Should we move to local communities/economies?

In ignorance, people attempt things that are not to their own advantage even though they would appear to be at the moment. That is what allows a third party to pit people against each other. And people are currently ignorant in that regard, thus there are very many who know the strategy of subtly implying that another person is the cause of a problem, one that they might have to secretly create themselves. As the people war with each other, the third party wins by both selling “arms” of whatever nature and also by weakening everyone else before he steps in to finish off both of them. Feminism and racism are both promoted so as to weaken both for sake of a third party.

Ignorance is actually the only problem. If you aren’t going to educate people on their actual needs and how to address them in a wise manner, then of course, the only thing that keeps them from getting into wars is an overlord. And that is why they are kept in confusion, so that an overlord can be seemingly justified. And that is exactly what has been going on for thousands of years, but most especially in the last 200 years.

“On the planet of the apes, in the land of lies, all they do, to their own demise.”

The key to fixing it is to teach them to not be merely apes presuming to know who is guilty and of what. And the key to that is to show how “that which brings clarity is of higher value than that which brings condemnation” or “a microscope is more valuable than a magical medicine.

Merely obligate every law to the reasoning that brought about the law, open for public debate, and the serpents leave the scene. Even if that was done on a national scale, it would result in an extremely democratic, localized governing wherein reasoning befitting the local situation, governed the local situation, not a presumptuous or insidious person far away dictating universal social justice.

Thank you

That he likes to make statements and never back them up, while simultaneously ignoring when someone else does. Yes, I have learned it.

You guys make the distinction between philosophy and politics painfully evident.

And you make philosophy difficult and boring.

Virtually every major economy on the planet practices redistribution on some scale. That’s what taxes do. Pointing to communist states to say that redistribution of wealth doesn’t work is like pointing to the Nova or the Edsel to say that automobiles don’t work.

And the whole Marx/Communism thing you guys love to harp on is just like what you’re saying trickle down economics is - a politically motivated strawman. Yes, certain liberal ideas are represented in some of the things Marx said, but outside of academia, you’ll be hard pressed to find many prominent liberals pointing to Marx to back up or justify their ideas. You act like showing Marx to be wrong about something is showing the left to be wrong about everything.

Meanwhile are you willing to elucidate a little more the connection between rent control and homelessness? Because i don’t see it based on what you’ve said.

This is not a counter argument to anything I said. It is at most a Tu quoque fallacy.

Yes, and they accomplish all the things I just said, I could even show you if you wanted. But, yes, Taxes create deadweight loss and a disincentive to work. Which is one reason why lower taxes are better, it limits the amount of damage done. I am not a supporter of no taxes. I acknowledge that some loss is acceptable when the exchange is necessary. Note: this information is part of what creates the Laffer Curve. It’s why the more you tax the less taxes you get. At a point the disincentive and deadweight loss counter any other gained value.

No, it would be like pointing to cars built using the exact model of the nova, basically the same thing by a different name, and showing why they continue to not work. Or how some design elements in the Nova caused it not to work, and why they don’t work in other model cars.

At least you acknowledge that "trickle down economics is a strawman. :slight_smile:

My understanding of the partial source of the poor ideas does not mean that they are not the source. Just as a non-academic not understanding the partial source of those ideas does not stop them from being the source.

Nope, just the stuff that came from him. Everything else they are wrong about comes from other places. Without saying they are wrong about everything that is considered “left.” I am talking about a very specific issue, around the progressive economics of people like Marx, who worked at economics and used them in his writing or Keynes, who was also wrong about a lot of things, but in a different way and was not wrong about everything. Keynes writing on cyclical cycles is amazing!

I will gladly do so, but I shall in a different thread, if you don’t mind. I’m sorta working right now, so it might not be until Friday or so…

Ugh. Nevermind your fallacies. In the real world, almost every successful economy ever has involved some sort of taxation and social spending, which is redistribution of wealth in it’s essential form. Unless your an anarchist. i know libertarians do lean that way. Please tell me you’re not an anarchist …

What is deadweight loss? i’d rather get it from you than wiki…

“Disincentive to work”? No, i don’t think so. i work harder and i work more because i have taxes to pay. i think wanting not to pay taxes is lazy. Totally natural, of course - but lazy.

But that’s not true, unless you equate communism with redistribution of wealth, which is a complete conflation of two totally different things.

Sort of. i mean, it was a term invented by the left to describe Reagan’s economic schemes, and i think it’s pretty accurate, particularly in the case of things like Romney/Ryan type policy, where the focus is on elevating the status of the people on top, so that their success might pass downward to the less fortunate. Hopefully. Maybe. You know, if all goes according to the plan those on top have concocted.

i’m sorry, i don’t have the slightest idea what that means - except that you’re making the unsupported, politically motivated insinuation that liberal ideas are somehow inherently poor ideas. Unlike your own, obviously. :smiley:

If and when i get around to reading Keynes, i’ll take that under advisement. i don’t find as much time to read for leisure as i used to. i miss it, but what can you do?

Cool, i’d appreciate that and look forward to it.

If a person states that justice and economics are best understood as resolutions of the stress between economic classes, they are wrong. If they deny being a Marxist, but they believe this, they are still wrong. If they deny this, but still base all their decisions on an unwitting assumption that it’s true, they are wrong. If they disagree with Marx about literally everything else Marx said except this, they are still wrong. If a person calling themselves a conservative accept this premise, he’s wrong too.
So yeah, the left is wrong when they agree with Marx, regardless of how much, and what they call themselves when they do it. If there’s some leftist out there that doesn’t analyze justice and economics in terms of class conflict, he may in fact be right about many things. But then by virtue of what is he a leftist?

No, philosophy has always been difficult and boring. You’re just now finding out what it is. And it’s not a back patting contest between like minds. And it’s not a wind blowing contest with hand picked data from a few choice sources. And it’s certainly not a bunch of assumptions that your economic models will produce the outcomes that you think they will stated as though they’re certainties.

I’ll give you credit for having memorized a radical political position and for reciting talking points. You do that pretty well. You could probably get a bunch of morons to stand and cheer with you. But it’s not philosophy at all.

Ucc, you have to at least be aware that you’re somewhat of a radical in your views. I mean, at this point, it’s common knowledge that you’re just giving the line of the far right no matter what. You evade and dodge and argue in bad faith and everything. We’re a pretty smart audience. I’m actually kind of disappointed with the way you dismiss all contrary views as “leftist” or “hostile” or whatever victim complex excuse you give. You know me man normally I wouldn’t say all this but I mean…you really can’t deny anything in this post as being true. So what gives man? Why are you so stuck on this one set of ideals? What gives you such certainty that the far right conservative view on literally everything is the only way that isn’t wrong? Talk to me man I really wanna know. There aren’t many people in the world who believe what you do. So it’s hard to find one to discuss these things with, and it sucks when you refuse to discuss and just keep pushing the same talking points that are on talk radio all day.

It’s surprisingly hard to describe without graphs… When you artificially alter supply or demand to the negative, with such things as taxes, these things divert the “money” to other places, in the case of taxes, it’s too the government. This also creates a section between the natural line and the adjusted line, this is the deadweight loss. This is in essence productivity, wealth, lost to this shift. Both the producers and the users are taxed. And while some don’t care, when they think about things like beanie babies (chosen for its current obsolescence), think about instead cancer medicine or food, basic necessities, things that “poor” people need. It is the reduction in how much is produced for everyone, creating more demand…

Ugh, taxes are a requirement, at least until everyone is required to join the military… But then that would be taxes of a different sort, taxes are in essence of not having to join the military… Sorry, not important, much like the lazy comment…

Taxes are a disincentive because they increase the costs of employment, decreasing the amount of money made by each individual. Gaining money is incentive, because it can be exchanged for good a services.

Again, it is a strawman.

Progressive ideas are not inherently poor, they are poor because they have been tried and failed, repeatedly. Inherent isn’t even close to relevant. I don’t care about inherent. They are bad, there are reasons why they are bad. The reasons why is important.

Oh gods do I know what you are talking about. Though, I do have a suggestion of listening to books. I find it to be one of the best ways to read while my eyes have to be busy.

No, it isn’t, it’s long winded, which can be frustrating, but boring it is not.

I’ve known what it is. It is the attempt to understand all the things around us, to love the wisdom that comes from that understanding and attempt to explain it. It is the jester making fun of the king. It is the king killing the jester for his laughter. It is a lot of things, but I’ve only found it boring once.

Eh, I find that to be half true. Back patting happens quite a lot among intellectuals, if for no better reason, than to show, as you disagree, you still love the man. But I think you where using a colloquialism…

Eh, I find that to be half true. I would imagine that it would require you to provide data for you to back this up. But you don’t and won’t.

I will agree they are not certainties, just as many physics models get adjusted over time, I’m sure more information will come up correcting the models.

Blow me. It is the only reasonable response.

I read, I listen, I observe, I learn… Just because you are incapable does not mean you are less than everyone else, you can still try. Go ahead, I’ll still read what you post. We can work to be friends, I know lots of special people like you.

I already said I’d talk to you, now you want me to stand next to you?

I’m not sure you know anything about philosophy, at least I haven’t read you do any, mostly just practice what Marx practiced, dismiss any argument with derision instead of facts and information. Belittle any that disagree. You do not practice Philosophy, you practice opinion.

Dude, what you just said I do, is what Ucc does. He’s your back patting friend.

Data to illustrate that you selectively choose information that flatters your opinion in order to sell your view? Shit man…you post youtube videos as though they’re an authority on some matter. Look at your own posts.

I don’t care what you think about anything.

Well, he has proven to be better at responding to your crap than me. I’m still learning.

Youtube is not by itself a authority, it is what the videos contain that provides the authority. It’s like how a book has words, but it’s not the book that provides the authority, but the author that provides the authority. It is the words that provide the logical persuasion. I feel less just for having to explain this to you…

You can’t handle the truth. That’s why you responded the way you just did. I really never noticed a thing you’ve ever said until not that long ago and I was like, “this dude is fully indoctrinated, or he’s playing the devil’s advocate”. I’ve lost hope that you might be playing the devil’s advocate. Because you don’t even really advocate. You just repeat the same far right cliches over and over like it’s your job or something.

Eric are you saying that you like the pitchman who flatters your views and so you like to cite him as an authority? And if you check it out, you can find the data on this site…he has a history of ignoring views that he doesn’t agree with and pretending like there is some other reason besides that he can’t not to respond.

Ucc, you’re like the right wing radio show host who hangs up on everyone who disagrees with him and calls them a moron. Mark Levin is his name. He does commercials for hilldale college and cites koch brothers funded think tanks for all his data.

marklevinshow.com/

Your mom…