http://www.thenation.com/article/163672/charles-koch-friedrich-hayek-use-social-security
There seems to be a severe problem of, well, you can either call it hypocrisy or shameless cynicism, with the Tea Party's various idols, backers and ideological influences.
QuoteThere's right-wing hypocrisy, and then there's this: Charles Koch, billionaire patron of free-market libertarianism, privately championed the benefits of Social Security to Friedrich Hayek, the leading laissez-faire economist of the twentieth century. Koch even sent Hayek a government pamphlet to help him take advantage of America's federal retirement insurance and healthcare programs.
Now, I'm familiar with Hayek's original
Road to Serfdom, where Hayek did (grudgingly) concede that a basic safety net may be required by some societies, so I wondered if this was as hypocritical as the authors were making out. However, it turns out in his later life, his positions on Social Security etc had considerably hardened:
QuoteCharles Koch and his brother, David, have waged a three-decade campaign to dismantle the American social safety net. At the center of their most recent push is the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, which has co-sponsored Tea Party events, spearheaded the war against healthcare reform and supported Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's attack on public sector unions. FreedomWorks, another conservative group central to the rise of the Tea Party and the right-wing attempt to dismantle Social Security and Medicare, emerged from an advocacy outfit founded by the Koch brothers called Citizens for a Sound Economy. FreedomWorks now exists as a separate entity that champions the "Austrian school" of economics.
Hayek, a founder of that school of thought, is primarily known for two major works. The first, The Road to Serfdom (1944), grudgingly accepts the possibility that some "free" countries might find it necessary to set up a bare-minimum catastrophic social insurance program limited to the very neediest, so long as the benefits do not incentivize productive members of society to abandon free-market retirement savings or medical insurance.
Hayek's comparatively liberal attitude toward social insurance hardened considerably by the time he published his 1960 opus, The Constitution of Liberty. Despite privately spending the intervening years paying into Social Security, Hayek devoted an entire chapter—titled "Social Security"—to denouncing the modern welfare state as a gateway to tyranny and moral decay. Ironically, one of Hayek's main objections to government programs like Social Security was the "fundamental absurdity" of using tax dollars to promote their benefits. In other words, Hayek publicly objected to the kind of brochure that Charles Koch sent him. In their private correspondence, however, we could find no objection to this "fundamental absurdity."
By the mid-1970s, Hayek had fully distanced himself from the modest benefits he'd originally conceded to in The Road to Serfdom. In his preface to the 1976 edition, he explained his "error": "I had not wholly freed myself from all the current interventionist superstitions, and in consequence still made various concessions which I now think unwarranted."
Sounds like shameless cynicism to me.
I have known some rightwingers who willingly accepted public assistance when they needed it, even after speaking out against the very same programs all their lives, rationalizing it on the basis of, "Well, I have been paying for it all these years, might as well use it."
It's in their enlightened self-interest to mooch off the state.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 11, 2011, 02:07:02 AM
Sounds like shameless cynicism to me.
I have known some rightwingers who willingly accepted public assistance when they needed it, even after speaking out against the very same programs all their lives, rationalizing it on the basis of, "Well, I have been paying for it all these years, might as well use it."
Frankly, that seems like a perfectly valid rationalization to me...
would you honestly expect someone who is opposed to a scheme to not take recoup what they have been obligated to pay in for so many years on principle?
If somebody were to take such a martyred stance, you would then call them not only an idiot for 'being wrong', but a fool for cutting off their nose to spite their face.
For what its worth, my Dad, as a devout Thatcherite, never claimed any of the benefits he could have claimed when he was out of work as a contractor, on the basis that we had enough money to get by, and if he did, he'd be taking money from people who needed it more.
I may not like his politics, but he is a very principled man.
Yeah, it's not hypocritical at all - except Hayek was openly agitating for the dissolution of such institutions and the Koch brothers were helping to fund propaganda and political movements aimed at the same thing.
Apart from that, there is no hypocrisy in either of their actions. :lol:
"THE FREE MARKET IS AWESOME, AND I AND MY FRIENDS ARE ALL COMFORTABLY WELL OFF OR WEALTHY...BUT HEY, IS THAT SOME FREE, SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE? SIGN ME UP!"
\
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Friedrich_Hayek_portrait.jpg)
kudos to those that are able and willing to let the money that they have been relieved of not be returned in the form of the social favors that it was intended for. They can get a warm feeling that they have made an altruistic gesture by turning a forced purchase into a voluntary donation. Or they can claim it as a pyrrhic victory.
if some social rule is in debate of being adopted, and the folks against it lose, then they will be forced to make whatever concession is required to make the gains that the proponents anticipate. But i see no reason that the opponents should be expected to wave those gains while the rule is in place any more than wave pompoms around in support of the new rule all of a sudden. The rule is in effect, and it is entirely rational to minimize your perceived loss from the setup until such time as you can have the rule dismantled.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 03:08:26 PM
kudos to those that are able and willing to let the money that they have been relieved of not be returned in the form of the social favors that it was intended for. They can get a warm feeling that they have made an altruistic gesture by turning a forced purchase into a voluntary donation. Or they can claim it as a pyrrhic victory.
if some social rule is in debate of being adopted, and the folks against it lose, then they will be forced to make whatever concession is required to make the gains that the proponents anticipate. But i see no reason that the opponents should be expected to wave those gains while the rule is in place any more than wave pompoms around in support of the new rule all of a sudden. The rule is in effect, and it is entirely rational to minimize your perceived loss from the setup until such time as you can have the rule dismantled.
In other words, the "principles" of the Libertarian are exactly as opportunistic and self-serving as they appear to be; the Libertarian is a sociopath.
As an analogy, it's sort of like a Christian pro-lifer getting an abortion because, you know, they're still legal in this country, and they can still choose not to have a kid, so why not?
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 03:08:26 PM
kudos to those that are able and willing to let the money that they have been relieved of not be returned in the form of the social favors that it was intended for. They can get a warm feeling that they have made an altruistic gesture by turning a forced purchase into a voluntary donation. Or they can claim it as a pyrrhic victory.
if some social rule is in debate of being adopted, and the folks against it lose, then they will be forced to make whatever concession is required to make the gains that the proponents anticipate. But i see no reason that the opponents should be expected to wave those gains while the rule is in place any more than wave pompoms around in support of the new rule all of a sudden. The rule is in effect, and it is entirely rational to minimize your perceived loss from the setup until such time as you can have the rule dismantled.
So, there's no actual principle involved here?
Nigel: Yes. however, they assuage their guilt by saying that there is a natural order of things that is arranged such that if everyone simply acted opportunistically, without causing direct harm to others, then everyone would be better off. (i am not advocating this, btw)
LMNO: no. that analogy fails because it is likening what they perceive as murder to a social contract that, while you could argue has some moral aspect to it, is not even in the same ballpark. this topic seems straight forward enough that it shouldn't require analogy unless one wants to drag heated emotion into it.
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."
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!
OMG
the sooner we are extinct, the better.
You see, since Libertarians HAVE no morals, nothing they do is wrong.
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 05:34:04 PM
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!
:cluephone:
1980-Present is on the line for you, Dark Empress.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 05:35:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 05:34:04 PM
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!
:cluephone:
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.
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 05:37:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 05:35:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 05:34:04 PM
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!
:cluephone:
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.
Of course, it's not that primates are bad, just that they are easily distracted by bad signal.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 05:30:43 PM
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)
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 05:30:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 05:58:33 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 05:30:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 05:58:33 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 05:30:43 PM
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?
Quote from: kingyak on October 11, 2011, 06:01:10 PM
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?
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:03:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 05:58:33 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 05:30:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:05:00 PM
Quote from: kingyak on October 11, 2011, 06:01:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:05:00 PM
Quote from: kingyak on October 11, 2011, 06:01:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 06:06:21 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:03:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 05:58:33 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 05:30:43 PM
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?
Quote from: kingyak on October 11, 2011, 06:11:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:05:00 PM
Quote from: kingyak on October 11, 2011, 06:01:10 PM
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.
Or because Somalia is a good place for sociopaths.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:11:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:11:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:14:17 PM
Quote from: kingyak on October 11, 2011, 06:11:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:05:00 PM
Quote from: kingyak on October 11, 2011, 06:01:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 06:14:38 PM
Or because Somalia is a good place for sociopaths.
The do have Libertarian Magic Dust there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0)
Libertarians = sociopaths.
It was unclear to me before, but now I understand. "Rational self-interest" actually says it all.
To be honest, I think most of the current crop have forgotten about the "rational" part.
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:32:04 PM
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? :lulz:
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.
Just one. Show me just ONE example where human nature has not prevailed in the most idiotic way possible.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:11:48 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 06:36:20 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:11:48 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 06:29:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 06:35:25 PM
So the facts aren't good enough for you, eh? You believe the world operates on magical wishful utopian thinking, and not reality? :lulz:
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:32:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 06:40:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 06:29:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:43:49 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 06:35:25 PM
So the facts aren't good enough for you, eh? You believe the world operates on magical wishful utopian thinking, and not reality? :lulz:
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 06:36:20 PM
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. :oops:
i love you all.
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 06:47:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 06:40:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 06:29:46 PM
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.
I sometimes wonder if the capitalists in Russia worry about Communist Unistat.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 06:59:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 06:47:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2011, 06:40:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 06:29:46 PM
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.
I sometimes wonder if the capitalists in Russia worry about Communist Unistat.
:lulz:
Just think of how lucky we are, to see this happening.
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 07:08:57 PM
Just think of how lucky we are, to see this happening.
"Life imitates :winner: "
I think we're almost at the part where someone tells us we're driving off new blood by not being nice.
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 07:17:29 PM
I think we're almost at the part where someone tells us we're driving off new blood by not being nice.
We're bad people, Nigel. We may as well get used to it.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:32:04 PM
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.
Not trying to equate the two, just pointing out that they're typically closely related. You can probably find a place with good infrastructure and no safety net (Saipan, maybe?), but there are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population). If I could live in the magical fantasy land where the free market creates rainbows and unicorns or the Marxist utopia where redistribution allows everyone to have their own pony, I--well, actually, I'd probably skip both of those and live in Lankhmar are something, since it's equally attainable. Unfortunately, physical reality and societal expectations require me to spend the majority of my time in consensus reality.
And I realize that the Somalia comparison is a little disingenuous, but I don't think it's that much more disingenuous than the proposition that it's possible to have a stable and impartial government if the government only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property.
Quote from: kingyak on October 11, 2011, 07:30:48 PM
Not trying to equate the two, just pointing out that they're typically closely related. You can probably find a place with good infrastructure and no safety net (Saipan, maybe?), but there are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population). If I could live in the magical fantasy land where the free market creates rainbows and unicorns or the Marxist utopia where redistribution allows everyone to have their own pony, I--well, actually, I'd probably skip both of those and live in Lankhmar are something, since it's equally attainable. Unfortunately, physical reality and societal expectations require me to spend the majority of my time in consensus reality.
And I realize that the Somalia comparison is a little disingenuous, but I don't think it's that much more disingenuous than the proposition that it's possible to have a stable and impartial government if the government only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property.
Post of the fucking year.
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 07:17:29 PM
I think we're almost at the part where someone tells us we're driving off new blood by not being nice.
:?
is this in reference to me? i'm the only one who (unsuccessfully :lol:) bowed out of this thread, and the only dissenting opinion afaict.
if so, i just wanted to say that i take no offense at debate like this. i just didn't want to further ruffle any feathers over this.
(and you can't get rid of me anyways. i'm like hpv or something. normally innocuous, but sometimes irritating, and perhaps somewhat embarrassing. :lol:)
kingyak,
i fully concede the point that they are closely related.
i also fully concede that a govt. that only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property will not be stable.
no argument at all.
could you expand on why not having SSI would lead to a situation where there 'are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population)'?
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 07:39:27 PM
kingyak,
i fully concede the point that they are closely related.
i also fully concede that a govt. that only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property will not be stable.
no argument at all.
could you expand on why not having SSI would lead to a situation where there 'are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population)'?
Um, because the same people who don't care about old people starving to death don't care about peoples' rights?
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 07:39:27 PM
kingyak,
i fully concede the point that they are closely related.
i also fully concede that a govt. that only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property will not be stable.
no argument at all.
could you expand on why not having SSI would lead to a situation where there 'are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population)'?
Not having SSI directly leads to a situation where the elderly can't afford to live, often through no fault of their own (imagine if social security would have been transferred to private savings accounts prior to 2008). In my opinion, that's a problem and a violation of basic human rights. It might be possible to construct a society that would take care of such people out of a sense of basic human decency, but observation of human nature and a quick look at, oh, roughly the entirety of human history suggests that it's just about as likely as vacationing in Gondor.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 07:33:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 07:17:29 PM
I think we're almost at the part where someone tells us we're driving off new blood by not being nice.
:?
is this in reference to me? i'm the only one who (unsuccessfully :lol:) bowed out of this thread, and the only dissenting opinion afaict.
if so, i just wanted to say that i take no offense at debate like this. i just didn't want to further ruffle any feathers over this.
(and you can't get rid of me anyways. i'm like hpv or something. normally innocuous, but sometimes irritating, and perhaps somewhat embarrassing. :lol:)
Not referring to you at all, just a board trend that repeats itself once or twice a year. :lulz:
Quote from: kingyak on October 11, 2011, 07:51:33 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 07:39:27 PM
kingyak,
i fully concede the point that they are closely related.
i also fully concede that a govt. that only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property will not be stable.
no argument at all.
could you expand on why not having SSI would lead to a situation where there 'are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population)'?
Not having SSI directly leads to a situation where the elderly can't afford to live, often through no fault of their own (imagine if social security would have been transferred to private savings accounts prior to 2008). In my opinion, that's a problem and a violation of basic human rights. It might be possible to construct a society that would take care of such people out of a sense of basic human decency, but observation of human nature and a quick look at, oh, roughly the entirety of human history suggests that it's just about as likely as vacationing in Gondor.
I was about to say something like that, but you already did so I'll just agree.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:43:49 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 06:35:25 PM
So the facts aren't good enough for you, eh? You believe the world operates on magical wishful utopian thinking, and not reality? :lulz:
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.
I get your point and was just about to argue it, but then as I was trying to, well there's
principles involved. And the fact is, these people are wrong. They're wrong about not wanting to pay health insurance (Nigel's sociopath argument) and the rest doesn't really matter all that much. A good principled man might refuse it, but then these are not good principled men.
Like if you think the bio industry is wrong how they treat animals, you shouldn't eat meat produced by this bio industry.
Like if you think child labour is wrong, you shouldn't buy brands that employ child labour.
Like if you think the rare "blood metals" mined in slavery in the Congo and other parts of Africa are wrong, you shouldn't use a mobile phone or electronic gadget.
I get your point though. Being a good person is hard.
kingyak, I can see your point. it is undeniable that having SSI allows for elderly to live or live better than they would without it, and although it doesn't necessarily follow that not having SSI leads to the opposite situation if you allow for a different system of protection, i would agree that simply relying on the generosity of neighbors doesn't cut the mustard. you're right, it never has, and likely never would, and just wishing it would be that way, and basing policy on the fact that it should be that way would certainly lead to unfortunate circumstances for innocent people.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 08:18:33 PM
kingyak, I can see your point. it is undeniable that having SSI allows for elderly to live or live better than they would without it, and although it doesn't necessarily follow that not having SSI leads to the opposite situation if you allow for a different system of protection, i would agree that simply relying on the generosity of neighbors doesn't cut the mustard. you're right, it never has, and likely never would, and just wishing it would be that way, and basing policy on the fact that it should be that way would certainly lead to unfortunate circumstances for innocent people.
I'm not saying SSI is the only solution, but whatever different system of protection you come up with is still going to cost something, so it's ultimately a matter of how to distribute the costs and payouts. The end result is still the same.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 11, 2011, 06:57:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 06:36:20 PM
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. :oops:
i love you all.
Do you have a job? I sure hope so. My SSI Disability check comes on the 1st.
are the coffers running that low already?!
:p
Quote from: Iptuous on October 12, 2011, 04:33:59 AM
are the coffers running that low already?!
:p
I think this conversation had some teeth because you decided to play devil's advocate for a bit. :D
Quote from: Nigel on October 11, 2011, 06:28:58 PM
Libertarians = sociopaths.
It was unclear to me before, but now I understand. "Rational self-interest" actually says it all.
Aaaah, my pal Uriah posted to his G+ account something that gave me a similar illumination (he's a little wordy... I like your summation):
QuoteIf you think that the progressives don't give a shit about liberty I don't think you know a damn thing about liberty OR progressives. If you can't see that it's important to demand the right to liberty for the weakest among us above the objections of the powerful, then we have no common ground. Liberty is demanded, and then taken from the powerful, and there is no meaningful difference between making that demand on the national level and doing it on a local level, except that operating at the national level ensures that there are no holdouts but the simmering discontent of the bigots who have been reduced to outsiders. No matter what level of government it happens at, it is still imposing the will of the majority over other people, no matter how small you atomize it, even if you reduce it to just a social contract, like white people basically agreeing not to say the n-word, it's still imposing upon others the will of the majority. There is no such thing as a society without a social contract. It's not even that a society that promotes individualism above all else is tantamount to barbarism-- it's that it cannot even be said to exist, it's not even possible. It is in our natures, indivisible from the human experience itself, fundamental to all of human interaction.
The question is not whether or not a society imposes its will on its members, nor is it a question of what scale or organizational structure that imposition uses-- the question is whether the impositions that society places upon its members are just, it's whether they are in support of liberty or not, it's whether they have a reasoned and firm basis to believe that liberty and justice will be furthered by their program. THAT is the difference between the neocons and the progressives.
Libertarianism is not even wrong-- it is simply so hopelessly naive that it can never begin to achieve its aims, and so directionless and idealistic that it can be used to justify most any injustice, so long as it's not done at the hands of democracy. It is anti-democratic at its heart, the abandonment of the social responsibility for pursuing justice that we all have.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 12, 2011, 04:33:59 AM
are the coffers running that low already?!
:p
You asked for that one! :)