It doesn’t matter if they do. They are laws, Women’s suffrage “allows” women to vote. That they may “promote the general welfare” is irrelevant.
For example, Lowering the voting age to 18 doesn’t promote anyone’s welfare. It is just a grab at voters by liberals, whose ideology relies on inexperience to believe. 18 year olds are full of inexperience, and vote largely liberal.
New drugs, that do things like give us longer boners, and fix our heart problems. The innovation in medicines have lifted the lifespan of the average human years beyond it once was, creating so many more problems, social security is an example of that. When Social Security was created the age one received it at was after the average life span. If we did it that way now, people wouldn’t get anything until their 80’s.
Why do people innovate the drugs? Usually it’s to make money.
Does it matter? Should I care?
And here is where the tyranny and arrogance comes in. So, not only do they not have enough of what you think they should have, they don’t use what they are given the way you want them too. Do you just want to pass a law, disallowing anyone to make decisions for themselves, that you come in and make it for them, like a shitty, tiger parent? Helicoptering over every little thing they do?
When you treat people like children you are putting yourself in a position of power. And While you may have good intentions, there is no guarantee the next person is going to… And you’ve just given a monster the power to destroy peoples lives. Further, how do you know what is right and wrong for all the individuals out there? The truth is, you don’t. And the most you can hope for is the “experts” you put in charge don’t fuck things up completely, in counter to all the evidence from all past experiences of doing exactly that.
I agree, but that does not counter what is being said. Hitler was well-intentioned, while simultaneously making a power grab. If I believe that the best thing for everyone is that I’m in charge of their lives, it fits both qualifications…
Please note, I am not calling anyone Hitler, I am pointing out that tyranny does not require poor intentions.
Intentions mean jack-all, is a more accurate response.
Edit: Some other good examples; Jim Jones thought he was saving peoples souls. The Westboro Baptist Church does too.
Unless you’re trying to decide how to deal with a person. You would deal with someone who’s purposeful trying to lie and manipulate you much differently than you would someone who is simply mistaken or brainwashed.
Time, yes–over time the system might degrade further. You talked about “investments” from the rich, and I’m not sure what you mean by this, but the picture it conjured in my mind was that as the economy drops overall (the red arrow), the rich will have less, which means when it comes around to next tax season, they can’t be taxed as much, which means the poor don’t get as much. Over a long period of time, the amount that the poor get could dwindle down to 0 (I suppose this is why Ucci’s all right with temporary socialist intervention–if it worked).
Right, poor wording. Let’s say (X + 0.0001)% where X goes to everything else (roads, military).
The difference is that in the first two graphs (the before and after graphs), the curve is rotated about the exact center (the rich are taxed the most so they go down, the poor get those taxes in the form of social aid so they go up, thus the curve rotates–i.e. it flattens). In the “mixed” graph which you’re questioning, I did the same thing except dropped the “after” graph by a little in addition to rotating it (that’s what the red arrow represents). Note that the two graphs cross near the lower left, not the center–because it’s dropped.
Rotation without dropping (first 2 graphs in last post):
Rotation plus small drop:
Rotation plus huge drop:
What I was trying to convey with this is that even if the economy as a whole drops, the poor may still get something via social aid. It all depends on how much money the poor can get, and at what rate, balanced with how badly the economy drops due to the damaging effects of socialism. In the last graph above, for example, I tried to render a picture of what would happen if the damage to the economy was so severe that even the tax dollars that are supposed to go to the poor isn’t enough–the poor get poorer even then.
But you were right above–the effects of time are not taken into consideration with these graphs.
Right, and it’s obvious why if you think about it. In order to be in constant battle, you have to have two factions against each other, one saying “we need to draw the line here,” the other saying “no, we need to draw the line here.” In other words, where ever that point of equilibrium is supposed to be, neither faction is going to agree on it. So you must have one faction pushing to have the line farther to the right than it should be and the other pushing to have the line farther to the left than it should be–the equilibrium coming about in virtue of these two opposing force balancing each other. But when they become imbalanced, who’s going to referee? Who’s going to blow the whistle and say “Woaw, guys, we’re missing the mark!” Both factions are going to disagree as that “mark” isn’t where either faction thinks it should be.
Why would you feel stupid? I’m the one who didn’t catch on.
I was still talking in the context of the pie metaphor (you know, starving from not enough pie?).
Agreed.
Hey, I’m a slow learner… and like I said, this is all new to me (I took one economics course in university, and my best friend and I spent half the time making fun of our professor instead of listening).
You mean if they forced their slaves to vote pro-slavery, don’t you? Or were there slaves who felt comfortable in their enslavement and wanted it that way?
Thanks again for the Thomas Sowell videos. You aren’t kidding–he really is a very interesting guy.
The richest people often don’t “create” things, it is actually one of the arguments made by Marxists, and other leftists. That these people don’t deserve to make money, because they don’t “create” things. Instead they are investors. Putting their money into businesses, then taking a profit if the business succeeds, much like a bank loans money. Mit Romney made a lot of his money doing exactly that… Combined with other things… That is, he would give money to a company, often one that was going out of business. Mit and his company would come in, process numbers, and cut the extraneous costs, allowing the company to start being successful again.
This is why liberals were able to find people “fired” by him as he “down sized” the company. Often, these people would have lost their jobs anyway, it’s just instead, everyone at the company would loose their job…
It’s also why he stepped in to help with the Olympics in Salt Lake City, he was qualified… It is also why some people voted for him for president, despite other things he did (here I’m talking about me).
When taxes are taken from the rich, regardless of what is done with them, less of this money is then invested, simply because they have less. This results in less money being given to allow companies to succeed. Most companies need start up cash, particularly poor people companies. By limiting the amount of money the “rich” can keep, we also limit the amount of money invested in the poor…
Sadly, unlike this situation, were the poor own the money they make, minus the amount they owe to the “rich” we instead funnel it through the government, which takes its bit, then give it to the poor. It results in nothing being produced, nothing being earned. And, the poor don’t really own the money, instead they must exchange it for their votes, and control from the government, by people, like Liz, and UPF who are only acting with positive interests.
I’ve said it before, I don’t’ believe in conspiracy theories. People don’t know how to keep their mouths shut, (the old saying, three people can keep a secret if two are dead comes to mind) but that does not mean, enough miss informed people, with good intentions can’t make singularly stupid decisions together. Funny enough, Men In Black (the movie) had a great line about this, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
Ok, so maybe the lines about aliens makes it not quite right but the intention is right.
Millions of people live on this planet, and they each make millions of decisions every damn day. Those decisions cost, because everything costs, it is just the way of the world, if we lived in infinite abundance, we wouldn’t have this problem. But we don’t. Those decisions cost. Because costs are knowledge, people think that passing all the choices people make to experts in a guided government are going to be able to make those decisions better than the individuals without “all” the knowledge… But no one can know all the knowledge, it’s just not possible, it’s too much data. Deciding to eat cereal instead of eggs and bacon, because of time constants is an economic decision, attempting to pass that knowledge to a government entity, then back down to the individual is impossible… But that is what would have to happen for the Government to actually be more efficient. So, instead we must rely on every individual making decisions for themselves, so that their failure and success may indicate to other what the best way to do things is… Humans, and every other kind of animal, has been doing this for so long it’s amazing…
This is one part of the problem with socialism, ignoring communism completely, socialism at its heart would allow humans to make those small decisions, but if a human becomes successful because of those decisions, the success is handed over to the government, who up to that point had no hand in the making of that success. By limiting the amount of success a person can achieve, results in a limitation on how much a person will achieve.
Yes, we can divert that success to failures, to keep people from falling down to far, which also reduces the cost of failure… Which means people are going to be more risky… Which may cause one to think, but then they take more risks… To which a reply of, but is that more successful? Sure, sometimes doing the dangerous stunt works out, think jack ass the tv show, it is a bunch of people taking risks in the name of being rich… And if they failed horribly, became maimed instead of becoming famous, then rich, they could just live off of the government… That is something socialism supports rather well…
Snort Even here we must fight on how much to were.
If you take the point as arbitrary, based on random chance from when you making the chart, combined with a lack of real numbers, instead conveying an idea of what is going on, there is no difference…
I hate going back here, but, read, Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. You, by now, understand what I mean when I call him the man. He rights clearly and effectively. It might help get these thoughts across… and, I don’t know that you care about this part, but he uses very little math. It is not super important to get how economics works across.
I don’t want a referee, because I cannot trust that such a person would be impartial. I point to you, you started off, and very much still, support a socialist ideal, yet I don’t imagine you see yourself as partial. How can you not be though? Name a person that not only has no opinion, but also has a deep understanding? I’ve floundered with getting these idea’s across to you, and, we can both agree, you are at least in theory open to the idea’s… But, what if we spend four years really smashing away at them, do you think you would come out the same?
It’s the skeptic in me that causes me to be conservative, and when necessary, libertarian. My skeptic would not believe a person claiming to be a referee on anything this important.
I’ve said it before, sarcasm does not carry through in writing. I said it as an admonishment to someone playing stupid games with me… Then I turn around an assume that my sarcastic comment would carry across… It is stupid, I understand that.
mmmm Pie.
Sweden has been having a big scare about the limited amount of new drugs being produced, in Sweden, despite the amount of money the put towards it.
My last economics class I spent writing a role-playing game… I passed it without needing to take the final… I think I was one of two…
To be fair to everyone else, at that point I had started obsessing about economics after a bad Macroeconomics teacher made me wonder what I was missing, that and I heard Thomas Sowell speak for the first time…
It’d be like giving a teenager a test on being depressed…
Representative government. The number of people in an area mattered for how many people got to be in the House of Representatives representing each group. The pro-slavery people wanted each slave to count as a full person, so that they could have more representatives. Anti-slavery people disagreed… 3/5th’s for all its stupidity is better than the full amount.
I have trouble believing anyone wants to be a slave, yet, people accept worse exchanges… Leading me to believe people want to feel safe, more than free… Not that I would give anyone a choice.
He is amazing. His writing is as good as his speaking… If only because he can provide more evidence to back up what can effectively only be rhetoric when speaking.
Yeah i understand that - but what i’m saying is that people actually think affirmative action helps minorities and hate speech legislation protects them. For the most part people who support such things believe that they are doing right by minorities - and i would also add most of them are not Marxists and probably have never read him anymore than i have. So, support for affirmative action and hate speech laws is not the result of a conscious cynical decision by a bunch of Marxists to surreptitiously outlaw conservative viewpoints and buy minority votes, rather it’s a decision by some people to support things that they think will help others. That doesn’t speak in favor of affirmative action or hate speech laws, but it does defend their supporters from the characterization being offered here.
I can accept that.
But is that enough (not my acceptance, the defense), if the consequences are the same, even if they are on the up and up? The “bad” policies supporters gain more power, allowing more “bad” policies?
It is one reason I do not support the increase in government, even in the name of goodness, regardless, power is being handed to people with very poor track records of doing anything well. Like handing Michael Bay a beloved franchise… Nothing promotes the idea that it’ll be good… (GOD DAMN IT!!! … Though I suppose because it is Bay, is more accurate.)
Even if there was absolute proof that socialism works, that a single entity could guide us to a “better place for all”/Utopia, I’d still have trouble believing our government should be the one doing it. The truth is, this is one of many reasons why, Communism fails, and will continue to fail. Why Socialism is just failure light…
Yes, making sure the DNC has a sizable minority voting bloc for generations to come, and restricting the political speech of opponents ARE good intentions for these people. It’s not like they’re trying to blow up the Moon or something.
Thanks for clarifying what you mean by the “investments” of the rich (I didn’t post the whole quote here–trying to save space). It sounds as though you and I have roughly the same concept: socialism results in the tax dollars of the rich, which would otherwise be invested more wisely, efficiently, and directly into problems that actually need it, being diverted towards ends and causes that are much less wise, more inefficient, and possibly even towards problems of socialism’s own making.
So socialism’s bad, is what I’m getting.
Good. I’m a very visual person, not mathematical (hence the lack of numbers in the graph–well, there is 0th percentile and 100th percentile…)
I’m not sure what you were getting at before recommending Basic Economics, but I get the impression you don’t quite understand where I’m going with the graphs. I ask you questions–sometimes technical, sometimes quite detailed–I might pursue a tangent of questioning that probably seems irrelevant to you or to miss the point–I sometimes whip up graphs to get the point across; your answers to these questions help me clarify the concepts you’re trying to convey to me. Your answer to my current question (to which I needed the graphs to make clear)–are there any circumstances or contexts in which socialism does raise the standards of living of those deemed to need social aid?–goes a long way towards helping me understanding your point of view in all its detail.
You seem to think I’m arguing against you–because I’m not embracing your main point (that socialism, in the end, is just bad)–but in fact, these arguments, these questions, and these challenges to your view, all serve to make your main point more clear to me–which is what I’m ultimately trying to do.
Who said anything about wanting a referee?
No, and I’m already very much persuaded (and inspired!) towards of your views (don’t take my reluctance to reveal that to mean I’m not being won over). Do I support a socialist ideal? It would probably seem so to you. Someone striving to remain neutral or balanced (not always succeeding) would seem very much a leftist to me if I were standing far to the right. But I have been quite forthcoming about my sympathies for the left in this thread. I “came clean” here (scroll to the bottom), giving my reasons for being a leftist sympathizer (my Canadian identity and my humanism), and then drew back on that claim here, hoping not to be thrown into the “religious liberal” bin that Ucci has in mind. So there’s no secrets here.
On the other hand, your efforts to explain to me the pitfalls and failures of socialism, along with the potentials and successes of the free market, are very much persuading me towards the right (so they’re not in vein). They’ve even inspired me, as I said, as the vision you’ve conjured up–that of a society growing in wealth and the poor and needy being taken care of via charitable acts–seems almost like a utopia. It’s an absolutely wonderful vision! It inspires incredible hope and awe! So as far as the economy goes, I’m more or less won over (which means I’m done with this line of questioning aimed at justifying socialism).
Where I still sympathize with the left is in my moral stance, which I explained here (scroll down to the last paragraph, the one before I address kowalskil), but from what you and Ucci have been telling me, this morality is more or less shared by both the left and the right (except maybe for the radicals on each end), so I don’t see why that should be so treacherous.
It’s very hard to stay neutral, Eric–though I denounced my identification with Ucci’s religious liberals, I still find myself pulled to the left a little, and though I’m resisting (on purpose), I find myself very inspired by your amazing right-wing utopia–I’m pulled in both directions. But I’m going to continue to at least try to be as balanced as I can.
Pride in my Canadian identity is something I can swallow (and believe me, it has taken quite a beating), but I won’t give up my humanism nor my morality.
Then Canadians owe Americans a huge apology. I wanted to be sure I understood what I’d be apologizing for before doing so, but here goes:
coughcough [size=85](<-- clearing my throat)[/size]
ON BEHALF OF ALL CANADIANS, I, GIBRAN SHAH, A LOWLY CANADIAN CITIZEN, APOLOGIZE FOR THE PRICE CAPS WE–CANADIANS COLLECTIVELY–IMPOSED ON THE PRICE OF DRUGS IN OUR COUNTRY, THEREBY COMPELLING AMERICANS TO BAIL US OUT OF WHAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN A TOTAL MEDICAL DISASTER. THE MAJORITY OF CANADIANS ARE OBLIVIOUS TO THE ENORMOUS HIT AMERICANS TOOK TO THEIR ECONOMY IN THE NAME OF RESCUING THEIR FRIENDS TO THE NORTH FROM WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DISASTROUS SELF-INDUCED MOVE OF SELF-DESTRUCTION BORNE OF SHEER IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY.
That’s the best I can do. I know it’s not enough, but if you want more, you’re going to have to talk to my government.
^^ I hate people like you
I haven’t watched your latest Sowell video post yet, but I probably will sometime today.
i don’t offer it as a defense of bad policies. The consequences are what they are, unfortunately. i just want to point out that the policies themselves are not part of a cynical, conspiratorial scheme sponsored by stealth Marxists.
At the end of the day it all depends on taste and trust. A lot of people like Bay, and pay accordingly. A lot of people like public funding and trust the government in ways they don’t trust private corporations, and so vote Democrat. i like public funding and believe government has greater accountability than the private sphere. i would much rather have an elected president, governor, mayor, whatehaveyou, making decisions for the nation, city, state, whatehaveyou, than a CEO with a golden parachute on his back who therefore has no accountability. Neither is ideal, of course, but there is no utopian solution, as you have said.
That’s what i would say to any pure communist or pure socialist if i ever met one in this country, which i never have. At least, not any over the age of 25 or so. But regardless, it’s not about the shortcomings of government so much as it’s about people not wanting and needing all the same things, and allowing each person to pursue their own desires even if they are different from ours. Total communism/socialism, like total libertarianism, can’t happen effectively because human nature doesn’t allow for it. We are both individuals AND products of society, and so the best policies will always be a mix of socialism and libertarianism. i think for the most part mainstream American conservatives (as opposed to American libertarians) and mainstream American liberals (as opposed to the socialists in academe) agree on that latter point, they simply disagree on what the ratio of socialism to libertarianism ought be. This is why i think socialism/communism as used in the rhetoric of the right-wing are just political strawmen - for the most part, there aren’t many Americans that really WANT to see the US go entirely socialist, and even fewer who want to see it go entirely communist.
When you guys killed me 2000 years ago; I might have went a bit overboard in trying to get your attention. There might be a few pleasant surprises in the near future.
If we really want to reform Western “societies” and economies, we must take into account the correlation between wealth, intelligence/knowledge and demography.
What is said in that video is merely partly right because it suggests that the knowledge would depend of the so called “free market”, and again: that is merely partly right, thus partly wrong. For example: (1.) The current Western/global market is not really a “free market”. (2.) Knowledgte depends also on education, thus on a relatively long time; so it is not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture. (3.) Knowledge can be used in several ways; so it is also important to keep knowledge by selecting the right people with their achievements and trustworthiness, and that (of course!) is also not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture.
When it comes to speak about knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, and the importance of knowledge for a “society” and its economy, then it is primarily important to do it (1.) in connection with culture, (2.) in connection with (the history of) culture, (3.) in connection with economy, … That does not mean that economy is somehow unimportant. No. That only means that knowledge is firstly a genetic/biological and cultural issue (remember and see above: “long time”) - and guess why this issue is a taboo in the Western “societies” -, and secondly an economical issue, but then (and only then), if such knowledge is well arrived in economy, then there is such a great feedback that the West had in the past, still has in the present (although the negative trend shows clearly in the other way!), but will not have anymore in the future.
So first of all a “society” has to have people with knowledge and a trustful will to work, thus intelligent people with a trustful will to work, and only then it can also enjoy the advantages of this people because they have enriched the economy and via economy also the “society”.
And b.t.w.: In order to get the final direction, this thread should not be called “Reforming Democracy”, but “Reforming Demography” (see above).
I enjoyed it as well, Eric, although it really didn’t add much to my knowledge base. Sorry. I’m not sure where I learned some of the things I know; perhaps from my study of General Semantics, or maybe it’s because I’m an English/Theatre type and have a terrific imagination. (BYW, I thought my idea of color-coded food stamps was pretty innovative even if it was human engineering.)
And I’ll be sorry when the thread peters out ultimately, as it appears to be doing. I don’t think any of us has arrived at a solution–whether it’s reforming democracy or demography. History has shown, imm, that theories may be fine–like Sowell’s free-market theory–but they don’t always work as they’re supposed to. A large part of that is the nature of the human animal.
A free market economy would be great if it weren’t for people; the same is true for limiting government’s regulatory function–most people just don’t let morality get in the way of expediency. Added to that is the drive for ‘wealth’, not as knowledge, but as evidenced by buying ‘power.’ Ask people what one thing would make them happiest–9 out of 10 will probably say, “I wish I had the money to . . .”
Corporations are no different. New drugs are developed all the time, for example, but prices for drugs don’t go down–not even for drugs that have been on the market for decades. Generic drugs were supposed to be the answer, but the generic drug manufacturers went through a sort of ecological food chain eating frenzy. Little companies were eaten by bigger companies, which were then eaten by even larger companies–all the way up the chain until corporations absorbed them. Then the big guys fixed prices so as to be ‘competitive’–with each other.
I could go on, but I won’t bother. I’d only be repeating myself.
… Though I suppose because it is Bay, 
is more accurate.)