake up our youth. If we could find a way to make the topics more about discussing the issues, and break free of the need for massive financing... Then and only then could we tap into a boader pool of brilliant leadership oriented minds.
Capitalism is the underlying method of exchange. A failure to regulate it would lead to attempts to create command economies, which would inevitably fail, and therefore revert back to market exchange (which is the default position in any state that guarantees contracts). Just because democratic socialism is the way most of the developed world chose to respond does not in any way suggest that capitalism would be destroyed if they failed to do that. I don't think you realize how causation works. Just because B followed A doesn't mean that A caused B.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
The company in question would be forced into bankruptcy and have every one of its employees shot for treason in every country in which it operates for damages caused by the drug. I.E. No sane company would do it. And of course the odds of something like this staying secret, without someone blowing the whistle (in exchange for a lot of money) are nil.Quote:
Edit: I'd also still like an answer to a thought problem I posed to you a while ago, answer using only the tenets of capitalism.
A miracle drug is developed that can cure all known diseases. The side effect of complete sterilization of the third generation of people taking this drug are known only to the company that discovered and intends to sell it (ie. if you take the drug, and your children take the drug, their children will be reproductively sterile). Selling the drug will make the company untold billions of dollars, however, humanity will see a crisis, the likes of which were portrayed in Children of Men, about 3 to 4 generations from now, long after anyone involved in this decision would be dead. The cause of this crisis will not be traceable back to the company.
Should the company disclose the side effects of the drug? (Doing so will result in far less profit than not disclosing the side effects)
Should the company sell the drug? (Not doing so will result in not recouping the cost to develop the drug, in addition to never acquiring potential billions of dollars)
Yeah, that's what happened to the tabacco industry. :rolleyes: Or did Capitalism fail there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Ouch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Considering the difference between wiping out civilization and giving lots of people cancer, I think the fact that tobacco companies were forced to give up over $200 billion proves my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Of course it does, in your esoteric way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Do we have socialists posting here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Pro-TipQuote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Available on a socialist torrent site near you!