[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Again, and I repeat, there is never a right answer when it comes to policy decisions.
People are far to quick to take the economic view that taxes are “dead weight loss”, when it’s damn near impossible to quantify the savings of living in a stable an educated society, with community and distribution infrastructure that ensures almost 0 “real loss” of products and services.
[/quote]
You are assuming that running things in a logical manner will prohibit someone from getting a good education. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wonder how you reached such an erroneous conclusion?
I appreciate your participation my friend, but you have not yet replied with an answer which contradicts my original assumption.
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Again, and I repeat, there is never a right answer when it comes to policy decisions.
People are far to quick to take the economic view that taxes are “dead weight loss”, when it’s damn near impossible to quantify the savings of living in a stable an educated society, with community and distribution infrastructure that ensures almost 0 “real loss” of products and services.
[/quote]
You are assuming that running things in a logical manner will prohibit someone from getting a good education. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wonder how you reached such an erroneous conclusion?
I appreciate your participation my friend, but you have not yet replied with an answer which contradicts my original assumption.
[/quote]
What conclusion did I make? I’m beginning to wonder the point of debating with someone with such poor reading comprehension.
Now before you run for your box of kleenex because of the “personal attacks” read what I wrote, and how you responded. Its apples and oranges every time.
As for private education, of course it could work, it just hasn’t been properly executed yet, and of course, there is always the issue of low income people, and how are their children going to attend.
You have a problem with me for thinking that a instiution whos objective is to invade and kill is “evil”. then i must go “eye roll”
[/quote]
Yeah I have a big problem with anyone who condemns the US military. You can make any claims you want about the politicians who control said military. But the US military IS NOT an evil institution. For you to make such a blanket indictment tells me more about you than the object of your condemnation. Without the US military we would be living in a very different world right now. And I assure you, you wouldn’t like it. Stop posting for a few months and catch up on your world history. Begin with Adolph Hitler and go from there.
If you post again, and I hope you don’t, I want to know:
1-What country you’re from
2-How old you are
3-If you’ve ever known anyone who has served in the US military.
You’ve made a very serious error and that should not go unnoticed by anyone reading this thread.
[/quote]
Its my opinion, deal with it. I am btw no fan of any institution that invade others, be it Usa, Russia or Norway for that matter.
All the info you want about me is in my hub.
blind patriotism is not based on logic btw, I thougt that was the point of this tread to discuss this issues from a perspective of logic and open mindedness.
If you want to question my character, history skills etc, or in other words make shit personal, our discussion is over. If we keep on track with the original argument without making it personal, we can continue.
the ball is in your court.[/quote]
It’s not about blind patriotism, it’s about fact and yes, logic. Go study history and the many times that the US military saved not only our hemisphere but the entire world. If you want to discredit that go do it somewhere else.
I already said that the discussion was over----It’s over. Bye.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Anyway, I know this is probably something simple and well-known but I’m still young and learning these things so it’s new to me. The cause of this discussion was that my brother said he’d like to only work 4 days/wk instead of 5. More ‘me time’. I mentioned how the gov’t wastes a lot of the money they receive in taxes. The more you’re taxed the less you have, so if you want to maintain/increase your standard of living you have to work more(lose more of your life so to speak).
It made me realize that if the gov’t didn’t waste so much in taxes, most people would have a higher standard of living while being able to work less and enjoy life more.
Does this add up the same in reality?[/quote]
Well, let us assume for a moment that utility is ordinal and not in any measurable way transferable between human beings.
That would lead us with only one perfect hypothetical outcome, the Pareto maximum. The market always chases it, but, since it is a moving target never quite reaches it. THe reason for that is because the Pareto optimum is defined as the point where noone can be made better off without making someone else worse off. As long as people trade on their free will they are at least ex ante always better off. Since the Pareto optimum shifts as soon as the trade is completed it is never actually reached.
Now if government steps in and does something with the same amount of money utility is lost. True, the same amount of money is spent, but that translates into less utility because if people had actually wanted what the government is offering they would have bought it themselves.
The reason why this happens is that individual utility goes up if you spend other peoples money on yourself, whereas overall utility goes down.
Second thing is that a welfare state punishes economic sucess while it rewards economic failure. As always, if you punish something you get less than you would otherwise, if you subsidize it you get more. That leads to less economic growth than you would have had otherwise which compounds year after year after year.
Cliff notes: Government interference destroys wealth per definition (as in, the definition of utility) and the welfare state saps enough energy out of the market that the rising tide does not lift all boats as fast as it could have which means that after a few decades the poor are far worse off than they would have been otherwise.
[/quote]
You have a problem with me for thinking that a instiution whos objective is to invade and kill is “evil”. then i must go “eye roll”
[/quote]
Yeah I have a big problem with anyone who condemns the US military. You can make any claims you want about the politicians who control said military. But the US military IS NOT an evil institution. For you to make such a blanket indictment tells me more about you than the object of your condemnation. Without the US military we would be living in a very different world right now. And I assure you, you wouldn’t like it. Stop posting for a few months and catch up on your world history. Begin with Adolph Hitler and go from there.
If you post again, and I hope you don’t, I want to know:
1-What country you’re from
2-How old you are
3-If you’ve ever known anyone who has served in the US military.
You’ve made a very serious error and that should not go unnoticed by anyone reading this thread.
[/quote]
Its my opinion, deal with it. I am btw no fan of any institution that invade others, be it Usa, Russia or Norway for that matter.
All the info you want about me is in my hub.
blind patriotism is not based on logic btw, I thougt that was the point of this tread to discuss this issues from a perspective of logic and open mindedness.
If you want to question my character, history skills etc, or in other words make shit personal, our discussion is over. If we keep on track with the original argument without making it personal, we can continue.
the ball is in your court.[/quote]
It’s not about blind patriotism, it’s about fact and yes, logic. Go study history and the many times that the US military saved not only our hemisphere but the entire world. If you want to discredit that go do it somewhere else.
I already said that the discussion was over----It’s over. Bye. [/quote]
I do allready study history.
WW2: Germany started the war, they invaded other countrys, they where aggressive exactley the thing I am against.
cold war: If things had gone down a different path than it did, neither me or you are able to know what would have happen. there are millions or more possible scenarios.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
That ZEB started this thread is absolute hysterically funny.[/quote]
Coming from you that’s a compliment -YOU are the one extolling marxism as the answer (eye roll) even those of a more liberal persuasion know better than that. You see junior you’re at the bottom of the food chain around here.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Grow up and stop thinking your so much better than the rest of the posters.
[/quote]
This one sentence speaks volumes.
[/quote]
Swole my man you gotta keep that inferiority complex in check. There are only a few of us that actually know you’re a Community College drop out. Shhhh…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Grow up and stop thinking your so much better than the rest of the posters.
[/quote]
This one sentence speaks volumes.
[/quote]
Swole my man you gotta keep that inferiority complex in check. There are only a few of us that actually know you’re a Community College drop out. Shhhh…[/quote]
No, Zeb! Please don’t reveal my secret past… that you learned about because I revealed it here… on a forum… where anyone can read it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Grow up and stop thinking your so much better than the rest of the posters.
[/quote]
This one sentence speaks volumes.
[/quote]
Swole my man you gotta keep that inferiority complex in check. There are only a few of us that actually know you’re a Community College drop out. Shhhh…[/quote]
No, Zeb! Please don’t reveal my secret past… that you learned about because I revealed it here… on a forum… where anyone can read it.
Don’t throw me in the briar patch, Brare Rabbit![/quote]
Kicking you around has been fun and all, but if you have nothing to say on topic I’d appreciate it if you’d play punching bag on another thread.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
I’ve never understood why there isn’t a privatized version unemployment insurance. Oh wait, there is. It’s called saving your money for an emergency.[/quote]
What has occurred interestingly enough is that many people have gotten so dependent upon government (because government is always there to support their every need) that they don’t feel the necessity to do such things.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Grow up and stop thinking your so much better than the rest of the posters.
[/quote]
This one sentence speaks volumes.
[/quote]
Swole my man you gotta keep that inferiority complex in check. There are only a few of us that actually know you’re a Community College drop out. Shhhh…[/quote]
No, Zeb! Please don’t reveal my secret past… that you learned about because I revealed it here… on a forum… where anyone can read it.
Don’t throw me in the briar patch, Brare Rabbit![/quote]
Kicking you around has been fun and all, but if you have nothing to say on topic I’d appreciate it if you’d play punching bag on another thread.
[/quote]
This is the topic, Zeb. Your tone of discussion is exactly the topic.
You consistently present your opinions as if they are incontrovertible fact… you include in your arguments the statement that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is illogical, naive, ignorant, young, foolish, stupid, etc…
And, yet you are surprised when the posters here who you categorically ridicule turn it back on you.
You are essentially the bully of this forum, but you clearly can not take what you dish out.
If you truly want to understand why a good portion of the world does not agree with you, you should start by not ridiculing them. You should also learn the difference between opinion and fact.
Kicking you around has been fun and all, but if you have nothing to say on topic I’d appreciate it if you’d play punching bag on another thread.
This is the topic, Zeb. Your tone of discussion is exactly the topic. [/quote]
Good try, but you were the first one to toss out an ad hominem attack on this thread. Not me, not anyone else, YOU. You are the poster child for not being able to take it after you dish it out.
You want it to be about me, you always want it to be about me, or whichever poster has pointed out your latest fail. Each time I’ve proven you wrong you’ve taken the thread to a personal level, just as you are doing with this one.
The topic is “Logic Should Prevail”. I’ll interpret this for you since once again you are not up to speed. What I am looking for in this thread is for legitimate posters (usually not you)to back up their long-held political beliefs with logic. If a certain political position has to be defended with emotional words such as “fair” or “Compassion” then logic is lost. My supposition is that politics would serve us better if there were more logic and less emotion. If posters feel that my logical analysis is incorrect they can move forward with their own plan.
You however have failed (you’ve heard that a lot in your life) to respond even one time correctly. Not unlike many of your other posts. You’ve proven yourself to be an overbearing, obnoxious know it all, who in reality couldn’t even make it in a simple Community College. I do hate to keep mentioning that but I feel it has something to do with you always trying to prove yourself around here. What else could it be?
Now move on, go dumb down someone else’s thread. T Nation is a very cool and open place. They have a great tolerance for people like yourself who enjoy rambling on, usually off topic (as you’ve taken this thread) and never making much sense.
[quote]If you truly want to understand why a good portion of the world does not agree with you…
[/quote]
My gosh you really are stupid. A good portion of the world does in fact agree with me. One only need look at the take over of the House, but that’s another topic. Take a deep breath and try to focus in on what is happening around you. Read more, observe more and post less. And finally, stop trying to make up for your lack of education on a message board - Sheesh you are pathetic!
Here’s one that I’ve read on here before.
Give or take this is what it has sounded like
“People that receive money from the gov’t shouldn’t be allowed to vote”
Would this include SS pensions? unemployment? welfare? all of the above? some other area or combination that I don’t know of?
Logical? or not?
This thread has already devolved into a string of personal attacks, but I’ll take a shot at addressing the topic.
In my opinion, political differences aren’t due to logical inconsistencies. Not really. People may twist logic to suit their preconceptions, but that’s not the root of the disagreement. It usually comes down to differences in values.
There are intelligent, educated people on both sides of the aisle. As with most subjects, there are no black and white answers to complex social problems. All you can do is understand the ramifications of different policies, and determine which policy best achieves the values you want to promote.
If you’ll forgive the stereotypes for illustrative purposes, let’s go with this example. Republicans value hard work, and understandably feel they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Others should work as they do, and will be rewarded accordingly.
Democrats value helping others, particularly those that can’t help themselves.
Both values are admirable, but how they play out is the root of policy disagreements.
Personally, I think there should be a balance. People shouldn’t be rewarded for sitting on their ass, but they should be taught to and given the opportunity to fish. If they’re incapable of fishing, the government should help them. If they’re unwilling to fish, they’re on their own.
Good try, but you were the first one to toss out an ad hominem attack on this thread. Not me, not anyone else, YOU. You are the poster child for not being able to take it after you dish it out. [/quote]
Interesting assumption considering that your first post was in fact a preemptive, ad hominem attack on all those who might disagree with you.
What exactly have you 'proven" me to be wrong about?
That you are insecure? As evidenced by your repeated attacks on my level of education? Or, we could go back to the post I was responding too initially when I characterized you as insecure, the one in which you off-handedly attacked someone’s intelligence based on their age?
Ironic considering the none-too-subtle resentment that laces your entire first post.
You, Zeb, have not presented a logical argument. You may claim that you have, but you have not. PTD did a very good job of showing why this is the case. I suppose there’s no convincing you, though.
Gosh, you’re right, Zeb. That must be it. I couldn’t possibly be posting here for the occasional enlightening conversation, or perhaps to better understand different points of view… or more obviously because I simply like debate. You’ve hit the nail on head. That’s for sure. I’m here posting with a purely anonymous user name in order to prove myself to a bunch of other purely anonymous people. Yep. I’m here to prove myself.
Since you know me so well, I’m sure that you considered every other success and failure that I’ve experienced in life… Actually, probably not, since you don’t even seem to grasp how a 2-year degree fits into my experience… something that I am quite proud of actually and which affords me the opportunity to spend time on this usually enjoyable forum.
I’n stupid?
let me get this straight. A good portion of the world agrees with you. This is your response to a good portion of the world not agreeing with you. Interesting logic there.
I am 100% on topic here. Your confusion about the logic or lack thereof in positions other than yours has everything to do with you not understanding how logic relates to opinion.
There are no doubt differing degrees of logic to every position imaginable. But, this is not the source of your misunderstanding. Don’t worry. I used to have the exact same confusion… Some of the most intelligent and successful people that I know hold positions that differ diametrically from mine. For years, I wondered at this gap in their intelligence, assuming that there must be some sinister work at force to sway them to such illogicality.
Somehow (I really wish I understood the mechanism and could communicate it) I began to understand that their positions were in fact no more or less logical than mine, and that I would be better served to try to understand their logic than to try to understand why they would hold positions that were illogical. Do you understand the difference?
Actually - I do remember how this change in my reasoning came about. A good friend gave me a copy of The Black Swan by Nicholas Thaleib. In it, he laid out a compelling case for the futility of predictive reasoning in politics and economics. When I began to grasp the complexity of the world we operate in, I began to understand how two equally intelligent people can look at the same sociopolitical issue and come to entirely different conclusions. There are nearly infinite amounts of variables related to any issue, and for people to reach agreement, they have to narrow their focus to the same variables.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Here’s one that I’ve read on here before.
Give or take this is what it has sounded like
“People that receive money from the gov’t shouldn’t be allowed to vote”
Would this include SS pensions? unemployment? welfare? all of the above? some other area or combination that I don’t know of?
Logical? or not?
[/quote]
Interesting concept. If one does not contribute to society and never has perhaps they should have less rights in that society. Would this encourage them to stop living off the state? With some it wouldn’t make a difference as they do not vote anyway. However, it’s my guess that none of them were allowed to vote until they were productive members of society we may eventually have a different country, a better country.
[quote]forlife wrote:
This thread has already devolved into a string of personal attacks, but I’ll take a shot at addressing the topic.
In my opinion, political differences aren’t due to logical inconsistencies. Not really. People may twist logic to suit their preconceptions, but that’s not the root of the disagreement. It usually comes down to differences in values.
There are intelligent, educated people on both sides of the aisle. As with most subjects, there are no black and white answers to complex social problems. All you can do is understand the ramifications of different policies, and determine which policy best achieves the values you want to promote.
If you’ll forgive the stereotypes for illustrative purposes, let’s go with this example. Republicans value hard work, and understandably feel they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Others should work as they do, and will be rewarded accordingly.
Democrats value helping others, particularly those that can’t help themselves.
Both values are admirable, but how they play out is the root of policy disagreements.
Personally, I think there should be a balance. People shouldn’t be rewarded for sitting on their ass, but they should be taught to and given the opportunity to fish. If they’re incapable of fishing, the government should help them. If they’re unwilling to fish, they’re on their own. [/quote]
Not a bad response but I honestly feel that with every problem there is an optimum way to handle it. Not unlike game theory where there is usually an optimum way to play. Also, while people should not be rewarded for sitting on their butts they should be encouraged to get back to work. It only makes sense that if there is a window of (call it) “reward opportunity” that the typical worker would be looking for a job quite a bit harder than they currently do. Right now they know that if they do not find work they have a sweet check from the government coming in every week so no big deal (for most not all). But if they were offered say one or two thousand dollars to find a job within a three week time span knowing that there would be no cushion to fall back on unemployment would be reduced quickly. Why? Because everyone works better when they are rewarded for that work. And an unemployed person has the job of looking for work. Paying them to stay home does not work and IS NOT LOGICAL.
[quote]forlife wrote:
This thread has already devolved into a string of personal attacks, but I’ll take a shot at addressing the topic.
In my opinion, political differences aren’t due to logical inconsistencies. Not really. People may twist logic to suit their preconceptions, but that’s not the root of the disagreement. It usually comes down to differences in values.
There are intelligent, educated people on both sides of the aisle. As with most subjects, there are no black and white answers to complex social problems. All you can do is understand the ramifications of different policies, and determine which policy best achieves the values you want to promote.
If you’ll forgive the stereotypes for illustrative purposes, let’s go with this example. Republicans value hard work, and understandably feel they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Others should work as they do, and will be rewarded accordingly.
Democrats value helping others, particularly those that can’t help themselves.
Both values are admirable, but how they play out is the root of policy disagreements.
Personally, I think there should be a balance. People shouldn’t be rewarded for sitting on their ass, but they should be taught to and given the opportunity to fish. If they’re incapable of fishing, the government should help them. If they’re unwilling to fish, they’re on their own. [/quote]
Not a bad response but I honestly feel that with every problem there is an optimum way to handle it. Not unlike game theory where there is usually an optimum way to play. Also, while people should not be rewarded for sitting on their butts they should be encouraged to get back to work. It only makes sense that if there is a window of (call it) “reward opportunity” that the typical worker would be looking for a job quite a bit harder than they currently do. Right now they know that if they do not find work they have a sweet check from the government coming in every week so no big deal (for most not all). But if they were offered say one or two thousand dollars to find a job within a three week time span knowing that there would be no cushion to fall back on unemployment would be reduced quickly. Why? Because everyone works better when they are rewarded for that work. And an unemployed person has the job of looking for work. Paying them to stay home does not work and IS NOT LOGICAL.
