4 ms·

The biggest problem with humanity is arrogance. Not everyone can live. Sorry!

by c_magg 13y ago

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
> Not everyone can live. If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  No matter how much we want everyone to live, we can't try and ensure it through coercion. Besides, coercion only works for evil. You can't achieve good through coercion. Whenever you try, it has the opposite effect. Take minimum wage for example. You want poor people to get higher salaries, but in reality, all you accomplish by raising the min. wage is preventing some lowest-skilled people from getting a job (which contributes to economic stagnation too, ofc).
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    > No matter how much we want everyone to live, we can't try and ensure it through coercion. Besides, coercion only works for evil. You can't achieve good through coercion. Whenever you try, it has the opposite effect. Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups, or go back to church, please.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      Feel free to refute my minimum wage example for starters. Here's another: 1) you want to help the poor 2) you confiscate wealth from other people, and give it to the poor 3) you have just removed money from the economy and caused it to get used much less efficiently than it would have, and demotivated lots of people from doing business and producing value to the world at large.
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        No, you're not getting this. Claims require evidence. Non-claims do not require evidence. If you want to claim that minarcho-capitalism is the optimal social and economic system, such that anything else is downright immoral and wrong by comparison, then you have to justify that claim using evidence. In contrast, I do not have to justify my position that no ideology or system being proposed today is globally optimal. That is simply an accepted truism.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        So you disregard my examples, declare that I need to "prove" things, and then proceed to tell me that you don't. Have a good day, Sir.
        eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        Well, the simple fact is, empirical studies of minimum wages just don't show their having a macroeconomic effect on employment that overwhelms other effects. Neither do empirical studies on basic income experiments show them overwhelming other economic effects when it comes to "efficiency" (if you don't want your statement to be tautological, you need to define efficiency as something other than "that which the market does", by the way), employment, or anything else. So basically, you're preaching from a pulpit of pure theory and ideology, while I'm down here saying that you need to provide empirical proof and can't, and I'm not the one making a claim of global optimality.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> Well, the simple fact is, empirical studies of minimum wages just don't show their having a macroeconomic effect on employment that overwhelms other effects You don't get it. There's no need for "empirical studies", because it's a simple matter of reasoning. Suppose Person A is fresh out of high school or something, and Company B might be interested in hiring him as some kind of entry level worker. Person A has basically no experience in anything, so he's worth very little to the employer. He really wants a job though, because he needs to start some kind of career to get by in life. Suppose Company B consider's Person A's meager productivity worth $6 per hour, but the minimum wage is set to $10 per hour. Will Person A get the job? Well, no. The minimum wage prevents Person A from getting a job, and thus, getting experience and advancing his skills and future salary potential. Everyone loses. Person A has no job and no further experience, and Company B has no employee and a task left undone. If you still don't get it, imagine the minimum wage being set at $1000 per hour. If it's all good, then the higher you set it, the MOAR good will come out of it, right?
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      Your previous point: > If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem. Isn't correct. No individualist chooses anything for anyone else less it be voluntary and without force/coercion. > Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups, or go back to church, please. Resorting to name calling isn't going to win you any awards. I'm an atheist and I just simple believe freedom comes at a cost of having to have individual responsibility in terms of sustaining your welfare and direction. I come from a multi-generational welfare home. The state pacified my family, it didn't help them. I broke the cycle through individual merit and determination. This would still allow you to do as you wish, so long as others volunteer for your collective, and you don't infringe on an individuals rights. My system permits yours to exist. Does yours permit mine to exist? That's the real moral crossroads we sit at. Also: > Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups You know Philosophy isn't science right? The fact you ask for it screams you're a utopian statist who simply wants to be god. What is your alternative to individual freedom? A complex set of fluidly changing social rules that bind/limit us all that go beyond violence? Jail or Injure a Man/Woman because they disagree to cooperate with your rules? Just don't harm or tell me what to do and we'll be friends. Sounds like that's not reciprocal with you, and that I'd be required to follow other rules, lest I be jailed/killed/banished/boycotted. Also, it seems like any anarchist society not predicated on either individualist or consensus based policy is prone to majority rule. What do you do with opposition? Punish them? Even if they're non violent. This all screams government, which ruins the anarchy...

The biggest problem with humanity is arrogance. Not everyone can live. Sorry!

by c_magg 13y ago

The biggest problem with humanity is arrogance. Not everyone can live. Sorry!

> Not everyone can live. If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem.

anoncowherd 13y ago
No matter how much we want everyone to live, we can't try and ensure it through coercion. Besides, coercion only works for evil. You can't achieve good through coercion. Whenever you try, it has the opposite effect. Take minimum wage for example. You want poor people to get higher salaries, but in reality, all you accomplish by raising the min. wage is preventing some lowest-skilled people from getting a job (which contributes to economic stagnation too, ofc).
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  > No matter how much we want everyone to live, we can't try and ensure it through coercion. Besides, coercion only works for evil. You can't achieve good through coercion. Whenever you try, it has the opposite effect. Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups, or go back to church, please.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    Feel free to refute my minimum wage example for starters. Here's another: 1) you want to help the poor 2) you confiscate wealth from other people, and give it to the poor 3) you have just removed money from the economy and caused it to get used much less efficiently than it would have, and demotivated lots of people from doing business and producing value to the world at large.
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      No, you're not getting this. Claims require evidence. Non-claims do not require evidence. If you want to claim that minarcho-capitalism is the optimal social and economic system, such that anything else is downright immoral and wrong by comparison, then you have to justify that claim using evidence. In contrast, I do not have to justify my position that no ideology or system being proposed today is globally optimal. That is simply an accepted truism.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        So you disregard my examples, declare that I need to "prove" things, and then proceed to tell me that you don't. Have a good day, Sir.
        eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        Well, the simple fact is, empirical studies of minimum wages just don't show their having a macroeconomic effect on employment that overwhelms other effects. Neither do empirical studies on basic income experiments show them overwhelming other economic effects when it comes to "efficiency" (if you don't want your statement to be tautological, you need to define efficiency as something other than "that which the market does", by the way), employment, or anything else. So basically, you're preaching from a pulpit of pure theory and ideology, while I'm down here saying that you need to provide empirical proof and can't, and I'm not the one making a claim of global optimality.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> Well, the simple fact is, empirical studies of minimum wages just don't show their having a macroeconomic effect on employment that overwhelms other effects You don't get it. There's no need for "empirical studies", because it's a simple matter of reasoning. Suppose Person A is fresh out of high school or something, and Company B might be interested in hiring him as some kind of entry level worker. Person A has basically no experience in anything, so he's worth very little to the employer. He really wants a job though, because he needs to start some kind of career to get by in life. Suppose Company B consider's Person A's meager productivity worth $6 per hour, but the minimum wage is set to $10 per hour. Will Person A get the job? Well, no. The minimum wage prevents Person A from getting a job, and thus, getting experience and advancing his skills and future salary potential. Everyone loses. Person A has no job and no further experience, and Company B has no employee and a task left undone. If you still don't get it, imagine the minimum wage being set at $1000 per hour. If it's all good, then the higher you set it, the MOAR good will come out of it, right?
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    Your previous point: > If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem. Isn't correct. No individualist chooses anything for anyone else less it be voluntary and without force/coercion. > Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups, or go back to church, please. Resorting to name calling isn't going to win you any awards. I'm an atheist and I just simple believe freedom comes at a cost of having to have individual responsibility in terms of sustaining your welfare and direction. I come from a multi-generational welfare home. The state pacified my family, it didn't help them. I broke the cycle through individual merit and determination. This would still allow you to do as you wish, so long as others volunteer for your collective, and you don't infringe on an individuals rights. My system permits yours to exist. Does yours permit mine to exist? That's the real moral crossroads we sit at. Also: > Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups You know Philosophy isn't science right? The fact you ask for it screams you're a utopian statist who simply wants to be god. What is your alternative to individual freedom? A complex set of fluidly changing social rules that bind/limit us all that go beyond violence? Jail or Injure a Man/Woman because they disagree to cooperate with your rules? Just don't harm or tell me what to do and we'll be friends. Sounds like that's not reciprocal with you, and that I'd be required to follow other rules, lest I be jailed/killed/banished/boycotted. Also, it seems like any anarchist society not predicated on either individualist or consensus based policy is prone to majority rule. What do you do with opposition? Punish them? Even if they're non violent. This all screams government, which ruins the anarchy...