I believe in equal opportunity, but I think that equal opportunity isn't easy, it's not even close. Equal opportunity sets equal an astounding amount of variables that have affected you, parents, friends, role-models, and chance aquaintances which may have surprisingly little to do with anything you have done, but were set in motion like the proverbial butterfly who caused a hurricane half a world away.
I think it's pride and egoism that fools too many people into believing that they are self-made. Sure, your place in the world is not merely determined by who you happen to know, or meet, or read, but those happenstances do affect your equality in opportunity.
quote: I think it's pride and egoism that fools too many people into believing that they are self-made. Sure, your place in the world is not merely determined by who you happen to know, or meet, or read, but those happenstances do effect your equality in opportunity.
Random chance is involved in everyone's life. Some have many good opportunities, while some have many bad circumstances. This is unavoidable.
However, how one responds to these circumstances does make a difference. I could have the good fortune of being offered a job as a Medical Doctor, but I would be totally unable to utalize this opportunity because I have no training, and no inclination to do such work. I have structured my life in a different way. As a result of freedom, some people will fail some of the time, it is unavoidable.
How should we go about leveling the playing field so that everyone know's all the same people, meets the same people, and has the same friends? Why would we insure that job offers are given to everyone, and not just those most qualified?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As important as something is to you, so thorough and rigorous you will be in your grasp of it.
The converse is also true.
This is a very well stated point. I know less about those things that are less important to me. I understand this, and am always trying to correct it, but my knowledge is not perfect.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, I mean that if a certain topic is very important to you, then you will seek to know about and understand it very well. If a topic is not important to you, then being foggy on the details and lax on the critical analysis wouldn't be troubling to you.
I have a peculiar frustration with some people who profess objectivism. (I do not know this Robespierre well, and I would not wish to imply that this applies to him. Just a general comment.) That frustration occurs elsewhere, but it seems over-represented in this particular camp. That is, I find it frustrating to discuss real-world matters with persons who haven't bothered to study them carefully, yet still believe that they understand them, much less understand them better than anyone else.
Robespierre and I have sort of gently butted heads on the healthcare issue, and you know that's a particular focus of mine. I find it difficult to swallow the unthinking nature of many of my colleagues' assumptions about how the outcomes play out in the real world. I think that I likely transfer some of my irritation at them onto him. (I'm sorry about that, Robespierre.)
posted
Gentle is an understatement. That was the nicest way anyone has ever called me unthinking. It almost felt good!
I do enjoy your input, as you seem to have wisdom, and try to phrase things in a civil manner. I don't think its out of bounds to question someone's intelligence reguarding a specific subject, btw.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the reasons that I feel more Canadian than American sometimes is that, at least currently, so much emphasis is placed on the amount one is carried away by emotion. One can't be patriotic and be thoughtful, it seems -- the "real patriots" are those who are too angry/impassioned/outraged to think clearly, and this lack of clarity is seen as a bizarre virtue.
No, dammit. A true patriot is the one who will control emotions when they cloud thinking, who will make the sacrifice of time and effort to figure out how best to fix the problem.
My problem with Ayn Rand's writings is that some (again, Robespierre, I don't point the finger at you!) who are quite taken up with the vision fail to realize that it is fiction. That is, she is a writer of a story, and that means she makes up what the natural consequences of an action would be. (She also assigns characters the traits of her own chosing, and really, I assure you, not all people who reject objectist principles are pudgy, sweaty, red-faced blobs whose eyes dart back and forth, and whose voice trembles nervously when they speak.)
I'm also aware of her non-fiction writings, but again, there is little empirical analysis there, either. It is rhetoric. Theory must inform practical knowledge, but so too must practical knowledge inform theory.
I read a shelf full of Ayn Rand when I was laid up with my surgery at sixteen. The Virtue of Selfishness was very helpful in opening my eyes to (and giving me a language to understand) the coy manipulativeness of some in my extended family. However, that's just one small piece in a big pie -- and I choke in frustration with discussing why one piece isn't enough with starry-eyed young idealists who haven't bothered to think critically, but who really like the clean-jawed and pretty-faced theory.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
My delay in answering your post was due to work obligations.
quote:Make a statement and stick by it, screechowl. Passive-aggressive whiny posts are not becoming.
If you don't have an opinion, think for a minute and come up with one. If you do believe something, spit it out and take a stand.
I thought my opinion was clear, though passive agressive. I find conservativism too interested in what my personal beliefs should be. I find this a trend that is more apparent today than ever before in my lifetime.
When the label "conservative" comes up, I associate it with people who want me to conform to their way of thinking.
posted
Here is one reason how Objectivism can be "insidiously evil", at least to me... It allows a person to be socially reprehensible, by ommission of action, and get away with it, while still being a paragon of the philosophy. It is okay to obfuscate, misdirect, or ignore, in the name of creating one's sufficiency, just don't actually stop others from attempting likewise (via violence or law or lying).
Robespierre, you take it on the chin gracefully. I realize, on rereading this (and the other) thread that I've been using you as a stand-in for people I've become very surly with. Again, I'm sorry. I've got issues. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's rare that CT writes much critical analysis of anything on this forum. I think this thread is the first time I've seen her do it in a while. I'm really enjoy reading your stuff, CT. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Equal opportunity sets equal an astounding amount of variables that have affected you, parents, friends, role-models, and chance aquaintances which may have surprisingly little to do with anything you have done, but were set in motion like the proverbial butterfly who caused a hurricane half a world away.
That would be better called equal prospects, which is pretty much the same thing as equal outcome.
I think the conservative point of view would be equalality of rules; i.e. in order to succeed, everyone must meet the same standards.
This is all semantics, of course, but those are fun, too.
As for objectivism, I remember not liking Rand because she equated helping someone to the detriment of yourself (aka selflessness) and being forced to help someone to the detriment of self as both being evil. Most defenses of that that I have seen relied on the argument that selflessness is the same thing as helping others to the destruction of your self, which is a totally different thing. Giving some of what I have to help a starving person, even at inconvenience and discomfort to myself, is a far cry from giving away so much of what I have that I starve myself. The two simply cannot be equated. Furthermore, the fact that people will volentarily help others when they really need it is the best argument for phasing out most forms of welfare. I realize that suddenly getting rid of it would be harmful, and I can accept that there might be some forms we will aways need, but I think that if we gradually got rid of it private groups would take up the slack.
Edit: Needed to split up mondo paragraph, learn to spell "argument" right the first time, excuse to use the word "mondo."
posted
I deal with people who are in charge of a whole scad of folks, who direct the training of dozens of others, who have the gall to say, at a professional meeting, that "If you look at how people learn best, "pimping" [i.e., asking questions which you have reason to believe they can't answer, in front of others who will shame them for not knowing], is the best way to teach them."
No, it isn't. That has been clearly shown to be one of the more ineffective strategies for conveying complicated information.
This guy is in charge of training young professionals in a department in a field which is supposed to be evidence-based, and he has no idea about the evidence that's been gathered actually concludes? He never even freakin' bothered to look, but just assumed that he knew?
You know, that tells me that he really doesn't care about teaching and training. It tells me, loud and clear, that his agenda is about something else entirely. And I get very, very surly when I hear him profess an (empty) "love of teaching."
I think, "Bite me."
I think, "You are not only a lying schmuck, you're a lying schmuck who wants to sop up credit for not being a lying schmuck. Heck, you want to be glorified for being a modern saint."
(Yeah, this isn't about Robespierre. I need to back out of this and go work off some misplaced aggression.
He can still bite me. Not Robespierre, the other guy. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Thanks, Stormie. But I've gone past making sense, sugar. Let me go off and chew my bitter cud for awhile, and I'll come back when I've gotten it out of my system.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, I've revised an answer to your question on the other page.
CT is the measure.
______
She embraces the rational virtues of freedom, tolerance, charity, and free inquiry with charm, aplomb and due rigor, and encourages others to do the same.
posted
Perhaps CT, you have come across some seriously unthinking objectivists in the past. I can understand how this would happen. I will inform the readers of this post that I think that I am not un-thinking. Haha.
The point being, I understand that Rand is a writter of fiction. "Atlas Shrugged" is not a holy book to me. I hold no books as holy or unquestionable. The situations depicted in the book are those that best suit the author's philosophy, and as such, do not reflect reality.
The main portion of objectivism that I would say I agree with, is that each person has to be responsible for him/her/its self. Aside from that, put the whole thing away when dealing with me.
quote: When the label "conservative" comes up, I associate it with people who want me to conform to their way of thinking.
I think you have described idealogues, left or right.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quote is mine, Robspierre, or am I misreading your post?
You, of course are correct, and extremes of either are unpalatable to me.
Why do I feel that today, conservatives are the ones who are most concerned with how I should conform to a specific definition of patriot or religion?
Posts: 440 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why do I feel that today, conservatives are the ones who are most concerned with how I should conform to a specific definition of patriot or religion?
Obviously I cannot know why you feel something. I can guess at possible reason though.
Perhaps you percieve that conservatives are the ones in control of the country, with Bush in the WH, and republican control of congress.
Possibly you agree with what the left-wing idealogues want you to conform to.
Possibly you buy into the idea that the media is sympathetic to right wing ideas.
I think there are large amounts of people on the left, and on the right, who want to steamroll people, who want to coerce rather than persuade.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Perhaps you percieve that conservatives are the ones in control of the country, with Bush in the WH, and republican control of congress."
No question about this one.
"Possibly you agree with what the left-wing idealogues want you to conform to."
Or I really fear the right-wing idealogues because they are out there too.
"Possibly you buy into the idea that the media is sympathetic to right wing ideas."
Or it is a reaction that occurs everytime I turn on A.M. radio? I view the media, conservative and liberal, as objectively as I can, actually.
"I think there are large amounts of people on the left, and on the right, who want to steamroll people, who want to coerce rather than persuade."
I agree.
I don't have facts and figures to justify why I am more liberal than conservative. I am less "comfortable" with conservatism. I do not know who is right and who is wrong. Maybe the conservative view is the right one that will lead us all to nirvana or wherever.
But it isn't for me.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Robespierre's link demonstrates that he thinks disproves my point is that a change in the monetary supply alters value. He neglects that my assertion was never that a change didn't alter value, but that constant taxation at 50% (with it all being burned) didn't alter value.
So yes, the link supports my point.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He neglects that my assertion was never that a change didn't alter value, but that constant taxation at 50% (with it all being burned) didn't alter value.
You seem to assume that the amount of money and the prices in the market would change at the EXACT SAME RATE, in real time. There would be mass chaos if your "50% flat income tax then burn the money" theory was implemented. Prices would not be able to match exactly what the market was doing with the value of the dollar changing so rapidly. Companies would be destroyed, jobs lost, financial markets smashed, and general disorder.
Also, you forget the reality that the US is not a closed economic system. A great deal of our trade involves other countries, who's currency would NOT be skyrocketing in value. You would absolutely destroy the export market. Countries who import goods would be mopping the floor with american companies.
Please continue to explain why I don't understand economics though. Tell me how the government taking 50% of all income in the US then burning that money would not effect the economy at all.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't I just say that my assertion was not that such a situation could be created without harming things, but that if such a situation existed it would behave in the way I have previously described? You're harping on the transition to such a situation, which I never talked about (though it could be done in increments). Of course, it would be monumentally stupid, precisely because there is no advantage to such a system over just not taxing anybody -- the value in the economy would be exactly identical either way.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Didn't I just say that my assertion was not that such a situation could be created without harming things, but that if such a situation existed it would behave in the way I have previously described?
Yeah, you did JUST say that recently, but when we began the conversation, THIS is what you were saying.
quote:The government could tax exactly 50% of what everyone made, and so long as it did not spend it exactly zero impact would be had upon the economy (assuming a perfect tax gathering apparatus, but even without one the impact would be minimal).
You began this whole thing saying that the economy would be unchanged. I argued, and told you that if this policy were implemented, it WOULD change the economy, and that it would be disasterous. What you have done is to shift your position to one of near insignificance. You are now arguing about a hypothetical situation where this 50% thing could be done, and in theory, everything would be okay. Well fine, argue about that all you want. What I am telling you now, is that taking half the money supply out of the economy would destroy it. In REAL LIFE, not your hypothetical situation.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You completely missed the point of the example. For one thing, it could never be implemented, being a silly theoretical example in the first place. For the other, the point was to illustrate why pure taxation had zero economic impact. It's the government spending that causes the big impact on the economy in a fairly constant system, such as the one we are in. Clearly if the government were to suddenly change economic policy there would be a large upheaval, under any system. That was never the point of the example, and your inability to see the point continues to illustrate how little you understand economics (and believe you me, my understanding is nothing breathtaking either). Also, your complete lack of understanding of state taxation when I made a trivial observation about it underscored this.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You completely missed the point of the example.
quote: That was never the point of the example
I think it is possible that you may have also lost sight of your point half way through this. Please explain your change of view point. I asked you previously, why you originally said it would not effect the economy.
quote: For one thing, it could never be implemented, being a silly theoretical example in the first place.
Then what was your point in bringing it up?
quote: your inability to see the point continues to illustrate how little you understand economics
This has turned into pouting. Your whole point ended up being meaningless becuase it doesn't apply to the real world. The government doesn't tax people, then never spend the money. Your point that government spending has the largest impact on the economy is also frighteningly wrong.
If spending could have such a huge impact on the economy, why then is this fact not seized by the rest of the world? You are about 3 steps away from the reality of the situation. Where does the government get the money it spends? Does it manufacture and sell products? No, the government must take some of the value that is generated by its citizens. When the government takes too much of that, the citizens are left with an inferiour ability to provide for themselves and are less likely to spend their money on frivelous things. This causes the economy to slow down.
Government spending has a mild stimulous effect on the economy. This is because the value that was taken out of the economy is added back in by purchasing goods and services from the private sector. It is the act of taking that value out of the economy in the first place that causes a drag on the economy.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"the government must take something of value"
Bwahahahahahaha!
Governments, throughout the ages, have used many different tacts. Most of them are just variants on making more money. It has the exact same effect as general, equal taxation: lowering the value available to the people, and increasing that available to the government. However, it's much less discriminatory than taxation, and is harder to finely tune. the US government has at timed used this tact: make more physical money, then spend it. Doesn't require taking something from the people, though it does decrease (usually to bad results) the value of things they already have.
Only if the government taxes unequally or spends the money it brings in is there an impact on the economy by taxation. Ask any economist. My example illustrated this (and it was a silly example, but that doesn't mean it's useless, just as the simple little graphs drawn in microeconomics aren't useless, because they illustrate principles, a concept you seem unable of grasping).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Only if the government taxes unequally or spends the money it brings in is there an impact on the economy by taxation. Ask any economist. My example illustrated this (and it was a silly example, but that doesn't mean it's useless, just as the simple little graphs drawn in microeconomics aren't useless, because they illustrate principles, a concept you seem unable of grasping).
And are you here simply to teach economic principles? Or was there a point hidden in there?
What are you saying about the real world. Is it bad that the government collects income taxes? Is is good? Should they collect more or less, what will be the effect on the economy?
You seem to be proposing that the government print money instead of taking something of value from its citizens. What exactly are you saying?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nono, I'm saying that printing money is one way for government to get money to spend, without taking anything of value from it's citizens, as you alleged was the only way for the government to get money to spend.
If you reread the first post I made, you'll see I advocated tax cuts, likely even on a similar scale to Bush's (though I haven't made the full study I would make were I in more of a position to influence policy). However, I'm a fiscal conservative and advocate that the government should focus first on cutting spending.
BTW, you might want to reread your sources. Government spending is a stimulus (in the economic sense) only for a limited period, and only when increased. This is before the economy has had a chance to react to the decrease in value caused by the increase in spending. There is solid theory that nowadays such a tactic does not work, because the reaction to the decrease in relative value of everything else would come much quicker (due to computerization and such).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I am with you when you say you are for tax cuts.
quote: I'm saying that printing money is one way for government to get money to spend, without taking anything of value from it's citizens, as you alleged was the only way for the government to get money to spend.
Printing money does take something of value from its citizens, the value of their money. The cash they have on hand, can buy fewer things. Its a way of transfering wealth from citizens to the government. There is no way for the government to create wealth. This is only done in the private sector, from which the government takes its share.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure the government can create wealth, just as corporations can, through the industry of their employees. One does not somehow become unproductive when one is employed by the government (cracks aside).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to get back to the original topic. It seems the original postulation of who we care fore stems from a deeper question, of whether giving someone aid entails responsibility and involvement. So I think that if I give someone their college tuition, they should be accountable to me either for their academic performance or their field of study. This would place me in the conservative camp by this label. My gifts come with strings attached, therefore I have to limit them to the number of people I can actually monitor, and they indeed diminish as they go further from me.
If someone feels a gift is not a gift if it has strings attached, they are likely to be unable to give very many gifts. Then there is the extreme of this, that if anyone has more than you, they must be withholding a gift from you.
Reciprocality of measure is another issue. Do I think all people should or must act as I do? Do I reject the possibility that there may be a better way for me to think or act than I do? Assuming I am even thinking and acting in the best way that I am currently aware of? I’m a big fan of M. Scott Peck’s definition of evil (paraphrased) as a person unwilling to admit that they could be wrong.
So I propose conservatives see individuals as responsible for what they get in life. Liberals believe society is capable of bearing this responsibility. It goes from there into the territory of whether a person believes society is an entity that can bear responsibility. This serves the first postulation that conservatives feel family, church, and communities are such entities. While acknowledging the federal government may be such, they do not wish to feed its strength.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I find it difficult to swallow the unthinking nature of many of my colleagues' assumptions about how the outcomes play out in the real world. I think that I likely transfer some of my irritation at them onto him. (I'm sorry about that, Robespierre.)![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
And I get very, very surly when I hear him profess an (empty) "love of teaching." ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
I need to back out of this and go work off some misplaced aggression. ![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
But I've gone past making sense, sugar. Let me go off and chew my bitter cud for awhile, and I'll come back when I've gotten it out of my system.)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
