Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 03:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 03:02 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes folks magical thinking will solve all problems. Notice he has now changed his stance, government has now shifted to rich people and thus we are back to pointing out how his ideas lead back to exactly that situation. Where 1 rich person has the ability to enslave everyone else because there is no counteracting force.
In the past government was officially in cahoots with rich people, especially during the industrial revolution in 19th century, which was supposedly a time of "unbridled capitalism". Nonsense. The power of aristocracy was still great. I don't know about the British, but in Austrian empire there was later the curia system which was pretty unequal, giving votes to aristocrats, bishops, big land owners and some professors and large tax sponsors too. No wonder that industry was dominated by German ethnicity and national minorities like my Czech ancestors were mostly menial laborers. Not very good for a free market, sure.

I have no problem with rich people who aren't formerly feudal aristocrats with enhanced political rights (as had many factory owners in Europe after the lands bailout of 1848) and aren't in politics. In fact, I want rich people to produce my electronics, if they can make it cheap and available.

What can I say? I do read books, after all Angel

Except you addressed nothing I said. So, there's that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 03:23 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So....can someone fill me in on what's been going on for the last 40 pages or so?

Or rather are we still going round and around?

Lumi has not only jumped aboard the libertarian bus, he's driving it at high speed with his eyes wide shut.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-08-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 03:23 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So....can someone fill me in on what's been going on for the last 40 pages or so?

Or rather are we still going round and around?

Still going round and round. Lumi got destroyed, basically, but can't seem to grasp the concept that he *is* in fact wrong. Cue more Molyneux videos and rambling. Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 03:50 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 02:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 01:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I haven't read this entire thread and I'm not going to, but this statement, right here, indicates how very little you actually know about regulation.

Regulation can only be reactive, not proactive. There is no way to prevent someone from breaking a rule, there can only be a reactionary action (fine, censure, or expelled from industry).

Regulation is good in so far as the rules are not too specific (the more specific the rule, the more loopholes are created), and emerging competitors in the industry can have extensive relief of those regulations to allow for adequate competition. Regulation, can - and has - create monopolies. It's costly to comply. The Key here is balance.

I do have to say....all you would need is a few ridiculous hypotheticals, and you are another Frankksj
Honestly, I'm playing a Socratic simpleton here. Looks like we have the very proactive rule #1 Thou shalt pay taxes, and regulations as an afterthought.

According to my Austrian economics lectures, both taxes and regulations mess up the market and make things more expensive and worse quality. During the lectures, I've been given a plenty of evidence that government regulations aren't the cause of good, or aren't the only way to get good things done, they prevent good from happening or they do outright damage.
Read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". Yes, balance is important, but there is no way how a few bureaucrats in offices can get the balance right. It takes efforts of everyone on the market to find the balance and adjust it constantly due to changing resources and technologies. People on the market must be mobile and respond to changing profits and prices if balance is to be maintained. Centralized regulations to stabilize prices always mean extra loss and damage. Everyone has to regulate their own business instead of putting all eggs into one basket.
Hazlitt's book is fun to read and it makes a good case for common sense economics. But you know that evidence does not work on people who didn't get to a stance through evidence to begin with. Ideologies can be secular too, you know?


(20-08-2014 01:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Again, you do not understand the purpose of regulation. Regulation is to ensure transparency and integrity to whatever industry it's functioning in. The Securities Act of 1933 was established to create transparency after the great market crash caused the depression. Too much fraud and no one had confidence in the system any longer.
The Securities Act of 1933 was NOT established to ensure a "total guarantee of [financial] well-being." No
Well, I know that politicians say and most people believe that regulations ensure transparency and integrity. But that's not enough for me or anyone who claims to be scientific or skeptical or whatever. It was a response to EK who seems to have a great confidence that government shits goodness like unicorns shit rainbows, so I tried to take him up on the offer and asked why don't we let government do everything, when it obviously knows better than people.

I demand empirical evidence for political claims and also evidence that the economic or social purpose can not be achieved by any other way than the proactive taxation. There is no such evidence. I think politics is snake oil, but we're living in the Aztec snake cult civilization, so it's not that obvious.
This kind of argument is on the level of "there must be fear of Hell or people would steal even more than they do". Surely the fear of Hell played a great social and historical role and surely prevented many crimes. And surely the slavery of blacks produced a lot of high-quality cotton. And surely it was very problematic to abolish slavery, it caused a whole war! But none of that is an argument that Hell or slavery are the only or even the best method to prevent crimes and produce cotton. Historically we know that they weren't, but I have little something called Non-Aggression principle that allows me to know that in advance.

I tell you one very radical thing: if you encountered such an "argument" in any other area but politics (or family or religion if you are religious), your bullshit alarm would go off.
Read Henry Hazlitt. It will make so much more sense to you that any of people in this thread including my ramblings.
http://library.mises.org/books/Henry%20H...Lesson.pdf

I've read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. It is full of overly simplistic analogies and faulty logic. You should read some of the critiques on the book. The only reason that you think this book is meaningful is because it confirms your preconceived beliefs, and the analogies are simple enough for you to think they are meaningful. You really need to read more than just the opinions of people that agree with you. I've read Hayek, and Marx, and Keynes, and Smith, and Reich, and Krugman, and Greenspan. All very different opinions. You don't gain knowledge by only studying those you agree with. You gain knowledge by understanding every point of view and using critical thinking to parse out what makes the most sense. Each one of those authors have truths to what they say and what they believe in; some are more right than the others. Despite reading all of these various authors, I still don't consider myself an expert economist. I think you read one book and now consider yourself an expert on economics because you have "studied" the subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like PKJoe's post
20-08-2014, 03:56 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 03:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  Lumi has not only jumped aboard the libertarian bus, he's driving it at high speed with his eyes wide shut.

Now that's a mental image! Thumbsup

(20-08-2014 03:44 PM)morondog Wrote:  Still going round and round. Lumi got destroyed, basically, but can't seem to grasp the concept that he *is* in fact wrong. Cue more Molyneux videos and rambling. Rolleyes

Got it...I'll pick up from here then. I'd speculate on what he'd say next but I'm pretty sure that he's already said it. 3-4 times at least.

Thanks guys!


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
20-08-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 03:50 PM)PKJoe Wrote:  I've read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. It is full of overly simplistic analogies and faulty logic. You should read some of the critiques on the book. The only reason that you think this book is meaningful is because it confirms your preconceived beliefs, and the analogies are simple enough for you to think they are meaningful. You really need to read more than just the opinions of people that agree with you. I've read Hayek, and Marx, and Keynes, and Smith, and Reich, and Krugman, and Greenspan. All very different opinions. You don't gain knowledge by only studying those you agree with. You gain knowledge by understanding every point of view and using critical thinking to parse out what makes the most sense. Each one of those authors have truths to what they say and what they believe in; some are more right than the others. Despite reading all of these various authors, I still don't consider myself an expert economist. I think you read one book and now consider yourself an expert on economics because you have "studied" the subject.

... you're new at this True Believer stuff, aren't you?

It's called "confirmation bias", and ol' Lumi here is its paragon and exemplar.

Admittedly so, if that weren't terrifying enough...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
20-08-2014, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2014 04:39 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 03:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Got it...I'll pick up from here then. I'd speculate on what he'd say next but I'm pretty sure that he's already said it. 3-4 times at least.

Thanks guys!
I disagree with this interpretation. What happened has been actually this. Half people here shower me with ugly adjectives and the other half thinks that if someone is gets a lot of bad adjectives, there must be a reason for it and it's not them.




(20-08-2014 03:50 PM)PKJoe Wrote:  I've read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. It is full of overly simplistic analogies and faulty logic. You should read some of the critiques on the book. The only reason that you think this book is meaningful is because it confirms your preconceived beliefs, and the analogies are simple enough for you to think they are meaningful. You really need to read more than just the opinions of people that agree with you. I've read Hayek, and Marx, and Keynes, and Smith, and Reich, and Krugman, and Greenspan. All very different opinions. You don't gain knowledge by only studying those you agree with. You gain knowledge by understanding every point of view and using critical thinking to parse out what makes the most sense. Each one of those authors have truths to what they say and what they believe in; some are more right than the others. Despite reading all of these various authors, I still don't consider myself an expert economist. I think you read one book and now consider yourself an expert on economics because you have "studied" the subject.
I didn't say I had read just one book. I had two years of government economics on high school, three years of micro and macro on community college and a year of both plus three Austrian economy courses at a private university. I have read more books than just Hazlitt's.
Well, do you know what is an argument and what is a principle? I have problems finding any critics of Hazlitt who know that. Sure enough, they put forward a lot of adjectives.

In principle, I don't see how a few bureaucrats can get right what hundreds of millions of people need and want, better than people themselves. That's an awful lot of info. But I can see how their willy-nilly do-goody interventions can have lots of unforeseen consequences, which they can then blame on free market and demand more political power to fix them.
It's the classy problem of economic calculation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, do you know what is an argument and what is a principle?

Why, yes. Yes I do.

Quote: I have problems finding any critics of Hazlitt who know that. Sure enough, they put forward a lot of adjectives.

In principle, I don't see how a few bureaucrats can get right what hundreds of millions of people need and want, better than people themselves.

Yes, it is clear you don't understand, because no one claimed that.

And you obviously don't understand the difference between elected representatives and bureaucrats.

Quote:That's an awful lot of info. But I can see how their willy-nilly do-goody interventions can have lots of unforeseen consequences, which they can then blame on free market and demand more political power to fix them.
It's the classy problem of economic calculation.

Yup, in human endeavors there are nearly always unforeseen effects.
Except you are unwilling and/or unable to apply that to your own ideas.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-08-2014, 06:34 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 03:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 03:23 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So....can someone fill me in on what's been going on for the last 40 pages or so?

Or rather are we still going round and around?

Lumi has not only jumped aboard the libertarian bus, he's driving it at high speed with his eyes wide shut.

He also seems to behave as though there's a bomb rigged to blow if the speed drops below 50.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Cardinal Smurf's post
20-08-2014, 06:57 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2014 07:07 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 05:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In principle, I don't see how a few bureaucrats can get right what hundreds of millions of people need and want, better than people themselves.

Yes, it is clear you don't understand, because no one claimed that.

And you obviously don't understand the difference between elected representatives and bureaucrats.
Facepalm Elected representatives are even more ignorant than bureaucrats, they stay in offices shorter, just an election term or so. But they're elected because they're charismatic liars and can convince people to give them more power and money to fix what the previous administration bungled plus the rest of the world.

Even the brand-new mint squeaky clean representatives glittering with legitimacy are just a few people compared to hundreds of millions. 300 million in case of USA, 500 million in case of EU. There is no way how a few hundred reps can know what these hundreds of millions want or need. That's putting them into impossible situation. Getting elected doesn't change people into divine nearly omniscient beings, but it sure changes them into liars politicking to save their own hides. Political representation is a historical anachronism from the times when life was simpler and representation was a way of reminding the monarch of who isn't supposed to be enslaved feudally.

(20-08-2014 05:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yup, in human endeavors there are nearly always unforeseen effects.
Except you are unwilling and/or unable to apply that to your own ideas.
I do apply that, actually. That's why I say we shouldn't put too many eggs into one basket, or 60 % of nation's income into the government budget. Let people compete on the market, find out successful strategies, emulate them and in case they fail, it's just their loss and not hundreds of millions at once. I thought you liked the evolution through natural selection Consider Market isn't survival of the fittest, it's the coral reef-like teeming ecosystem of symbiosis and cooperation. And government is the crown of thorns starfish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: