Politics Thread: 13 Ghosts

[Ben No.3]

 

“We are living in a reality, where competition is embedded in its functioning. There are limited number of resources, so various entities compete for them.”

 

See, here’s the thing. What you just did is called a normative fallacy, also known as Humes law or the is-ought problem. You observed something - that resources are limited - and derived a rule from it - that we should compete for these recourses. You didn’t have any reason to draw this conclusion from your observation though. The IS, so what is (limited recourse), says nothing about the OUGHT, what should be done (which is, you say, without giving any actual evidence for this, competing).

 

This exact fallacy in this exact context has often been used by Social Darwinists to justify imperial conquest as an evolutionary necessity and therefore justified. However, as I pointed out, this is a false line of reasoning.

 

And if you actually look at nature, you will find that “survival of the fittest” doesn’t mean “survival of the strongest individual”, but rather “survival of the system which has best adapted to its surroundings”. Take honey bees or certain types of ants, which have constructed systems, or societies, if you will, which work almost perfectly, yet devoid of any significant competition amongst each other. Mind you, that is within one respective system/society/tribe. And even most human tribes have not developed the concept of property, let alone wage labour.

 

In conclusio: Your line of reasoning is false and your thesis not only unproven, but also contradictory to observable fact.

 

You’re wrong.

I said you won the race, not that you were first to the "egg", also, I did not think that you were supporting caste system, once a drone always a drone, without freedom to chose what you want to do in life.

1. How is „winning a race“ different from „being first in that very race“?

 

2. I gave you an example of a reality, your might say, which dealt with recourse allocation without competition. I did not judge this reality morally however, and I couldn’t.... as pointed out, i don’t know two things about bees or ants, but rather used them as lazy examples. So how am I supposed to judge wether they are even aware that they live in a cast system? Anyway, I never expressed support for one, did I?

[213374U]

I should not be discouraged by laws, which will aim to take more and more the more I work and the better results i get with my capital/wealth management. I already bear the risks of failure if I mismanage my resources - no one will return me my wasted time, energy, and majority of my wealth if i will fail, so why would same people be entitled to more portions of what I earn if I succeed?

All I hear is "me, me, me". I thought this was a left-wing thing?

 

It's perfectly legitimate to want to protect your own interests, but you don't live on a desert island. Your profits aren't earned in a vacuum, and more specifically, they are invariably the result of unequal power relations that rest on the leverage provided by the ownership of the means of production. The concept of "yours" is at society's discretion, because many others are involved in the creation of that wealth. So if the defense of your interests begins putting the whole social contract at risk, your interests are going to have to take a back seat to stability and social peace.

Edited November 22, 2017 by 213374U

[Malcador]

 

Well the people that poor aren't going to contribute all that much

That's ok, as long as they pay the same percentage as everyone else it's their fair share.

Why not let them keep their meager amount though? Some poor people not paying is that much of a bugbear to you?

 

The point about living in a society is true, though, not sure why the poor are automatically lazy parasites or something but libertarians and caring for others isn't typically a package.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Well the people that poor aren't going to contribute all that much

That's ok, as long as they pay the same percentage as everyone else it's their fair share.

Why not let them keep their meager amount though? Some poor people not paying is that much of a bugbear to you?

 

The point about living in a society is true, though, not sure why the poor are automatically lazy parasites or something but libertarians and caring for others isn't typically a package.

 

OK, how about this then. The first $40k of income for everyone (witch will encompass poverty lines for a family of 3 in both US & Canada) is tax free. So in other words, no one pays a dollar on the first $40k they earn ever year. After that a flat percentage on all income over $40k. This applies to both personal and business incomes. 

[213374U]

You need to remember Darkpriest that those unemployed, lazy loudmouth on state welfare are all contributors to your success and you wouldn't succeed without them.

Your hard work, self determination, discipline doesn't matter. Both you and lazyboy here could achieve success and it's just a dumb luck that a lucky star shined on you. No other factors matter.

>talking about proceeds from capital/wealth "management"

>talking about inheritance

 

"but muh hard work!"

Edited November 22, 2017 by 213374U

[Malcador]

Also would need to account for kids.

[Guard Dog]

 

You need to remember Darkpriest that those unemployed, lazy loudmouth on state welfare are all contributors to your success and you wouldn't succeed without them.

Your hard work, self determination, discipline doesn't matter. Both you and lazyboy here could achieve success and it's just a dumb luck that a lucky star shined on you. No other factors matter.

>talking about proceeds from capital/wealth "management"

>talking about inheritance

 

"but muh hard work!"

 

Wealth is earned. Inheritances are earned by someone. Every dollar, yen, yuan, euro, or peso is the product of someones risk or labor or both.

[213374U]

Wealth is earned. Inheritances are earned by someone. Every dollar, yen, yuan, euro, or peso is the product of someones risk or labor or both.

We agree comrade, why should your boss get 85% of the value you produce? I'll see you at the next IWW meeting.

[Guard Dog]

 

Why not let them keep their meager amount though? Some poor people not paying is that much of a bugbear to you?

 

The point about living in a society is true, though, not sure why the poor are automatically lazy parasites or something but libertarians and caring for others isn't typically a package.

 

I don't believe I referred to the poor as lazy parasites. 213374U seems to think I do too but with him if you oppose the means you must also oppose the ends. Personally I think taxation in any form is theft and government services could be paid for on an as-used basis for a lot of things. And what's left could be funded in other ways. Of course that would mean a government that does far, far less than what people seem to want. So it seems that cow is long out of the barn.

 

As far as not caring for others Libertarians are the champions of private citizens rights. When the City of Riviera Beach in Florida wanted to use eminent domain to seize and demolish a poor neighborhood to build a new upscale marina and shopping center who funded the homeowners court challenge? The Libertarian Party of Florida. Who is helping pay court costs for the challenges to Trump's "muslim ban"? The US Libertarian Party. If your definition of caring for people is making them subservient wards of the state when you won't think libertarians care about people. If your idea of caring is defending their rights and property, protecting their income, and removing the roadblocks to their success and upward mobility then you'll find libertarians care deeply about people.

[Guard Dog]

 

Wealth is earned. Inheritances are earned by someone. Every dollar, yen, yuan, euro, or peso is the product of someones risk or labor or both.

We agree comrade, why should your boss get 85% of the value you produce? I'll see you at the next IWW meeting.

If I'm unhappy with my employment or feel I'm being  exploited then I am free to seek employment elsewhere. I am free to negotiate, or re-negotiate the terms of my employment. I am free to unionize with my fellow employees and bargain collectively. I'm also free to start my own business and work for myself. In fact I've personally done that three times.

 

But the catch is I can only do these things in a free country with a market economy where there is competition. If you had your way none of these things would ever be possible. I'd rather die than not have some control over my own destiny. Of course in your dream country I probably would since people who are not with the program are usually lined up and shot.

[213374U]

If I'm unhappy with my employment or feel I'm being  exploited then I am free to seek employment elsewhere. I am free to negotiate, or re-negotiate the terms of my employment. I am free to unionize with my fellow employees and bargain collectively. I'm also free to start my own business and work for myself. In fact I've personally done that three times.

 

But the catch is I can only do these things in a free country with a market economy where there is competition. If you had your way none of these things would ever be possible. I'd rather die than not have some control over my own destiny. Of course in your dream country I probably would since people who are not with the program are usually lined up and shot.

 

Sadly, there is no evidence that suggests that this "perfect competition" environment that would ensure absolute economic fairness and control of your destiny is anything but a fantasy. None. In fact, the more things veer towards deregulation, the worse the results for the vast majority. The typical ancap comeback is "that's because there's still much regulation impeding proper competition", but that's an unfalsifiable load of ****ing horse****, my friend. Pure rhetoric.

 

Being honest, what do think is the cause for the expanding ranks of the working poor? Are they lazy? Are they stupid? Both?

 

Didn't you get your education on the GI bill? Don't you think it's incredibly hypocritical then that you're crying bloody murder about the same taxes that allowed you access to better employment opportunities?

 

The bottom line seems to be: wealth redistribution, it's awesome if "the market" does it. If the state does it, it's oppression, tyranny, etc. right? But nominally, the state represents the people. Who does the market represent, exactly?

 

As an aside, I find it rather baffling how you keep going on about being lined up and shot when it's actually you who's constantly reminding us how willing you are to take up arms to defend your property... maybe put the guns down for a second and try to work out a compromise that doesn't involve anyone getting shot, eh?

Edited November 22, 2017 by 213374U

[Blarghagh]

Ugh, the longer this discussion goes on the louder I hear Craig T. Nelson echo in my ears.

 

(Numbers man posted while I was writing, pretend this is in direct response to Guard Dog.)

 

Competition in itself implies level playing field. Take this current FCC kerfuffle. Yes, deregulation would make it more "free". It'd also cause oligarchies and destruction of market competiton in many more sectors than just the ISP sector and clearly is a product not of a desire for freedom but of market collusion. Any true and fair competition requires arbitration, equal equipment,  etc. The reason people don't take "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" seriously anymore is because we're increasingly aware that some people start closer to the finish (wealth, lineage), use performance enhancing drugs (fraud, crime) and people have grown so accustomed to it that they're not even willing to consider that maybe it's not only their hard work but maybe in addition to that also having an advantage from the get-go. And then a bunch of those people try to bribe, change or outright remove arbitration based on their experience.

 

Right now everyone from the amateur teams to the special olympics team and the elementary school gym class are lumped into the championship league and most of the injured players aren't even allowed to leave the field. That "competition" sounds rigged to me. Competition requires a level playing field and proper arbitration. And yeah, duh, having that utopic perfectly level field or perfect arbitration is impossible on a global level and probably even a local political level, but right now we don't have anything even close - especially the United States. I'd wager the lack of proper arbitration made it harder for you to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" rather than easier - in fact, I think you know that because you despise the arbitration that did so. But your solution isn't fixing it, but removing it? Arbiters didn't notice it when you took a hit to the chin, so they shouldn't pay attention that the quarterback doesn't cold**** that disabled kid in the wheelchair either?

 

All respect to you, Guard Dog, I truly believe you worked hard, made smart decisions and damn well fought for where you are. Hats off, I'm often in fact inspired by you. But ask yourself, would you have gotten anywhere near that if you had been born and raised an African child soldier? You'd have to have done a crapload more pulling up on those bootstraps. How is it you can't see the impact of interpersonal differences on a smaller scale?

 

As for "getting lined up and shot", I'd wager that nobody will argue that the communist boogie-man countries ever had a fair competition. It doesn't get that far until enough people lost and decided to destroy the field, and I'm pretty sure most of your political solutions would edge the US closer to that happening.

 

EDIT: On a COMPLETELY different note:

 

"IT WAS ME! Too bad! WAAAAAAAAAH!" - The 45th President of the United States of America, Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

 

"Your demeanor is that of a pouty child."

Edited November 22, 2017 by TrueNeutral

[Malcador]

 

 

Why not let them keep their meager amount though? Some poor people not paying is that much of a bugbear to you?

 

The point about living in a society is true, though, not sure why the poor are automatically lazy parasites or something but libertarians and caring for others isn't typically a package.

 

I don't believe I referred to the poor as lazy parasites. 213374U seems to think I do too but with him if you oppose the means you must also oppose the ends. Personally I think taxation in any form is theft and government services could be paid for on an as-used basis for a lot of things. And what's left could be funded in other ways. Of course that would mean a government that does far, far less than what people seem to want. So it seems that cow is long out of the barn.

 

As far as not caring for others Libertarians are the champions of private citizens rights. When the City of Riviera Beach in Florida wanted to use eminent domain to seize and demolish a poor neighborhood to build a new upscale marina and shopping center who funded the homeowners court challenge? The Libertarian Party of Florida. Who is helping pay court costs for the challenges to Trump's "muslim ban"? The US Libertarian Party. If your definition of caring for people is making them subservient wards of the state when you won't think libertarians care about people. If your idea of caring is defending their rights and property, protecting their income, and removing the roadblocks to their success and upward mobility then you'll find libertarians care deeply about people.

 

 

Well didn't say you did say that.  Wasn't so much thinking about the party as much as individuals that declare themselves as such. Certainly has coloured my view of them, heh, running across types whose belief boils down to "**** you, I got mine".

[Elerond]

https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/933346267492646913

 

8:06AM: White House makes pool reporter issue a correction to say "The president will NOT have a low-key day and has a full schedule of meetings and phone calls."

9::26AM: The president goes golfing

 

I don't envy people who are running political satire magazines these days.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Elerond

[Malcador]

Sounds like life in a corporation

[Guard Dog]

 

If I'm unhappy with my employment or feel I'm being  exploited then I am free to seek employment elsewhere. I am free to negotiate, or re-negotiate the terms of my employment. I am free to unionize with my fellow employees and bargain collectively. I'm also free to start my own business and work for myself. In fact I've personally done that three times.

 

But the catch is I can only do these things in a free country with a market economy where there is competition. If you had your way none of these things would ever be possible. I'd rather die than not have some control over my own destiny. Of course in your dream country I probably would since people who are not with the program are usually lined up and shot.

 

Sadly, there is no evidence that suggests that this "perfect competition" environment that would ensure absolute economic fairness and control of your destiny is anything but a fantasy. None. In fact, the more things veer towards deregulation, the worse the results for the vast majority. The typical ancap comeback is "that's because there's still much regulation impeding proper competition", but that's an unfalsifiable load of ****ing horse****, my friend. Pure rhetoric.

 

Being honest, what do think is the cause for the expanding ranks of the working poor? Are they lazy? Are they stupid? Both?

 

Didn't you get your education on the GI bill? Don't you think it's incredibly hypocritical then that you're crying bloody murder about the same taxes that allowed you access to better employment opportunities?

 

The bottom line seems to be: wealth redistribution, it's awesome if "the market" does it. If the state does it, it's oppression, tyranny, etc. right? But nominally, the state represents the people. Who does the market represent, exactly?

 

As an aside, I find it rather baffling how you keep going on about being lined up and shot when it's actually you who's constantly reminding us how willing you are to take up arms to defend your property... maybe put the guns down for a second and try to work out a compromise that doesn't involve anyone getting shot, eh?

 

OK the problem here is with the term "economic fairness". The goal should be equal opportunity but what you are looking for is equal outcome. Everyone gets a cookie. If there are not enough cookies to go around then everyone gets half a cookie. Tom worked 40 hours, Harry worked 20 and they both get the same half of a cookie. When everyone gets the same outcome there is never enough for everyone to have it all. So everyone gets a little no matter what. You reduce everyone regardless of work ethic, education, etc to the lowest common denominator. It's certainly equal but I would not call it fair. Equal opportunity means you can better your situation but it does not mean it will happen.

 

Yes I did get my education thanks to the GI Bill. It is not a handout. First off I served in the military for 5 years to get it. Second I paid into it. They don't just give it to you, you have to contribute money into it. For me it was 1/4 of my pay after taxes. I think it's actually more now (but you get more money and more options for using it too).

 

When I first got out of the service I started a business performing electronic test equipment calibration. I invested all the money I'd saved in the military towards it. I worked like hell to get it off the ground. I cold called clients, heck I even worked for free a number of times just to show what I could do in the hopes of getting future business. Two years later it was over. I had no assets, $12k in debt, and no outs. As far as I know I did everything right but because of bad luck, or simply selling a service for which there was no demand I failed. 13 years later I started another business with some partners and it was a success. A life changing success. I was able to do this because of the opportunities that are afforded in a free economy. Everyone has those opportunities.

 

In the 1940s in Savannah GA there lived a man named Myers Anderson. He was a poor, working class black man with a wife and two young grandchildren he was raising. He built a small three bedroom home with his own hands using surplus material and salvaged odds and ends from his low wage construction job. He saved his money and started a coal oil business. After that became successful he bought some land and planted sorghum and millet that he sold as feed. By the time he died in the 1970s he was a reasonably wealthy man that sent both of his grand children to college. One of whom is now an Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court.

 

A man I once met was the son of penniless dutch immigrants in Chicago. His father worked as a garbage man his whole life. After high school he went to a small college you've never heard of for two years but had to drop out because he could not afford his tuition. He joined the Army and saved his money. When he got out he used his savings and bought a garbage truck and started his own garbage collection business. Soon bought another. And then another. In 1972 he took his garbage business public. By this time he had more than 130 garbage trucks in two cities. In 1983 his company Waste Management was the biggest waste disposal company in the US. The man was now a millionaire. In 1985 he bought a small chain of video rental stores and renamed it Blockbuster. When he sold it in 1995 he was a billionaire. He bought the NFL's Miami Dolphins and started the MLB's Florida Marlins. He built three major charities in Florida and the largest (and nicest) no-kill animal shelter in the US. That was actually how I met him. His name is Wayne Huizenga.

 

Debra Jayne Sivyer was working a part time job in Oakland CA making just $5 and hour. To say she and her husband were hard pressed to keep up with their bills would be an understatement. To make a little extra money she baked cookies in her kitchen and bagged them up in little bags of 3 and sold them to a few gas stations in her neighborhood. They were a hit. Soon she was selling cookies to gas stations and jiffy stores all over Alameda county. Then one day her and her husband borrowed money from his parents and opened a bakery. Today that business has over 650 stores world wide and her cookies are in every grocery store. You might know her by her married name: Debra Fields, or just Mrs. Fields.

 

People work hard and improve their lives every single day in this country, and others with similar opportunities. I know a similar story about a man in Mexico who started a tequila business on a shoestring. I could go on all day. The beauty of equal opportunity is that anyone... anyone at all can change their lives if they just try to do it. Maybe it won't work. Maybe it will. Even if you fail just don't give up. Imagine if I had given up after I failed. My life would be completely different, maybe not in a good way. But if economic equality is the goal, then there is no chance of having anything more than what you have now, what everyone else has.

 

That last bit about being line up and shot was supposed to be tounge-in-cheek. But to tell the truth is it ever did come down to the forced confiscation of property you had better believe I will not give it up without a fight. I'd rather die that day than live in the country where armed men can show up at your home and take whatever they want without us having the means to resist.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

No one mentioned equal outcome regardless of labor put in. I understand that's an easier argument to address, but we're talking about something else here.

 

As to your examples of rags to riches, good on them. However when the majoroty of cases are rags to rags and riches to riches, those inspiring examples won't do much for a guy whose father worked 40 hours a week to end up living in poverty and him on the same track.

[majestic]

As to your examples of rags to riches, good on them. However when the majoroty of cases are rags to rags and riches to riches, those inspiring examples won't do much for a guy whose father worked 40 hours a week to end up living in poverty and him on the same track.

 

That reminds me a bit of the arguments for alternative medicine. Here's some anecdotal evidence that there are people who got better after eating sugar globules or fondling a gemstone so it is proven to work. And if it doesn't work for someone he either not put enough effort in or did it wrong.

[Guard Dog]

No one mentioned equal outcome regardless of labor put in. I understand that's an easier argument to address, but we're talking about something else here.

 

As to your examples of rags to riches, good on them. However when the majoroty of cases are rags to rags and riches to riches, those inspiring examples won't do much for a guy whose father worked 40 hours a week to end up living in poverty and him on the same track.

What do you suppose he meant by economic fairness then? Based on everything we've been discussing these last three pages that is my interpretation of his message. If I'm incorrect 213374U then please let me know.

 

Now then. You are of course correct KP. It's much easier to make money if you start with money. And more often than not what starts in rags ends there. No one chooses to be poor. But you CAN choose to try to do something about it. If you are looking for a guarantee, there is none. This is life. It isn't fair.There are no guarantees save one: if you don't try to improve your situation, it will not improve. Every last one of us has the opportunity in the country and other like it to do that. The ones that do and succeed do not own an apology to the ones that don't try.

[Gfted1]

Theres at least two rags-to-riches stories just among our regular posters but everything invariably circles back to people not getting enough free hand outs in life. Luckily the world needs ditch diggers too.

[Guard Dog]

 

As to your examples of rags to riches, good on them. However when the majoroty of cases are rags to rags and riches to riches, those inspiring examples won't do much for a guy whose father worked 40 hours a week to end up living in poverty and him on the same track.

LOL! 40 hours? That's L-A-Z-Y! And what else? Free weekends? What do you expect after that? A mansion?

Get to work and stop complaining.

 

OK, sarcasm and acid wit is all fine and good. But you are dipping into it a lot. You are a smart guy sharpie, you can up your game a bit and make compelling arguments without that.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Theres at least two rags-to-riches stories just among our regular posters but everything invariably circles back to people not getting enough free hand outs in life. 

 

The plural of anecdote isn't data, and the data says you're vastly more likely to stay a miserable failure than you are to pull yourself up by the bootstraps.

[Guard Dog]

 

Theres at least two rags-to-riches stories just among our regular posters but everything invariably circles back to people not getting enough free hand outs in life. 

 

The plural of anecdote isn't data, and the data says you're vastly more likely to stay a miserable failure than you are to pull yourself up by the bootstraps.

 

Especially if you don't even try.

[Guard Dog]

If you guys want to see an example to follow, ask Gromnir to tell you his life story. No one on this board has bridged a bigger gap between misery and success than he has. And I'll give you a hint... he didn't get it because it was handed to him.

[ShadySands]

Theres at least two rags-to-riches stories just among our regular posters but everything invariably circles back to people not getting enough free hand outs in life. Luckily the world needs ditch diggers too.

I need names!

 

...and 20 dollars from each

Edited November 22, 2017 by ShadySands