4 ms·

It's a good thing we're really good at electing people that do a good job of watching out for our well-being! Do you think we'll always have an "imperfectly ed

by boon 13y ago

It's a good thing we're really good at electing people that do a good job of watching out for our well-being! Do you think we'll always have an "imperfectly educated" populace? Do you consider yourself part of that sector of society?

dragontamer 13y ago
Imperfect education is a fact of life. Its well known that economic models of "free markets" fail instantly on the first assumption. We are not perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge. And yet, a number of "free market" arguments are based upon this fact.
- VMG 13y ago
  If people are imperfectly educated, why let them elect representatives, which are themselves flawed in probably even worse ways that the average person?
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > If people are imperfectly educated That's not really an if, it's a simple fact that has and probably will always be true. > why let them elect representatives Because millions of idiots turns out to be better than kings and dictators for the average quality of life.
    - boon 13y ago
      Can we not think of a way to refine the system of "idiots voting" without being accused of the false dichotomy of wanting to go back to a monarchy?
      - dragontamer 13y ago
        Good luck with that conversation. Any form of "removing idiots" from the voting pool will give comparisons to the Literacy Test, and you will be literally compared to a slave-driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test False dichotomies are the bread and butter of politics. Perhaps if you knew the history of this country, you'd know that you aren't gonna get very far on this subject. I welcome you to try, but from a political / historical point of view, there is too much bad blood in this discussion for people to discuss it sanely.
        boon 13y ago
        You're talking to someone whose political ideals already get me called "racist" and "slave driver". Oddly enough, I do not support racism nor slavery (quite the opposite). And I know the history — why do you think I brought the point up? (Come on, now.) But the point we're trying to make here is philosophical, not practical: If people are too uneducated to participate in a free market economy, why do we allow them to vote?
        dragontamer 13y ago
        Because the opposite is worse. An organization who controls who and what votes is far scarier than letting idiots vote. We in America have destroyed any organization (government led, or whatever) that attempts to limit the number of voters. Mind you, who should decide who can and can't vote? The free market? The Government? The answer is no one. The right to vote is considered sacred and that is a good thing. No one can or should deny others the ability to vote. EDIT: I'm surprised that I have to lecture you on this. I thought you were a libertarian? Aren't you all for personal rights and liberty? The freedom to vote is absolutely essential, and a holy right regardless of your political background. But it is THAT much more important if you're a self-proclaimed libertarian. Personal freedom is the king of the Libertarian philosophy.
        boon 13y ago
        "The freedom to vote." That isn't a natural right. That is born out of the system of governance that we've decided is best. There is no natural right to vote — not in the same way we have a natural right to speech or defense or anything else of that manner. Democracy is dangerous. Our founding fathers despised true democracies, which is why they founded this country as a Constitutional Republic, and notably one that not everyone could vote. Many call them racist and sexist, and no doubt that was part of it, but they also understood that having a bunch of uneducated people voting could be disastrous. NO ONE should be allowed to vote your natural rights away, yet you see this in democracies all the time. You're right, though, the trick is figuring out an acceptable way to proof voting privileges. Even the word "democracy" didn't come into popular use until the progressive era. So yes, when we follow true Constitutionalism, voting is important because we should be selecting our leaders to uphold that limited government. But in our current system, we've given government so much power that we allow people to elect leaders that are going to give them the most, all whilst selling off the power they have taken from us to companies that want to protect their business model. And once again, you really need to stop doing the whole, "I'm surprised you aren't smarter" bit.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        Nope. But I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Preventing people from voting is authoritarian.
        boon 13y ago
        Would you consider the US at any time in its history to be authoritarian?
        gnaritas 13y ago
        That's not an answer to my question or a good faith reply. I asked for a third option, you implied you had one, either you do or you don't. This isn't a school lesson, I'm not your pupil, do not Socratic method me. If you have something to say, say it.
        boon 13y ago
        If you're afraid of where the question goes, don't answer.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        If you're afraid to offer a third option, then don't answer.
        boon 13y ago
        I'll just make a statement that if "Preventing people from voting is authoritarian." then the US system of government at various points would have to be considered authoritarian.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Not the least bit relevant to the conversation, so I'll say it one more time: I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Either you have an answer or you don't. The history of the U.S. is completely irrelevant to this question. I don't live in time when blacks couldn't vote or women couldn't vote, it's irrelevant to the conversation what the U.S. used to be or used to do. Perhaps your panties are in a bunch because you think I think you're advocating a return to monarchy; I don't think that, so let it go. I think you're advocating for a return to the 1800's view of the constitution because you think it was a golden age of freedom before the federal government got so powerful. This is a typical anarcho-capitalist view and one I also disagree with. However, trying to prevent people from voting is authoritarian whether it's from a king or from a congress and I won't support it under any circumstance. The people would certainly never vote to remove their right to vote.
- boon 13y ago
  It just seems that the people that are rational are marginalized in any other system. One might go as far to say that's just as unfair.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    And selfishness and greed are not sins in a free market. Instead, they serve as the mechanism under which everyone works together. A selfless man who strives for compromise will be abused by selfish actors in a pure free market setting. All philosophies have their pros and cons. Learning to pick which philosophy is an art. Personally speaking, I keep Capitalist AND Communist arguments in my brain. I'm ready to use either philosophy to prove whatever point whenever I want. For example, if you were a Communist, I'd deride the "free market" by talking about Bourgeois and the working classes. (But that wouldn't work on you, because you'd instantly think that I'd be creating a "class war"). All of these philosophies are theoretical anyway. The real purpose of them is to give us the ability to understand what other people are talking about. Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect. Free Markets have their market failures (Monopolies). Communists fail to allocate resources effectively. The solution therefore, is to pick and choose the philosophy that works in the right situation. Be a more educated man, and open to different ways of thought.
    - boon 13y ago
      "Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect." I'm really curious where and when this 100% free market system existed that was proven unworkable. Because from my understanding of history, we've only ever had government. ZERO monopolies have become what they are/were without help from the government.
      - dragontamer 13y ago
        Proven by thought experiment. If you don't like thought experiments, then pay me no mind. Perfectly theoretical free markets, with perfectly educated populations with 100% perfectly rational beings will be unable to solve the externality problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality It is known and proven. Do not give me a "Well, we'll figure it out later" bull... tell me how a free market is supposed to resolve an externality (which by its very definition is unresolvable by free markets). Perfectly rational and greedy actors will always offload their costs onto unwilling parties. It is the job of the government to ensure that costs align up with the actors who create those costs. If that is too theoretical for you, imagine two cities. "City Upstream" and "City Downstream" both are on the same river. City Upstream begins flushing their sewage into the river, and so City Downstream is no longer able to drink the water. Solve this issue using only rational actors in the free market. The "Government" solution, is to have the Federal Government create Water Treatment plants, and then force "City Upstream" to use them. Afterwards, you tax both cities to pay for the treatment plants. Your turn. Come up with a free market solution without the use of a central government or centralized 3rd party. Assume both cities are perfectly rational and perfectly selfish, as is common in these economic problems. Good luck coming up with a solution. But if you're like any other libertarian who I've issued this challenge to, you'll probably run away.

by boon 13y ago

dragontamer 13y ago

Imperfect education is a fact of life. Its well known that economic models of "free markets" fail instantly on the first assumption. We are not perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge. And yet, a number of "free market" arguments are based upon this fact.

VMG 13y ago
If people are imperfectly educated, why let them elect representatives, which are themselves flawed in probably even worse ways that the average person?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > If people are imperfectly educated That's not really an if, it's a simple fact that has and probably will always be true. > why let them elect representatives Because millions of idiots turns out to be better than kings and dictators for the average quality of life.
  - boon 13y ago
    Can we not think of a way to refine the system of "idiots voting" without being accused of the false dichotomy of wanting to go back to a monarchy?
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      Good luck with that conversation. Any form of "removing idiots" from the voting pool will give comparisons to the Literacy Test, and you will be literally compared to a slave-driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test False dichotomies are the bread and butter of politics. Perhaps if you knew the history of this country, you'd know that you aren't gonna get very far on this subject. I welcome you to try, but from a political / historical point of view, there is too much bad blood in this discussion for people to discuss it sanely.
      - boon 13y ago
        You're talking to someone whose political ideals already get me called "racist" and "slave driver". Oddly enough, I do not support racism nor slavery (quite the opposite). And I know the history — why do you think I brought the point up? (Come on, now.) But the point we're trying to make here is philosophical, not practical: If people are too uneducated to participate in a free market economy, why do we allow them to vote?
        dragontamer 13y ago
        Because the opposite is worse. An organization who controls who and what votes is far scarier than letting idiots vote. We in America have destroyed any organization (government led, or whatever) that attempts to limit the number of voters. Mind you, who should decide who can and can't vote? The free market? The Government? The answer is no one. The right to vote is considered sacred and that is a good thing. No one can or should deny others the ability to vote. EDIT: I'm surprised that I have to lecture you on this. I thought you were a libertarian? Aren't you all for personal rights and liberty? The freedom to vote is absolutely essential, and a holy right regardless of your political background. But it is THAT much more important if you're a self-proclaimed libertarian. Personal freedom is the king of the Libertarian philosophy.
        boon 13y ago
        "The freedom to vote." That isn't a natural right. That is born out of the system of governance that we've decided is best. There is no natural right to vote — not in the same way we have a natural right to speech or defense or anything else of that manner. Democracy is dangerous. Our founding fathers despised true democracies, which is why they founded this country as a Constitutional Republic, and notably one that not everyone could vote. Many call them racist and sexist, and no doubt that was part of it, but they also understood that having a bunch of uneducated people voting could be disastrous. NO ONE should be allowed to vote your natural rights away, yet you see this in democracies all the time. You're right, though, the trick is figuring out an acceptable way to proof voting privileges. Even the word "democracy" didn't come into popular use until the progressive era. So yes, when we follow true Constitutionalism, voting is important because we should be selecting our leaders to uphold that limited government. But in our current system, we've given government so much power that we allow people to elect leaders that are going to give them the most, all whilst selling off the power they have taken from us to companies that want to protect their business model. And once again, you really need to stop doing the whole, "I'm surprised you aren't smarter" bit.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      Nope. But I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Preventing people from voting is authoritarian.
      - boon 13y ago
        Would you consider the US at any time in its history to be authoritarian?
        gnaritas 13y ago
        That's not an answer to my question or a good faith reply. I asked for a third option, you implied you had one, either you do or you don't. This isn't a school lesson, I'm not your pupil, do not Socratic method me. If you have something to say, say it.
        boon 13y ago
        If you're afraid of where the question goes, don't answer.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        If you're afraid to offer a third option, then don't answer.
        boon 13y ago
        I'll just make a statement that if "Preventing people from voting is authoritarian." then the US system of government at various points would have to be considered authoritarian.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Not the least bit relevant to the conversation, so I'll say it one more time: I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Either you have an answer or you don't. The history of the U.S. is completely irrelevant to this question. I don't live in time when blacks couldn't vote or women couldn't vote, it's irrelevant to the conversation what the U.S. used to be or used to do. Perhaps your panties are in a bunch because you think I think you're advocating a return to monarchy; I don't think that, so let it go. I think you're advocating for a return to the 1800's view of the constitution because you think it was a golden age of freedom before the federal government got so powerful. This is a typical anarcho-capitalist view and one I also disagree with. However, trying to prevent people from voting is authoritarian whether it's from a king or from a congress and I won't support it under any circumstance. The people would certainly never vote to remove their right to vote.
boon 13y ago
It just seems that the people that are rational are marginalized in any other system. One might go as far to say that's just as unfair.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  And selfishness and greed are not sins in a free market. Instead, they serve as the mechanism under which everyone works together. A selfless man who strives for compromise will be abused by selfish actors in a pure free market setting. All philosophies have their pros and cons. Learning to pick which philosophy is an art. Personally speaking, I keep Capitalist AND Communist arguments in my brain. I'm ready to use either philosophy to prove whatever point whenever I want. For example, if you were a Communist, I'd deride the "free market" by talking about Bourgeois and the working classes. (But that wouldn't work on you, because you'd instantly think that I'd be creating a "class war"). All of these philosophies are theoretical anyway. The real purpose of them is to give us the ability to understand what other people are talking about. Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect. Free Markets have their market failures (Monopolies). Communists fail to allocate resources effectively. The solution therefore, is to pick and choose the philosophy that works in the right situation. Be a more educated man, and open to different ways of thought.
  - boon 13y ago
    "Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect." I'm really curious where and when this 100% free market system existed that was proven unworkable. Because from my understanding of history, we've only ever had government. ZERO monopolies have become what they are/were without help from the government.
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      Proven by thought experiment. If you don't like thought experiments, then pay me no mind. Perfectly theoretical free markets, with perfectly educated populations with 100% perfectly rational beings will be unable to solve the externality problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality It is known and proven. Do not give me a "Well, we'll figure it out later" bull... tell me how a free market is supposed to resolve an externality (which by its very definition is unresolvable by free markets). Perfectly rational and greedy actors will always offload their costs onto unwilling parties. It is the job of the government to ensure that costs align up with the actors who create those costs. If that is too theoretical for you, imagine two cities. "City Upstream" and "City Downstream" both are on the same river. City Upstream begins flushing their sewage into the river, and so City Downstream is no longer able to drink the water. Solve this issue using only rational actors in the free market. The "Government" solution, is to have the Federal Government create Water Treatment plants, and then force "City Upstream" to use them. Afterwards, you tax both cities to pay for the treatment plants. Your turn. Come up with a free market solution without the use of a central government or centralized 3rd party. Assume both cities are perfectly rational and perfectly selfish, as is common in these economic problems. Good luck coming up with a solution. But if you're like any other libertarian who I've issued this challenge to, you'll probably run away.