First Ayn Rand, now Hayek and Koch

[Doktor Howl]

Yeah, but all those places have shitty roads, unreliable power grids, and slow internet connections.

are you suggesting that this infrastructure is the purpose of social security?

Nope.  But the same types of places that want SSI also tend to worry about things like infrastructure.

Exactly.

one need not to sign up to ideas in a package deal.  attempting to tie the one to the other is a good way of dodging, though.

That's not what the fuck I said.

I said THE TYPE OF PEOPLE WHO WANT SSI ALSO TEND TO BE THE PEOPLE WHO WORRY ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE.

At what fucking point did I say a fucking word about you having to have one or the other?

Okay, that does it.  We're right back to the same old song and dance on liberatarianism.  I'm on board.  Let's burn this bitch down.

[kingyak]

Or because Somalia is a good place for sociopaths.

The do have Libertarian Magic Dust there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Libertarians = sociopaths.

It was unclear to me before, but now I understand. "Rational self-interest" actually says it all.

[LMNO]

To be honest, I think most of the current crop have forgotten about the "rational" part.

[Elder Iptuous]

Dok, all i'm saying is that i'm not seeing, in plain terms, what the huge fucking flaw is.  
'ahhh hahaha!  you didn't want in on what you believe is a huge pyramid scheme, but now that you are forced to, you are getting back what you can from it!'

by saying that the places that don't have SSI have shitty infrastructure, kingyak is tying the two together.  although it doesn't explicitly say that not having SSI will lead to shitty infrastructure, it implies that the thinking required for the one leads to the other (which is why it appeared to me that he was packaging them), and i don't agree.
further, i'm not advocating any stance on infrastructure here.  we were only discussing SSI.

and, although i've mostly put my 'libertarian hat' in the closet these days, i would say that the response to your somalian free market comment is that a free market requires legal regulation by an impartial state to enforce contract, right?  conflating anarchy and the free market is disingenuous.  actually, you're right. there's no need for the same old song and dance on libertarianism, especially since i'm not advocating it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Dok, all i'm saying is that i'm not seeing, in plain terms, what the huge fucking flaw is.  
'ahhh hahaha!  you didn't want in on what you believe is a huge pyramid scheme, but now that you are forced to, you are getting back what you can from it!'

by saying that the places that don't have SSI have shitty infrastructure, kingyak is tying the two together.  although it doesn't explicitly say that not having SSI will lead to shitty infrastructure, it implies that the thinking required for the one leads to the other (which is why it appeared to me that he was packaging them), and i don't agree.
further, i'm not advocating any stance on infrastructure here.  we were only discussing SSI.

and, although i've mostly put my 'libertarian hat' in the closet these days, i would say that the response to your somalian free market comment is that a free market requires legal regulation by an impartial state to enforce contract, right?  conflating anarchy and the free market is disingenuous.  actually, you're right. there's no need for the same old song and dance on libertarianism, especially since i'm not advocating it.

So the facts aren't good enough for you, eh? You believe the world operates on magical wishful utopian thinking, and not reality? 

Show me your free-market paradise, and then I'll concede that you might have a point beyond magickal Jesus and candle-lighting prophecy. Otherwise, it's as big a load of bunkum as vaccines causing autism.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Just one. Show me just ONE example where human nature has not prevailed in the most idiotic way possible.

[LMNO]

they are abiding by the will of the majority, and now are being criticized for it, because they advocate a differing opinion of how it should be set up.  what this thread is saying is that they should contribute to the cost of the safety net, but decline to gain from it, simply because they don't think it should be set up that way.

Ipt, it's Rationalism 101.  

If one has ideas about Reality, and then experiences things that are contrary to those ideas, the one must change their ideas about Reality.


If you say that SSI is wrong and unecessary, and then find yourself in a situation where you are in need of it and use it, then you need to rethink your ideas about SSI.

Look at the Feynman quote in Dok Howl's sig, and think about how that applies to the conversation we're having.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

they are abiding by the will of the majority, and now are being criticized for it, because they advocate a differing opinion of how it should be set up.  what this thread is saying is that they should contribute to the cost of the safety net, but decline to gain from it, simply because they don't think it should be set up that way.

Ipt, it's Rationalism 101.  

If one has ideas about Reality, and then experiences things that are contrary to those ideas, the one must change their ideas about Reality.


If you say that SSI is wrong and unecessary, and then find yourself in a situation where you are in need of it and use it, then you need to rethink your ideas about SSI.

Look at the Feynman quote in Dok Howl's sig, and think about how that applies to the conversation we're having.

Come on, now. REALITY? What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about ideals, here.

[Doktor Howl]

To be honest, I think most of the current crop have forgotten about the "rational" part.

I don't see what they're bitching about, anyway.  We've been handing the fucking country over to rich people for 30 years now, and lemme tell ya, those corporations are doing a GREAT job of running the place.  We've fucked public schools, and then said they never worked, and that we should replace them with "school vouchers" so we can send our kids to something like Wal-Mart for their fucking education.

We've run our post office into the ground, cancelled manned space flight, taken up torture as a hobby, and made it possible to let rich people make out like bandits by shipping all the jobs to Maylaysia...and, of course, the fact that nobody here can BUY anything, anymore, is simply a sign that they just haven't done it enough.

Fucking capitalists are utterly indistinguishable from communists, to anyone standing on the ground.  I fucking hate them with the fire of a thousand suns.

[Elder Iptuous]

So the facts aren't good enough for you, eh? You believe the world operates on magical wishful utopian thinking, and not reality? 

Show me your free-market paradise, and then I'll concede that you might have a point beyond magickal Jesus and candle-lighting prophecy. Otherwise, it's as big a load of bunkum as vaccines causing autism.

Nigel, we are in agreement here.  there is no free-market paradise.  i don't think that it's possible, and i'm not advocating it.
My only stance in this thread is that laughing at these guys for benefiting from a system that they argued against doesn't make sense to me.

[Doktor Howl]

Dok, all i'm saying is that i'm not seeing, in plain terms, what the huge fucking flaw is.  

I know.  The train is shiny red, so everything is fine.  No need to get out of the way.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To be honest, I think most of the current crop have forgotten about the "rational" part.

I don't see what they're bitching about, anyway.  We've been handing the fucking country over to rich people for 30 years now, and lemme tell ya, those corporations are doing a GREAT job of running the place.  We've fucked public schools, and then said they never worked, and that we should replace them with "school vouchers" so we can send our kids to something like Wal-Mart for their fucking education.

We've run our post office into the ground, cancelled manned space flight, taken up torture as a hobby, and made it possible to let rich people make out like bandits by shipping all the jobs to Maylaysia...and, of course, the fact that nobody here can BUY anything, anymore, is simply a sign that they just haven't done it enough.

Fucking capitalists are utterly indistinguishable from communists, to anyone standing on the ground.  I fucking hate them with the fire of a thousand suns.

We don't practice anything even vaguely resembling capitalism, here. We've decided to change the definition of capitalism so that it matches corporatism, and so that rather then having the opportunity to profit from utilizing your resources at hand... your hands, your brain, your feet, and what you can make or grow... it means the opportunity to invest in stocks. That's it.

I wonder how many people know that "capitalism" didn't originally mean investing money in other people's work in order to profit? The fascinating thing is that the definition we use now came from Karl Marx, who reviled it.

Oh, the irony.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So the facts aren't good enough for you, eh? You believe the world operates on magical wishful utopian thinking, and not reality? 

Show me your free-market paradise, and then I'll concede that you might have a point beyond magickal Jesus and candle-lighting prophecy. Otherwise, it's as big a load of bunkum as vaccines causing autism.

Nigel, we are in agreement here.  there is no free-market paradise.  i don't think that it's possible, and i'm not advocating it.
My only stance in this thread is that laughing at these guys for benefiting from a system that they argued against doesn't make sense to me.

Right, because they're sociopaths. They have no principles and no morals other than personally benefiting in any way possible, so their behavior, while morally reprehensible to people who have morals, is perfectly consistent with their worldview.

[Elder Iptuous]

Ipt, it's Rationalism 101.  

If one has ideas about Reality, and then experiences things that are contrary to those ideas, the one must change their ideas about Reality.


If you say that SSI is wrong and unecessary, and then find yourself in a situation where you are in need of it and use it, then you need to rethink your ideas about SSI.

Look at the Feynman quote in Dok Howl's sig, and think about how that applies to the conversation we're having.

I don't think it was established that the SSI is correct and necessary.  They're simply recouping their losses, right?  would they have fallen to rock bottom had the safety net not been there?  and if they would, and the safety net saved them, would that imply that there is not any alternative that could conceivably work equally well without resorting to what they oppose?  It may be the case.  perhaps so. but i they have not invalidated their position in their actions, from what i can see.

look, i'm not advocating anything here that anyone is opposed to, so i guess i don't have a dog in the fight.  it seems apparent that the only reason that i am engaged in debate here is because there was some ribbing of some guy that is commonly seen as a nincompoop amongst the people here, and i got in the way of the poking because i didn't think it was warranted in this case.  i shoulda known better, and i really don't want to get anybody riled up at me, over it.

so, actually, i'll just do the milquetoast shuffle on outta here.  sorry for pooping in the punch, guys.  
i love you all.