Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Ayn Rand Philosophy, Objectivism, Science, Self-interest

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 151 to 159 of 159
  1. #151
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That's not bureaucracy.
    I didn't realize a bureaucracy required gov't. Obviously there are parts of science that exist independent of gov't.

    There are also parts that don't like DARPA.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Citation needed, I can't find them.
    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/...ted-market.asp

    Quality page. This is largely political liberty stuff, which has a lot of crossover.

    I digress, but I find your use of "we" here a bit amusing. "We", as in us the economists, who get it. A bit ad verecundiam, don't you think?
    Don't read too much into it. "We" is a commonly used pronoun when discussing norms. I'll rephrase: the meanings of regulation and centralization in political contexts are effects from government intervention.

    It doesn't have to be more powerful, it just needs to be independent. This actually works quite well in practice, similarly to corporations. Think of the internal audit function. Works much much better than no oversight at all.
    If it's not more powerful, then it's not effective oversight; if it's independent, then it's not done with government influence.

    The analogy of the internal audit function applied to government assumes the angels I referenced earlier. That governing body will still have total and unchecked power. Who are the angels you trust to not abuse this?

    The Soviet Union was as much socialist as Russia is democratic.
    The revisionist history is astounding. The USSR was the greatest socialist experiment of all time. If you would like to discuss why this is the case, we can.

    Greed is also a big reason why societies have crime. Things aren't just good or evil. You're trying to paint the world black and white.
    I'm trying to provide insight learned from economics. The lesson often gets shortened to "greed is good." The lesson is that abundance and novelty arise from competition of peoples' greed in a free market.

    I don't see how this is relevant to my point.
    You extolled the virtues of voting and democracy as a contrast to my point. I pointed out that my position involves so much more selection by the people of their environments that it could be described as voting/democracy on steroids.

    You jumped over my whole point of there always being those who are more powerful than others. A government is simply a way to keep them in check, to ensure they don't get too much power and influence over others.
    The government is the too much power. Square this circle for me: on the one hand you acknowledge that some have more power than others, but on the other hand you declare that the solution is to give absolute power to somebody else.

    If the things you have said previously are any indication, you think the answer is democracy. But that has been demonstrably as well as theoretically inadequate. How many bureaucrats have you voted for? None. How many times a decade do you vote? Possibly a few. What level of influence have you had on the laws passed? Virtually none.

    Religion isn't the only opiate of the masses; democracy is too.

    And I don't care if there would be even more stuff if free market.
    Isn't that like saying "I don't care if you're right; you're still wrong"?

    I first typed only the US, but then changed it since the situation is pretty similar in countries with high corruption.
    They're not remotely similar. You have equated political power derived from having the biggest armies with the liberty of people to express a point.

    Do you find any irony comparing this to tax vs theft or abortion vs murder?
    Bribery and lobbying are not the same thing. There is a measure of overlap, which is where lobbying shows its problems. But they are by nature two entirely different things. One is a gift exchange and the other is education.

    A government without lobbying would be a lolbad disaster because the policies would not reflect reality that much. Politicians don't have enough money (and even if they did, it would be wrong for them to do so) to hire experts on every issue they legislate on. Lobbying is where they get it from. Lobbying is a significantly important attribute that gives the people (read: you) access to influence your government. That some people have greater influence is a problem, but that arises not from the existence of lobbying, but the existence of government power in that market.

    Now you just lost me completely. It's good that those with wealth have a disproportionate influence over others?
    In general terms, yes. This is an integral element of the construction of prosperity. Hierarchy based on capital is awash in the natural world.

    How is this a good thing? Because USA has the highest gun violence stats in the world? I'd go about differently trying to solve overpopulation.
    Average citizens probably get more bang for their buck from lobbying than the rich do.

    Look at it this way: special treatment does exist and it's a problem, but it is also not the norm. That's not to say that it's not a serious systemic issue, just to say that people misdiagnose the problems in this area. The Kochs, for example, don't lobby for special treatment. Their agenda has always been to get government out of the lives of the people. Yet they have been demonized more than any other family in the western world in the last decade because multitudes of people get the wrong information.

    I only had a tremendously greater power in the first place if I happened to be wealthy.
    Another lesson of economics is that this is not the case. There is no known mechanism that has provided anywhere close to the level of power and prosperity for the poor than free markets. This is not something economists disagree on. I suspect this should be right up your alley since you care deeply about engagement of the knowledge and understanding of science and expertise.

    If the data is not available, there shouldn't be regulations regarding it.
    There shouldn't be, and yet there are. Why do you think there are?
  3. #153
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Can't find anywhere a statement saying that decentralization and unregulation are principles of free markets.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If it's not more powerful, then it's not effective oversight; if it's independent, then it's not done with government influence.

    The analogy of the internal audit function applied to government assumes the angels I referenced earlier. That governing body will still have total and unchecked power. Who are the angels you trust to not abuse this?
    In case you're not familiar with internal audits, it's just an independent body within the organization that audit the processes and practices of the company, and reports to the board. They actually have zero power within the organization, they just report what's happening based on predetermined criteria and metrics. That's oversight. No angels needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The revisionist history is astounding. The USSR was the greatest socialist experiment of all time. If you would like to discuss why this is the case, we can.
    Even if something may be the "greatest" it doesn't make it great, or even half-assed.

    https://chomsky.info/1986____/

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm trying to provide insight learned from economics. The lesson often gets shortened to "greed is good." The lesson is that abundance and novelty arise from competition of peoples' greed in a free market.
    I don't know, but I would wager that no economist argues that greed is universally good, just that it has beneficial properties within certain strictly defined economic scenarios. You seem to be ignoring all of the other scenarios and think greed is always and only positive.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You extolled the virtues of voting and democracy as a contrast to my point. I pointed out that my position involves so much more selection by the people of their environments that it could be described as voting/democracy on steroids.
    I didn't say anything about the virtues of voting, I stated that the de facto way to have influence in a democracy, and lobbying is skewing that in favor of the wealthy. What you wrote was irrelevant to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The government is the too much power. Square this circle for me: on the one hand you acknowledge that some have more power than others, but on the other hand you declare that the solution is to give absolute power to somebody else.

    If the things you have said previously are any indication, you think the answer is democracy. But that has been demonstrably as well as theoretically inadequate. How many bureaucrats have you voted for? None. How many times a decade do you vote? Possibly a few. What level of influence have you had on the laws passed? Virtually none.
    The wealthy are gonna have more power than the others no matter what. I'd much rather have some checks and balances on what they can do, than not.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Isn't that like saying "I don't care if you're right; you're still wrong"?
    Only in a world where more stuff is the only meaningful metric. I don't live in one.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    They're not remotely similar. You have equated political power derived from having the biggest armies with the liberty of people to express a point.

    Bribery and lobbying are not the same thing. There is a measure of overlap, which is where lobbying shows its problems. But they are by nature two entirely different things. One is a gift exchange and the other is education.
    What do armies have to do with lobbying or corruption? In both cases political favors can be bought with money, only difference being in the USA it's legal. Like I said earlier, I'm using lobbying as an umbrella term for campaign finance, gifts to politicians, cronyism.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    A government without lobbying would be a lolbad disaster because the policies would not reflect reality that much.
    Sounds legit.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Politicians don't have enough money (and even if they did, it would be wrong for them to do so) to hire experts on every issue they legislate on. Lobbying is where they get it from. Lobbying is a significantly important attribute that gives the people (read: you) access to influence your government. That some people have greater influence is a problem, but that arises not from the existence of lobbying, but the existence of government power in that market.
    Sounds peculiar. Over here at least politicians certainly don't hire experts, they are government officials that work for them. Of course some also use paid advisors. We don't have major problems with campaign financing and politicians at least most of the time work, not just raise funds and filibuster. I've told you many times before over the years, your notion of a governments may be badly skewed because of the one you have.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    In general terms, yes. This is an integral element of the construction of prosperity. Hierarchy based on capital is awash in the natural world.
    I said disproportionate.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Average citizens probably get more bang for their buck from lobbying than the rich do.
    Average citizens don't have Super PACs.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Look at it this way: special treatment does exist and it's a problem, but it is also not the norm. That's not to say that it's not a serious systemic issue, just to say that people misdiagnose the problems in this area. The Kochs, for example, don't lobby for special treatment. Their agenda has always been to get government out of the lives of the people. Yet they have been demonized more than any other family in the western world in the last decade because multitudes of people get the wrong information.
    I don't personally know what the Kochs ultimate goals are, and it doesn't matter. They shouldn't have the level of power they do no matter what they support.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Another lesson of economics is that this is not the case. There is no known mechanism that has provided anywhere close to the level of power and prosperity for the poor than free markets. This is not something economists disagree on. I suspect this should be right up your alley since you care deeply about engagement of the knowledge and understanding of science and expertise.
    You said: "But you had a much more effective vote back before you constructed the tremendously greater power in the first place. Color me confused."
    I said: "I only had a tremendously greater power in the first place if I happened to be wealthy."

    I again don't see how what you said now is relevant to what we were talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    There shouldn't be, and yet there are. Why do you think there are?
    I'm not arguing for the US government, I'm arguing for "a" government. We've only ever briefly touched on what I actually support. I've talked about outcomes, and I'm still not at all convinced free market is the silver bullet to everything, no matter how effectively it produces stuff.

    We seem to be just going around in circles in the monster posts, and I don't feel you've provided any new info to me this time. I'll bail out.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  4. #154
    I think we were getting somewhere (especially with your latest post), but I"ll respect that and not respond.
  5. #155
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Well the hockey finals may have affected my mood, but I can't imagine anyone else enjoying reading these, so maybe lay them to rest for a while.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  6. #156
    taxation=theft=hockey=socialism=aynrand
  7. #157
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Now we're thinking!
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Even if something may be the "greatest" it doesn't make it great, or even half-assed.

    https://chomsky.info/1986____/
    Don't feel like you have to respond to this. It's just something I wanted to address, so I'll do it now, because I believe two of the most important misconceptions in the modern world are (1) the USSR was not socialist and (2) capitalism does not empower the poor while socialism empowers the poor.

    Briefly, about the second point, the consensus among economists is that free markets empower the poor. Even the most left, pro-socialist economists in the West believe this. Economists of every variety are intense advocates of free markets. It's only on certain hot political issues, like healthcare, where hard left economists, who extol the virtues of free markets for most things, say that markets shouldn't be free.

    Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
    The quote is describing an effect, not a policy. Socialism is not an effect, but a policy. A policy that enforces social ownership does not equal the effect of social power. If Chomsky were to have a problem with my use of the word "enforces," he would unwittingly be agreeing with free markets, because the voluntary act of social ownership is a derivation of free markets.

    As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, “this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,” but can only be “realized by the workers themselves being master over production.”
    The bold is insufficient in terms because it accounts for only production. It's missing consumption and distribution. It's missing the concept of capital. It doesn't account for division of labor, economies of scale, and virtually every element integral to the scientific understanding of economics. Pannenkoek's description is humorism level wrong/debunked/outdated/unscientific.

    Even so, if we dissect the statement as if it's meaningful, it begins to look remarkably like free market capitalism. Production is an effect of and dependent upon worker capital. Free market capitalism is the consensus structure that optimizes worker capital. If we were to change "production" in the quote to what it should be, "production, consumption, and capital," then the statement remarkably reflects free market capitalism.

    But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
    The statement is necessarily free market capitalism because of the bold. Chomsky is describing voluntary agency. This necessarily means he is describing a free market.

    Worker owned companies are 100% legal in free markets. Millions of them exist. There are a variety of reasons why economists believe not all companies are worker owned in a developed free market economy, and "exploitation" isn't on the list.

    A historian sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, E.H. Carr, writes that “the spontaneous inclination of the workers to organize factory committees and to intervene in the management of the factories was inevitably encouraged by a revolution which led the workers to believe that the productive machinery of the country belonged to them and could be operated by them at their own discretion and to their own advantage”
    The bold is why the USSR system is socialism, and why Marx himself said that true socialism is communism. When you have a system where social ownership by workers is the law, a bureaucracy to enforce this is required. Some today reimagine socialism to meaning only social ownership of a company by its workers, but this was not the view of Marx and it was not the view of socialists during the Cold War. The logic is pretty straightforward: the "worker" is a class. When the philosophy is for the worker to have social ownership, it is not enough to look at individual workers and individual companies, but to view them as a whole. This necessarily means that all workers should have social ownership of all companies. How is it possible to achieve this? Central command and a stripping away of voluntarism. Ironic, I know.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 06-04-2016 at 07:26 PM.
  9. #159
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    I never claimed the theory of socialism differs greatly from the theory of socialism, I'm talking about the practice in the former USSR. Saying that communism/socialism is bad based on how bad things were in the Soviet Union, is like saying Russia's current economic issues are due to them embracing capitalism and democracy.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •