First Ayn Rand, now Hayek and Koch

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm done with humanity. You all deserve to die. Myself included.

Hey, let's apply sociopathic principles to running the economy and see what happens!

1980-Present is on the line for you, Dark Empress.

I've been such a Pollyanna. I really believed that there was good in humankind, and that we could turn this boat around.

But no. We're doing it this way because we like it.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm done with humanity. You all deserve to die. Myself included.

Hey, let's apply sociopathic principles to running the economy and see what happens!

1980-Present is on the line for you, Dark Empress.

I've been such a Pollyanna. I really believed that there was good in humankind, and that we could turn this boat around.

But no. We're doing it this way because we like it.

If we didn't, we'd stop paying for it.

This is why primates are a poor choice as a dominant species.

[Doktor Howl]

Of course, it's not that primates are bad, just that they are easily distracted by bad signal.

[Elder Iptuous]

Just because the analogy is turned up to 11, doesn't mean the thought process isn't similar.

"I Strongly Believe this is Wrong; however, when it's convient, I'll do it anyway."

you don't see the qualitative difference?  you are conflating two distinct meanings of 'wrong'.  the one is seen as in inherently immoral action, the other is seen as bad policy.  if the policy allows for an act that one views as immoral, then it is entirely consistent that they not engage in it.  if the policy requires participation in a contract that one views as negative in aggregate, then it is entirely consistent to engage in both ends of the contract to minimize the perceived harm to the individual, even while advocating that it should be disestablished.

as a matter of principle, i would think that if it were proposed that the scheme be disestablished by funding the current generation of recipients while opting out of the benefits for your own generation, then i would expect it should be received favorably by these people. (whether that would be the case, i won't speculate)

[Doktor Howl]

Just because the analogy is turned up to 11, doesn't mean the thought process isn't similar.

"I Strongly Believe this is Wrong; however, when it's convient, I'll do it anyway."

you don't see the qualitative difference?  you are conflating two distinct meanings of 'wrong'.  the one is seen as in inherently immoral action, the other is seen as bad policy.  if the policy allows for an act that one views as immoral, then it is entirely consistent that they not engage in it.  if the policy requires participation in a contract that one views as negative in aggregate, then it is entirely consistent to engage in both ends of the contract to minimize the perceived harm to the individual, even while advocating that it should be disestablished.

as a matter of principle, i would think that if it were proposed that the scheme be disestablished by funding the current generation of recipients while opting out of the benefits for your own generation, then i would expect it should be received favorably by these people. (whether that would be the case, i won't speculate)

Nobody is required to participate.  They can emmigrate at any time.  There are plenty of places that don't have SSI.

[kingyak]

Just because the analogy is turned up to 11, doesn't mean the thought process isn't similar.

"I Strongly Believe this is Wrong; however, when it's convient, I'll do it anyway."

you don't see the qualitative difference?  you are conflating two distinct meanings of 'wrong'.  the one is seen as in inherently immoral action, the other is seen as bad policy.  if the policy allows for an act that one views as immoral, then it is entirely consistent that they not engage in it.  if the policy requires participation in a contract that one views as negative in aggregate, then it is entirely consistent to engage in both ends of the contract to minimize the perceived harm to the individual, even while advocating that it should be disestablished.

as a matter of principle, i would think that if it were proposed that the scheme be disestablished by funding the current generation of recipients while opting out of the benefits for your own generation, then i would expect it should be received favorably by these people. (whether that would be the case, i won't speculate)

Nobody is required to participate.  They can emmigrate at any time.  There are plenty of places that don't have SSI.

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

[Elder Iptuous]

Just because the analogy is turned up to 11, doesn't mean the thought process isn't similar.

"I Strongly Believe this is Wrong; however, when it's convient, I'll do it anyway."

you don't see the qualitative difference?  you are conflating two distinct meanings of 'wrong'.  the one is seen as in inherently immoral action, the other is seen as bad policy.  if the policy allows for an act that one views as immoral, then it is entirely consistent that they not engage in it.  if the policy requires participation in a contract that one views as negative in aggregate, then it is entirely consistent to engage in both ends of the contract to minimize the perceived harm to the individual, even while advocating that it should be disestablished.

as a matter of principle, i would think that if it were proposed that the scheme be disestablished by funding the current generation of recipients while opting out of the benefits for your own generation, then i would expect it should be received favorably by these people. (whether that would be the case, i won't speculate)

Nobody is required to participate.  They can emmigrate at any time.  There are plenty of places that don't have SSI.

of course.
no room for dissent on this train, right?

[Elder Iptuous]

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?

[Doktor Howl]

Just because the analogy is turned up to 11, doesn't mean the thought process isn't similar.

"I Strongly Believe this is Wrong; however, when it's convient, I'll do it anyway."

you don't see the qualitative difference?  you are conflating two distinct meanings of 'wrong'.  the one is seen as in inherently immoral action, the other is seen as bad policy.  if the policy allows for an act that one views as immoral, then it is entirely consistent that they not engage in it.  if the policy requires participation in a contract that one views as negative in aggregate, then it is entirely consistent to engage in both ends of the contract to minimize the perceived harm to the individual, even while advocating that it should be disestablished.

as a matter of principle, i would think that if it were proposed that the scheme be disestablished by funding the current generation of recipients while opting out of the benefits for your own generation, then i would expect it should be received favorably by these people. (whether that would be the case, i won't speculate)

Nobody is required to participate.  They can emmigrate at any time.  There are plenty of places that don't have SSI.

of course.
no room for dissent on this train, right?

Sure there is.  However, the majority of people WANT SSI, and if you can't abide by the will of the majority, then perhaps a republic isn't for you, and a different train is in order.

[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.

[kingyak]

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.

[Elder Iptuous]

Just because the analogy is turned up to 11, doesn't mean the thought process isn't similar.

"I Strongly Believe this is Wrong; however, when it's convient, I'll do it anyway."

you don't see the qualitative difference?  you are conflating two distinct meanings of 'wrong'.  the one is seen as in inherently immoral action, the other is seen as bad policy.  if the policy allows for an act that one views as immoral, then it is entirely consistent that they not engage in it.  if the policy requires participation in a contract that one views as negative in aggregate, then it is entirely consistent to engage in both ends of the contract to minimize the perceived harm to the individual, even while advocating that it should be disestablished.

as a matter of principle, i would think that if it were proposed that the scheme be disestablished by funding the current generation of recipients while opting out of the benefits for your own generation, then i would expect it should be received favorably by these people. (whether that would be the case, i won't speculate)

Nobody is required to participate.  They can emmigrate at any time.  There are plenty of places that don't have SSI.

of course.
no room for dissent on this train, right?

Sure there is.  However, the majority of people WANT SSI, and if you can't abide by the will of the majority, then perhaps a republic isn't for you, and a different train is in order.

That's my point.
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.
or, i guess, move to somalia because dissent is distasteful in a republic?

[Elder Iptuous]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Or because Somalia is a good place for sociopaths.

[Doktor Howl]

That's my point.
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.

Yeah, that comes alonq with the whole "freedom of speech" thing.  You have the right to peddle your views, and everyone else has the right to point out the huge fucking flaws.

 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.
or, i guess, move to somalia because dissent is distasteful in a republic?

No, I think it's more of an hilarious poke at a fat bastard who screeches endlessly about the evils of the system, while benefiting from it.  Notice the subtle difference.

And what's wrong with Somalia?  They're as free market as you can possibly get, which is why they're all rich.