Remember, Ya Gotta Earn It, Guys!

Headhunter · January 31, 2008, 1:43pm

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

Hobbes.
Locke.
Hume.
Eric Hoffer

My brother!!! But I did not know that anyone read The True Believer anymore. Witness how many sleepwalkers-- true believers–there are in this forum.

[/quote]

Indeed. Sartre is running wild here.

'It has a “masochistic desire” to be limited, i.e. limited by the reflective consciousness of another subject. This is expressed metaphorically in the famous line of dialogue from No Exit, “Hell is other people.” ’

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · January 31, 2008, 4:58am

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Actually inflation hurts those that have money because it reduces the purchasing power and deflation hurts those that don’t have money because it makes it harder for them to borrow.[/quote]

Way to think it only half way through, as usual.

Rich people are still better off than poor people when it comes to inflation or deflation. If I have more money that you then it doesn’t matter whether there is inflation or not because I still have more money than you.

Deflation means one doesn’t have to borrow as much because prices are lowered which means poor people have a better standard of living with a dollar that purchases more.

Aren’t you supposed to be good at math as an engineer?

By the way, deflation has never happened in this country.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · January 31, 2008, 10:17am

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I want a Randian society where nothing gets done because there is no cooperation. Just think how great it would be if we didn’t build our sewer systems and people were dying from dysentery.

I suppose we could build them with money voluntarily donated but then people that didn’t donate wouldn’t be allowed to use them or else they are making others their slaves.

We could drive out all the cheap bastards that refuse to pay their fair share. Since they would resist we could kill them.

Sounds like a paradise.
[/quote]
Not that I believe in the objectivist ideal but in a Randian society cooperation is voluntary as it always should be. Cooperation is a result of the division of labor and knowledge. It has nothing to so with a state mechanism. You cooperate in society because you would not have the ability to live with the quality of life you have become accustomed to while being completely self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency is the last thing societies want or need because it means isolation and poverty. You mock libertarian ideals because you don’t understand them.

Also, public works can be privately funded and be run for profit as any other service is. These are services that are paid for anyway. They are not free. What does it matter who does the work to build, maintain, or fund them? Imagine the technology that might be in place to deal with sewage if we actually had privatized sewer systems that isn’t there now because we rely on the efficient government to manage this service for us.

Headhunter · January 31, 2008, 3:44pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Actually inflation hurts those that have money because it reduces the purchasing power and deflation hurts those that don’t have money because it makes it harder for them to borrow.

Way to think it only half way through, as usual.

Rich people are still better off than poor people when it comes to inflation or deflation. If I have more money that you then it doesn’t matter whether there is inflation or not because I still have more money than you.

Deflation means one doesn’t have to borrow as much because prices are lowered which means poor people have a better standard of living with a dollar that purchases more.

Aren’t you supposed to be good at math as an engineer?

By the way, deflation has never happened in this country.[/quote]

Prove this.

new2training · January 31, 2008, 3:44pm

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:

What you fail to grasp is that people ARE NOT RATIONAL. They only think they are. People are emotionally-driven. Anyone who has to do any marketing or advertising knows this. Anyone who’s studied any psychology knows this. Emotions drive and the intellect justifies.

A very small portion of anyone’s decisions are intellectually-driven, the rest of the time they’re using their intellect to satisfy emotional desires.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

Agreed. Most people are not rational creatures.

Ironically, it is very IRRATIONAL to think that they are.

Headhunter · January 31, 2008, 10:54am

[quote]new2training wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:

What you fail to grasp is that people ARE NOT RATIONAL. They only think they are. People are emotionally-driven. Anyone who has to do any marketing or advertising knows this. Anyone who’s studied any psychology knows this. Emotions drive and the intellect justifies.

A very small portion of anyone’s decisions are intellectually-driven, the rest of the time they’re using their intellect to satisfy emotional desires.

ElbowStrike

Agreed. Most people are not rational creatures.

Ironically, it is very IRRATIONAL to think that they are.[/quote]

If you say ‘All people are irrational’, then that statement is in itself meaningless. YOU made the statement and you are a person.

If he had said some people are more irrational than others, or something with an existential quantifier, then I would have agreed with him.

Can you make the statement: “I do not exist?”

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · January 31, 2008, 4:01pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Prove this.
[/quote]
Deflation is the opposite of inflation. The dollar has lost 24x its purchasing power since 1913. There is data to back this up.

I do not recall a period in history when the dollar actually gained purchasing power. Prior to the Fed Reserve Act in 1913, purchasing power remained fixed to gold. Since the complete breakdown of the Breton Woods Agreement in 1971 inflation has advanced at a more rapid rate. There has been no deflation in the history of the United States. This is just propaganda that is used to get the Fed to intervene in the economy.

Only Wall Street is afraid of falling prices. Consumers and producers welcome them because it means greater productivity and cheaper goods.

Zap_Branigan · January 31, 2008, 4:04pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Actually inflation hurts those that have money because it reduces the purchasing power and deflation hurts those that don’t have money because it makes it harder for them to borrow.

Way to think it only half way through, as usual.

Rich people are still better off than poor people when it comes to inflation or deflation. If I have more money that you then it doesn’t matter whether there is inflation or not because I still have more money than you. [/quote]

Rich people have more money. I am not sure if that is your point.

Deflation means one cannot borrow or lend well. Why pay back a loan to buy a $ 100,000 property that will be worth $ 50,000 in the future? Deflation is a disaster.

Apparently better than you as you do not seem to grasp that making peoples money buy less impacts those that actually have money.

[quote]

By the way, deflation has never happened in this country.[/quote]
If I remember it was you yourself that posted links that indicate otherwise in response to one of BB’s posts. I do not have the time nor inclination to look it up.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · January 31, 2008, 4:08pm

[quote]new2training wrote:
Most people are not rational creatures.[/quote]

What does it mean to be a “rational creature”? To act requires rationality. There is no such thing as irrational action – except perhaps when action is involuntary like during a seizure.

All creatures use rationality to act. There is no such thing as instinctive behavior. All humans are rational otherwise they could not act.

What you are trying to convey is the average human’s ability to chose wisely and bring about an end that is desirable, whatever that end might be. This requires proper knowledge and learning. Rationality has nothing to do with it.

Zap_Branigan · January 31, 2008, 11:14am

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I want a Randian society where nothing gets done because there is no cooperation. Just think how great it would be if we didn’t build our sewer systems and people were dying from dysentery.

I suppose we could build them with money voluntarily donated but then people that didn’t donate wouldn’t be allowed to use them or else they are making others their slaves.

We could drive out all the cheap bastards that refuse to pay their fair share. Since they would resist we could kill them.

Sounds like a paradise.

Not that I believe in the objectivist ideal but in a Randian society cooperation is voluntary as it always should be. Cooperation is a result of the division of labor and knowledge. It has nothing to so with a state mechanism. You cooperate in society because you would not have the ability to live with the quality of life you have become accustomed to while being completely self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency is the last thing societies want or need because it means isolation and poverty. You mock libertarian ideals because you don’t understand them.

Also, public works can be privately funded and be run for profit as any other service is. These are services that are paid for anyway. They are not free. What does it matter who does the work to build, maintain, or fund them? Imagine the technology that might be in place to deal with sewage if we actually had privatized sewer systems that isn’t there now because we rely on the efficient government to manage this service for us.[/quote]

Funny how all these things “could” happen without government intervention yet they never do.

Without out the government’s intervention our rivers were getting more polluted by the day as was our air.

There is no question in rational people’s minds that the government has a place in these things.

I perfectly understand the libertarian ideals and that is why I utterly reject them when it comes to many public works projects, clean air, clean water, law and national defense.

There are many many things private entities do better than government. There are also many things the government does better and it is usually in the area of things that must be done to keep a healthy society running and yet yields no profit without forced intervention.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · January 31, 2008, 4:16pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Actually inflation hurts those that have money because it reduces the purchasing power and deflation hurts those that don’t have money because it makes it harder for them to borrow.

Way to think it only half way through, as usual.

Rich people are still better off than poor people when it comes to inflation or deflation. If I have more money that you then it doesn’t matter whether there is inflation or not because I still have more money than you.

Rich people have more money. I am not sure if that is your point.

Deflation means one doesn’t have to borrow as much because prices are lowered which means poor people have a better standard of living with a dollar that purchases more.

Deflation means one cannot borrow or lend well. Why pay back a loan to buy a $ 100,000 property that will be worth $ 50,000 in the future? Deflation is a disaster.

Aren’t you supposed to be good at math as an engineer?

Apparently better than you as you do not seem to grasp that making peoples money buy less impacts those that actually have money.

By the way, deflation has never happened in this country.
If I remember it was you yourself that posted links that indicate otherwise in response to one of BB’s posts. I do not have the time nor inclination to look it up.
[/quote]

Deflation means goods are cheaper. Inflation means goods are more expensive. It affects everyone but I doubt a rich person cares that toilette paper doubles in price – his ass is still getting wiped with $100 bills.

I have never posted saying there has ever been deflation. I have stated that the value of the dollar is deflated but that means PRICES are inflated. That is what we compare when we talk about inflation or deflation. We can only speak in terms of prices because it is hard to value the dollar as it is not attached to any commodity.

There is an INVERSE relationship to purchasing power and prices. Again I reiterate, you suck at math.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · January 31, 2008, 4:24pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I want a Randian society where nothing gets done because there is no cooperation. Just think how great it would be if we didn’t build our sewer systems and people were dying from dysentery.

I suppose we could build them with money voluntarily donated but then people that didn’t donate wouldn’t be allowed to use them or else they are making others their slaves.

We could drive out all the cheap bastards that refuse to pay their fair share. Since they would resist we could kill them.

Sounds like a paradise.

Not that I believe in the objectivist ideal but in a Randian society cooperation is voluntary as it always should be. Cooperation is a result of the division of labor and knowledge. It has nothing to so with a state mechanism. You cooperate in society because you would not have the ability to live with the quality of life you have become accustomed to while being completely self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency is the last thing societies want or need because it means isolation and poverty. You mock libertarian ideals because you don’t understand them.

Also, public works can be privately funded and be run for profit as any other service is. These are services that are paid for anyway. They are not free. What does it matter who does the work to build, maintain, or fund them? Imagine the technology that might be in place to deal with sewage if we actually had privatized sewer systems that isn’t there now because we rely on the efficient government to manage this service for us.

Funny how all these things “could” happen without government intervention yet they never do.

Without out the government’s intervention our rivers were getting more polluted by the day as was our air.

There is no question in rational people’s minds that the government has a place in these things.

I perfectly understand the libertarian ideals and that is why I utterly reject them when it comes to many public works projects, clean air, clean water, law and national defense.

There are many many things private entities do better than government. There are also many things the government does better and it is usually in the area of things that must be done to keep a healthy society running and yet yields no profit without forced intervention.
[/quote]

The government doesn’t do anything without first taxing, borrowing, or stealing and then paying individuals to do what it cannot; t cannot do anything that you or I can do individually.

The only reason government has accomplished anything is because it has taken your money to pay people with guns to enforce you to continue to pay it to do these things. Private industry can do this without violence and does it much better because people pay for their services voluntarily or they go out of business. The government will never go out of business so long as we allow them to tax, borrow, and steal.

You make a fallacy in stating just because something hasn’t happened that it is impossible for it to happen. This is a function of learning.

new2training · January 31, 2008, 12:01pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
new2training wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:

A very small portion of anyone’s decisions are intellectually-driven, the rest of the time they’re using their intellect to satisfy emotional desires.

ElbowStrike

Agreed. Most people are not rational creatures.

Ironically, it is very IRRATIONAL to think that they are.

If you say ‘All people are irrational’, then that statement is in itself meaningless. YOU made the statement and you are a person.

If he had said some people are more irrational than others, or something with an existential quantifier, then I would have agreed with him.

Can you make the statement: “I do not exist?”

[/quote]

See Elbows post above. “A very small portion” is a qualifier. Right?

People are of course driven by rational thought and emotion to varying degrees. It would be difficult to find someone who was purely rational or emotional.

Elbow’s point, I think, was that he believes most people behave irrationally, most of the time.

I agree.

For instance, I should be doing work right now. I know this but I am typing this post at the moment. It is the middle of the day and MOST of the people reading or posting on this forum should be either working, going to class, studying, or whatever their other responsibilities demand. (Most, not all)

Is it really rational to endlessly debate these subjects with people you don’t know, will probably never meet, and who will probably never be pursuaded of your opinion anyway?

No, it is emotional.

Now I suppose a good argument could be made that it is entirely rational to recognize the existence of emotional needs (even if they appear to be irrational)and try to fullfill them.

What drives you to spend endless amounts of time reading and posting on these boards? Emotion or Reason?

I suspect, entertainment and ego. Which is emotional in this sense, right?

I’m curious.

Anyway, back to work for me. Don’t you have kids to teach?

Headhunter · January 31, 2008, 8:36am

[quote]new2training wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
new2training wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:

A very small portion of anyone’s decisions are intellectually-driven, the rest of the time they’re using their intellect to satisfy emotional desires.

ElbowStrike

Agreed. Most people are not rational creatures.

Ironically, it is very IRRATIONAL to think that they are.

If you say ‘All people are irrational’, then that statement is in itself meaningless. YOU made the statement and you are a person.

If he had said some people are more irrational than others, or something with an existential quantifier, then I would have agreed with him.

Can you make the statement: “I do not exist?”

See Elbows post above. “A very small portion” is a qualifier. Right?

People are of course driven by rational thought and emotion to varying degrees. It would be difficult to find someone who was purely rational or emotional.

Elbow’s point, I think, was that he believes most people behave irrationally, most of the time.

I agree.

For instance, I should be doing work right now. I know this but I am typing this post at the moment. It is the middle of the day and MOST of the people reading or posting on this forum should be either working, going to class, studying, or whatever their other responsibilities demand. (Most, not all)

Is it really rational to endlessly debate these subjects with people you don’t know, will probably never meet, and who will probably never be pursuaded of your opinion anyway?

No, it is emotional.

Now I suppose a good argument could be made that it is entirely rational to recognize the existence of emotional needs (even if they appear to be irrational)and try to fullfill them.

What drives you to spend endless amounts of time reading and posting on these boards? Emotion or Reason?

I suspect, entertainment and ego. Which is emotional in this sense, right?

I’m curious.

Anyway, back to work for me. Don’t you have kids to teach?

[/quote]

A point of clarification: I use Aristotle’s definition of Man as the ‘rational animal’, the being that thinks using concepts. To a minimal degree, animals use abstractions whereas THAT is how we function. To be human is to be rational — not as some half-assed logic machine but in defining who you are, a ‘concept-former’.

That being the case, humans can form an ostensive concept of Justice (see Plato’s Republic). They understand the difference between justice and injustice. They understand when they are being plundered, and will react accordingly. If one animal steals another animal’s food, the victim of the theft is angry, but only humans understand that the theft was unjust.

For this reason, I cannot advocate initiation of force in social relationships. Not only is such unjust, it is impractical. If you steal someone’s wealth LEGALLY, how likely are they to want to produce another fortune where you could get at it? If governments continue to force those who produce to fund those who produce nothing, how long is that likely to last?

Our society is falling apart because we’re running out of victims to plunder. Between the lawyers, environmentalists, bureaucrats, and sundry other vultures, we’re in trouble. Why produce a fortune for cockroaches to steal?

Zap_Branigan · January 31, 2008, 2:18pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I want a Randian society where nothing gets done because there is no cooperation. Just think how great it would be if we didn’t build our sewer systems and people were dying from dysentery.