OK, New board.

Berry, I think you are beginning to see that we agree much more than you expected we would on what we want (or perhaps more acurately don't want)government to have power over, and why.

Our real points of contention, if there are any, are:

1) I know why I believe it is important to care about the issue to begin with(my philosphical basis is rooted in my values), but if as you claim values are irrelevant or even counterproductive in political issues, then why should you care?

2)(I do have a second point I want to ask about, but suddenly I'm having trouble finding a non-loaded way of asking it. It concerns how you determine what is on "solid ground" and what is on "the slippery slope.")

TomM,

I care because we are talking laws. Believe whatever you want, but don't get the police to insist I believe it too or else. You say there are universals? Fine, I'll agree with you to an extent. Many of the "universals" that will be cited I can quibble with. Many of the "universals" that will be shown will get links to show people who do not think that way. (I.E. ScottN's rape example is of guys who think gang rape is acceptable, despite how you, I, or Dwimble may feel about it.)

Define solid ground? I can't except as the absence of a slippery slope. A "slippery slope" is where the first step seems reasonable but carrying the logic out it is unacceptable to even the proposer. (This usually done by reducto absurdium (My Latin is rusty. Please forgive me if I missoellled it.)

A neutral(ish) example is a fat person doing well on a diet eating "just one scoop" of ice cream. Since the added calories of hot fudge, jimmies, etc., are small they end up sliding down the slope and eating a sundae. Yes, they can say, here and no further, but I would not say they were on "solid ground". (I say neutral-ish because California may tax fatty foods. ScottN, you're a Californian and mostly sane, you want to chime in on that law's Philosophy?

Oh, BTW, since we were talking by each other before I generally talk of the laws that should be. (Complaining about the ones that are would take me too long.)

Dwimble,

(I assume you get net access through work. Unless posting here is work, beware your boss finding out. Ask ScottN how he will.)

In the end every individual is responsible for their actions, not a government.

(Yes, TomM, that is a moral judgment. I am the biggest hypocrite ever. Shall we discuss my hypocrisy amongst people discussing banning something?)

...then why should you care? TomM

I care because we are talking laws. Believe whatever you want, but don't get the police to insist I believe it too or else. \-2 {Berry}

My question as phrased was too flip and asked something different from what I thought I was asking. (Blame it on the hour.) On reading it fresh, even I get the impression that it seems to be questioning your right to be involved in the discussion. I'm very sorry for that. What I really meant to ask is If your philosophy is not rooted in values, what is its first principle? This is not meant as a trick question. If you truly have a values free or even a values-neutral philosophy I'd like to learn more about it.

On the other hand, the slippery slope question was (sort of), as I already indicated a trick question. IMHO, there is no "solid ground." Every law is built on a slippery slope. No matter what principle is offered as the reason for passing a law, the same principle can be used to extend that law. And it does not have to slip to absurd lengths to become "wrong' or "dangerous" or whatever word you want to use. In fact , the smaller the shift, the more dangerous, because you might be tempted to ignore it, or might miss it altogether, but enough of the small shifts can add up to a change you would never have accepted if you'd been aware of it.

Apparently, I have a much less rigourous definition of how much consensus is needed to make a principle "universal." To use the example of a consensus about murder: every known society agrees that the wanton killing of one human by another is wrong, but they disagree on certain details. (I defined murder the way I did in order to discuss some of those details. It could be defined in other ways, but although there different ways to describe the details, the disagreement over them would still be there.

The details:

1) Who defines "wanton"? Anti-death-penalty people consider the execution of criminals wanton. Pro-death-penalty people see it as justified.

2) Who defines "killing"? The Spanish Inquistion didn't kill,they only tortured Jews, Muslims and witches until they confessed/converted and saved their souls. That they died immediately afterward was not the Inquisition's doing. God knew that if they recovered, they would return to their old practices, so He took them while they were still "clean."

3) Who defines "human" (the killer)? A madman or a savage can't commit, or be tried for murder, he just gets put down like a dog.

4) Who defines "human" (the victim)" (Do we really need to explore this one yet again?)

The details are not trivial, and they certainly cannot be glossed over or ignored (especially when wars have been fought over "details" that truly are trivial, but which were considered vital by some society.* But they are details, and focussing mainly on them obscures the fact that there is a universal consensus that murder is wrong.

* I believe I read somewhere that Swift had the Liliputians go to war over which end of a soft-boiled egg to open to satirize a situation whereby England and France nearly declared war over wig styles. I may be wrong, but if it's true ...

By dividing a society's issues into a "universally agreed upon" portion (when there is one) and "details," it then becomes possible to say things like "The only 'natural' business of government is in regulating those 'universal' issues." Otherwise there would appear to be no basis, other than personal preference, for saying "This is a proper concern for the government, but that is something they should keep their nose out of.

Maybe it's just me, or is anyone else's brain on 'standby'?

Hmmm...I'll have to read this when I'm actually awake.

TomM,

Don't worry about it. As least you didn't question my rationality or humanness. (Aside: the only time I am "insulted" is if someone counters what I didn't say. [Aside #2: I'm guilty of that too, I didn't see the word "not" in one of Luigi Novi's posts once.])

What I really meant to ask is If your philosophy is not rooted in values, what is its first principle? -TomM

My first principle? I guess that would not to impose my principles on any one else, but I wouldn't want to base any laws on that.
My second principle would ask if it infringed on anyone else. Like all good second principles it is rescinded where ever it conflicts with the first principle.

every known society agrees that the wanton killing of one human by another is wrong--TomM

I'm kinda quoting him out of context; he admits that the details for every society are different. The Devil is in the details. (Yes, I'm making the argument for the second most powerful being in the universe -- you got a problem with that?) You said "Human." Go to the abortion board for help defining "human." You admit that the details are important, but not vital. The details are all we can argue over rationally. The whole can only be more than the sum of the parts when something we don't understand is at work. We have a separate board for the mysterious workings that mortal me may not know. If Reason cannot have sway we come down to faith. Faith belongs at another board. Here anyone asking whose decides the details and not accept faith (be the faithful an atheist of follower of Gamera) is a valid question. It's not valid on RM. That's a period. Further questioning along that will go into religion (of whatever sort) where I will not go.

TomM,

(On your second post)

Yup. (I didn’t want you think I was ignoring it.) (For anyone else, TomM admit the possibility that ”Universals” may be hard to find. It think that is too optimistic, but I agree, obviously. )

Aside: the only time I am "insulted" is if someone counters what I didn't say.

You admit that the details are important, but not vital. Berry

If I said that even trivial details have been vital enough to inspire wars, how did you get that important details are not vital?

TomM admit the possibility that ”Universals” may be hard to find.

I think either you missed my point, or I missed yours. There are not very many issues for which universals can be found. If they can't, then it should not be any of the government's business.

Because of the question of who "gets" to define the details, even laws based on universals are built on the slippery slope. Laws on issues without a "universal" componant are built on quicksand.

The details are all we can argue over rationally.

I'm not trying to argue anything yet. I'm still trying to see if we can find a common starting point. I'm still in the first principles and definitions stage. If we both look up at a cloud and you say "It looks like rain," and I say "It looks like a horsey," we are not arguing we are talking across one another.

If I read some of your posts correctly, some people (including myself) frustrated you on occassion. I know that there are times when it was obvious that you thought you were giving me a perfectly reasonable answer to one of my points, and all I could say as I read it was "but this has nothing to do with what I said."

TomM,

You admit that the details are important, but not vital. Berry

If I said that even trivial details have been vital enough to inspire wars, how did you get that important details are not vital?


I said I was quoting you out of context. (Incase you haven't noticed my post are getting long.) In an effort to save space, I screwed up. Mea Culpa. You did use the word "vital" I was trying to summarize your "important but really trivial" view but used the wrong words. Sorry. (No, I can't say it won't happen again, because I know I'll screw up again.)

TomM admit the possibility that ”Universals” may be hard to find.

I think either you missed my point, or I missed yours. There are not very many issues for which universals can be found. If they can't, then it should not be any of the government's business.

Actually I think we are in agreement on that. We both think they are hard to find. The distinction (if relevant) is that you think they are possible, but rare while I think they are rare but within the realm of possibility. (Aside: Don't confuse "possible" and likely. I think that monkeys will fly out of my butt is possible but not likely.)

You want to disagree with the verb choice? OK, it isn't "argue" it is "discuss". (When we select an appropriate verb are we arguing or discussing?

Any dents in my wall are my fault, not yours. (Unless you bang your head on my walls.)
(Besides, admit it, you have few "Berry marks" on your walls too.)

If you are talking about my long posts that ask questions that get repeatedly ignored. (Note: If you cannot answer it you don't even have to answer it just quibble with the example to show how unfair it is. If you believe in your point then you can walk into the dragon's mouth and break his teeth. If instead you [a general "you", not TomM] reiterate your point slightly differently and ignore the loaded questions you can't answer, I will ask them again. If you can sense my frustration on, oh say the third post, congratulations. You've discovered I'm human.)

If instead you [a general "you", not TomM] reiterate your point slightly differently and ignore the loaded questions you can't answer, I will ask them again. If you can sense my frustration on, oh say the third post, congratulations. You've discovered I'm human. Berry

While there are people on every side who do give the impression that they are attempting to evade embarrassment by non-reponsive answers, I have never felt that from you. (nor, I hope, you from me []) It always seemed more like the rain/horsey example in my last post. That's why I had decided to try to begin fresh on the new board by getting back to basics.

I was trying to summarize your "important but really trivial" view

If that's the impression you got, maybe I should have found a different word than "details." Or maybe I should have avoided the eggs and wigs, which were irrelevent to my point.

I was not saying the "details" were less important than the "universal principle," Both are integral parts of the whole, but sometimes by breaking something up and examining the parts, we can see how the parts work together and get a better idea how the whole works than if we only looked at it "from the outside."

Actually, if you knew me better, you would have understood that when I glossed over the "details" to concentrate on the "universal" it was to get the "universal" out of the way because I expected that when we began on the "details" it would prove to be the more "interesting" part.

The details are all we can argue over rationally.

I'm not trying to argue anything yet.

You want to disagree with the verb choice? OK, it isn't "argue" it is "discuss".

Either word is fine, once we start playing. My quibble wasn't with the word, but with the action. I'm still trying to establish the ground rules. When you play Little League in an unfamiliar field, everything is standardized and you can jump right in. But when you play Stickball in an unfamiliar street, you have to agree on which sewer cover represents a home run, and which stoop marks the foul line. The fact that we've been talking past one another seems to indicate that we are used to different "street rules."

That Stickball analogy was a little flawed. It's not so much the arena that's unfamiliar, it's the "equipment," and I'm taking practice pitches to get the "feel.".

TomM,

No, I've never seen you as deliberately evasive. If I've been, um, brusque, it is because usually when I answer you I've just replied to someone whose middle name is evasive (and that person accuses me of it regularly but will not even acknowledge my humanity.) Sorry if I've offended you or if you thought I was accusing you of evasiveness.

Sorry about the delay. I'm a counter puncher and I see nothing I disagree with (except my word choice). (We are practically one, brother. Do I reach?)

You're not Herbert?

He's not Herbert!

-----

But reachimg is only the first part. Do you grok?

TomM,

Responding to your comment on the WTC board. Those who "feel" are dangerous. How many wars were started because people thought? How many wars were avoided because people felt?

In moderation they can be OK. In moderation arsenic is harmless too.

Let us all reach, shall we?

However, please grok on your own time, in the privacy of your own place, and not on NC for such activity doth not belongeth here. Failure to comply will be punishable by reciting the excruciatingly long "Ode To Heinlein" with perfect inflection and gesticulation in front of rabid Heinlein fans, who, as you know, are very demanding that nothing be construed as sacrilegious towards him or his memory.

Responding to your comment on the WTC board. Those who "feel" are dangerous. How many wars were started because people thought? How many wars were avoided because people felt? Berry

Didn't Spock make the same point (more or less) in one of his arguments with Dr McCoy? I seem to recall him reciting the casualty figures from four or five of our wars.

Being a thinker, myself, my first instinct is to agree with that statement.

But consider the many proto-feminists who used to say that if women ruled the world there would be no wars. They were basing that statement on the percieved Mars/Venus difference between men and women (see my discussion of personality tests in the main Kitchen Sink), and though of feelers as compassionate and thinkers as cold, calculating, heartless automatons.

The truth is that both thinkers and feelers are needed for balance, both for good and for bad. An emotional response, such as outrage can cause a country to declare war, but it takes planning and determination to wage it. An emotion such as dispair or world-weariness can prompt a truce or a surrender, but only a clear consensus on both sides can secure the peace.

TomM,

Feminist can be pointed to History. Name Female leaders. Cleopatra - war against Ceasar. Catherine the Great - unnamed wars against the Ottomans. Elizabeth I - Spanish Armada. Indira Ghandi - I'm not sure but she's no Pakistani hero.
Thatcher - Falklands.

There are probably a couple peaceful ones, but that is enough to disprove that generality.

Sorry I only replied to the unimportant part of your post. Gotta run.

I agree that those proto-feminists were wrong in their attempt to re-write history. (and to your examples I could add Elizabeth I* of England, her sister "Bloody Mary," her cousin Mary of Scotland, whose reigns and intrigues were no less brutal for being more-or-less contained, also Jeanne d'Arc, Eleanor of Aquitaine, ...)

That's the danger of oversimplification. Again, I said that I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'd like to avoid making the same mistake. And the feelers do have their purposes (though I can't think of what they are at the moment).

*I repeated Elizabeth because it could be argued that the Armada was was an external agression by her cousin and brother-in-law Philip of Spain, but her actions against the Papists (Catholics) and against Mary of Scotland and her supporters went beyond the necessities of establishing peaceful order, and the leaders on the other side were women as well.

Depending on the definition of "feelers" (Oh there is the curb) I'll await anyone to tell me why "feelings" should trump reason (if they can back it up, they will be the first).

(Note to anyone stating McCoy had his points: I'll ask for quotes that are not about Spock really having emotions and without a good retort by Spock.)

Well, really, I know that the two have to work in tandem. Logic is great (after all, it's logical) but when you take logic to its extremes you risk crossing the boundaries of what we emotional humans are going to put up with. To use an example concerning Ayn Rand (pick, pick, pick...

I knew someone who fell hard for Rand's ideas of Objectivism, especially for the idea that the system of lazziez-faire (I probably spelled that wrong) capitalism is the ideal model because then businesses function at full efficiency and profitability. However, following his logic I found that his system would lead to two things 1) the ultimate profitability of his company, at 2) the expense of millions of deaths. Having concluded this, I decided that Objectivism was not the right way to go, as I have no desire to kill off a majority of the human race. Therefore, logic is a good starting place, but emotion will ultimately take precedence.} --Sparrow47

First off, thanks for pigeon holing me as a Randian. Since I'm not an individual I always wondered how to define my thought. (I guess I'm a drone and Ann is the Borg queen?)

Secondly, your lack of details is alarming. Be suspicious of generalities based on limited examples. (My friend is a teacher and he steals office supplies so I reasoned that teachers a thieves.) Neither ScottN, Ms. Rand, nor I is exactly like your friend. If your friend were black and a pro basketball player would you conclude all black people are good basketball players?

Why do you think emotions will ultimately take precedence? Unless that was a statement of an unfortunate fact that people will not use their heads (which I agree with), please tell my why that is good? While you’re at it, name a few examples (non-religious, please) where emotions were better than reason.

...tell me why "feelings" should trump reason... Berry

Being a thinker myself, I can't think of any good reason for feelings to "trump' reason. However, I do belive that feelers are here for some reason, and that it is "within the realm of possibility"(to use your phrase) that they can arrive at important conclusions, and so should not always be dismissed out of hand. (Perhaps Feeling can complement[note the spelling] Thinking.)

Besides, this whole discussion (the portion transferred from the WTC board) began not as an attempt to justify the feelers, just one to say it wasn't always necessary to go out of one's way to antagonize them. (Not that you did, but with their "sensitivity," they might percieve it that way.)

Besides, this whole discussion (the portion transferred from the WTC board) began not as an attempt to justify the feelers, TomM

Oops, I wrote this before I noticed that you transferred a second discussion from WTC, which does attempt to justify Feeling trumping over Reason. Make that "the portion flowing from the first transplant from the WTC board."

First off, thanks for pigeon holing me as a Randian. Since I'm not an individual I always wondered how to define my thought. (I guess I'm a drone and Ann is the Borg queen?)Berry

*whistles Berry for a technical foul* Sorry, but I'm not sure how I pigeon-holed you as a Randian. The first time I brought Rand into the discussion was when I pointed out how you were going to make me argue reason vs. emotion, so I said, This is very tough to do (especially if one ever gets in a debate with an Ayn Rand diciple... ugh), and I'm rather sure that I won't be able to do it to anyone's satisfaction. Your response was to ask You dismiss reason in favor of emotion. Why? My response then began Well, really, I know that the two have to work in tandem. Logic is great (after all, it's logical) but when you take logic to its extremes you risk crossing the boundaries of what we emotional humans are going to put up with. To use an example concerning Ayn Rand... So... when did I pigeon-hole you?

Secondly, your lack of details is alarming. Be suspicious of generalities based on limited examples. (My friend is a teacher and he steals office supplies so I reasoned that teachers a thieves.) Neither ScottN, Ms. Rand, nor I is exactly like your friend. If your friend were black and a pro basketball player would you conclude all black people are good basketball players?Berry

Okay, here we go again. I'm not sure that I ever indicated that this is what I thought about {all} of Rand's followers. You did ask me to fully clarify the example I cited, so I will do so.

My friend was all in favor of the lazziez-faire system (again I'm misspelling it but no one's bothered to correct me as of yet). He said that it was a "system of abundance." I, on the other hand, felt that its belief that government should stay out of regulating buisness entirely would lead to the following chain of logic.

1) If I were a buisness owner, I would have no qualms with giving my employees little or no pay. If they don't want to work for me because of this, they're free to go elsewhere. Keep in mind that if every single buisness owner is like-minded, then everyone will have low wages (if wages at all) with little benefits. This ends up benefitting my bottom line tremendously.

2) This effectively makes my employees serfs, with little or no access to anything other than basic food, water, and shelter. Health care? Forget about it.

3) Since I have no government restrictions, I could quite easliy turn my company into an army aimed at dragging down anyone else's company who dares show their workers compassion. So with a little manuevering, everyone else's company will eventually become mine. I control 100% of, well, everything (workforce, supplies, production, etc.) This is an enormous benefit to my bottom line.

4) Unfortunately, because everyone in my company is a serf, they are at the whim of whatever virus happens to pass along, which is greatly to their woe when I accidentally release the Ebola virus amongst them. Oops. 99% of humanity dies.

So now the only abundances we have are in my wallet, and the corpses on the streets. Great!

I know this is an extreme example but it follows a logical chain. What's so great about logic again?

Why do you think emotions will ultimately take precedence? Unless that was a statement of an unfortunate fact that people will not use their heads (which I agree with), please tell my why that is good?Berry

Emotions will ultimately take precedence simply because we have them. The human race has no compulsion to become Vulcans (I don't think you ever forbade me from using them as an example on this board, HAHAHAHAHAHA!) and will therefore always be using its emotional side. The key, which I've already mentioned, is striking a balance between logic and emotion, so that one does not lean heavily on the wrong side at the given moment.

While you’re at it, name a few examples (non-religious, please) where emotions were better than reason.Berry

I can do that right now, thanks to what's gone on at my workplace today! Background info: I'm working with these large plotting machines- like printers only able to carry rolls of 36 inch paper. We've gotten some new equipment and are now configuring the software to use them. For one size of paper, we just couldn't get it to work. Every time we printed something out, the bottom of the drawing would be cut off. Logically (or at least computer-logically) there was no reason this should have been happening. Everything was set correctly. I fiddled around with the scaling of the drawings, finding that the maximum I could have it set at and still get a complete drawing was 97%. So I did some math and added 3% to the dimensions I was plotting out. This was a hunch, a complete and total hunch, based solely on emotion. And whaddaya know? It worked! Emotion 1, Logic 0

Just for the record, it's laissez-faire. Twelve years of French in elementary and high school wasn't for nothing.

Thanks Josh! I also forgot one of the most important things I was going to say in that post:

Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.

--Joseph Wood Krutch

Sparrow47,

When did you pigeon hole me? How about saying it is hard to argue your point against a disciple of Ayn Rand when you are arguing with me? Did I miss something or when you are talking to me should I not assume you are talking to me? Sorry Sparrow47, the answer to that is in your own post a few sentences above the question.

1) If I were a business owner, I would have no qualms with giving my employees little or no pay. If they don't want to work for me because of this, they're free to go elsewhere. Keep in mind that if every single business owner is like-minded, then everyone will have low wages (if wages at all) with little benefits. This ends up benefiting my bottom line tremendously. ) - Sparrow47

You’re starting with the wrong premise. If George Jetson is paid $0 by Mr. Spacely despite being very competent the Mr. Coggeswell will offer him $1 a year to be competent at Coggeswell Coggs. If Spacely knows this and is not an idiot who will let Spacely Space Sprockets decline because of letting Jetson slip through his fingers he will give Jetson a raise to $2 a year before Coggeswell can sabotage him. Coggeswell, knowing this and Jetson's extreme loyalty will offer $15 a year. Do you see where this is going yet?

3) Since I have no government restrictions, I could quite easily turn my company into an army aimed at dragging down anyone else's company who dares show their workers compassion. -- Sparrow47

Huh? You’re not serious, right?

4) Unfortunately, because everyone in my company is a serf, they are at the whim of whatever virus happens to pass along, which is greatly to their woe when I accidentally release the Ebola virus amongst them. Oops. 99% of humanity dies.

Libertarians cause Ebola outbreaks!! Run while you can!!

You are not serious, are you? Use "" when you are not. I started falling for that.

I know this is an extreme example but it follows a logical chain. What's so great about logic again? -- Sparrow47

I mean logic founded on sound bases where b follows from a. Assuming you are actually serious (because I have to without the "") there is no connection between point #2, #3, and #4. The given in #1 is so wrong even in fiction it is indefensible. Do you have any real examples of the dangers of logic that do not involve arming company’s employees because the urinals are not strictly regulated by the federal government? (No, I'm not making that last one up. OSHA insist the urinals be too low for normal people to pee without bending their knees.)

Your example of a hunch, hmmm. Do you think any of your experience went into it? Maybe your education? Which emotion do you credit with the hunch? Was it Love? Lust? Envy? Hunger? Fear? Anger? Which specific emotion do you think caused you to guess at 3%? Would the janitor feel the same emotion as you but guess 12%? Whatever you are designing I'm sure the customer would prefer if you do the math.

As for the plotter screwing up, ever hear of garbage in garbage out? If there isn’t a hardware version corresponding to it, there should be. I assume it malfunctioned because somewhere someone had a "hunch" based on lust.

BTW, by all means bring in the Vulcans (minus the religious stuff and Pon Farr.) I'll take Spock and you can keep McCoy and even Kirk.

Josh G.,

Thanks. I didn’t know the correct spelling and I’m glad someone did.

This effectively makes my employees serfs, with little or no access to anything other than basic food, water, and shelter. Sparrow

While this has happened in the past, most people who make business decisions have learned the difference between short-term net gains, and long-term growth.

Two quick examples of lessons they have learned:

1) Happy employees are loyal employees, and more productive, too. Companies with high turnover rates lose money. It takes time for an employee to be trained, and to acclimate to the job, during which you are paying out to them more than they produce for you. If your average employee quits before reaching the turn-around point, you never catch up. Also, an employee who is sick cannot perform, and one who is discouraged, or worried about things at home(a sick child, an overdue mortgage, etc), is not performing at his peak. On the other hand, a person who loves his job often gives "110%" (for example working right up to quitting time (or beyond) instead of spending the last half hour of "company time" preparing to leave for the day.

2) We are a consumer based society, and business depends on the consumers. If I own a company that makes TVs and no one but other company owners and the senior management of their companies can afford TVs, I'm not going to sell very many TVs compared with what I sell now.

In addition to "enlightened self-interest" as opposed to immediate gains, there is another difference between then and now: trade unions. If "Big Business" could not stop them with the government's help back then, they can't stop them now. Most non-union businesses do not keep the unions out by the old "union-busting" methods, but by making sure their employees do not feel any pressing need for one. ("Sure, a union might have gotten a bigger raise than the one the company freely offerred, but half of it would have gone to union dues, and we might have had to make good on a strike threat.")

You’re starting with the wrong premise. If George Jetson is paid $0 by Mr. Spacely despite being very competent the Mr. Coggeswell will offer him $1 a year to be competent at Coggeswell Coggs. If Spacely knows this and is not an idiot who will
let Spacely Space Sprockets decline because of letting Jetson slip through his fingers he will give Jetson a raise to $2 a year before Coggeswell can sabotage him. Coggeswell, knowing this and Jetson's extreme loyalty will offer $15 a year.
Do you see where this is going yet?

You assume a situation of scarce labour - this would not necessarily be the case. However, assuming near-full employment, the situation you're describing would just lead to hyperinflation, which tends to undermine everything.

But if labour is cheap and plentiful (and becoming more so), wages will be lower, which at the same time undermines the economy by depressing demand and thus investment. You end up with a deflationary spiral.

Now, in either case, what entity has the ability to intervene and correct these situations?

...stumped?

Why the answer is GOVERNMENT - it can employ monetary and fiscal policy to correct market failure.

I suppose, though, this belongs on another board.

Now, in either case, what entity has the ability to intervene and correct these situations?

...stumped? Josh

The Market itself. Yes, it may take longer than direct intervention. Yes, more people will get hurt because there are managers who are out for themselves, no matter what it does to their company, and others who have not yet learned the lessons I mentioned above, and so are working for the immediate bottom line, instead of for steady growth.

But if government keeps trying to protect people from themselves, we will never learn to mature and will always be dependent on the government. (And what if the government itself then falls into "the wrong hands" as has happened too many times in the past ) The Prime Directive is not just for mature societies. It is just as necessary (if not more so) with immature societies.

The government may have a role in defining certain practices as unethical and therefore illegal, but it shouldn't micromanage business.

The Market itself. Yes, it may take longer than direct intervention. Yes, more people will get hurt because there are managers who are out for themselves, no matter what it does to their company, and others who have not yet learned the
lessons I mentioned above, and so are working for the immediate bottom line, instead of for steady growth.

Please provide some examples where the Market has magically corrected situations of hyperinflation or deflationary spirals. The economy does not exist in a vacuum - long-term economic malaise has a tendency to lead to political instability, which itself undermines the economy.

You have not shown *how* the Market is magically self-correcting in these cases, however.

But if government keeps trying to protect people from themselves, we will never learn to mature and will always be dependent on the government. (And what if the government itself then falls into "the wrong hands" as has happened too many times in the past ) The Prime Directive is not just for mature societies. It is just as necessary (if not more so) with immature societies.

Uh-huh, what do you mean by "mature?" It's not possible to become truly independent of government anymore than it's possible to become independent of society. Government exists to solve collective action problems - to prevent people from getting into a "race to the bottom."

And how does the Prime Directive enter into this?

The government may have a role in defining certain practices as unethical and therefore illegal, but it shouldn't micromanage business.

I'm not taking about micromanagement; this is all economics.

Perhaps I should create a Philosophy of Capitalism board, too?

Um, Josh,

You are asking for the almost impossible. The most recent example of a fiscal crisis that didn't end in a war is the silver crisis of 1880, and I know extremely little of that. Everything else ends with a government declaring war. Is that the government action you defend?

Ask the question the other way around. Discounting declaring war to end economic crisis’s, when did government action end the Great Depression? (Was it Roosevelt's alphabet soup or WWII's increase in demand? Sorry I can't give a British or Canadian example but I assume it is parallel.)

Please give an example of government ending a financial crisis. (You don't favor Japan curing its current woes by reinvading Manchuria, right?)

BTW, I agree with you. MAMA state must pwotect all her wittle citizens fwom demselves.

Man, I gotta reiterate this:

Now, in either case, what entity has the ability to intervene and correct these situations?

...stumped? -- Josh G.

No, I'm not stumped. Only a government can declare war. I guess government intervention by declaring war is a good thing. Hey, our economy is in trouble now and those darn Canadians haven't given us up to 54"40".

The economy does not exist in a vacuum Josh

No it doesn't. There are influences on it both from without and from within. The influence from within is the collective effect of the individual decisions of business owners, consumers, and more recently, unions. These internal influences are more erratic than the external influences (such as government regulation), due to short-sighted greed and other unpredictable decisions, but they ultimately shape the nature of the Market.

Please provide some examples where the Market has magically corrected situations

You have not shown *how* the Market is magically self-correcting in these cases, however.


"Magically self-correcting" is your interpretation, not mine. However, to be fair I will try to answer something similar to your challange. In every Depression, Recession, etc. people still need basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter. Other people can provide them. The Market never totally collapses, no matter what the government does or doesn't do. In this sense there is some degree of "self-correction" built in.

During the Great Depression, FDR's New Deal instituted a lot of programs to help "turn the country around." Although many of them helped to cushion the blow for specific affected individuals and groups, they did nothing to stop the Depression. It took the internal influences of Business owners re-tooling for war to do that.

When did you pigeon hole me? How about saying it is hard to argue your point against a disciple of Ayn Rand when you are arguing with me? Did I miss something or when you are talking to me should I not assume you are talking to me? Sorry Sparrow47, the answer to that is in your own post a few sentences above the question.Berry

*sigh* Okay, once more, with feeling. I'm going to repeat the offending phrase again: This is very tough to do (especially if one ever gets in a debate with an Ayn Rand diciple... ugh), and I'm rather sure that I won't be able to do it to anyone's satisfaction.

This time, I put "if" in bold, because I think that's the key to the problem here. I was using the example of debating Objectivism with a Rand follower as one example of how it is hard to argue in favor of emotion over logic. At that point in the discussion, we weren't really arguing that point, so I definitely couldn't have been talking about you there. So I apologize for whatever confusion has erupted from my misuse of hypothetical statements.

If George Jetson is paid $0 by Mr. Spacely despite being very competent the Mr. Coggeswell will offer him $1 a year to be competent at Coggeswell Coggs. If Spacely knows this and is not an idiot who will let Spacely Space Sprockets decline because of letting Jetson slip through his fingers he will give Jetson a raise to $2 a year before Coggeswell can sabotage him. Coggeswell, knowing this and Jetson's extreme loyalty will offer $15 a year. Do you see where this is going yet?Berry

This is, of course, logical, and indeed this is one area where logic trumps emotion, because I have no doubt that if a laissez-faire (ha!) economy were ever enacted (warning: using hypothetical statements again ) there would be at least some attempt on the part of management at large to keep salaries as low as possible. This is because they're greedy- or have you not been watching the news lately?

3) Since I have no government restrictions, I could quite easily turn my company into an army aimed at dragging down anyone else's company who dares show their workers compassion.Me

Huh? You’re not serious, right?Berry

Well, actually, yes. Kind of. The point I failed to make was that, if I'm operating in a system where there can be no government interferance in business, and where all of my competetors and I are keeping salaries at 10 cents an hour, and someone comes along offering a dollar, then I would have no qualms about sending some people over to the other company to break some kneecaps. Remember, if someone, like the police, wants to stop me, that's government intereferance.

Libertarians cause Ebola outbreaks!! Run while you can!!Berry

Okay, so this was one of my less stellar points. I blame this on a) it was late, and b) I was tired. Mea culpa. Underlying logic here, is that since I'm not giving my employees health benefits, they'll be racked by disease, and thus die.

I mean logic founded on sound bases where b follows from a. Assuming you are actually serious (because I have to without the "") there is no connection between point #2, #3, and #4.Berry

No? Simple chain: 1) I don't pay my workers of give them benefits; no one else does. 2) My workers become serfs. 3)I leverage myself into being in controll of all the workers. 4) Since their living conditions are so poor, they all die.

No, I'm not making that last one up. OSHA insist the urinals be too low for normal people to pee without bending their knees.Berry

Now who's using hyperbole? I never have to bend my knees...

Your example of a hunch, hmmm. Do you think any of your experience went into it? Maybe your education? Which emotion do you credit with the hunch?Berry

Probably disbelief. No, I'm serious here. There was really no reason for the thing to have been malfunctioning the way it was. Of course, once I got here this morning, everything I thought had been fixed was broken again. Yippee.

I assume it malfunctioned because somewhere someone had a "hunch" based on lust.Berry

Ah, that explains the grinding sound I keep hearing...

Sparrow47,

Huh?

to break some kneecaps. Remember, if someone, like the police, wants to stop me, that's government intereferance. -- Sparrow47

So when did you take libertarianism to mean laws on assault and battery are repealed? If a totally Libertarian government was elected at all levels of government none will wish to repeal laws that identify a victim. (Before anyone says what about drugs or prostitution I ask which party welcomes the police?)

Its not hyperbole. My company refurbished a building and new regulations affected the height of urinals. Old ones in the first building were grand fathered. As soon as I get my driver for my digital camera reinstalled I take a picture of me next to the urinal. I don't have a web site so somebody else will have to post it. Yes, if I don't bend my knees I will, um, relieve myself on the top of the urinal. (Yes, I know that from experience. Fortunately the bottom juts out so it dripped.) (No, I'm not tall; I'm 5'9".)

If you work in a building built after 1999, I think, then your company is liable for fines from the U.S. potty patrol. (Your tax dollars at work!)

It's not possible to become truly independent of government

And how does the Prime Directive enter into this? Josh

I never said, or even implied that it was possible to get rid of all government. There are some issues that are the natural concern of government. There are others that are not. There is also a gray area composed of issues that may or may not be the natural concern of government, or that government may or may not have a stake in.

When a government gets involved in issues that are not naturally it's concern, it almost always causes at least as many problems as it solves, no matter how well-intentioned its motives. This is the lesson of the Prime Directive, and why I applied it in this case.

Government exists to solve collective action problems - to prevent people from getting into a "race to the bottom."

No, governments exist because human social interaction is structured to require order, either by agreement or by bullying. Modern governments are a social contract to provide that order while minimizing the bullying. There is no guarantee that even the "best" of governments can prevent a "race to the bottom," much less that they "should."

TomM.,

Do you mean the Prime directive Kirk ignored, Picard ignored, Sisko ignored, or Janeway ignored?

Sparrow47,

By being pigeon holed your views and stances will be assumed to be known. This is a pernicious problem. Countering it if very tough to do (especially if the pigeon holer is a terrorist...ugh.) Hey, I didn't call you a terrorist, I said "if". (Hey, rovers, if I don't bite my thumb at him but I do bite my thumb, is it dump fodder?)

Ooh! A reference to the classics. How can they dump you when you are just paraphrasing Shakespeare?

So when did you take libertarianism to mean laws on assault and battery are repealed?Berry

Once again, I'm not talking about libertarianism, per se, I'm talking about Objectivism. In truth, I don't know that much about libertarianism, so I don't know how much the two are related. However, to answer your question- the underlying premise of this argument says that government will make no interference with business matters. So if I want to intimidate a rival, and the government steps in and says I can't, well, that's interferance. Now, the real question is does this violate Rand's beliefs about the use of force, specifically that any use of force against an individual is wrong? Hmmmmmmm...

Yes, if I don't bend my knees I will, um, relieve myself on the top of the urinal... No, I'm not tall; I'm 5'9".Berry

Well, that definitely fits under my category of "ridiculous." I'm 5'9" also and have never had to kowtow to a urinal. I guess as long as I stay away from new buildings I'm okay...

By being pigeon holed your views and stances will be assumed to be known. This is a pernicious problem. Countering it if very tough to do (especially if the pigeon holer is a terrorist...ugh.) Hey, I didn't call you a terrorist, I said "if". (Hey, rovers, if I don't bite my thumb at him but I do bite my thumb, is it dump fodder?)Berry

The real question, I think, is "do you quarrel?" However I've stated before that I'm not trying to pigeon-hole anyone.

I've got a digital picture of me standing next to "the regulationary acceptable urinal". I don't have a web site to post it on. Anyone with a web site want it? (I won't post a E-mail address because spammers have been know to trawl here for addresses.)

TomM,

I just reread the message where I responded to the unimportant part of your post. As for the important part, huh?

We must be talking by one another again. A balance between

Oh, feelers not feelings. (Nothing more than feelings... [sorry I had to post that])

Um, nevermind.

Sparrow47,

Sorry for the triple post, your beat mine by a few. (I think. Last day didn’t show it, but we could be getting ready for a board crash.)

OK, Objectivism. I'm not the best defender of Objectivism, but here goes nothing.

does this violate Rand's beliefs about the use of force, specifically that any use of force against an individual is wrong? Hmmmmmmm... -- Sparrow47

I don't want to put words in Ms.Rand's mouth (Yuck!) but breaking kneecaps, even if you are a business owner, would be use of force against an individual.

Oh, please don't think I'm insulted. I pick any reason "to quarrel" because it is fun. By pigeon holing me (yeah, you did whether you intended to or not) you made an extra level for me to struggle out of. (That is hard if arguing against a terrorist...ugh.)

Want a picture on me standing next to a regulationarily approved urinal?

BTW, even giving you your given #2 and #3 has no logical basis. You enter a new given that employee (or serf) can “easily” be retrained as a soldier. Assuming the former UAW workers don’t object and do not turn their weapons on the cruel and heartless boss for some reason and they get a few months “boot camp” then 1) you lose money while they train for war against Coggeswell Coggs, and 2) you have no guarantee that Coggeswell Cogg’s troops aren’t well prepared for you, and 3) you may succeed but Jetson gets killed (and you need good serfs like Jetson to run your company/army).

Josh G.,

What’s worse, deflation a government intervention (by declaring war) or Ebola?

I'm not entirely sure that OSHA is the only culprit in the urinal debacle. If porceline fixture manufacturers still made the urinals full length, instesd of the little things that they have become, therewould probably by no problem. The older urinals were tall enough to "sit" on the floor and still be high enough to aim properly.(I'm assuming that the OSHA reqirement refers to the bottom of the urinal to allow "vertically challanged" people access. If the requirement is different, then never mind )

Actually, OSHA may not be a culprit at all. The bureaucrat in D.C. saying, "MWUHAHAHAHA, now I control their urination," (or more likely, "Mwuhahahaha, now I've justified my job"). He may be in Boston (The state capital).

I've looked into the urinal. It isn't the state. It isn't OSHA (safe urinals). It isn't the EPA (enviromentally sound urinals). It is because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I guess being short is a disability?

I guess being short is a disability?

Being short (REALLY SHORT like below 4'-10") is classified as a disability because it can impair your ability to do certan jobs and other things, like •••• in a regular urinal. BTW of course you can only apply for disability status if you are 18 or over, 10 year olds can't do it.

I've got a bum left knee. I sometimes stumble (and if anyone notices, it is always to my left). I do not consider myself disabled. Can I call a short person disabled? (Yeah, I know one and she'll kick my butt if I call her that.) (Oh, by the way, she'd kick my butt if I claim she uses the urinals.)

"Thank goodness we don't get all the government we pay for."
- Will Rogers