Privatization.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Big_Willie_Styles:

Nikolaz72:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Snip

Well, if this is true. How do you explain the various nationalized instances of say, hospitals and schools in various other countries performing better than their private counter-parts in the US?

By your logic said counterparts would always be performing better, so what is holding them down?

Snip

Regardless, in the past, before Medicare, before 'endless regulations' there was a time where those area's were dominated by insurance. And that system did not function, this new bastardized version of Universal Healthcare does nothing but serve as free ammunition for the right-wing to use to dismiss the entire concept in the face of countless evidence of it functioning perfectly fine abroad.

Do not fool yourself into believing the fault of this compromise lie on the shoulders of the President alone, it is the product of a 'compromise' brought upon the stupidity and stubbornness of the right-winged opposition. Had you merely adopted Universal Healthcare without so many complaints there would be no need for this bastardized rendition, which. By the way, is still far better than the ancient alternative you so propose.

Nikolaz72:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Nikolaz72:

Well, if this is true. How do you explain the various nationalized instances of say, hospitals and schools in various other countries performing better than their private counter-parts in the US?

By your logic said counterparts would always be performing better, so what is holding them down?

Snip

Regardless, in the past, before Medicare, before 'endless regulations' there was a time where those area's were dominated by insurance. And that system did not function, this new bastardized version of Universal Healthcare does nothing but serve as free ammunition for the right-wing to use to dismiss the entire concept in the face of countless evidence of it functioning perfectly fine abroad.

Do not fool yourself into believing the fault of this compromise lie on the shoulders of the President alone, it is the product of a 'compromise' brought upon the stupidity and stubbornness of the right-winged opposition. Had you merely adopted Universal Healthcare without so many complaints there would be no need for this bastardized rendition, which. By the way, is still far better than the ancient alternative you so propose.

Insurance is a topic few seem to understand. It is protection against unforeseeable risk.

Once insurance became about something else other than its actual purpose, it was no longer really insurance. It was assurance.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Nikolaz72:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Snip

Regardless, in the past, before Medicare, before 'endless regulations' there was a time where those area's were dominated by insurance. And that system did not function, this new bastardized version of Universal Healthcare does nothing but serve as free ammunition for the right-wing to use to dismiss the entire concept in the face of countless evidence of it functioning perfectly fine abroad.

Do not fool yourself into believing the fault of this compromise lie on the shoulders of the President alone, it is the product of a 'compromise' brought upon the stupidity and stubbornness of the right-winged opposition. Had you merely adopted Universal Healthcare without so many complaints there would be no need for this bastardized rendition, which. By the way, is still far better than the ancient alternative you so propose.

Insurance is a topic few seem to understand. It is protection against unforeseeable risk.

Once insurance became about something else other than its actual purpose, it was no longer really insurance. It was assurance.

And once again we see that in the face of logic you must turn to fallacy and denial. Your ideal system depend on people acting according to your theories on free market economic doctrine, yet when proven wrong, all you can do is malfunction. Cherrypick part of peoples post and often like Hardcore-Gamer abandon topics. You have yet to actually argue for 'why' free market capitalism would work, you have yet to argue for 'why' the counterpart doesn't work. Your only examples are those of a country dominated largely by rightwing religious conservatives, despite having a Democratically elected centrist President.

And when you can't run to the old trusty faulty democrats, you always turn to the good old reds, the communists, or the autoritarian dictatorships, or socialists for that matter, it is as if nothing else exists inbetween. And when it does, its exceptions, the exact same as the negative examples of free market capitalism, when someone brings up the fact that the few free market capitalist systems in existence thrive on people's greed and selfishness, dodging law when faced with even the miniscule of taxes, you say that such is not how the system would work were it applied to your country.

Why is that? How come you are so sure that a free-market capitalist system, rather than having thousands of small competing businesses wouldn't just end up with large lazy monopolies exacting their powers upon the people by crushing the alternatives like they do today? Even with the regulations...

Truth is, you cannot. You hide behind these senseless books with half of their titles making sure they are outdated after the current President in power is replaced in three years time, and call your opposition out as blind for their opinions, accusing them of 'short term memory' yet it is you whom deny logic. It is you whom insult others, calling them hypocrites, when it is blatant to everyone that your post is almost a satire as it is you whom openly mark yourself a hypocrite.

Humans are flawed, it is why there is no perfect system. And it is why in order to have a functional society regulation is required, as to level the playing field by assuring everyone plays fairly, and by the rules. You act as if these regulations are some kind of expensive fun-police, time and time again we see examples of oil-rigs causing massive leaks, explosions, power plants going off during earthquakes, all of this due to lack of regulation. Costing thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands.... Yet no regulation is required, they are overfunded as your wing would put it.

All that's needed is a military, and a police. Oh, and talking about the military.

You and your kind are so fond of accusing the Government of Tyranny, you 'stick to your guns' and stand up for second amendment rights (Belonging to a hundreds year old law which I for some reason cannot comprehend some of you follow so religiously as if the founders of America were without any flaw) yet whenever the Government goes in for a budget-cut to pay back the debt you so want to have repaid, cutting the Military. You speak out against it, claiming that they are taking away your nations ability to defend itself while having the means of the largest twenty-six militaries on earth combined, all whom are allied to the US.

I ask you this, have you ever used Logic? Aye, I realize this is insulting. But have you? Because as of right now I am having a hard time seeing it. Currently it seems your arguments are the best the extreme-rightwing of this forum can produce, and frankly I find them to be rather weak and unconvincing. I don't even see you as being very civil, then again. Neither am I really.

Everywhere in the World I see people suffer from this Free Market capitalism, heck. Capitalism as a whole, the wealth of Europe where I can live in great comfort due to this, is in large build t on African resources, and I am not speaking of our time as colonial conquerors but our current, as globalists. Although I am a firm globalist due to the hope of peace which it brings, the very concept in and of itself actively harms the small developing economies around the globe.

People starve, thirst, die. Without Healthcare and even the most essential education, while the banks and large businesses whom would fund their faithful servant-politicians sit in their tax havens on top of hoards of gold like Dragons, money built from the exploitation of those most in need, with them merely growing larger in time, actively disconnecting their wealth from the world economy as a whole.

It is sickening, and quite frankly it is only a matter of time before Society realizes this and abandons the hyper-individualist system in favor of a more successful collectivist-focused society you deem have 'lost', casting down the oppressive corrupt banks and 'free market capitalist' politicians.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Statistics are useless in proving an argument one makes because they change every second but are not updated every second. Just wanted to say this before I got into it.

Damn! Do you have any idea what effect this revelation has on the medical community?! My friend just completed a study of some blind trials and found the asthma treatment was 78% effective! But thats a statistic!!!! So it shouldnt be used to support the argument that the treatment works! I mean jeez it could be 76% or 79% it changes every moment, how can we ever use this medicine when all these fluid statistics are all that backs up its use. I should tell him to burn his research. Thanks for revealing 90% of the work in my field is founded on something that is "useless" in proving an argument.

Nikolaz72:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Nikolaz72:

Regardless, in the past, before Medicare, before 'endless regulations' there was a time where those area's were dominated by insurance. And that system did not function, this new bastardized version of Universal Healthcare does nothing but serve as free ammunition for the right-wing to use to dismiss the entire concept in the face of countless evidence of it functioning perfectly fine abroad.

Do not fool yourself into believing the fault of this compromise lie on the shoulders of the President alone, it is the product of a 'compromise' brought upon the stupidity and stubbornness of the right-winged opposition. Had you merely adopted Universal Healthcare without so many complaints there would be no need for this bastardized rendition, which. By the way, is still far better than the ancient alternative you so propose.

Insurance is a topic few seem to understand. It is protection against unforeseeable risk.

Once insurance became about something else other than its actual purpose, it was no longer really insurance. It was assurance.

And once again we see that in the face of logic you must turn to fallacy and denial. Your ideal system depend on people acting according to your theories on free market economic doctrine, yet when proven wrong, all you can do is malfunction. Cherrypick part of peoples post and often like Hardcore-Gamer abandon topics. You have yet to actually argue for 'why' free market capitalism would work, you have yet to argue for 'why' the counterpart doesn't work. Your only examples are those of a country dominated largely by rightwing religious conservatives, despite having a Democratically elected centrist President.

And when you can't run to the old trusty faulty democrats, you always turn to the good old reds, the communists, or the autoritarian dictatorships, or socialists for that matter, it is as if nothing else exists inbetween. And when it does, its exceptions, the exact same as the negative examples of free market capitalism, when someone brings up the fact that the few free market capitalist systems in existence thrive on people's greed and selfishness, dodging law when faced with even the miniscule of taxes, you say that such is not how the system would work were it applied to your country.

Why is that? How come you are so sure that a free-market capitalist system, rather than having thousands of small competing businesses wouldn't just end up with large lazy monopolies exacting their powers upon the people by crushing the alternatives like they do today? Even with the regulations...

Truth is, you cannot. You hide behind these senseless books with half of their titles making sure they are outdated after the current President in power is replaced in three years time, and call your opposition out as blind for their opinions, accusing them of 'short term memory' yet it is you whom deny logic. It is you whom insult others, calling them hypocrites, when it is blatant to everyone that your post is almost a satire as it is you whom openly mark yourself a hypocrite.

Humans are flawed, it is why there is no perfect system. And it is why in order to have a functional society regulation is required, as to level the playing field by assuring everyone plays fairly, and by the rules. You act as if these regulations are some kind of expensive fun-police, time and time again we see examples of oil-rigs causing massive leaks, explosions, power plants going off during earthquakes, all of this due to lack of regulation. Costing thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands.... Yet no regulation is required, they are overfunded as your wing would put it.

All that's needed is a military, and a police. Oh, and talking about the military.

You and your kind are so fond of accusing the Government of Tyranny, you 'stick to your guns' and stand up for second amendment rights (Belonging to a hundreds year old law which I for some reason cannot comprehend some of you follow so religiously as if the founders of America were without any flaw) yet whenever the Government goes in for a budget-cut to pay back the debt you so want to have repaid, cutting the Military. You speak out against it, claiming that they are taking away your nations ability to defend itself while having the means of the largest twenty-six militaries on earth combined, all whom are allied to the US.

I ask you this, have you ever used Logic? Aye, I realize this is insulting. But have you? Because as of right now I am having a hard time seeing it. Currently it seems your arguments are the best the extreme-rightwing of this forum can produce, and frankly I find them to be rather weak and unconvincing. I don't even see you as being very civil, then again. Neither am I really.

The free market doctrine of F. A. Hayek assumes chaos. I do not foresee your reaction. I can assume what it'll be, but that doesn't really get me anywhere. I did foresee you saying I somehow used fallacious reasoning. That's the recourse of many I debate with on this forum. It doesn't get anywhere if you don't tell me which fallacy I am guilty of committing. But, let's continue, shall we?

I don't cherry pick or malfunction. Humans don't react like Sheldon Cooper or Abed.

I abandon topics only when I go to bed. I woke up yesterday to see 21 replies in my inbox. I get to them when I can because I do indeed have a life. Considering yesterday was Mother's Day, what do you think I was doing yesterday for most of it?

I don't need to explain the "why" to you because you seem incapable of actually hearing out my argument. Your problem is a lack of good faith. You assume bad faith on my part.

"Those of a country dominated largely by rightwing [sic] religious conservatives" -- Really? You really know that little about America, eh? That's just such a naive position, I just have to laugh at it.

Man, your assumptions about me are so easy to predict. Too bad they're completely wrong.

Capitalism has certain base assumptions. Risk is the most inherent. Capitalism cannot function without it. Democrats today and ideologies in the past all tried to remove this from Capitalism in one way or another. That's the core of such ideologies. That's why they're all the same on that fundamental principle. This is what Marx did not understand about Capitalism. He did not understand that risk is Capitalism's most inherent base assumption.

Your arguments are tedious and tendacious to those with less spine than I. Fortunately for me, I have a life. Your longform argument is the same stuff I've heard a thousand times over.

People abandon topics you argue with them in because you decide to write long paragraphs that essentially assume the worst in them while making yourself out to be a non-partial observer. In short, you made me out to be Satan and yourself out to be Jesus.

I'm done with your sanctimoniousness. Find another person to direct your misguided hatred at.

BiscuitTrouser:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Statistics are useless in proving an argument one makes because they change every second but are not updated every second. Just wanted to say this before I got into it.

Damn! Do you have any idea what effect this revelation has on the medical community?! My friend just completed a study of some blind trials and found the asthma treatment was 78% effective! But thats a statistic!!!! So it shouldnt be used to support the argument that the treatment works! I mean jeez it could be 76% or 79% it changes every moment, how can we ever use this medicine when all these fluid statistics are all that backs up its use. I should tell him to burn his research. Thanks for revealing 90% of the work in my field is founded on something that is "useless" in proving an argument.

The "representative sample is reality" fallacy. I love it when people commit that one.

Big_Willie_Styles:

The "representative sample is reality" fallacy. I love it when people commit that one.

Its even easier to confuse "Perfect representation" with "Extremely useful representation we can use to evidence points and further research" but its ok I forgive the "Strawman fallacy" since i never claimed a representative sample is a perfect indicator, i simply contested the claim that it was, and i quote, "useless". Also since your argument consisted of just naming a fallacy thats the fallacy fallacy right there :P Not to mention assuming that because i oppose the useless label i must therefor support the "100% accurate amazing" label is also the black or white fallacy :P The whole "Lets read through and tally the different fallacy names and then declare them in a list and leave it" is an incredibly dull debating style. It bores me so and seems incredibly lazy not to mention i doubt youll accept you commited these fallacies anyway so its totally useless. Lets actually TALK :D

A representative sample isnt reality, but its an incredibly useful representation of reality that we can use to see general trends in reality and identify cause and effect in larger groups in reality. What we shouldnt treat it as is "Useless representation". The 76% sample is incredibly useful in our medical studies. If you do NOT believe that representative studies are useful whatsoever id stear clear of a hospital for life XD I dont think anyone would argue they are perfect. But its a very useful indicator. Its also clearly indicates general trends. They are far from useless.

EDIT: Screw it im in for the pound. You seem to be under this impression youre the god of debate. Id drop that attitude because its a little grating to read replies from that perspective you know? You need more than the name of a falsely identified fallacy to disprove my points.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Nikolaz72:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Snip

Snip

You made me out to be Satan and yourself out to be Jesus.

You assume me religious, you're wrong. And assuming I was, despite the fact that I do not see myself as flawless I don't see you as the ultimate evil, merely a part of a larger problem, a hapless servant of Satan if I were to satisfy your analogy. The fact that you pulled the 'I have a Life' argument goes to show that you've all but run out of points, so you have my word I'll leave this short.

I'd have loved to satisfy you with one less quote in your inbox to take a second out of your oh-so-important schedule of life. But quite frankly I still had a bit to vent off, you're wrong. About pretty much everything, I would struggle to find a single post on this forum in which you do not use some sort of a fallacy to make your point, and even then your points rarely try to accomplish anything else than to expose how everyone else is wrong, rather than why you are right.

Although I agree, arguing with you has been less than entertaining, and will end here. Being said, I must admit it did do wonders in the way of satisfying my selfish need to voice my dissatisfaction with those whom would blindly support such irresponsible, selfish ideologies.

Seanchaidh:
What are you even talking about? When did my example become a matter of everyone dying? I didn't realize it was so high stakes!

The problem that y'all face is that what you want the market to do is something so minor that no one really cares enough to fight for it. I upped the ante to something that everyone will care about.

Reducing your carbon footprint by tiny tiny amounts is not something your average person cares about and the market reflects that. Your problem is that your issue is too minor to garner much support.

You can, of course, see how a purely voluntary agreement not to do X would start to break down? Can you not see the rationale for saying "Ok, let's estimate the irritation to everyone of Y and institute a tax on X which makes the financial cost of X equal to X+Y."

Irritation is not a good enough justification to threaten to destroy a person's livelihood.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
What are you even talking about? When did my example become a matter of everyone dying? I didn't realize it was so high stakes!

The problem that y'all face is that what you want the market to do is something so minor that no one really cares enough to fight for it. I upped the ante to something that everyone will care about.

Reducing your carbon footprint by tiny tiny amounts is not something your average person cares about and the market reflects that. Your problem is that your issue is too minor to garner much support.

You can, of course, see how a purely voluntary agreement not to do X would start to break down? Can you not see the rationale for saying "Ok, let's estimate the irritation to everyone of Y and institute a tax on X which makes the financial cost of X equal to X+Y."

Irritation is not a good enough justification to threaten to destroy a person's livelihood.

But it is a good enough justification to institute a Pigouvian tax when the majority judges that they each would rather have one less X than deal with Y times the population size.

Let's use your example, though.

At 100Y, everyone dies. Ok. So I guess each Y means a random premature death in the community. Ignoring the strangely linear death curve of this scenario... how enticing would X have to be in order to get someone to do it? 100,000 dollars of profit, say? 10,000 seems plausible? 100 might be a stretch? I guess it all depends on the value of a dollar. Naturally, like air pollution, exactly who is killed for each X would be basically impossible to pin down on any specific action. Nevertheless, the association between the behavior and the death would be there.

Or perhaps we can put it another way: each X means a 1 out of 365 times 7 billion chance that everyone on earth dies. Everyone on earth doing X daily for a year means a fairly high chance that everyone dies within a year (the expected value is everyone dies, with variations of "everyone died, and then everyone died again" and "luckily, no one died in the first year" being, respectively, irrelevant/impossible and just somewhat unlikely[1]. How profitable do you think X would have to be for an individual to favor exposing the entirety of the earth's human population to a small risk of death? How much of this behavior is tolerable?

I think there are at least some rational and self-interested people who would do it. One way to judge the cost to oneself is the magnitude of disappointment at one's own death multiplied by the chance that it will happen. It seems to me that people routinely make decisions that carry a higher risk of their own death than 1 out of 365 times 7 billion = 1/2.5 trillion-- regular road travel, for instance. So if all you care about is your own death, then this behavior that has a small chance of killing everyone on earth would only have to beat the convenience of exposing oneself to a risk of traffic fatality for a rational, self-absorbed person to favor doing it.

In such a case, do you think it would be worth instituting a ban on that behavior? (Not even going to mention a tax-- it seems not to properly respect the nature of the problem.) What if someone makes his money selling things that allow you to do this X that carries a 1 out of 2.5 trillion chance of killing the whole world? Is it worth destroying his livelihood then?

[1] I went back and did some math, and it seems to be about 36% likely that the human population of earth would survive 2.5 trillion trials of the 1/2500000000000 chance of death. Interestingly, if there are merely 250 billion instances of X in a year (10% as many), the outlook on "survives a year" rises to 90%. 10% chance of everyone dying in a year if 10% of the human population does X every day for a year. Fun stuff.

Nikolaz72:

Well, if this is true. How do you explain the various nationalized instances of say, hospitals and schools in various other countries performing better than their private counter-parts in the US?

By your logic said counterparts would always be performing better, so what is holding them down?

Socially, not everyone believes the ends always justify the means. Everyone wants lower healthcare costs, more efficient services and treatment for all, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should come at any (or should I say everyone's) cost. That's the real essence of the debate, not the effectiveness of something.

Obamacare isn't universal healthcare, but it holds the principle that the needs of the many outweigh the individual. That's a fact made clear by tax penalties and mandated health insurance. Progress or no, the appropriateness of policy should be judged.

AgedGrunt:
it holds the principle that the needs of the many outweigh the individual.

And this is a bad thing....... How?

BiscuitTrouser:

Big_Willie_Styles:

The "representative sample is reality" fallacy. I love it when people commit that one.

Its even easier to confuse "Perfect representation" with "Extremely useful representation we can use to evidence points and further research" but its ok I forgive the "Strawman fallacy" since i never claimed a representative sample is a perfect indicator, i simply contested the claim that it was, and i quote, "useless". Also since your argument consisted of just naming a fallacy thats the fallacy fallacy right there :P Not to mention assuming that because i oppose the useless label i must therefor support the "100% accurate amazing" label is also the black or white fallacy :P The whole "Lets read through and tally the different fallacy names and then declare them in a list and leave it" is an incredibly dull debating style. It bores me so and seems incredibly lazy not to mention i doubt youll accept you commited these fallacies anyway so its totally useless. Lets actually TALK :D

A representative sample isnt reality, but its an incredibly useful representation of reality that we can use to see general trends in reality and identify cause and effect in larger groups in reality. What we shouldnt treat it as is "Useless representation". The 76% sample is incredibly useful in our medical studies. If you do NOT believe that representative studies are useful whatsoever id stear clear of a hospital for life XD I dont think anyone would argue they are perfect. But its a very useful indicator. Its also clearly indicates general trends. They are far from useless.

EDIT: Screw it im in for the pound. You seem to be under this impression youre the god of debate. Id drop that attitude because its a little grating to read replies from that perspective you know? You need more than the name of a falsely identified fallacy to disprove my points.

Any sample is questionable. Market research taught me this. You can't trust any sample without knowing the exact breakdown of it, the size, the scope of the questions, how many questions, how the questions were asked, what the questions were, open response or multiple choice questions, etc.

Legislating or debating by polls is like a dog chasing his own tail: Pointless and fruitless.

Seanchaidh:
But it is a good enough justification to institute a Pigouvian tax when the majority judges that they each would rather have one less X than deal with Y times the population size.

No it isn't. Irritation is not enough of a justification to threaten a person over.

In such a case, do you think it would be worth instituting a ban on that behavior?

Considering what you are describing is being justified in the name of science I wonder what you would say. High level physics is such an unknown that there is a possibility of destroying the entire world with some of those projects.

As for me, what you are describing is not normal and is not about the market. In fact, the government sponsors those projects. So talk to them.

(Not even going to mention a tax-- it seems not to properly respect the nature of the problem.)

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Would you care to do my taxes? I am a student, who is also a gunsmith (which in this case means that I have a small business and I have to deal with ATF tax issues), I am a landowner who still works his land to an extent, and I am employed by both a public University and many private companies. If I make a mistake it is not considered the fault of the government for making such an impossibly complex system, it is my fault and they can destroy me because of it.

What if someone makes his money selling things that allow you to do this X that carries a 1 out of 2.5 trillion chance of killing the whole world? Is it worth destroying his livelihood then?

No. Destroying a person because his car might run you off the road is amoral. You and I both know it.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
But it is a good enough justification to institute a Pigouvian tax when the majority judges that they each would rather have one less X than deal with Y times the population size.

No it isn't. Irritation is not enough of a justification to threaten a person over.

It depends on the nature of the irritation. There are many irritants which rise to the level of a justification to threaten. Mustard gas for example. On the other end of that spectrum are the irritations which are more a matter of personal problems-- for example, taking offense to a gay wedding. Somewhere in the middle are those irritants that cause air quality such that significantly more people on average are hospitalized for asthma attacks.

The reason civilized society doesn't typically allow for private citizens to threaten people is that the police takes the role of doing much of the threatening that is called for by the circumstances. Creating a situation in which threatening people is generally unreasonable requires some measure of coercive power to prevent those situations which call for the leveling of such threats.

When it is the case that a majority thinks enduring 100Y (or population size times Y) is not worth the personal gain of X, then a Pigouvian tax on X allows them to forgo X without it being an irrational decision. If the value of X is more for some people, then they can still do X, but with some tax paid to the representative of the community (which may then be spent on something that voters choose) in compensation for the irritation that is caused to others. Levying a proportionate fine is absolutely a reasonable response to a wide variety of irritations.

In such a case, do you think it would be worth instituting a ban on that behavior?

Considering what you are describing is being justified in the name of science I wonder what you would say. High level physics is such an unknown that there is a possibility of destroying the entire world with some of those projects.

Did you know that cooking pancakes involves interactions that fall into the realm of particle physics? How many alpha and beta particles does your milk emit? No, you don't get to just say that CERN (or whatever) might kill the whole world without any evidence.

As for me, what you are describing is not normal and is not about the market. In fact, the government sponsors those projects. So talk to them.

Transparent dodge.

Especially as if it is only governments that could possibly want to do advanced research in the physical sciences.

Get real, man.

(Not even going to mention a tax-- it seems not to properly respect the nature of the problem.)

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Would you care to do my taxes? I am a student, who is also a gunsmith (which in this case means that I have a small business and I have to deal with ATF tax issues), I am a landowner who still works his land to an extent, and I am employed by both a public University and many private companies. If I make a mistake it is not considered the fault of the government for making such an impossibly complex system, it is my fault and they can destroy me because of it.

What I think is hilarious is that you think this is worse than being in a situation where your personal security and that of your property is solely your own responsibility, that people need fear only your retaliation should they seek to harm your livelihood.

But no, it's those DAMNED W2S!!! You're some kind of action movie superhero, tactically brilliant and capable of successfully pulling off the small-scale diplomatic maneuvering necessary to secure your position in the absence of police forces-- but paperwork is too much to deal with.

What if someone makes his money selling things that allow you to do this X that carries a 1 out of 2.5 trillion chance of killing the whole world? Is it worth destroying his livelihood then?

No. Destroying a person because his car might run you off the road is amoral. You and I both know it.

Then there's no convincing you; if you think it's alright to run the risk of killing the entire human population to build an industry which repeatedly, and by its expansion, increasingly imposes that risk on everyone, then I think it's safer simply to hope that your view will remain in the smallest of minorities.

By using a road, one accepts risks. In this example, no one is choosing to be at risk of destruction other than the people doing X-- and they are making that decision for everyone. How on earth does it make sense to leave this to the market?

Well, it looks like you folk did a lot of discussing back anf forth here. I am agaisnt privatization, and am yet to see any reasonable argument for it in this thread. most are either ridiculous or factually wrong.
Privatisation of necessities should never happen because free market does not benefit the nation, it benefits those who own free market.

Seanchaidh:
It depends on the nature of the irritation. There are many irritants which rise to the level of a justification to threaten. Mustard gas for example.

That is not the kind of irritant that either of us is talking about and you fucking know it.

The reason civilized society doesn't typically allow for private citizens to threaten people is that the police takes the role of doing much of the threatening that is called for by the circumstances. Creating a situation in which threatening people is generally unreasonable requires some measure of coercive power to prevent those situations which call for the leveling of such threats.

So you prevent people from threatening violence by using violence yourself. The logic of a thug.

No, you don't get to just say that CERN (or whatever) might kill the whole world without any evidence.

You do realize that many of those projects were objected to by the scientific community due to their inherent risks right?

Transparent dodge.

Speak for yourself. You are talking about government projects. I am talking about general market forces.

What I think is hilarious is that you think this is worse than being in a situation where your personal security and that of your property is solely your own responsibility, that people need fear only your retaliation should they seek to harm your livelihood.

Did I say that?

Personally I think that the police kicking down my door and killing me over a tax deal is higher than a criminal killing me. That seems rather fucked up.

But no, it's those DAMNED W2S!!! You're some kind of action movie superhero, tactically brilliant and capable of successfully pulling off the small-scale diplomatic maneuvering necessary to secure your position in the absence of police forces-- but paperwork is too much to deal with.

Are you willing to do my taxes? Way to dodge the point. I can go to jail for an honest mistake and the police have a bad habit of killing people over honest mistakes. You cannot do my taxes, I cannot do my taxes, I am not even 100% sure the guy I hired can do my taxes properly. After all of the money I paid him you would think it would not take so many calls and so much time. And of course the whole damn system is so complex that I cannot possibly know if he did my taxes right.

Then there's no convincing you; if you think it's alright to run the risk of killing the entire human population to build an industry which repeatedly, and by its expansion, increasingly imposes that risk on everyone, then I think it's safer simply to hope that your view will remain in the smallest of minorities.

YOU are supporting governments that do EXACTLY THAT. And you lecture me. I am against nuclear proliferation and YOU support the guys with their fingers on the buttons. The people you support could go crazy and kill all life on earth tomorrow. And yet you attack industry. The guys who surpass government environmental standards a decade before they are required.

By using a road, one accepts risks. In this example, no one is choosing to be at risk of destruction other than the people doing X-- and they are making that decision for everyone. How on earth does it make sense to leave this to the market?

What destruction are you talking about? The market has no such power. The government does but not the market. Or at least, not a free market.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
It depends on the nature of the irritation. There are many irritants which rise to the level of a justification to threaten. Mustard gas for example.

That is not the kind of irritant that either of us is talking about and you fucking know it.

The kind of irritant I was talking about was general, unspecified, and probably more serious than what you were thinking (or hoping) when you first replied. It's the sort of irritant where people would think "gee, I wish this would go away. I'd even give up a substantial amount of driving (or income) for it to be so, if that would work..."-- something serious enough to warrant intervention, not something silly enough for you to just weasel your way out by objecting to solitary word choice without any sense of context; I could easily have used the word 'harm' instead.

Another example I considered using, aside from mustard gas, was someone squatting in my living room. Do I not have a right to kick someone out of my living room? Off of a rental property to which I have title? Unwanted guests are "irritations" as well. (Something tells me that by some twist you're going to say that such evictions are "market transactions" rather than forceful interventions...)

The reason civilized society doesn't typically allow for private citizens to threaten people is that the police takes the role of doing much of the threatening that is called for by the circumstances. Creating a situation in which threatening people is generally unreasonable requires some measure of coercive power to prevent those situations which call for the leveling of such threats.

So you prevent people from threatening violence by using violence yourself. The logic of a thug.

Ah, the Hitler was a vegetarian fallacy.

So you had pancakes for breakfast because you ran out of waffles. The logic of a thug. Or Hitler. Or anyone who might lack waffles on some mornings.

How would you prefer threats of violence be dealt with? Acquiescence?

Also, http://patdollard.com/2010/11/mexican-rancher-stands-up-to-cartel-kills-4-wounds-2-gets-killed-himself-in-insane-bad-ass-all-balls-well-planned-man-alone-home-defense-firefight/

Hint: your hero here was using violence.

No, you don't get to just say that CERN (or whatever) might kill the whole world without any evidence.

You do realize that many of those projects were objected to by the scientific community due to their inherent risks right?

[citation needed]

Transparent dodge.

Speak for yourself. You are talking about government projects. I am talking about general market forces.

You're hardly talking about anything.

What I think is hilarious is that you think this is worse than being in a situation where your personal security and that of your property is solely your own responsibility, that people need fear only your retaliation should they seek to harm your livelihood.

Did I say that?

So you prefer living under the yolk of state tyranny, then? Your signals are mixed.

Personally I think that the police kicking down my door and killing me over a tax deal is higher than a criminal killing me. That seems rather fucked up.

You must have an oddly run local police department. I would strongly consider electing a candidate for mayor, sheriff, county executive, governor (whichever of those are relevant) who promises police reform.

But no, it's those DAMNED W2S!!! You're some kind of action movie superhero, tactically brilliant and capable of successfully pulling off the small-scale diplomatic maneuvering necessary to secure your position in the absence of police forces-- but paperwork is too much to deal with.

Are you willing to do my taxes? Way to dodge the point. I can go to jail for an honest mistake and the police have a bad habit of killing people over honest mistakes. You cannot do my taxes, I cannot do my taxes, I am not even 100% sure the guy I hired can do my taxes properly. After all of the money I paid him you would think it would not take so many calls and so much time. And of course the whole damn system is so complex that I cannot possibly know if he did my taxes right.

Even if all of that is completely true 100% of the time, the appropriate response is to elect people who will make it easier and who will exercise more restraint when policing, not to reject the idea of a state altogether. If a problem can be fixed by doing things just slightly differently, do things slightly differently.

Then there's no convincing you; if you think it's alright to run the risk of killing the entire human population to build an industry which repeatedly, and by its expansion, increasingly imposes that risk on everyone, then I think it's safer simply to hope that your view will remain in the smallest of minorities.

YOU are supporting governments that do EXACTLY THAT. And you lecture me. I am against nuclear proliferation and YOU support the guys with their fingers on the buttons. The people you support could go crazy and kill all life on earth tomorrow. And yet you attack industry. The guys who surpass government environmental standards a decade before they are required.

You answered that it wasn't OK to intervene against an industry which exposes everyone on earth to a random risk of death potentially billions of times a day-- which I calculated to have a 67% chance of killing the entire world in a year, if everyone did it daily, or the same probability within 10 years, if 10% did it daily, or 100 years if 1% of people did it daily. And why mustn't anyone intervent? Because it is "inappropriate to destroy a person" for such. What do you want me to say about your stated preference to let the market (not) fix such a problem there?

Also, you do know that one company isn't the entirety of "industry" or the private sector, right? Sometimes regulations are imposed that would be followed (especially by most people) anyway: so what?

By using a road, one accepts risks. In this example, no one is choosing to be at risk of destruction other than the people doing X-- and they are making that decision for everyone. How on earth does it make sense to leave this to the market?

What destruction are you talking about?

The destruction in the example that you decided should be about killing everyone on earth for some reason?

The market has no such power.

The market is a vehicle for the distribution of THINGS. You seem to think that there are THINGS out there which have such power or risk (CERN, nuclear weapons, whatever). Guess what? The market leaves those THINGS in the hands of individuals who can use them at their leisure however they feel is appropriate. No, the market itself doesn't destroy people directly. But it certainly can allow people to be destroyed. You're against nuclear proliferation. Are you going to enforce that by leaving it to the market?

You wanted to raise the stakes to "KILL EVERYONE!" and now you don't like the example. Would you like to give a straight answer to the previous example, then?

Private benefit = X. (Non-pecuniary) Social cost = Y.
Gaining one X means imposing one Y on yourself and everyone else in the population.
Population = N
X>Y, X<NY. Why is this not good enough reason to modify the price of X with a Pigouvian tax?

You say people don't care, but people are apt to VOTE THAT THEY WANT RESTRICTIONS (OR TAXES) UPON THEMSELVES and everyone else. When these people are a majority, what argument do you have against them? That maybe some poor people need to harm the environment and decrease the quality of life of everyone else in order to survive?

Do you object to Mexico City, who had air quality so poor that there was a substantially higher risk of various lung problems for its citizens, from taking action against air pollution and imposing stricter emissions standards? Or are you only willing to address arguments concerning events that take place in Fantasyland?

The government does but not the market. Or at least, not a free market.

Why?

Seanchaidh:
The kind of irritant I was talking about was general, unspecified, and probably more serious than what you were thinking (or hoping) when you first replied.

So you are comparing driving a car to the use of a chemical weapon. Amazing.

It's the sort of irritant where people would think "gee, I wish this would go away. I'd even give up a substantial amount of driving (or income) for it to be so, if that would work..."-- something serious enough to warrant intervention, not something silly enough for you to just weasel your way out by objecting to solitary word choice without any sense of context; I could easily have used the word 'harm' instead.

But you did not use it. Instead you used that word. A very important word choice and one that you wish to gloss over. Perhaps you should try picking your words better.

Another example I considered using, aside from mustard gas, was someone squatting in my living room. Do I not have a right to kick someone out of my living room? Off of a rental property to which I have title? Unwanted guests are "irritations" as well. (Something tells me that by some twist you're going to say that such evictions are "market transactions" rather than forceful interventions...)

That is more than just an irritation then isn't it?

Ah, the Hitler was a vegetarian fallacy.

Ah, Godwin's Law. I am surprised it took you this long.

So you had pancakes for breakfast because you ran out of waffles. The logic of a thug. Or Hitler. Or anyone who might lack waffles on some mornings.

Are you drunk? That is the only way I can imagine that comparison making any sense.

How would you prefer threats of violence be dealt with? Acquiescence?

You are supporting pre-emptive action NOT defense.

Hint: your hero here was using violence.

In self defense. You are calling for the use of violence where no violence existed before.

[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_high_energy_particle_collision_experiments#Other_publications

You're hardly talking about anything.

Once again, speak for yourself.

So you prefer living under the yolk of state tyranny, then? Your signals are mixed.

Your understanding is faulty. The state does not need to exist for government to exist and government does not need to exist for the state to exist.

You must have an oddly run local police department. I would strongly consider electing a candidate for mayor, sheriff, county executive, governor (whichever of those are relevant) who promises police reform.

Considering I am a student and do not live in the area your suggestion is irrelevant. Also, this is the same throughout the US. Or do you not read the papers?

Even if all of that is completely true 100% of the time, the appropriate response is to elect people who will make it easier and who will exercise more restraint when policing, not to reject the idea of a state altogether. If a problem can be fixed by doing things just slightly differently, do things slightly differently.

Hard to do when people like you support all actions of the government. I do not get my tax reform because every time we try you say we are giving the rich a tax break when we are actually trying to increase their taxes by getting rid of loopholes. I do not get police reform because people think that if the police are after you, you must have done something wrong. Your ignorance is hindering progress.

You answered that it wasn't OK to intervene against an industry which exposes everyone on earth to a random risk of death potentially billions of times a day

Citation?

BTW I did notice that you failed to address my point. You love government having the power to destroy everything but you will not allow car companies to produce gas engines. Amazing.

The destruction in the example that you decided should be about killing everyone on earth for some reason?

What you are describing can't happen therefore your example is irrelevant.

The market is a vehicle for the distribution of THINGS. You seem to think that there are THINGS out there which have such power or risk (CERN, nuclear weapons, whatever). Guess what? The market leaves those THINGS in the hands of individuals who can use them at their leisure however they feel is appropriate. No, the market itself doesn't destroy people directly. But it certainly can allow people to be destroyed.

Actually you are thinking of the government.

You're against nuclear proliferation. Are you going to enforce that by leaving it to the market?

Yup. The market is less likely to make nukes because the nukes are no useful for anything except war and the market HATES war. Wars disrupt normal market transactions. States love war, markets don't.

You wanted to raise the stakes to "KILL EVERYONE!" and now you don't like the example. Would you like to give a straight answer to the previous example, then?

I raised the stakes because your example was so wishy-washy. No one gives a shit because it does not affect then directly. YOU need to answer my question. You say that the market must be controlled because without controls all humans would simply kill everything, including themselves, without the controls. I say that that position is wrong. I asked you to prove your point. You have yet to do so. Your previous example was too open ended.

You say people don't care, but people are apt to VOTE THAT THEY WANT RESTRICTIONS (OR TAXES) UPON THEMSELVES and everyone else.

Do they? I seem to remember the US being a Republic not a Democracy. And I also seem to remember the Green Party failing to get a single national office.

When these people are a majority, what argument do you have against them?

The minority still has rights.

Do you object to Mexico City, who had air quality so poor that there was a substantially higher risk of various lung problems for its citizens, from taking action against air pollution and imposing stricter emissions standards?

The people could have taken action at any time. However, I fail to see the need for armed thugs.

Why?

Because people like you believe that the only recourse the government has is to use force and to kill people. The market on the other hand prefers that customers remain alive.

Preemptive action can be ethically justified in a few cases. If there is an obvious intention to cause injury or if waiting will greatly increase the risk of defeat, just off the top of my head, could justify preemptive action. And it isn't a godwin, he's not comparing anyone to hitler or the nazis, he's making a reference to the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
The kind of irritant I was talking about was general, unspecified, and probably more serious than what you were thinking (or hoping) when you first replied.

So you are comparing driving a car to the use of a chemical weapon. Amazing.

There are concentrations of mustard gas which would not constitute a weapon. Nevertheless, it remains an irritant.

Citizens of Mexico City or Los Angeles might think the comparison apt at any rate.

It's the sort of irritant where people would think "gee, I wish this would go away. I'd even give up a substantial amount of driving (or income) for it to be so, if that would work..."-- something serious enough to warrant intervention, not something silly enough for you to just weasel your way out by objecting to solitary word choice without any sense of context; I could easily have used the word 'harm' instead.

But you did not use it. Instead you used that word. A very important word choice and one that you wish to gloss over. Perhaps you should try picking your words better.

The word 'irritant' makes perfect sense for the argument. Drawing a narrow interpretation of the word by itself devoid of context is your choice.

Another example I considered using, aside from mustard gas, was someone squatting in my living room. Do I not have a right to kick someone out of my living room? Off of a rental property to which I have title? Unwanted guests are "irritations" as well. (Something tells me that by some twist you're going to say that such evictions are "market transactions" rather than forceful interventions...)

That is more than just an irritation then isn't it?

No, not particularly.

Ah, the Hitler was a vegetarian fallacy.

Ah, Godwin's Law. I am surprised it took you this long.

So you had pancakes for breakfast because you ran out of waffles. The logic of a thug. Or Hitler. Or anyone who might lack waffles on some mornings.

Are you drunk? That is the only way I can imagine that comparison making any sense.

I'm not drunk; I'm sober enough to realize that "thug" isn't anywhere near the only kind of person who would consider meeting violence with violence, or threats of violence with threats of violence.

How would you prefer threats of violence be dealt with? Acquiescence?

You are supporting pre-emptive action NOT defense.

Hint: your hero here was using violence.

In self defense. You are calling for the use of violence where no violence existed before.

I'm calling for the use of a general deterrent to prevent violence and threats of violence from occurring where they are unwarranted, and observing that the development of your naive and tenuous view of morality has been dependent on the tranquil state of affairs caused by the same general deterrent which you think is 'immoral'.

[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_high_energy_particle_collision_experiments#Other_publications

You might want to read that again... there isn't anything there that says CERN is dangerous.

You're hardly talking about anything.

Once again, speak for yourself.

I was. My view is that you've mustered an astonishing lack of substantive contribution to the discussion.

So you prefer living under the yolk of state tyranny, then? Your signals are mixed.

Your understanding is faulty. The state does not need to exist for government to exist and government does not need to exist for the state to exist.

Your political views are unclear if not inconsistent (or intentionally hidden).

You must have an oddly run local police department. I would strongly consider electing a candidate for mayor, sheriff, county executive, governor (whichever of those are relevant) who promises police reform.

Considering I am a student and do not live in the area your suggestion is irrelevant. Also, this is the same throughout the US. Or do you not read the papers?

Papers don't have selection bias. No, not at all. -___________-

Even if all of that is completely true 100% of the time, the appropriate response is to elect people who will make it easier and who will exercise more restraint when policing, not to reject the idea of a state altogether. If a problem can be fixed by doing things just slightly differently, do things slightly differently.

Hard to do when people like you support all actions of the government. I do not get my tax reform because every time we try you say we are giving the rich a tax break when we are actually trying to increase their taxes by getting rid of loopholes.

I wonder: have you actually bothered to do the math on such proposals? Have you considered that maybe the criticisms are, y'know, accurate?

I do not get police reform because people think that if the police are after you, you must have done something wrong. Your ignorance is hindering progress.

I don't think I've ever voted against a police reform. Point that rhetoric elsewhere, Sparky.

You answered that it wasn't OK to intervene against an industry which exposes everyone on earth to a random risk of death potentially billions of times a day

Citation?

Really?

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
What if someone makes his money selling things that allow you to do this X that carries a 1 out of 2.5 trillion chance of killing the whole world? Is it worth destroying his livelihood then?

No. Destroying a person because his car might run you off the road is amoral. You and I both know it.

Will a quotation do? That is what you said in reply to the example of a product which, if used, had a small chance of killing off everyone on earth. Rather than specifying some acceptable level of risk beyond which it might be reasonable to intervene, you indicated that you would approve of no restriction whatsoever.

BTW I did notice that you failed to address my point. You love government having the power to destroy everything but you will not allow car companies to produce gas engines. Amazing.

When potential adversaries have the same destructive power, or the ability to develop that power without much notice, it's generally a good idea to have that power yourself.

The destruction in the example that you decided should be about killing everyone on earth for some reason?

What you are describing can't happen therefore your example is irrelevant.

That's a fine dodge for an example you proposed.

The market is a vehicle for the distribution of THINGS. You seem to think that there are THINGS out there which have such power or risk (CERN, nuclear weapons, whatever). Guess what? The market leaves those THINGS in the hands of individuals who can use them at their leisure however they feel is appropriate. No, the market itself doesn't destroy people directly. But it certainly can allow people to be destroyed.

Actually you are thinking of the government.

Mm, yes, I suppose Adam Smith did predict the invisible hand of the market being used as a missile defense system.

You're against nuclear proliferation. Are you going to enforce that by leaving it to the market?

Yup. The market is less likely to make nukes because the nukes are no useful for anything except war and the market HATES war. Wars disrupt normal market transactions. States love war, markets don't.

Markets have no preferences whatsoever. If you can get ahead by taking, market incentives say you take. If you can get ahead by doing violence, market incentives say to do violence.

You wanted to raise the stakes to "KILL EVERYONE!" and now you don't like the example. Would you like to give a straight answer to the previous example, then?

I raised the stakes because your example was so wishy-washy. No one gives a shit because it does not affect then directly.

In Mexico City, there is an increased risk of death due to lung problems. Air pollution affects them directly.

To say that the example "does not affect [people] directly" is not to understand the example.

YOU need to answer my question. You say that the market must be controlled because without controls all humans would simply kill everything, including themselves, without the controls. I say that that position is wrong. I asked you to prove your point. You have yet to do so. Your previous example was too open ended.

The general description of a collective action problem would be somewhat open-ended, would it not?

But yes, it is potentially the case that humans could indeed (collectively) kill themselves should such a circumstance be encouraged by market incentives. There are values for X and Y such that X>Y and X<NY. NY could indeed be "everyone dies"-- perhaps due to anthropogenic climate change. X could indeed be "using energy sources with carbon emissions". Maybe we'll be lucky and technology will catch up before we actually kill ourselves-- hopefully that will be the case. Though it seems that climate change will still exact a toll on us. Will it have been worth it? Perhaps so, perhaps not.

You say people don't care, but people are apt to VOTE THAT THEY WANT RESTRICTIONS (OR TAXES) UPON THEMSELVES and everyone else.

Do they? I seem to remember the US being a Republic not a Democracy. And I also seem to remember the Green Party failing to get a single national office.

Yeah, the Green party does about as well as the Libertarian party. FOR SOME REASON people keep electing those you call statists-- some of whom from both of those parties have proposed carbon taxes, cap and trade policies, and so on.

Look, if the people don't want such a policy that's quite fine with me-- they don't have to have it. But you have made it your pattern to object to political solutions out of hand as if the market will solve any and all problems. It simply does not, and in those cases where it doesn't political action can be quite justified.

When these people are a majority, what argument do you have against them?

The minority still has rights.

Rights to negatively impact the quality of life of others without those others even having democratic recourse? No. That is not a right. That is within the prerogative of society.

Do you object to Mexico City, who had air quality so poor that there was a substantially higher risk of various lung problems for its citizens, from taking action against air pollution and imposing stricter emissions standards?

The people could have taken action at any time. However, I fail to see the need for armed thugs.

Your failure is insufficient reason for them to change their policy.

Why?

Because people like you believe that the only recourse the government has is to use force and to kill people. The market on the other hand prefers that customers remain alive.

What a naive oversimplification of the market! The market has no preferences in itself. The market is a collection of individuals. Individuals prefer whatever gets them ahead. Market transactions are one of many ways to accomplish that, but not always the most efficient for any given individual-- governments create the situations which make productive pursuits a rational choice when compared to expropriation.

Jux:
Preemptive action can be ethically justified in a few cases. If there is an obvious intention to cause injury or if waiting will greatly increase the risk of defeat, just off the top of my head, could justify preemptive action.

Only if force were present beforehand. Frederick the Great starting the 7 Years War COULD be justified because he believed (wrongly as it turned out but he did not know that at the time) that Saxony, Austria, Russia, and France (or some combination) were going to form an alliance and attack him. However, what he is talking about is a pre-emptive strike on the theory that someone might possibly be thinking about performing some sort of violence against something for some reason.

Seanchaidh:
The word 'irritant' makes perfect sense for the argument.

Right, because you are talking about very minor effects.

No, not particularly.

Then you must not use your space very well.

I'm not drunk; I'm sober enough to realize that "thug" isn't anywhere near the only kind of person who would consider meeting violence with violence, or threats of violence with threats of violence.

I did not make the term exclusive, I stated that you logic is that of a thug. It is.

I'm calling for the use of a general deterrent to prevent violence and threats of violence from occurring where they are unwarranted

A deterrent that includes the use of force where no force existed before.

and observing that the development of your naive and tenuous view of morality has been dependent on the tranquil state of affairs caused by the same general deterrent which you think is 'immoral'.

So the only way for people to be safe in your world is to make people unsafe. Amazing.

You might want to read that again... there isn't anything there that says CERN is dangerous.

But there is plenty that say it might be dangerous.

Your political views are unclear if not inconsistent (or intentionally hidden).

These are basic facts. What's more, my political view is based upon a well-known principle that I have mentioned on this very topic. If you do not understand it, it is your fault.

I wonder: have you actually bothered to do the math on such proposals? Have you considered that maybe the criticisms are, y'know, accurate?

Have you ever done the math? I have. You know what I have found? We spend a shit ton of money every year getting people to file our taxes. That is wasted money. We also allow rich people to get deductions. I do not get very good deductions because I do not invest very much. Y'all have rigged the system and you have no intention of changing it because contrary to what you say, y'all are in the pockets of the elites and you do not care about the people.

I don't think I've ever voted against a police reform. Point that rhetoric elsewhere, Sparky.

Have you ever voted for police reform?

Really?

Yes.

Will a quotation do? That is what you said in reply to the example of a product which, if used, had a small chance of killing off everyone on earth.

A product that does not exist. Which is why I ignored your point.

Rather than specifying some acceptable level of risk beyond which it might be reasonable to intervene, you indicated that you would approve of no restriction whatsoever.

Because the product does not exist, you have no indication that it will exist, and what is worse the chances of something like it happening are roughly the same as the chances of you running me over with a car.

When potential adversaries have the same destructive power, or the ability to develop that power without much notice, it's generally a good idea to have that power yourself.

So you are fine with people having the absolute ability to destroy all life on earth. Consistency?

That's a fine dodge for an example you proposed.

I proposed it because your example is too vague.

If you can get ahead by taking, market incentives say you take.

Except markets do not say that because it corrupts the system and therefore we do not do it. Stealing causes further stealing which makes contracts effectively null and causes the system to break down. The social contract exists with or without government. The problem with government is that it distorts the social contract.

If you can get ahead by doing violence, market incentives say to do violence.

Except you can't get ahead that way. The Hansa did everything in its power to avoid war even though it could call upon more resources than most kingdoms. Trade is more valuable than sacking a city.

In Mexico City, there is an increased risk of death due to lung problems. Air pollution affects them directly.

To say that the example "does not affect [people] directly" is not to understand the example.

And they would have done something about it on their own if the government had not protected the corporations to begin with. Your precious government in Mexico is deep in bed with corporations. That is a practice that you seek to continue.

But yes, it is potentially the case that humans could indeed (collectively) kill themselves should such a circumstance be encouraged by market incentives.

Prove it.

Maybe we'll be lucky and technology will catch up before we actually kill ourselves-- hopefully that will be the case. Though it seems that climate change will still exact a toll on us. Will it have been worth it? Perhaps so, perhaps not.

There is no report on the planet that says that climate change will kill everybody. The worst case scenario I have heard is losing some land and gaining more land. A decrease in food supply in the short term and then gains as more land is recovered for planting. Some species die off and many more thrive.

some of whom from both of those parties have proposed carbon taxes, cap and trade policies, and so on.

And yet they have not made it the central platform. Are you saying that by voting for a politician you are voting for each and every single one of his/her proposals and you do not have the right to complain about any of them? Either you do not vote or your politicians must all be robots.

Look, if the people don't want such a policy that's quite fine with me-- they don't have to have it. But you have made it your pattern to object to political solutions out of hand as if the market will solve any and all problems. It simply does not, and in those cases where it doesn't political action can be quite justified.

It does not solve minor problems that people do not care about. The market handles all major issues. Your problem is that the issue you care about is too minor. Have about you name an important issue.

Rights to negatively impact the quality of life of others without those others even having democratic recourse? No. That is not a right. That is within the prerogative of society.

So should I be allowed to vote to exterminate all of the homeless people around my home? After all, they steal, they destroy my property, and they annoy the fuck out of me and everyone else in the neighborhood. If we all vote to kill them all will you say OK? Or do you get to talk about issues beyond voting?

What a naive oversimplification of the market!

This ought to be good.

The market has no preferences in itself. The market is a collection of individuals. Individuals prefer whatever gets them ahead. Market transactions are one of many ways to accomplish that, but not always the most efficient for any given individual

And murdering people is best for the market how? The market does have preferences due to basic facts. A dead person cannot buy anything. A dead person cannot build a business or work. A dead person in fact slows down efforts in some cases (due to grief and paperwork and such). What market advantage comes from a dead person?

governments create the situations which make productive pursuits a rational choice when compared to expropriation.

No, the government uses expropriation to distort the market for its own advantage.

BTW do you even know what the definition of expropriation is? -the action of the state in taking or modifying the property rights of an individual in the exercise of its sovereignty

farson135:
And yet they have not made it the central platform. Are you saying that by voting for a politician you are voting for each and every single one of his/her proposals and you do not have the right to complain about any of them? Either you do not vote or your politicians must all be robots.

Question: do you exaggerate every counterargument as a defense mechanism from lack of confidence in your position, because you have trouble keeping focus on exactly what it is that you are arguing against, or is there another explanation for your behavior? I've been responding to what you have posted. You've been responding to what you imagine I posted.

I'm saying that electing officials who are willing to do what the majority wants and measuring what the majority wants with opinion polls is only a problematic way of legislating under your ridiculous ideology (and a few others that aren't in play-- absolute monarchism, for example: it has a different problem with legislating by opinion poll.) I'm also saying that a piece of legislation needn't be the first priority of every voter for action to be taken; that would be a strange way of doing business. Everyone agrees something should be done like this, but it's not our first priority-- so let's just not do anything. Are you seriously proposing "it's not the single most important issue for everyone" as an objection to doing anything? Or are you going to walk back on that, or claim you didn't say such?

And murdering people is best for the market how? The market does have preferences due to basic facts. A dead person cannot buy anything. A dead person cannot build a business or work. A dead person in fact slows down efforts in some cases (due to grief and paperwork and such). What market advantage comes from a dead person?

Newly vacant land, salvage, less competition for resources, etc.

It isn't good "for the market", but it certainly can be profitable for individuals. Why the fuck do you think criminality exists?

You're still clinging to this idea that the market acts in the interest of all of society-- for some reason. It can do so if carefully regulated (at a minimum by keeping conditions peaceful and deterring violence.) It doesn't just do that on its own. Markets exist because enough people with power want them to exist. They form governments that make sure that conditions are favorable for economic activity. Markets don't just enforce those conditions on their own.

So should I be allowed to vote to exterminate all of the homeless people around my home? After all, they steal, they destroy my property, and they annoy the fuck out of me and everyone else in the neighborhood. If we all vote to kill them all will you say OK? Or do you get to talk about issues beyond voting?

Hey, you answered your question from above! "And murdering people is best for the market how?" Why did I even bother explaining when you already knew?

Naturally, legitimate democratic governments tend to shy away from exterminating members of their society. Frankly, I doubt you could get a majority of the relevant political units to support that. The market, on the other hand, doesn't give a shit either way (unless tickets are on sale to witness the murders.) Whereas you seem to want to murder homeless people because you are supremely irritated by them. Or were you trying to get me to agree that people have fundamental rights or something? (And then interpreting a fundamental right to life as a fundamental right to pay no tax ever.) That would be far less disagreeable, but slightly more pointless.

Now, if you could get such a majority, I'd hardly be in a position to stand in your way-- with or without the existence of governments or markets. Governments serve society. If society wants to do something awful, then governments usually don't stand in the way of it. Of course neither do markets. Occasionally the people being murdered register disagreement violently-- and rightly so; once a political unit has voted to murder you it is fair to say you are no longer expected to abide by its laws.

BTW do you even know what the definition of expropriation is? -the action of the state in taking or modifying the property rights of an individual in the exercise of its sovereignty

Expropriation is any taking of a thing (including land) for your own use. The word is often used in the case of governments doing so, but it is certainly not limited to that. Why do you ask, is there some special libertarian dictionary which denies the existence of theft by non-government entities?

And they would have done something about it on their own if the government had not protected the corporations to begin with. Your precious government in Mexico is deep in bed with corporations. That is a practice that you seek to continue.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Citizens of Mexico City took action and imposed emissions standards on their vehicles in order to deal with the horrendous air pollution in their city. The market did not solve their problem. The market would not solve their problem in the absence of Mexican governance.

Prove it.

I'd rather not kill everyone on earth if it is alright with you. I'd rather keep such an idea in the realm of theory.

Theory which I have presented to you numerous times, of course, but you don't seem to want to engage it. You just keep saying "well, it's not important to anyone" and "the market would fix if it were important to people." Maybe individuals would fix it-- perhaps by violent intervention, perhaps by developing a better substitute. The latter isn't something I would want to count on the market taking care of, however.

But just for giggles let's look at the theory one more time.

Product will do something that causes everyone to die if used enough times-- for example by making conditions unlivable; it starts by reducing life expectancies, increasing rates of certain fatal diseases, and so on. And those effects just get worse until the atmosphere isn't breathable or it slowly destroys arable land or something. However, users personally get $100 of profit for each use. Does a rational, self-interested person use it? If the damage is incremental enough, sure. Why not? Does there ever come a point where it is no longer personally worth it to use for anyone? Conditions could be slightly worse for everyone, but I could be ahead $100. It's so nice that my market decisions are sacrosanct so I can profit by imposing costs on others.

Develop a product like that and the market directs us to kill a boatload of ourselves, if not all of us. If only there were some morally legitimate way to engage in collective action, and make sure everyone does so, in order to prevent such an awful state of affairs... but alas there is only the holy Market.

Except you can't get ahead that way. The Hansa did everything in its power to avoid war even though it could call upon more resources than most kingdoms. Trade is more valuable than sacking a city.

The Hanseatic League had a diplomatic philosophy, therefore its application must have been optimal for every individual involved and contrary actions ever being more profitable is impossible-- since they always tried to avoid war, no one ever profits from war. Have I summed up your argument correctly, or do you wish to plug in the numerous holes in your so far quite shallow attempt?

Except markets do not say that because it corrupts the system and therefore we do not do it. Stealing causes further stealing which makes contracts effectively null and causes the system to break down. The social contract exists with or without government. The problem with government is that it distorts the social contract.

It corrupts the system and therefore we employ governments to prevent people from doing it. The market is made up of individuals. Market incentives say do whatever you estimate is in your best interest. Especially when there is no government to modify incentives to discourage theft, theft can certainly be in an individual's interest. This is yet another collective action problem, though it seems I'll be damned if I can get you to agree that the market needs more protection that of a solitary rifleman. ^_^

That governments exist to solve collective action problems, however, is one of the more precise, profound, perspicuous and parsimonious explanations of government that exist. To enact the will of the people where the market fails to do so.

Seanchaidh:
Question: do you exaggerate every counterargument as a defense mechanism from lack of confidence in your position, because you have trouble keeping focus on exactly what it is that you are arguing against, or is there another explanation for your behavior? I've been responding to what you have posted. You've been responding to what you imagine I posted.

No, I have been responding to what you post. You say that by voting for a person you are endorsing their views even if their views on particular issues are not made central to their platform. That is what you have said to the letter and I am asking you to justify it.

I'm saying that electing officials who are willing to do what the majority wants and measuring what the majority wants with opinion polls is only a problematic way of legislating under your ridiculous ideology

Let us see, you have no evidence that the majority supports all of your actions and you only assume it based upon a non-binding poll.

Everyone agrees something should be done like this, but it's not our first priority-- so let's just not do anything. Are you seriously proposing "it's not the single most important issue for everyone" as an objection to doing anything? Or are you going to walk back on that, or claim you didn't say such?

I didn't say that. Feel free to quote exactly where I did say that. I know you can't but it does not hurt to ask.

YOU claim that people support it because they voted for a person. Yet, that person has a number of views that the people who voted for him/her do not support. No politician on earth has the ability to support everything in the exact same way as every person in a large voting bloc. It is impossible. Therefore, your assertion is faulty.

Newly vacant land

Which suddenly requires manpower to replace the previous occupation.

salvage

Decreases resources across the market by taking it away from those who have the ability to utilize it.

less competition for resources

More competition for labor, etc.

It isn't good "for the market", but it certainly can be profitable for individuals. Why the fuck do you think criminality exists?

So you admit that the market does not support such things. Progress.

You're still clinging to this idea that the market acts in the interest of all of society-- for some reason.

Because human societies are built around markets and transactions. Human civilization never would have existed if we did not have markets.

It can do so if carefully regulated (at a minimum by keeping conditions peaceful and deterring violence.) It doesn't just do that on its own.

Yes it does do that on its own. Markets do not support violence.

Markets exist because enough people with power want them to exist. They form governments that make sure that conditions are favorable for economic activity.

No, governments exist because enough people with power want them to exist. Markets have always existed for as long as human civilization has existed.

Hey, you answered your question from above! "And murdering people is best for the market how?" Why did I even bother explaining when you already knew?

That is not best for the market it is best for individuals.

Naturally, legitimate democratic governments tend to shy away from exterminating members of their society. Frankly, I doubt you could get a majority of the relevant political units to support that.

And yet it has happened.

The market, on the other hand, doesn't give a shit either way (unless tickets are on sale to witness the murders.) Whereas you seem to want to murder homeless people because you are supremely irritated by them. Or were you trying to get me to agree that people have fundamental rights or something? (And then interpreting a fundamental right to life as a fundamental right to pay no tax ever.) That would be far less disagreeable, but slightly more pointless.

You argue for the supreme power of voting. I say that people have rights that go beyond the whims of the majority. That is a point that you have consistently failed to acknowledge on this topic and I want you to address it.

Now, if you could get such a majority, I'd hardly be in a position to stand in your way-- with or without the existence of governments or markets. Governments serve society. If society wants to do something awful, then governments usually don't stand in the way of it. Of course neither do markets. Occasionally the people being murdered register disagreement violently-- and rightly so; once a political unit has voted to murder you it is fair to say you are no longer expected to abide by its laws.

Read through "Wages of Destruction". That book details the economic irrationality of the Nazi system AND it shows how mass murder is contrary to market forces. However, mass murder is supported by ideologies.

As for you not being able to stand in our way, if you prefer to be a sheep then fine. Just do not expect me to roll over and support your weakness.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Citizens of Mexico City took action and imposed emissions standards on their vehicles in order to deal with the horrendous air pollution in their city. The market did not solve their problem. The market would not solve their problem in the absence of Mexican governance.

The market would not solve the problem because the government insulated the market from the people and therefore distorted the market. Once again, this is the system that YOU and your ilk support. The greater market does not work when you insulate elements of it. The market cannot function fully when people distort it.

I'd rather not kill everyone on earth if it is alright with you. I'd rather keep such an idea in the realm of theory.

Then show how your theory is practical.

Theory which I have presented to you numerous times, of course, but you don't seem to want to engage it. You just keep saying "well, it's not important to anyone" and "the market would fix if it were important to people." Maybe individuals would fix it-- perhaps by violent intervention, perhaps by developing a better substitute. The latter isn't something I would want to count on the market taking care of, however.

Global warming is not going to kill everybody AND (contrary to your assertion) it is not going to potentially kill everybody on earth several billion times a day.

Product will do something that causes everyone to die if used enough times-- for example by making conditions unlivable; it starts by reducing life expectancies, increasing rates of certain fatal diseases, and so on. And those effects just get worse until the atmosphere isn't breathable or it slowly destroys arable land or something. However, users personally get $100 of profit for each use. Does a rational, self-interested person use it? If the damage is incremental enough, sure. Why not? Does there ever come a point where it is no longer personally worth it to use for anyone? Conditions could be slightly worse for everyone, but I could be ahead $100. It's so nice that my market decisions are sacrosanct so I can profit by imposing costs on others.

Conditions that make it worth it to everyone are increasing by the day. Higher fuel efficiency is advantageous to everyone. Cheaper, more efficient energy is also advantageous to everyone. Etc.

YOU make the very poor assumption that in order to "fix" the problem there has to be some great directed effort.

The Hanseatic League had a diplomatic philosophy, therefore its application must have been optimal for every individual involved and contrary actions ever being more profitable is impossible-- since they always tried to avoid war, no one ever profits from war. Have I summed up your argument correctly, or do you wish to plug in the numerous holes in your so far quite shallow attempt?

No, you have not summed up my arguments at all. Read through "The German Hansa"

It corrupts the system and therefore we employ governments to prevent people from doing it.

We employ governments who sanction stealing. The market does not support stealing, contrary to your assertion.

Market incentives say do whatever you estimate is in your best interest. Especially when there is no government to modify incentives to discourage theft, theft can certainly be in an individual's interest.

Market incentives say more than that. But your failure is to see the greater picture. I have already told you that there are market incentives to discourage stealing and none that encourage it.

That governments exist to solve collective action problems

And it fails. YOU say that the market cannot do anything without the government holding its hand. Yet the government has failed where the market has succeeded.

To enact the will of the people where the market fails to do so.

So the government, the guys who rape, pillage, and burn on a regular basis, fulfils the will of the people better than the people themselves who make up the market. Amazing.

Nikolaz72:

AgedGrunt:
it holds the principle that the needs of the many outweigh the individual.

And this is a bad thing....... How?

The principle is fine, it's the application that's contested. As I said, everyone would like more affordable health care, but it doesn't mean that it's ok to mandate individual insurance coverage under penalty from the IRS. My health is my concern. I should be allowed to take care of it or neglect it. If it breaks down, it's my responsibility to fix it, supposing there is no other form of assistance available. In the same vein, don't vote to make your body my responsibility.

To address an earlier point, your judgment that, if the "stupid and stubborn" right-wing would just shut up and fully agree to do things your way, then everything would work out, is exactly why many of us right-thinkers want nothing to do with socialism. I'm certainly not going to answer to people that don't care about my freedoms or the way I see things.

farson135:
The market would not solve the problem because the government insulated the market from the people and therefore distorted the market.

... how specifically..? You're just vomiting up abstraction as if it means anything.

The market did not solve the problem because individual incentives favor using gasoline excessively and declining to cut emissions because the effect of one person's use of gasoline is small whereas the effect of millions of people using gasoline, especially in a city with Mexico City's terrain configuration, is large. 99.9999% of what determines the environment of Mexico City is the decision of someone else. It is irrational for self-interested individuals making unilateral decisions to decide to spend or sacrifice anything whatsoever in regards to the environment. It is similarly irrational for self-interested individuals to voluntarily join a cooperative that requires all members limit their emissions; it's great if everyone else does, though. An individual personally experiences a millionth of the environmental effect of their decision-- the environment, for every individual, is determined by the actions of everyone else. Since that is the case, it is a fact accomplished: the environment suffers no matter how much people care about it. And anyone who decides to spend or inconvenience themselves to limit their own emissions is at a distinct market disadvantage: polluters win by imposing costs on others. They also lose, because everyone else is or becomes a polluter too-- it is a better situation for everyone in Mexico City if they all coordinate to limit their emissions. They democratically agreed that that is the case. The market failed to do their will. They thus voted against the market and imposed restrictions on everyone living there.

Can you disagree with this while saying something more than the abstract twaddle you just tried above?

So the government, the guys who rape, pillage, and burn on a regular basis,

--yes, and uniquely so. If there is rape, pillage, or fire, government is always the principal cause--

fulfils the will of the people better than the people themselves who make up the market. Amazing.

In some cases, of course it does. I've never said that it always does. You may have imagined so. It would be supremely odd if markets worked perfectly, had no problems whatsoever, and never failed to capture the collective interest. What an astounding coincidence that would be.

We're talking about a mass of people making decisions with regard to their own peculiar interests; of course there are times where the general interest is not the same as the individual one. Oftentimes it works, many times it does not.

Conditions that make it worth it to everyone are increasing by the day. Higher fuel efficiency is advantageous to everyone. Cheaper, more efficient energy is also advantageous to everyone. Etc.

YOU make the very poor assumption that in order to "fix" the problem there has to be some great directed effort.

No, I just don't find it wise to depend on technological innovation to fix problems that can be fixed without technological innovation. Technological innovation is nice, and as you say there are plenty of incentives to pursue it even aside from the environment. There is no fundamental law of the universe that says that better technology means less harmful emissions/fewer externality costs, however. Efficiency is a related but still separate issue from externality cost. It is a fine coincidence in our case that technology seems to be moving slowly in the direction of increasing efficiency while decreasing externality costs-- at least regarding fuel.

Even still, it is no reason to begrudge Mexico City for taking the action that it did-- however shamelessly they stomped all over your precious ideology by doing so.

(contrary to your assertion) it is not going to potentially kill everybody on earth several billion times a day.

You may want to read my assertion(s) again. Try not to get too excited to process the words correctly.

Then show how your theory is practical.

Read through "Wages of Destruction".

Read through my posts.

As for you not being able to stand in our way, if you prefer to be a sheep then fine. Just do not expect me to roll over and support your weakness.

Which is why you go to the extraordinary step of talking about how you wish government would go away on the internet. I guess doing lots of bleating makes someone not a sheep.

And yet it has happened.

And?

No, governments exist because enough people with power want them to exist. Markets have always existed for as long as human civilization has existed.

Of course you are technically correct: even warzones have markets, and individuals making decisions. Markets in the manner that we know them, where economic activity with strangers is commonplace and one does not feel that his life is constantly under threat, require government.

And it fails.

Governments solve collective action problems constantly. They provide a substantial level of collective security from foreign invasion where the market would not. They provide a substantial level of personal security that few living in a fragmented anarchy would be able to match. And that's just to start.

YOU say that the market cannot do anything without the government holding its hand.

Markets need government for some amount of regulation; very small numbers of people can manage a market without government, but any significant population density requires a government. The world we actually live in requires government.

Yet the government has failed where the market has succeeded.

Which is why successful governments tend to take a light touch on the market where no intervention is fruitful. This is nothing I don't already know. However, there are cases where intervention is worthwhile-- for example when it is individually rational for a lot of people to impose costs on others and end up in a situation none of them would prefer due to the aggregate effect of each of their individual decisions. In those cases it makes a huge amount of sense for government to intervene in order to resolve the collective action problem.

Situation: barbarians at the gates. Somehow you've managed to collect together a relatively large city-state without any government. Barbarians see the massive wealth that your supremely efficient market economy has created and have come to plunder it. If all citizens of the right age cooperate together, the city and most of its wealth can probably be saved. If only half do, the barbarians should probably win. Conditions are such that many could escape the city during the battle and move elsewhere if necessary, though this means leaving most of their wealth behind to be plundered. What do you think a self-interested and rational person will do in this situation? Contribute to the defense?

If everyone contributes to the defense, each has a small but significant risk of death or injury. <--- Optimal outcome for the collective
If everyone minus one contributes to the defense, everyone but that person has a risk of death or injury, and the chance of victory is not significantly impacted. <--- Optimal outcome for any individual (It is no wonder that cowardice is seen as a vice...)

If few contribute to the defense, each who does has an extremely high risk of death or capture. <--- sucks the most
Those who don't contribute can probably escape. <--- bad outcome, but still better than death or capture.

Seems like the best decision is not to help-- even if the most preferable outcome is what happens when everyone helps. If only there were some way for everyone involved to agree about what should be done, and then make sure everyone acts accordingly...

farson135:
I say that people have rights that go beyond the whims of the majority.

Not to sidetrack you from your debate, but I'm interested in your views on this. Which rights do people have? From where do these rights arise? It would seem to me that the only rights we have are the ones that are agreed upon by the majority of us. It would seem that the right to life, one that we consider the most basic, is only granted to me because I live in a society that has deemed that a right. If we lived in a society where say, ritualistic human sacrifice was accepted and commonplace, would I still have a right to life? Who would enforce that right?

Jux:

farson135:
I say that people have rights that go beyond the whims of the majority.

Not to sidetrack you from your debate, but I'm interested in your views on this. Which rights do people have? From where do these rights arise? It would seem to me that the only rights we have are the ones that are agreed upon by the majority of us. It would seem that the right to life, one that we consider the most basic, is only granted to me because I live in a society that has deemed that a right. If we lived in a society where say, ritualistic human sacrifice was accepted and commonplace, would I still have a right to life? Who would enforce that right?

I'm not Farson, but I can probably answer the question well enough. To cherrypick one example of this viewpoint...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.408216-Dzhokhar-Tsarnaevs-manifesto
Feel free to read through Imperator_DK and The Plunk's little conversation there.

'Right' is determined only by strength. Say there were a small country with an equally small and underequipped military that preformed ritual human sacrifice. The US tells them to stop. The country says that it's their right to practice X as they see fit. The US tells them that they stop, or they'll step in. Country says no. US kills everyone involved, and so ritual human sacrifice is no longer practiced because everyone who supports it is either dead or too afraid to act.

Likewise, if you were a slave, you could claim that you have any number of rights. But if the guy with the bigger stick tells you to shut up, then you're going to shut up- one way or another.

tl;dr, rights are only as meaningful as the physical strength supporting and protecting them.

Kopikatsu:

I'm not Farson, but I can probably answer the question well enough. To cherrypick one example of this viewpoint...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.408216-Dzhokhar-Tsarnaevs-manifesto
Feel free to read through Imperator_DK and The Plunk's little conversation there.

'Right' is determined only by strength. Say there were a small country with an equally small and underequipped military that preformed ritual human sacrifice. The US tells them to stop. The country says that it's their right to practice X as they see fit. The US tells them that they stop, or they'll step in. Country says no. US kills everyone involved, and so ritual human sacrifice is no longer practiced because everyone who supports it is either dead or too afraid to act.

Likewise, if you were a slave, you could claim that you have any number of rights. But if the guy with the bigger stick tells you to shut up, then you're going to shut up- one way or another.

tl;dr, rights are only as meaningful as the physical strength supporting and protecting them.

So then a greater majority than the one that supported ritual sacrifice stepped in. The initial example was meant as an isolated society. You see where I'm going with this though right?

Jux:

Kopikatsu:

I'm not Farson, but I can probably answer the question well enough. To cherrypick one example of this viewpoint...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.408216-Dzhokhar-Tsarnaevs-manifesto
Feel free to read through Imperator_DK and The Plunk's little conversation there.

'Right' is determined only by strength. Say there were a small country with an equally small and underequipped military that preformed ritual human sacrifice. The US tells them to stop. The country says that it's their right to practice X as they see fit. The US tells them that they stop, or they'll step in. Country says no. US kills everyone involved, and so ritual human sacrifice is no longer practiced because everyone who supports it is either dead or too afraid to act.

Likewise, if you were a slave, you could claim that you have any number of rights. But if the guy with the bigger stick tells you to shut up, then you're going to shut up- one way or another.

tl;dr, rights are only as meaningful as the physical strength supporting and protecting them.

So then a greater majority than the one that supported ritual sacrifice stepped in. The initial example was meant as an isolated society. You see where I'm going with this though right?

Not necessarily. A rebellion tends to be a minority overthrowing the majority by show of force. Strength/Power doesn't directly correlate to numbers. A Warlord and his 500 heavily armed soldiers are capable of imposing their beliefs on a group of 1000 weakened refugees, for instance.

To put it simply...'Might makes right'.

Kopikatsu:
Not necessarily. A rebellion tends to be a minority overthrowing the majority by show of force. Strength/Power doesn't directly correlate to numbers. A Warlord and his 500 heavily armed soldiers are capable of imposing their beliefs on a group of 1000 weakened refugees, for instance.

Fair enough. I suppose I was thinking in constricted ways, I was assuming some sort of democratic process.

Jux:

Kopikatsu:
Not necessarily. A rebellion tends to be a minority overthrowing the majority by show of force. Strength/Power doesn't directly correlate to numbers. A Warlord and his 500 heavily armed soldiers are capable of imposing their beliefs on a group of 1000 weakened refugees, for instance.

Fair enough. I suppose I was thinking in constricted ways, I was assuming some sort of democratic process.

Rights can never be supported by democratic process. At least, not solely on that.

We have a very large number of laws meant to protect your rights as a citizen. One of them are laws against battery. Now, the fact that 'You can't inflict bodily harm on other people' is written down doesn't make it so. I could very well get up, go next door, and punch my neighbor in the face. The fact that it's against the law to do so can't physically stop me from doing it. But generally, the threat of force (police/justice system) is what keeps people in line and they're how 'rights' are enforced within an isolated society.

AgedGrunt:
You're saying stubborn rightwing, but I hate socialists - Reasons

Good for you.

I'm not against the stupid or stubborn rightwing when they are the majority, just that in my system when you win the election you get to implement the things you think best.

But in American if you win the election you get to...

well...

What exactly do you get to do? To me it seems like the only thing he really got elected on was implementing this healthcare and the Republican Minority cockblocked it.

That is undemocratic by every sense of the word.

AgedGrunt:
My body is my responsibility

It is. But certain things happend that you could not choose. For example - Being born to poor parents and getting cancer. That's not a choice, but damnit if Mitt Romney and his supporters didn't froth at the thought of a poor uninsured man dying because of it.

IRS is not a man with a gun. It's a representation of the system in place to protect -everyone- not just the entitled few which you seem to be a part of.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Any sample is questionable. Market research taught me this. You can't trust any sample without knowing the exact breakdown of it, the size, the scope of the questions, how many questions, how the questions were asked, what the questions were, open response or multiple choice questions, etc.

The problems of qualitative research are not the same as qualitative research. Do not lump them together.

Moreover, a representative sample is not reality by definition. To point out as much is facile. No-one on here is going to make the mistake of confusing a sample with reality. At the same time, pointing out that statistics are only a representation of reality in an attempt to silence opposition is the rhetorical equivalent of claiming that I can't know the sun will rise tomorrow.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked