Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

When unsustainable becomes undoable

HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 11:24:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am so glad we're finally approaching our day of reckoning. I love it when unsustainable spending on left-wing social programs and right-wing war mongering finally becomes altogether unaffordable. It's one thing to warn someone that the stove is hot, but to see them put their hand in it is something special.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 2:52:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That is quite the general statement, Handsoff. Would you care to elaborate? What is it that leads you to believe that collapse (or, day of reckoning) is near at hand?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 2:53:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/2/2010 11:24:42 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I am so glad we're finally approaching our day of reckoning. I love it when unsustainable spending on left-wing social programs and right-wing war mongering finally becomes altogether unaffordable. It's one thing to warn someone that the stove is hot, but to see them put their hand in it is something special.

Better left-wing social programs than right-wing warmongering. :P
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 2:59:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 2:53:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/2/2010 11:24:42 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I am so glad we're finally approaching our day of reckoning. I love it when unsustainable spending on left-wing social programs and right-wing war mongering finally becomes altogether unaffordable. It's one thing to warn someone that the stove is hot, but to see them put their hand in it is something special.

Better left-wing social programs than right-wing warmongering. :P

Right-wing warmongering programs get rid of their recipients directly, so they end quickly on their own. Left-wing social programs keep their recipients on life support and turn other people into demanders for more, so it's a relatively permanent vicious cycle. It's like you're calling the common cold worse than chronic bronchitis.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:00:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 2:59:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/3/2010 2:53:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/2/2010 11:24:42 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I am so glad we're finally approaching our day of reckoning. I love it when unsustainable spending on left-wing social programs and right-wing war mongering finally becomes altogether unaffordable. It's one thing to warn someone that the stove is hot, but to see them put their hand in it is something special.

Better left-wing social programs than right-wing warmongering. :P

Right-wing warmongering programs get rid of their recipients directly, so they end quickly on their own. Left-wing social programs keep their recipients on life support and turn other people into demanders for more, so it's a relatively permanent vicious cycle. It's like you're calling the common cold worse than chronic bronchitis.

Oh yea, I almost forgot. You don't care if people starve, get raped, etc.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:03:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 3:00:57 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/3/2010 2:59:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/3/2010 2:53:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/2/2010 11:24:42 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I am so glad we're finally approaching our day of reckoning. I love it when unsustainable spending on left-wing social programs and right-wing war mongering finally becomes altogether unaffordable. It's one thing to warn someone that the stove is hot, but to see them put their hand in it is something special.

Better left-wing social programs than right-wing warmongering. :P

Right-wing warmongering programs get rid of their recipients directly, so they end quickly on their own. Left-wing social programs keep their recipients on life support and turn other people into demanders for more, so it's a relatively permanent vicious cycle. It's like you're calling the common cold worse than chronic bronchitis.

Oh yea, I almost forgot. You don't care if people starve, get raped, etc.

Sure I do, if they provide something in exchange for such care.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:11:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 3:03:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Oh yea, I almost forgot. You don't care if people starve, get raped, etc.

Sure I do, if they provide something in exchange for such care.

If I actually believed in karma....
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:15:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 3:11:24 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/3/2010 3:03:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Oh yea, I almost forgot. You don't care if people starve, get raped, etc.

Sure I do, if they provide something in exchange for such care.

If I actually believed in karma....

Then someone wouldn't care about me unless I provided something in exchange for such care. And someone would leave me the f*** alone unless I gave explicit permission not to. If karma existed, there would be no point in political activism, libertarianism would be fact, would have been fact for all history, and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:19:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 3:15:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Then someone wouldn't care about me unless I provided something in exchange for such care. And someone would leave me the f*** alone unless I gave explicit permission not to. If karma existed, there would be no point in political activism, libertarianism would be fact, would have been fact for all history, and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it.

Actually, I was thinking more about you ending up starving on the street or being sodomized several times by several men.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:20:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 3:19:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/3/2010 3:15:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Then someone wouldn't care about me unless I provided something in exchange for such care. And someone would leave me the f*** alone unless I gave explicit permission not to. If karma existed, there would be no point in political activism, libertarianism would be fact, would have been fact for all history, and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it.

Actually, I was thinking more about you ending up starving on the street or being sodomized several times by several men.

Not that I'd ever wish that upon you... but just saying, karma, 'tis a bitch, if it existed anyways.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:25:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 3:20:26 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/3/2010 3:19:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/3/2010 3:15:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Then someone wouldn't care about me unless I provided something in exchange for such care. And someone would leave me the f*** alone unless I gave explicit permission not to. If karma existed, there would be no point in political activism, libertarianism would be fact, would have been fact for all history, and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it.

Actually, I was thinking more about you ending up starving on the street or being sodomized several times by several men.

Not that I'd ever wish that upon you... but just saying, karma, 'tis a bitch, if it existed anyways.
Karma is insufficent to establish that, as I do not intend to rape, and I'm not the cause of starvation either. (I'm not the cause of its lack, but hey). Karma is defined in terms of "What you do unto others happens onto you." It doesn't have any effect, even if it existed, if you don't actually, you know, do something.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:30:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 3:25:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It doesn't have any effect, even if it existed, if you don't actually, you know, do something.

Doing nothing is in this case doing something; by either not helping someone who is starving, or more seriously, being attacked and sodomized, the effect of karma would be that no one would help you were you to end up in either situation or one with similar consequences.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:44:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 3:30:44 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/3/2010 3:25:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It doesn't have any effect, even if it existed, if you don't actually, you know, do something.

Doing nothing is in this case doing something
No. Nothing is never something. Everything is always something, but nothing is never something. Ever.

by either not helping someone who is starving, or more seriously, being attacked and sodomized, the effect of karma would be that no one would help you were you to end up in either situation or one with similar consequences.
Which is insufficent to establish that I actually DO come into those situations given nothing but karma.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 3:55:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 3:44:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No. Nothing is never something. Everything is always something, but nothing is never something. Ever.

So actively deciding to do nothing to help someone is in fact not doing something? If that were the case, is not thinking about doing nothing in fact committing yourself to doing something, namely doing nothing?

Which is insufficent to establish that I actually DO come into those situations given nothing but karma.

That's a moot point in regards to karma, but for the sake of argument, the supernatural goodness of karma will bring around these situations. Doesn't really matter, though.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 4:01:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 3:55:02 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/3/2010 3:44:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No. Nothing is never something. Everything is always something, but nothing is never something. Ever.

So actively deciding to do nothing to help someone is in fact not doing something? If that were the case, is not thinking about doing nothing in fact committing yourself to doing something, namely doing nothing?
Doing nothing simply isn't doing nothing. This remains true however you choose to rearrange the words.


Which is insufficent to establish that I actually DO come into those situations given nothing but karma.

That's a moot point in regards to karma, but for the sake of argument, the supernatural goodness of karma will bring around these situations.
Supernatural goodness? No, that's something that means those situations never come for anyone :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 4:10:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 4:01:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Doing nothing simply isn't doing nothing. This remains true however you choose to rearrange the words.

Would you like to rephrase that?

Supernatural goodness? No, that's something that means those situations never come for anyone :P

Hey, we're talking about "karma" here - it's already a supernatural concept.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 4:14:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 4:10:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/3/2010 4:01:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Doing nothing simply isn't doing something. This remains true however you choose to rearrange the words.

Would you like to rephrase that?
Yes I would.


Supernatural goodness? No, that's something that means those situations never come for anyone :P

Hey, we're talking about "karma" here - it's already a supernatural concept.
It however isn't "already" a concept that "guarantees good." It guarantees positively bad consequences for positively bad substantial actions.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 4:25:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 4:14:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It however isn't "already" a concept that "guarantees good." It guarantees positively bad consequences for positively bad substantial actions.

True, but what does that have to do with my claim of it directing you towards a situation where these "positively bad consequences for positively bad substantial actions" may occur.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 4:33:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 2:59:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Right-wing warmongering programs get rid of their recipients directly, so they end quickly on their own. Left-wing social programs keep their recipients on life support and turn other people into demanders for more, so it's a relatively permanent vicious cycle. It's like you're calling the common cold worse than chronic bronchitis.

If this were true, why are we still at war? You'd think that getting rid of something "directly" would take less than 6+ years. Not to mention that this is further untrue because going to war requires the use of a large military. We don't go to war and then abolish the military. We also encourage people to stay in the military for life with monetary and other incentives (power, prestige, etc). In most cases we even continue to support veterans even after they are no longer in the military. How is increasing the size of our ever expanding military (and military endeavors) any different or NOT a vicious cycle?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 4:52:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't Ragnar go to a community college? I may be wrong, but if not, then clearly he doesn't see anything wrong with investing in public higher education :p And if he does see something wrong with it but utilizes it anyway, isn't that against his values (or objectivist values)? And don't they have a strict policy against hypocrisy? Hmm. I'm not sure. But in terms of the karma issue, clearly people's opinions are going to be biased based on their lifestyles and life experiences. No getting around it.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 5:34:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 4:52:26 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't Ragnar go to a community college?

So do I.

I may be wrong, but if not, then clearly he doesn't see anything wrong with investing in public higher education :p

That does not follow. He also probably uses government roads but that does not mean that he cannot object to them being funded by violent coercion.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 5:40:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 5:34:48 PM, Reasoning wrote:
So do I.

Like, a two-year college?

That does not follow. He also probably uses government roads but that does not mean that he cannot object to them being funded by violent coercion.

He doesn't have a choice to use government roads. There are only one type of roads- government. There are public and private schools. He can also choose to not to go to college if he so chooses. He's only funding the machine by giving more money to them.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 5:49:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 5:40:07 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/3/2010 5:34:48 PM, Reasoning wrote:
So do I.

Like, a two-year college?

I'm not matriculated but I do take multiple classes there, yes.

That does not follow. He also probably uses government roads but that does not mean that he cannot object to them being funded by violent coercion.

He doesn't have a choice to use government roads. There are only one type of roads- government.

Even if there were private roads and they were sh*tty Ragnar wouldn't be obligated to use them. Obviously Ragnar feels that community college is the best choice for him right now.

There are public and private schools. He can also choose to not to go to college if he so chooses.

Indeed he could. But there is no reason why he shouldn't make use of them as they already exist.

He's only funding the machine by giving more money to them.

Any funding Ragnar is providing is irrelevantly negligible.

Furthermore, it isn't a crime against libertarianism to purchase from thugs. For instance, it isn't a libertarian crime to buy drugs from a drug dealer who also happens to use violence to secure a monopoly on his turf.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 5:58:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 5:49:22 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Furthermore, it isn't a crime against libertarianism to purchase from thugs.

No, it's just hypocritical.

"The guvmint shouldn't take from others in order to fund these socialist institutions... but I'll just use them for my own advantage and act like I'm not making all of my ideals completely pointless."
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 6:00:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 5:49:22 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I'm not matriculated but I do take multiple classes there, yes.

You finish high school yet?

He doesn't have a choice to use government roads. There are only one type of roads- government.

Even if there were private roads and they were sh*tty Ragnar wouldn't be obligated to use them. Obviously Ragnar feels that community college is the best choice for him right now.

That's not the point. Government roads and private roads, if they existed, would take one to different places. Duh. Community colleges offer the same services as private colleges, at a lower tuition in the name of the public good. Last time I checked, you and Ragnar support and advocate the disbandment of the current system. By buying into and participating in the system, you are only furthering the system.

Indeed he could. But there is no reason why he shouldn't make use of them as they already exist.

Yes, there is a reason. He says he doesn't want (public) community colleges to exist, yet he furthers the existence of them by attending.

Any funding Ragnar is providing is irrelevantly negligible.

It's still funding nonetheless.

Furthermore, it isn't a crime against libertarianism to purchase from thugs. For instance, it isn't a libertarian crime to buy drugs from a drug dealer who also happens to use violence to secure a monopoly on his turf.

It's a contradiction though. You advocate and argue for X, and advocate and argue against Y. You participate in Y. You see a problem there?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 6:14:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 6:00:37 PM, Nags wrote:
You finish high school yet?

I never even started it.

That's not the point. Government roads and private roads, if they existed, would take one to different places. Duh.

Even if they went to the same place, say one was built underground beneath the other one, and the private one was crappy and filled with potholes but the government road wasn't, I know that such a scenario is ridiculous but hear me out, Ragnar would be under no obligation to use the private crappy one and it would be perfectly acceptable for him to use the one provided by thieves.

Community colleges offer the same services as private colleges, at a lower tuition in the name of the public good. Last time I checked, you and Ragnar support and advocate the disbandment of the current system.

I believe that the provision of any service through the use of taxation is theft and should therefore be abolished, yes.

By buying into and participating in the system, you are only furthering the system.

I think you need to brush up on your economics. Whether I take classes at a community college or not, the Community College is not going to be abolished. I can only make decisions a the margin.

Indeed he could. But there is no reason why he shouldn't make use of them as they already exist.
Yes, there is a reason. He says he doesn't want (public) community colleges to exist, yet he furthers the existence of them by attending.

Marginality principle.

Any funding Ragnar is providing is irrelevantly negligible.
It's still funding nonetheless.

It's still negligible nonetheless.

It's a contradiction though. You advocate and argue for X, and advocate and argue against Y. You participate in Y. You see a problem there?

I argue against the class Y and partake in Y at the marginal level. This problem was solved back in the 1800s by Menger when he founded the Austrian School of Economics.

For instance, I oppose government college loans as a class but intend to receive such a loan to pay my for college.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 6:26:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 6:14:53 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I never even started it.

Oh. Home-schooled? Do you plan on getting a BA or BS?

Even if they went to the same place, say one was built underground beneath the other one, and the private one was crappy and filled with potholes but the government road wasn't, I know that such a scenario is ridiculous but hear me out, Ragnar would be under no obligation to use the private crappy one and it would be perfectly acceptable for him to use the one provided by thieves.

The scenario is ridiculous and impossible, but I'll go along, whatever. Can you give a reason why he would be under no obligation without him being a hypocrite?

I believe that the provision of any service through the use of taxation is theft and should therefore be abolished, yes.

If you believe that a system should be abolished, why support that system?

I think you need to brush up on your economics. Whether I take classes at a community college or not, the Community College is not going to be abolished. I can only make decisions a the margin.

Perfect Solution Fallacy.

Yes, there is a reason. He says he doesn't want (public) community colleges to exist, yet he furthers the existence of them by attending.

Marginality principle.

It's more satisfying and important to attend public school than to abolish public school?

It's still negligible nonetheless.

No, it's not. Money = Money. Contribution = Contribution.

It's a contradiction though. You advocate and argue for X, and advocate and argue against Y. You participate in Y. You see a problem there?

I argue against the class Y and partake in Y at the marginal level. This problem was solved back in the 1800s by Menger when he founded the Austrian School of Economics.

For instance, I oppose government college loans as a class but intend to receive such a loan to pay my for college.

Like I said above, if you place the government loan and public schooling as a higher priority than abolishing the system in which you argue against, then the system will never be abolished. Government can only exist if people participate. You participate. You allow government to exist. And you wonder why some people are so dependent on government. By being a hypocrite, you can never really argue for your position. It's like when politicians are against gay marriage, but then go have gay sex. You can't have it both ways.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 6:43:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"I think you need to brush up on your economics. Whether I take classes at a community college or not, the Community College is not going to be abolished. I can only make decisions a the margin." -- Reasoning

Whether I support welfare or not, it will still exist. Whether I support social security or not, it will still exist. The way to not support these programs would be to vote against them. The way to retreat support from things like community colleges would be to not attend and thus perpetuate their existence with extra funding (since they are not free and require extra tuition) - especially since you have a plethora of private schools to choose from. Offering monetary support is one of the most substantial forms of support for something that there is! As Nags said, you have no choice but to drive on government roads. But if you really were against government funded schools, then you wouldn't attend one. You believe in competition and thus you're fueling the continuing existence of government funded education by helping them succeed over the school's competitors. Simultaneously you're essentially biting the hand that feeds you. I'm sure Ragnar can lecture you on this better than I can (as he's done it to me several times on this issue of consistency lol).
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2010 6:44:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/3/2010 6:26:40 PM, Nags wrote:

It's like when politicians are against gay marriage, but then go have gay sex. You can't have it both ways.

Both ways *snicker* ;)
President of DDO