Merkins 2012

[DyingStrong]

dogpet wrote

The free world needs to know these things.

There´s no free world anymore.

[DyingStrong]

[quote=Victus;637982]So... who's gonna pay for all this if we're all free to make our own choices (including the choice not to pay for others' education)?

Some will make the choice not to pay taxes to support public education (unfortunate for them) and others will make the choice to pay taxes to support it, especially the ones who appreciate knowledge, culture, evolution, well being, etc.
If you have more people well educated, you will have a better society, a society that would not want to downgrade its standard of living, and will vote accordingly.


[If people are free to make their own choices, then what's there to vote about?]

Many things! Water services, electricity services, education, many many things to preserve the well being of the society, to continue to upgrade it. Freedom gives you the right to vote, Fascism takes it away from you.

[Victus]

DyingStrong wrote

Some will make the choice not to pay taxes to support public education (unfortunate for them)

Why is it unfortunate for them? Moreover, if everyone is free to make their own decision, why do we need a public education system at all?

DS wrote

and others will make the choice to pay taxes to support it, especially the ones who appreciate knowledge, culture, evolution, well being, etc.

If they're voluntary, then they're not taxes. And if it can be done voluntarily, then there's no obvious reason for the government to be doing it.

DS wrote

If you have more people well educated, you will have a better society

I don't think this is obviously the case.

DS wrote

a society that would not want to downgrade its standard of living, and will vote accordingly.

No one wants to lower their own living standards. One of the problems with democracy is that it dilutes the incentive to be rational. In a market, irrationality is (on average) swiftly and majorly punished. In a democracy, randomized voting carries no consequence on the individual level.

If you want people to strive towards better living standards, markets trump democracy as an incentive structure.

DS wrote

Many things!

Not so much.

DS wrote

Water services

Privatize it!

DS wrote

electricity services

Privatize it!

DS wrote

education

Privatize it!

DS wrote

many many things to preserve the well being of the society, to continue to upgrade it.

Any more examples?

DS wrote

Freedom gives you the right to vote

Freedom gives you the right to make your own decisions about your life, which are summarily stripped away when other people can out-vote you about said decisions.

DS wrote

Fascism takes it away from you.

What's the difference between one's freedoms being infringed upon by a dictator and being infringed upon by a majority vote?

If you want to preserve freedom, markets are where to look.

[Irreligious]

DyingStrong wrote

Hey, Irr, been OK, thanks, getting younger everyday. And you, how you've been?

Younger everyday? I know you're into fitness and good health, but getting younger? That's a curious feat. What, are you kin to Benjamin Button? I kid, of course. Me? I'm hanging in there, but I'm definitely not getting younger.

Anyway, we sure have missed you here. Again, welcome back!

DyingStrong wrote

Have several aliases, some others: MacPeppa, MedicalCyclist, Lancita Armstrong, and more. but I only have one real name and you all know it, the ones who have been RA members for years.

Yeah, it's a lovely name. I remember it, courtesy of that ol' mean wench, Lily.

DyingStrong wrote

Irr, why do you think that anarchy would spread through out the world with self governance? Maybe that is the reason why religion and governments were created, to control people. Then, do you think that religion is OK? I mean, religions actually keep people restrained and hurdled, and so do governments.

I just don't think most people are good at self-governance, at least not entirely without outside encouragement. As a species, if we have an opportunity to run over the weaker guy and we can justify it (and we nearly always can), that's just what most of us will do.

DyingStrong wrote

Maybe religion and governments are needed to keep stupid/uneducated/savage people from causing anarchy?

I don't know, but I think there are an awful lot of people who tend more towards the stupid and savage than the mindful, considerate and noble. At least, when given the chance to indulge the former.

[Philboid Studge]

Victus wrote

Since economic freedom is highly correlated with things like wealth and health on the national level, there is indeed a school of thought/policies that support liberty not for its own sake, but for its positive knock-on effects. That is, even if you don't believe that its wrong to restrict peoples' freedoms, you can still think that it's counterproductive vis a vis improving human welfare. Consequently, there are pragmatic libertarians who basically, "I care about poverty, so I support free markets".

One of the ways Hayek's magnum opus is refuted is that it makes some testable predictions, similar to "economic freedom is highly correlated with things like wealth and health on the national level." I would trade the economic freedoms (sic) of the U.S. with just about any northern European's 'wealth and health on the national level.' Who in their right mind wouldn't? By practically every measure (except "economic freedom") the quality of life is better, and they seem to be happier.

You can "support free markets" without privatising everything. This is where libertarians leave the ranch, reality-wise, in my view.

[Victus]

Philboid Studge wrote

One of the ways Hayek's magnum opus is refuted is that it makes some testable predictions, similar to "economic freedom is highly correlated with things like wealth and health on the national level."

Did you want to refute the correlation? Are there a lot of nations where the population is drastically unfree (economically) but extremely rich?

PS wrote

I would trade the economic freedoms (sic) of the U.S. with just about any northern European's 'wealth and health on the national level.' Who in their right mind wouldn't?

I would make that trade, but not for the reasons that you think. Some parts of northern Europe are more free market oriented than the US, at least in terms of labor and other market regulations. They have, for instance, privatized fire fighting companies. They just also happen to have higher taxes and more redistribution, which I think are only beneficial on the margin (i.e., could be almost entirely removed without anyone experiencing decreased welfare/happiness).

PS wrote

By practically every measure (except including "economic freedom") the quality of life is better, and they seem to be happier.

Ninja fix.

PS wrote

You can "support free markets" without privatising everything.

Only half right, I think. If a service is provided by the government that can be provided by markets (free or otherwise), then the pro-free-markets (in general) view would be that they should be provided by markets.

PS wrote

This is where libertarians leave the ranch, reality-wise, in my view.

It's also where progressives switch their brains off entirely, in my view. I'm simply asking for some kind of justification for why, for instance, the government has to be the primary provider of things like education (or rescue services). We know that markets can handle these kinds of things, so why have the government do it?

[Davin]

Victus wrote

'Demand' (the word I used to describe your action) is listed in one of the (admittedly backend) definitions of 'ask' (the action you claim to have taken. 'Demand' is also a synonym of 'ask'. Synonyms are what they are because they share "the same or nearly the same meaning".

You might want to concede the point. Just saying.

So you do think you can swap synonyms without care to context. You are an idiot. No wonder you have such difficulties reading.

Victus wrote

Since the philosophical position (or its immediate predecessors) are over a century old, and modern-style advocacy/arguments are generations old, and policies are (arguably*) sliding in the opposite direction, it seems fair to conclude that said methods are not particularly effective.

Which said methods? I would agree that your methods would not be very effective with your poor level of reading and understanding of English. I would find it hard to beleive that anyone would change their opinion from talking with you.

Victus wrote

If you're a libertarian (and you have claimed as much), then having libertarian policies implemented has to be your goal.

Really?

Libertarian

lib·er·tar·i·an n.1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.

libertarian [ˌlɪbəˈtɛərɪən]n1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc.
2. (Philosophy) Philosophy a believer in the doctrine of free will Compare determinism

adj of, relating to, or characteristic of a libertarian

I don't see that in the definition of the word. You must be very comfortable being wrong.

Victus wrote

Good thing you're not setting the bar very high for yourself.

Is there a reason why I should set the bar higher for this?

Victus wrote

Really?

There's this...

And another...

And some more...

This is where your reading fails again: already addressed that links to articles are not empirical evidence.

Victus wrote

In fact, the citation of peer-reviewed studies (or aggregation/reviews thereof) is noticeably one-sided in this thread, isn't it?

Yes, the last link was to a bunch of peer-reviewed papers, however they were just random without any kind of link to what you were stating. I could link to thousands of peer-reviewed papers just like you did, however in rational discussion merely linking to things doesn't help much. You failed to state how those papers related in any way to anything that you're saying.

Here's my link to thousands of peer reviewed journals with thousands of peer reviewed papers: http://www.csa.com/factsheets/supplements/paispeer.php

Now I have linked to more peer reviewed papers. I win.

Victus wrote

You're claiming that conformity underlies non-libertarian political affiliation (otherwise your pseudo-citation of Asch is non-nonsensical). You haven't provided evidence to that effect. This statement indicates either that your beliefs aren't based in evidence, or that you simply haven't cited it. If it exists, now's the time to cite it.

Where did I claim that? Oh I know, this is another one of your reading issues.

Victus wrote

If you don't have any evidence linking Asch's studies on conformity to the current topic, then your use of them as your impetus for espousing libertarianism to your friends/others (for the purposes of breaking or diminishing their conformity) falls apart. Barring another explanation for your advocacy or evidence linking the studies, you have to concede that advocating libertarianism isn't pragmatic, which was my original point.

Um, are you that stupid? Asch's comformity experiments were on comformity you idiot.

Victus wrote

They demonstrate voter irrationality (e.g., blaming incumbents for bad weather). There are better examples for these purposes, but I just moved and my copy of Myth of the Rational Voter is in storage.

And you would expect anyone to trust your ability to read after demonstrating quite consistently that you're not very good at it?

Victus wrote

I was just about to say the exact same thing

Then we are in agreement that you have the mindset of a theist.

Victus wrote

People is a plural, isn't it? Meaning that you've seen this happen multiple times? As in, your experiences have generated multiple anecdotes which you used to create a faulty argument?

I only shared one anecdote, you can count to one can't you? Also, what was faulty in my argument?

Victus wrote

Actually, it appears to be based on a direct quote from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see citations). But if that's not enough, we can just ask the dictionary...

This might be another point you want to concede.

Which dictionary?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

atheist

[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

a·the·ist n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\


1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism

a·the·ism n.1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Victus wrote

Getting smacked around with evidence and citations is what happens when you say something inaccurate around someone who knows better.

Yeah, you poor thing.

Victus wrote

Because to provide evidence on such a broad array of topics, I have to narrow it down (or write a book). I'm giving you the chance to pick whichever one(s) you want.

Looks more like you made a blanket statement that you cannot support.

[Victus]

Davin wrote

So you do think you can swap synonyms without care to context. You are an idiot. No wonder you have such difficulties reading.

I think I can swap out words with the same meaning, yes.

Davin wrote

Which said methods?

Arguing in favor of libertarianism amongst friends.

Davin wrote

Really?

I don't see that in the definition of the word.

I'll help you...

Victus, earlier wrote

If you're a libertarian (and you have claimed as much), then having libertarian policies implemented has to be your goal.

The Dictionary wrote

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

There you go. Libertarian policies seek to maximize individual rights and minimize the role of the state.

Davin wrote

Is there a reason why I should set the bar higher for this?

There's the fact that you're holding others to a higher standards. But if you don't care about being a hypocrite, then I guess the answer is no.

Davin wrote

This is where your reading fails again: already addressed that links to articles are not empirical evidence.

The empirical evidence is there. Anyone can follow the links to check it out for themselves. At this point, you're just being unskillfully dishonest.

Davin wrote

Yes, the last link was to a bunch of peer-reviewed papers, however they were just random without any kind of link to what you were stating.

My claim was that voters are irrational. I linked to a series of papers showing that voters are irrational (by, for instance, holding politicians accountable for the weather). The link seems pretty obvious.

Davin wrote

You failed to state how those papers related in any way to anything that you're saying.

Let's see...

Originally, you asked for evidence of libertarianism, so I linked to some sites that aggregated it for public consumption (I don't know what your level of education is, so I try to keep things pretty simple for you unless otherwise indicated). You denied that there was any empirical evidence to be had at said sites, so I linked directly to an article on the minimum wage (as an example topic), which had about two pages worth of references, and a dozen or so peer-reviewed studies marked for 'further reading'. Then I linked to some papers on the topic of voter irrationality, immediately after you said I hadn't provided evidence of voter irrationality.

You seem to be having trouble following along with the lesson. Did you want to take a nap? Maybe go poop poop?

Davin wrote

Here's my link to thousands of peer reviewed journals with thousands of peer reviewed papers: http://www.csa.com/factsheets/supplements/paispeer.php

As noted above, I've pretty clearly explained the context in which I was generating the links. The connection with the topic at hand is obvious. I get that you're having trouble with this whole 'using evidence to construct a coherent argument' thing, though.

Davin wrote

Where did I claim that?

Right here...

Davin, earlier wrote

Being a libertarian myself, I think I have a much better answer: fighting for maximising individual freedoms makes people aware of how ones freedoms can be taken or given away. My hope is that eventually most people will fight to protect their freedoms instead of giving them up in fear. As seen through the Solomon Asch experiments, all it takes to get people to not merely follow the group is to hear one dissenting voice. I don't care to convert people to being a libertarian, I only care that they give a shit about their reasonable freedoms.

As I said earlier, either disrupting conformity is your motivation for arguing libertarianism or your mentioning of Asch is non-nonsensical in this context. Either way, your arguments falls apart.

Davin wrote

Um, are you that stupid? Asch's comformity experiments were on comformity you idiot.

Yes they were, but you haven't shown that non-libertarian political affiliation is primarily maintained via conformity (which is what you need to do for Asch's research to be relevant to this discussion).

Davin wrote

And you would expect anyone to trust your ability to read after demonstrating quite consistently that you're not very good at it?

I haven't heard any logical or evidence-based counter-points come from you yet.

Davin wrote

Then we are in agreement that you have the mindset of a theist.

No, only that you do.

Davin wrote

I only shared one anecdote

About multiple persons (and hence, multiple anecdotes).

Davin wrote

Also, what was faulty in my argument?

Because it relies on unreliable evidence. We don't accept personal anecdotes from the other theists that troll through here, so what makes you so special?

Davin wrote

Which dictionary?

Any of them, since each definition includes the word 'deny', which is affirmative in nature (e.g., "I deny that God exists"). Thanks for doing the research to prove my point further, though.

But more to the point, do you deny that strong atheism is part of atheism?. And if you do, why do you assume that weak atheism should be mantle-place definition of the entire school of though?

Davin wrote

Looks more like you made a blanket statement that you cannot support.

If it were a blanket statement that I couldn't back up, then it would be easy for you to pick a topic (any topic) and make me look really stupid. I wonder why you haven't yet.

[Kinich Ahau]

What about the Merkins?

This thread seems to have evolved into another.

[DyingStrong]

Irreligious wrote

Younger everyday? I know you're into fitness and good health, but getting younger? That's a curious feat. What, are you kin to Benjamin Button? I kid, of course. Me? I'm hanging in there, but I'm definitely not getting younger.

Anyway, we sure have missed you here. Again, welcome back!


Yeah, it's a lovely name. I remember it, courtesy of that ol' mean wench, Lily.


I just don't think most people are good at self-governance, at least not entirely without outside encouragement. As a species, if we have an opportunity to run over the weaker guy and we can justify it (and we nearly always can), that's just what most of us will do.


I don't know, but I think there are an awful lot of people who tend more towards the stupid and savage than the mindful, considerate and noble. At least, when given the chance to indulge the former.

Yeah, it's a lovely name. I remember it, courtesy of that ol' mean wench, Lily.

Yes, that bitch!

At this point, you are absolutely right, Irr. People, in general, lack manners, education, respect, you name it. That is why I think that we should increase education, hire teachers (not firing them), build schools, colleges, universities, and make it affordable for all. Hey I don´t have all the answers but I trust more education and teachers than politics and politicians, governments or voting. They are all corrupt.

[Smellyoldgit]

Kinich Ahau wrote

This thread seems to have evolved into another.

Strange - but this often seems to happen when polly-tics drags the 'bugger you, I'm alrighters' from under their rocks!

[Philboid Studge]

I'm not sure how I feel about the revelation that Bachmann suffers migraines. I'm hoping she'll hang around for a while, at least until Mooserella shoots something from a helicopter. Apparently if you point out that 75% of migraine sufferers are women, you sexist.

If you report that Bachmann has told her staff that her headaches are caused by wearing high-heels, is that also sexist ?

Anyway, I think she'll slog on, which is entertaining.

[Kinich Ahau]

where's the rule that says that all conservative women must wear a pearl necklace?

[Victus]

Kinich Ahau wrote

What about the Merkins?

It's been stuck here for awhile now.

[Davin]

Victus wrote

I think I can swap out words with the same meaning, yes.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/demand

Main Entry: demand
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: question, request
Synonyms: appeal, application, arrogation, bid, bidding, call, call for, charge, claim, clamor, command, counterclaim, entreatment, entreaty, exaction, impetration, imploration, importunity, imposition, inquiry, insistence, interest, interrogation, lien, necessity, need, occasion, order, petition, plea, prayer, pursuit, requirement, requisition, rush, sale, search, solicitation, stipulation, suit, supplication, trade, ultimatum, use, vogue, want

Ok, let's choose a synonym... sale. So I saled you to answer a question.

Or...

http://thesaurus.com/browse/sale

Main Entry: sale
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: exchange of object for money
Synonyms: auction, barter, business, buying, clearance, closeout, commerce, consuming, deal, demand, disposal, dumping, enterprise, marketing, negotiation, purchase, purchasing, reduction, selling, trade, transaction, unloading, vending, vendition

Let's choose another word with the same meaning... unloading. I unloaded you to answer the question.

Or...

http://thesaurus.com/browse/unloaded

I unburdened you to answer the question.

Or...

http://thesaurus.com/browse/unburden

I wiped you to answer the question.

This was a simple demonstration on how stupid you are for thinking that synonyms can be swapped without regard to context. If you use this reasoning to say that I demanded you to answer the question, then you must also accept the same reasoning to mean that I wiped you to answer the question. After all, they're all synonyms.

Victus wrote

Arguing in favor of libertarianism amongst friends.

Who stated these methods? Probably just another example of your inferior reading skills.

Victus wrote

I'll help you...

There you go. Libertarian policies seek to maximize individual rights and minimize the role of the state.

Do you understand that a policy cannot seek to do anything? Are you now also confused with the difference between a person and a policy?

Victus wrote

There's the fact that you're holding others to a higher standards. But if you don't care about being a hypocrite, then I guess the answer is no.

Who am I holding to higher standards?

Victus wrote

The empirical evidence is there. Anyone can follow the links to check it out for themselves. At this point, you're just being unskillfully dishonest.

Pedantic maybe, but not dishonest. It would be far more dishonest for someone to link to an article and claim it to be empirical evidence than for a person to correctly show that an article is not empirical evidence.

Victus wrote

My claim was that voters are irrational. I linked to a series of papers showing that voters are irrational (by, for instance, holding politicians accountable for the weather). The link seems pretty obvious.

Then it should be easy for you to explain the links.

Victus wrote

Let's see...

Originally, you asked for evidence of libertarianism, so I linked to some sites that aggregated it for public consumption (I don't know what your level of education is, so I try to keep things pretty simple for you unless otherwise indicated). You denied that there was any empirical evidence to be had at said sites, so I linked directly to an article on the minimum wage (as an example topic), which had about two pages worth of references, and a dozen or so peer-reviewed studies marked for 'further reading'. Then I linked to some papers on the topic of voter irrationality, immediately after you said I hadn't provided evidence of voter irrationality.

You seem to be having trouble following along with the lesson. Did you want to take a nap? Maybe go poop poop?

That whole recounting of the events is not close to what actually happened. That may be how it happened in your head, but the history of the posts clearly shows that that is not how it happened.

Victus wrote

As noted above, I've pretty clearly explained the context in which I was generating the links. The connection with the topic at hand is obvious. I get that you're having trouble with this whole 'using evidence to construct a coherent argument' thing, though.

No, I'm having no trouble with it, but apparently you have no idea how the "evidence" you're citing relates in any way to what you're talking about as evidenced by you not being able to cite to anything inside the papers, just the papers.


Just the first paper: http://myweb.lmu.edu/ahealy/papers/c...stribution.pdf

We note several caveats with these regressions. First, as mentioned, we observe relief spending only at the constituency level. Second, because we are unable to identify plausibly exogenous variation in government spending that is uncorrelated with rainfall, it is possible that the regression suffers from omitted variables bias: if more competent governments administer aid more effectively and also deliver more of it, we are unable to determine what fraction of the electoral boost from aid administration is due to general competence as opposed to aid delivery.

Shows that there are crucial variables that they just don't have available to produce very accurate statistics on something very important to rational voting: did the guy do a good job handling the crisis?

Our finding that voters are more likely to reelect an incumbent who has responded well to an emergency may result from our measure of government responsiveness (rainfall shock interacted with relief spending) being correlated with the general competence level of the state government.

So by the admission of the people that made the study, there are very valid factors that would show the voters to be rationally voting. So you provided a study that disproves your "voters are irrational" statement. Good work!

Victus wrote

Right here...

I know you're pretty stupid and have difficulty reading, but that just shows that I've made no claims anywhere close to:

Victus wrote

You're claiming that conformity underlies non-libertarian political affiliation.

Because I did not claim what you're claiming I claimed. Once again you've shown your incompetence in understanding basic statements.

Victus wrote

As I said earlier, either disrupting conformity is your motivation for arguing libertarianism or your mentioning of Asch is non-nonsensical in this context. Either way, your arguments falls apart.

Yes they were, but you haven't shown that non-libertarian political affiliation is primarily maintained via conformity (which is what you need to do for Asch's research to be relevant to this discussion).

I never made either of those claims. Why would I need to support claims that I've never claimed and would not claim?

Victus wrote

I haven't heard any logical or evidence-based counter-points come from you yet.

That might be because your reading level is so low.

Victus wrote

No, only that you do.

You said you were just thinking the same thing in response to me saying you have a mindset like a theist. Another example among many that you have problems understanding basic sentences? I think so.

Victus wrote

About multiple persons (and hence, multiple anecdotes).

So if someone says, "I have ten dollars" then they're making ten statements for the price of one? You are an idiot.

Victus wrote

Because it relies on unreliable evidence.

So does choosing to wear socks, but I still wear socks.

Victus wrote

We don't accept personal anecdotes from the other theists that troll through here, so what makes you so special?

I wouldn't accept anecdotal evidence from someone telling me I'm wrong or trying to convince me to accept something. I'm not telling you you're wrong citing my anecdotal evidence nor am I trying to convince you to do the same thing I am because of my anecdotal evidence.

Victus wrote

Any of them, since each definition includes the word 'deny', which is affirmative in nature (e.g., "I deny that God exists"). Thanks for doing the research to prove my point further, though.

Each definition also includes the word "or". So you also have problems with the word "or" do you? You are proving to be more mentally challenged with every new post.

Victus wrote

But more to the point, do you deny that strong atheism is part of atheism?. And if you do, why do you assume that weak atheism should be mantle-place definition of the entire school of though?

Saying that atheism is the belief that there is no god or gods excludes those that merely lack the belief in a god or gods. Saying that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god or gods doesn't exclude those that believe there is no god or gods. So saying that "atheism" means "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god or gods), means that there cannot be any "weak atheism" (the lack of a belief in a god or gods). I can try to dumb it down even more if this is too complicated for you.

Victus wrote

If it were a blanket statement that I couldn't back up, then it would be easy for you to pick a topic (any topic) and make me look really stupid. I wonder why you haven't yet.

I'd much rather discuss what you actually support than to bring something up that I don't even know you support.