Guns

[boost]

Yeah, on general principle I am going to disagree with anyone who offers the same solution to every problem. I may agree the solution is correct for one problem, but there is a fundamental lack of appreciation for nuance and understanding of complex systems when the answer to all of societies problems is "less government!"

[wufwugy]

I'll try to keep this as short and simple as I can. (I know right?)

Yeah, on general principle I am going to disagree with anyone who offers the same solution to every problem. I may agree the solution is correct for one problem, but there is a fundamental lack of appreciation for nuance and understanding of complex systems when the answer to all of societies problems is "less government!"

This can be done with anything. Say we have some new illnesses and need some new drugs to treat them. One person says "chemistry!". Other people say "we need a nuanced approach that understands the complex system. We should use alchemy, astrology, method-acting, Mongolian throat singing, and chemistry." The other person says "none of that will work except chemistry" and he gets ridiculed for always having the same answer

I do not believe all of society's problems are solved by less government. But I do think that, domestically, government is the creator of our biggest problems. It is not irrational or inconsistent to blame the perceived culprit. Furthermore, I have put tens of thousands of words into explaining some of the nuances and complexities about why government intervention creates many of our problems. I have a feeling people tend to not read my posts. For a while I've wanted to type up a giant post explaining many of the nuances and complexities about how government intervention in education is creating a host of serious problems, many of which are not usually considered. But I haven't because I don't think anybody will read it, and if they do, I'm not sure if they will consider it. I don't want to deal with people just waving things off and saying I'm ideologically anti-government and that's that


My anti-government sentiments have come the same way that most contemporaries have: learning economics. Take the most liberal economists you can find, and they are all substantially to the libertarian side of things. Even the most pro-government ones are about as far from the general public as Adam Smith was from Marx. Economists aren't that good of communicators though, and I think that's one reason why the populace thinks they're all over the place.


It isn't accurate to say I'm anti-government anyways. It's a misnomer. This is an example of how I think government can make things better than just the free markets can. There are a handful of other examples of good that government can do, but our government doesn't do any of them. Some policies are better than others, but they're pretty much all worse than free markets

http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/4...e-market-based


As for the topic of correctly defining government that you guys are arguing over, organizations that are not set up by legal mandate and tax collection are not "government". The entire libertarian/anti-government stance of most economists and some enthusiasts is based in how that kind of government systematically creates and perpetuates moral hazards that hurt people. The foundation of why we live in such a wonderful society is freedom of choice. Laws and tax allocations deter that. It isn't so much that they just lessen it, but they eliminate it in many ways. Poker is the best example for us here. Because of government operating on law and taxes, the poker market is mostly non-existent and many lives have been very negatively affected. This happens in virtually every area that government makes laws

[boost]

I'll try to keep this as short and simple as I can. (I know right?)



This can be done with anything. Say we have some new illnesses and need some new drugs to treat them. One person says "chemistry!". Other people say "we need a nuanced approach that understands the complex system. We should use alchemy, astrology, method-acting, Mongolian throat singing, and chemistry." The other person says "none of that will work except chemistry" and he gets ridiculed for always having the same answer

This is a complete and utter misrepresentation. In your allegory, less government is chemistry, and all alternatives are quackery. On top of that my critique has to do with the application of one solution to every problem. Some ailments are cured by drugs developed by some discipline of chemist, but others truly do just require better diet and exercise, or are all together psychosomatic. Going with your example, "Less government!" is more accurately "just swallow this pill!"

[wufwugy]

This is a complete and utter misrepresentation. In your allegory, less government is chemistry, and all alternatives are quackery. On top of that my critique has to do with the application of one solution to every problem. Some ailments are cured by drugs developed by some discipline of chemist, but others truly do just require better diet and exercise, or are all together psychosomatic. Going with your example, "Less government!" is more accurately "just swallow this pill!"

This shows how the logical fallacy works for anything

You're doing yourself a disservice if you think Renton or I are not trying to diagnose the problems and understand the nuances and complexities. Let's say there's a kid who gets bad grades, is a bully, and cries a lot. Those problems all seem like they could be unrelated unless you find out that his father also beats him. If you say the problem is the abuse, I don't get to come along and say you're ignoring nuance and applying just one solution.

We do not believe the problem is government because we're against government. We believe the problem is government because of all the details of the causality of the problem pointing to government. Don't forget that I used to be a staunch advocate of intrusive government. That only changed the more I read economics.

If you want to beat somebody's argument, beat it on the details. Don't apply a heuristic