PING-> Pig-man
steve
Here is a sample of the wisdom therein:
Ideologies don't require blinding yourself to the facts; rather, they help
you prioritize what you are going to do with the facts. Indeed, the very
question of deciding what to be pragmatic about -- this but not that --
requires applying an ideological test.
...
The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a
pragmatist, then "ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of
metaphysical truth." Russell's point was that there's nothing within
pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must
look outside pragmatism for that.
Jonah Goldberg is interesting because he thinks like a liberal-arts type
(most conservatives and libertarians think more like engineers and
mathematicians, in my experience), yet he still manages to get it right.
steve
--
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by
itself."
Thomas Jefferson
Sir Blob
>
> Here is a sample of the wisdom therein:
>
> Ideologies don't require blinding yourself to the facts; rather, they help
> you prioritize what you are going to do with the facts. Indeed, the very
> question of deciding what to be pragmatic about -- this but not that --
> requires applying an ideological test.
> ...
> The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a
> pragmatist, then "ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of
> metaphysical truth." Russell's point was that there's nothing within
> pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must
> look outside pragmatism for that.
>
> Jonah Goldberg is interesting because he thinks like a liberal-arts type
> (most conservatives and libertarians think more like engineers and
> mathematicians, in my experience), yet he still manages to get it right.
but didnt most conservatives and libertarians think like
mathematoocians?
steve
On 3-Feb-2010, Sir Blob <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> but didnt most conservatives and libertarians think like
> mathematoocians?
A sad attempt at humor.
Go away, little man.
Sir Blob
> On 3-Feb-2010, Sir Blob <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > but didnt most conservatives and libertarians think like
> > mathematoocians?
>
> A sad attempt at humor.
sorry, im not quite understanding this. how is this humour?
>
> Go away, little man.
> --
my point was wouldnt you agree, given the latest credible scientific
investigations, that liberal arts types dont actually think and are
purely emotional, as opposed to conservative types who are known to
think as mathematoocians?
moviePig
>
> Here is a sample of the wisdom therein:
>
> Ideologies don't require blinding yourself to the facts; rather, they help
> you prioritize what you are going to do with the facts. Indeed, the very
> question of deciding what to be pragmatic about -- this but not that --
> requires applying an ideological test.
> ...
> The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a
> pragmatist, then "ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of
> metaphysical truth." Russell's point was that there's nothing within
> pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must
> look outside pragmatism for that.
>
> Jonah Goldberg is interesting because he thinks like a liberal-arts type
> (most conservatives and libertarians think more like engineers and
> mathematicians, in my experience), yet he still manages to get it right.
I've read the article, and agree that those are perhaps its
significant paragraphs.
What I rail against is *blind* ideology ...i.e., against ignorance,
not thoughtful 'denial'. (E.g., although the 'racism' Goldberg
mentions surely underlies much of the Conservative political base,
many/most racists can't even contemplate the possibility cleanly
enough to commence a self-analysis.)
Afaics, it's disingenuous for Goldberg to pronounce Obama hypocritical
for claiming to be free of ideology. Of *course* everyone believes in
something somewhere somehow ...even if it's mainly in the elusive
nature of any hard justification for such beliefs. However, I suspect
Obama means merely -- and rather more pedestrianly -- that he's not
wedded to Liberalism. And I suspect that Goldberg, behind his veil of
semantics, knows well that's what Obama means.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
steve
On 3-Feb-2010, Sir Blob <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> my point was wouldnt you agree, given the latest credible scientific
> investigations, that liberal arts types dont actually think and are
> purely emotional, as opposed to conservative types who are known to
> think as mathematoocians?
Is this actual content in your post? Shocking!
I dont contend that liberal arts types dont think or are purely emotional,
but that they tend to approach problems in an undisciplined manner. They see
complications and a seemingly unworkable whole, and throw up thier hands; or
they address effects rather than causes. Engineering/math types begin by
breaking problems down in an effort to identify the causes and to find
workable solutions. Conservatives and libertarians tend to be more like the
latter.
--
Sir Blob
> On 3-Feb-2010, Sir Blob <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > my point was wouldnt you agree, given the latest credible scientific
> > investigations, that liberal arts types dont actually think and are
> > purely emotional, as opposed to conservative types who are known to
> > think as mathematoocians?
>
> Is this actual content in your post? Shocking!
>
> I dont contend that liberal arts types dont think or are purely emotional,
but what about all the credible scientific evidence?
> but that they tend to approach problems in an undisciplined manner. They see
> complications and a seemingly unworkable whole, and throw up thier hands; or
> they address effects rather than causes. Engineering/math types begin by
> breaking problems down in an effort to identify the causes and to find
> workable solutions. Conservatives and libertarians tend to be more like the
> latter.
i totally agree, hence my comment on their mathemootics. for instance,
when it comes to price fixing, slavery, minimum wages, class division,
colonialism, drm, copyright, liberal arts types are drunk by the
whole, the disneyland effects, instead of the parts, whereas
conservatives and monopolists break it up into little parts and see
the causes, making them more profound thinkers and the former for the
most part emotional and/or nonsensical.
David Oberman
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>What I rail against is *blind* ideology ...i.e., against ignorance,
>not thoughtful 'denial'. (E.g., although the 'racism' Goldberg
>mentions surely underlies much of the Conservative political base,
>many/most racists can't even contemplate the possibility cleanly
>enough to commence a self-analysis.)
It gets me down that I'm a bigot. But I ask myself, Am I a racist? I
don't know. I'm definitely a bigot, no matter how hard I try to find a
way out of it.
moviePig
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), moviePig
>
Well, those with no prejudice whatsoever were considered delicious by
stripeless tigers...
steve
On 3-Feb-2010, Sir Blob <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I dont contend that liberal arts types dont think or are purely
> > emotional,
>
>
> but what about all the credible scientific evidence?
I dont know what you're referring to.
> > but that they tend to approach problems in an undisciplined manner. They
> > see
> > complications and a seemingly unworkable whole, and throw up thier
> > hands; or
> > they address effects rather than causes. �Engineering/math types begin
> > by
> > breaking problems down in an effort to identify the causes and to find
> > workable solutions. �Conservatives and libertarians tend to be more like
> > the
> > latter.
>
>
> i totally agree, hence my comment on their mathemootics. for instance,
> when it comes to price fixing, slavery, minimum wages, class division,
> colonialism, drm, copyright, liberal arts types are drunk by the
> whole, the disneyland effects, instead of the parts, whereas
> conservatives and monopolists break it up into little parts and see
> the causes, making them more profound thinkers and the former for the
> most part emotional and/or nonsensical.
Hmmm... are you being sincere?
steve
On 3-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> I've read the article, and agree that those are perhaps its
> significant paragraphs.
>
> What I rail against is *blind* ideology ...i.e., against ignorance,
> not thoughtful 'denial'. (E.g., although the 'racism' Goldberg
> mentions surely underlies much of the Conservative political base,
> many/most racists can't even contemplate the possibility cleanly
> enough to commence a self-analysis.)
But you did resists my contention that pragmatism doesnt provide any guide
on what the problems are. Pragmaism can only come into play after problems
are identified, as that identification is a function of ideology.
> Afaics, it's disingenuous for Goldberg to pronounce Obama hypocritical
> for claiming to be free of ideology. Of *course* everyone believes in
> something somewhere somehow ...even if it's mainly in the elusive
> nature of any hard justification for such beliefs. However, I suspect
> Obama means merely -- and rather more pedestrianly -- that he's not
> wedded to Liberalism. And I suspect that Goldberg, behind his veil of
> semantics, knows well that's what Obama means.
But isnt it clear that BHO is on the hard left? For example, his insistence
that any health care solution must solve the problem of "pre-existing
conditions". To a non-leftist, PECs are not a political problem requiring a
political solution. They are simply among the "thousand natural shocks that
flesh is heir to.", and it is sufficient to allow people (which. of course,
includes the market, charity, etc.) the liberty to address or ignore the
problem as they see fit. ANd why would he support controls on health
insurance premiums and coverage mandates that would have the effect of
transferring wealth from the young and the healthy to the old and the sick?
BHOs resume and his associations also strongly indicate that he is hard
left. So I thing Golberg is well within the bounds of reason to suggets
that BHO is either blind to his own ideology or simply dishonest. I think
it's a combination of the two, myself.
I mean, if BHO is not hard left, why is he so opposed to market oriented
solutions to...anything? Why does he continue to use anti-capitalist
rhetoric? Why would he end a school voucher program in DC that cost about
HALF as much per student as DC public schools, but provided demonstrably
better results? If he was a true pragmatist, he'd push for eliminating DC
public schools and putting all kids on a voucher program (and what a great
idea that would be for the whole country)? I think the verdict is in on
BHOs ideological lefty-ness, and it's a no brainer.
Tom
What a load of elitist claptrap.
I have a liberal arts education. I have many friends with the same
type of education. I also have friends and relatives have a science-
based education.
I can guarantee you to a person, the LA educated people are much
deeper thinkers than the scientific types.
Goldberg would disagree with President Obama or any other non-
conservative even if they said rain was wet. Goldberg is the ideologue
and like others of his ilk, he's trying to make something out of
nothing. He and his like only want to confuse and obfuscate to get
those who listen to them to act against their own best interests.
Goldberg and his brethren wouldn't know a fact if it fell in their
collective laps. They do know the truth, however. How else would they
be so adept at avoiding it?
BTW, what movie was Mr. Goldberg in again?
Tom
steve
On 3-Feb-2010, Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> I can guarantee you to a person, the LA educated people are much
> deeper thinkers than the scientific types.
I believe that to be a leftist conceit. Libertarians and many conservatives
are well versed in issues of liberty and economics...far more so than
leaders on the left. Plenty of deep thought involved, there.
> Goldberg would disagree with President Obama or any other non-
> conservative even if they said rain was wet. Goldberg is the ideologue
> and like others of his ilk, he's trying to make something out of
> nothing. He and his like only want to confuse and obfuscate to get
> those who listen to them to act against their own best interests.
> Goldberg and his brethren wouldn't know a fact if it fell in their
> collective laps. They do know the truth, however. How else would they
> be so adept at avoiding it?
Vague accusations of falsehood. Got anthing concrete?
Sir Blob
>
> Vague accusations of falsehood. Got anthing concrete?
> --
is this a profound thought? i would say, basing myself on scientific
evidence, that it is.
Kingo Gondo
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:8Agan.14244$4p5....@newsfe22.iad...
> This article brought you to mind.
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2010/02/03/obama_appears_blinded_by_his_own_ideological_biases?page=full&comments=true
>
> Here is a sample of the wisdom therein:
>
> Ideologies don't require blinding yourself to the facts; rather, they help
> you prioritize what you are going to do with the facts. Indeed, the very
> question of deciding what to be pragmatic about -- this but not that --
> requires applying an ideological test.
> ...
> The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a
> pragmatist, then "ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters
> of
> metaphysical truth." Russell's point was that there's nothing within
> pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must
> look outside pragmatism for that.
>
> Jonah Goldberg is interesting because he thinks like a liberal-arts type
Really? I guess you never had to endure him prattling on endlessly about
Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek.
Jonah Goldberg is interesting for one reason, and one reason only--he
managed to crawl out of Lucianne Goldberg's cunt and, somehow, survive that
experience.
moviePig
> On 3-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > I've read the article, and agree that those are perhaps its
> > significant paragraphs.
>
> > What I rail against is *blind* ideology ...i.e., against ignorance,
> > not thoughtful 'denial'. (E.g., although the 'racism' Goldberg
> > mentions surely underlies much of the Conservative political base,
> > many/most racists can't even contemplate the possibility cleanly
> > enough to commence a self-analysis.)
>
> But you did resists my contention that pragmatism doesnt provide any guide
> on what the problems are. Pragmaism can only come into play after problems
> are identified, as that identification is a function of ideology.
No, pragmatism as an approach to achieving goals doesn't specify
them. I don't recall me or anyone saying otherwise.
Others can defend Obama more topically than I (...and still others, no
doubt, can attack him better than Goldberg). So, I'll address
(briefly) only 'pre-existing conditions' as the litmus-test you
propose for hard-leftedness: The PEC issue devolves to, afaics, the
simple question of whether our society wishes there to be a "floor" of
care-level for its citizens. One end of our political spectrum calls
this "human rights", and paints tears... whereas the other end calls
it "socialism", and brandishes crucifixes. But the pragmatist simply
observes that (hopefully) we'd all elect to provide such a floor, *if*
we could but afford to. Now, you presumably think Obama believes that
we *must* afford to, come hell or high water ...and, if you were
correct, then that would indeed make him a hard-left ideologue. But,
then, he'd also be *stupid* ...not merely wrong, but stupid (like most
any hard ideologue). And, even in the current predictable frenzy of
post-honeymoon disenchantment, I haven't heard 'stupid' bandied by
anyone not plainly incompetent to choose more than tonight's
channel...
steve
On 3-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> No, pragmatism as an approach to achieving goals doesn't specify
> them. I don't recall me or anyone saying otherwise.
I just did a quick google in this NG and I think you have a point. We have
had some tension over what constitutes ideology vs pragmatism, and what
roles the two play, but the position you seem to come to is consistent with
what you say above. It's the difficulty in coming to that conclusion that I
recall and now refer to. So...it looks like Im at least partly wrong on
this point. I would apologize, but I think the matter is still somewhat in
doubt given my difficulty in pinning down your meaning. If I pull your
teeth long enough, I get a fragment of tooth now and then.
> Others can defend Obama more topically than I (...and still others, no
> doubt, can attack him better than Goldberg). So, I'll address
> (briefly) only 'pre-existing conditions' as the litmus-test you
> propose for hard-leftedness:
Not quite a litmus test, but certainly an indicator. I rely on the full
range of evidence, the PECs being just one factor.
> The PEC issue devolves to, afaics, the
> simple question of whether our society wishes there to be a "floor" of
> care-level for its citizens. One end of our political spectrum calls
> this "human rights", and paints tears... whereas the other end calls
> it "socialism", and brandishes crucifixes. But the pragmatist simply
> observes that (hopefully) we'd all elect to provide such a floor, *if*
> we could but afford to.
And my doubts mentioned above come rushing back. That is a value judgement,
not a means to an end. That makes it idelogical and not pragmatic. You
seem to be using slight of hand by claiming that the pragmatist is simply
observing the value judgement and using his pragmatism to solve the problem.
But crediting the value judgement observed as worthy of consideration and
solution is itself a value judgement. Personally, I observe that many people
want us all to be our brothers keeper, but I do not agree with thier value
judgement and would take no steps to implement thier vision. I reject thier
ideology, therefore I take no pragmatic steps in its furtherance.
> Now, you presumably think Obama believes that
> we *must* afford to, come hell or high water ...and, if you were
> correct, then that would indeed make him a hard-left ideologue.
The bar for ideology isnt quite so high as "*must* afford to, come hell or
high water". A simple claim that we should do it is sufficient, because
that is a value judgement and inherently ideological. And if PEC coverage
was BHOs only lefty inclination, I would not conclude he was "hard" left.
It's just a telling peice of the puzzle.
> And, even in the current predictable frenzy of
> post-honeymoon disenchantment, I haven't heard 'stupid' bandied by
> anyone not plainly incompetent to choose more than tonight's
> channel...
"Insane" is the charge me and my friends throw about. We truly believe BHO
is left off the deep end. We find him neither brilliant nor stupid (though
he has been publically stupid on several occasions), but we do find him
incompetent (luckily) on many fronts.
David Oberman
>Personally, I observe that many people
>want us all to be our brothers keeper, but I do not agree with thier value
>judgement and would take no steps to implement thier vision. I reject thier
>ideology, therefore I take no pragmatic steps in its furtherance.
steve, would you lend me five bucks if I needed a hot meal? I'd help
you out! Wouldn't you do the same for me?
steve
On 4-Feb-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> >Personally, I observe that many people
> >want us all to be our brothers keeper, but I do not agree with thier
> >value
> >judgement and would take no steps to implement thier vision. I reject
> >thier
> >ideology, therefore I take no pragmatic steps in its furtherance.
>
> steve, would you lend me five bucks if I needed a hot meal? I'd help
> you out! Wouldn't you do the same for me?
Sure. I'd give you 5 bucks, since we're friends. But I have no moral
obligation to do so... which I believe is the issue.
People love to confuse personal generosity and voluntary giving with coerced
charity. They are only related in superficial terms, just as pushing an old
lady in front of a bus is superficially similar to pushing her OUT of the
path of a bus. Both involve pushing, but they are as morally distinct as
they can be.
miker
> coerced
> charity. They are only related in superficial terms, just as pushing an
> old
> lady in front of a bus is superficially similar to pushing her OUT of the
> path of a bus. Both involve pushing, but they are as morally distinct as
> they can be.
Not really. If you push her in front of a bus in getting her out of the way
of the falling piano, for example. Or if it's Hitlers mother. Or if she's
about to expose government corruption. Plenty of ground for moral ambiguity
there - nothing happens in a vacuum. (Except complicated space movies with
robots.;)
miker
steve
On 4-Feb-2010, "miker" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Not really. If you push her in front of a bus in getting her out of the
> way
> of the falling piano, for example. Or if it's Hitlers mother. Or if she's
> about to expose government corruption. Plenty of ground for moral
> ambiguity
> there - nothing happens in a vacuum. (Except complicated space movies with
>
> robots.;)
Fine. Just adjust my comment to refer to pushing the an "innocent old lady"
in both cases.
Did I really have to make that clarification?
miker
A lot of things don't relate to reality today. But I really shouldn't have
horned in. Apologies.
miker
moviePig
An aspect of Usenet is that, despite how often the accusation's flung,
there's really no such thing as "horning in". People who make their
conversations public tacitly invite -- even crave -- others'
attention. Moreover, "floor" can always expand to meet demand. (See
how I just now horned in to prove my point?)
steve
On 4-Feb-2010, "miker" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
As PM suggests, I dont mind you joining in. I just thought your objections
were a bit silly/unnecessary.
moviePig
Yes, there is the presumption here that, if universal health care were
(say) free, that the vast majority of any nation's citizens would not
choose to withhold it. (Iirc, such species-wide good will is
evidenced among most primates and many mammals.)
And, yes, there's the further presumption that, in comparison,
concerns about 'coercion' are merely secondary, even for those who
have them ...and that such concerns arise mainly in response to
unavoidable negative aspects of human nature that flourish especially
in the presence of government and bureaucracy.
So, in other words, you don't wish your fellow man to starve (...a
sentiment I grant you even though you disown it). But you abhor his
demands that you feed him. It's a toughie...
Sir Blob
as you well know, stewe's a demagogic spastic. for example, if i want
windows 7, should i
1. download it for free?
2. pay charity to bill gates?
wot stewe's really saying is he condescendingly defines what charity
is, what unnecessary consumerism is, and like a hegelian rightard, if
the real doesnt accord to language, well the real can go fuck itself,
so its like being condescended to by sasha grey
Tom
> On 3-Feb-2010, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I can guarantee you to a person, the LA educated people are much
> > deeper thinkers than the scientific types.
>
> I believe that to be a leftist conceit. Libertarians and many conservatives
> are well versed in issues of liberty and economics...far more so than
> leaders on the left.
Vague accusations and falsehoods. Got anything to back that up?
> Plenty of deep thought involved, there.
Where? The right? Goldberg, Limbaugh, Brietbart, Beck, O'Reilly, et.
al. aren't deep thinkers. Ask anyone of them to do what they do for
free and see how they answer. Their beliefs are only as deep as their
employer's pockets.
>
> > Goldberg would disagree with President Obama or any other non-
> > conservative even if they said rain was wet. Goldberg is the ideologue
> > and like others of his ilk, he's trying to make something out of
> > nothing. He and his like only want to confuse and obfuscate to get
> > those who listen to them to act against their own best interests.
> > Goldberg and his brethren wouldn't know a fact if it fell in their
> > collective laps. They do know the truth, however. How else would they
> > be so adept at avoiding it?
>
> Vague accusations of falsehood. Got anthing concrete?
Falsehood? Anyone who disagrees with you is spouting falsehoods? LOL!
People like Goldberg want President Obama to fail. Period. I didn't
agree with much of anything President Bush said or did, but I never
wanted him to fail. When our Presidents fail, we all fail... America
fails. People who want the President to fail just because they
disagree with him aren't patriotic... they are self-absorbed
simpletons who can't see past their rant.
birthers
truthers
teabaggers
the President is a Nazi
the President is a Socialist
the President is a Communist
The latest ideologue chew toy is trying terrorists in criminal court.
Over 300 terrorists were convicted in criminal courts under President
Bush. Now, for no other reason than Mr. Obama is the President, the
ideologues are screaming it's a bad idea.
Tom
Tom
> On 4-Feb-2010, David Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > >Personally, I observe that many people
> > >want us all to be our brothers keeper, but I do not agree with thier
> > >value
> > >judgement and would take no steps to implement thier vision. I reject
> > >thier
> > >ideology, therefore I take no pragmatic steps in its furtherance.
>
> > steve, would you lend me five bucks if I needed a hot meal? I'd help
> > you out! Wouldn't you do the same for me?
>
> Sure. I'd give you 5 bucks, since we're friends. But I have no moral
> obligation to do so... which I believe is the issue.
As humans, we all have a moral obligation to help one another. The
difference between you and me is, I'd give you the five bucks even if
I didn't know you.
>
> People love to confuse personal generosity and voluntary giving with coerced
> charity.
Please provide an example of coerced charity. How can anyone who is
need coerce anything out of anyone?
Tom
Tom
> On 3-Feb-2010, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I can guarantee you to a person, the LA educated people are much
> > deeper thinkers than the scientific types.
>
> I believe that to be a leftist conceit. Libertarians and many conservatives
> are well versed in issues of liberty and economics...far more so than
> leaders on the left. Plenty of deep thought involved, there.
>
> > Goldberg would disagree with President Obama or any other non-
> > conservative even if they said rain was wet. Goldberg is the ideologue
> > and like others of his ilk, he's trying to make something out of
> > nothing. He and his like only want to confuse and obfuscate to get
> > those who listen to them to act against their own best interests.
> > Goldberg and his brethren wouldn't know a fact if it fell in their
> > collective laps. They do know the truth, however. How else would they
> > be so adept at avoiding it?
>
> Vague accusations of falsehood. Got anthing concrete?
> --
Oh, I forgot this...
Tom
Sir Blob
>
> Tom
flaberghasting, the money behind these freaks
Tom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Indeed.
Tom
steve
On 4-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Yes, there is the presumption here that, if universal health care were
> (say) free, that the vast majority of any nation's citizens would not
> choose to withhold it. (Iirc, such species-wide good will is
> evidenced among most primates and many mammals.)
>
> And, yes, there's the further presumption that, in comparison,
> concerns about 'coercion' are merely secondary, even for those who
> have them ...and that such concerns arise mainly in response to
> unavoidable negative aspects of human nature that flourish especially
> in the presence of government and bureaucracy.
>
> So, in other words, you don't wish your fellow man to starve (...a
> sentiment I grant you even though you disown it). But you abhor his
> demands that you feed him. It's a toughie...
First, PM, you arent addressing the issue, which is the distinction between
pragmatism and ideology. You (and a few others, beginning with Dober) seem
to think there is some value in discussing the degree to which I might
personally (and voluntarily) help others. Before I say anything else,
please answer this question: Why do you think this is even relevant?
steve
miker
need coerce anything out of anyone?>>
A good example would be foreign aid, sourced from our taxes and given to a
"needy" country because we want "American" international corporations to
rape their resources rather than "foreign" international corporations.
And when the recipient country is smart enough to know what strings are
attached and doesn't want it, sometimes they wind up with it anyway,
coercing both the giver and the recipient.
One recent example I'm thinking of is the early days of the Indonesian tidal
wave, when they emphatically did not want Americans helping (our government
wanted to be seen to be helping Muslims just then). In that case most
Americans would have been willing to give for humanitarian reasons, but our
government wanted to give for spin reasons. The individual Indonesions would
have liked the help, but their government didn't want the Americans to use
them for PR. So coercion appeared even with a willing giver and receiver.
miker
moviePig
> On 4-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, there is the presumption here that, if universal health care were
> > (say) free, that the vast majority of any nation's citizens would not
> > choose to withhold it. (Iirc, such species-wide good will is
> > evidenced among most primates and many mammals.)
>
> > And, yes, there's the further presumption that, in comparison,
> > concerns about 'coercion' are merely secondary, even for those who
> > have them ...and that such concerns arise mainly in response to
> > unavoidable negative aspects of human nature that flourish especially
> > in the presence of government and bureaucracy.
>
> > So, in other words, you don't wish your fellow man to starve (...a
> > sentiment I grant you even though you disown it). But you abhor his
> > demands that you feed him. It's a toughie...
>
> First, PM, you arent addressing the issue, which is the distinction between
> pragmatism and ideology. You (and a few others, beginning with Dober) seem
> to think there is some value in discussing the degree to which I might
> personally (and voluntarily) help others. Before I say anything else,
> please answer this question: Why do you think this is even relevant?
'Relevant'? I think it's the nub.
Proponents of universal health-care (I think) take its desirability as
axiomatic ...i.e., these truths to be self-evident. As *pre*-
ideology, it's the unquestioned goal for pragmatism to seek. (When I
myself share the sentiment, one quasi-justification I resort to is the
primate behavior I mentioned.)
Meanwhile, its opponents (e.g., you) seem in denial about (what may
be) that fundamental component of human nature ...instead accelerating
right past it toward more abstract, individualistic goals, and how to
engineer society to meet those.
Dober, et al., are merely trying to repair your rear-view mirror.
Tom
Thanks. I understand the fine examples you cite.
However, and this is a big risk, I think Steve was thinking smaller.
We all pay our taxes and they collectively go towards things we want
and don't want.
I think Steve was thinking more in terms of that five bucks.
But hey, I could be totally wrong.
Tom
miker
Ok. :)
How about, you get panhandled for $5 by someone with a good story, and feel
coerced because you don't want to look cheap to the people you're with, or
because you're alone and he's bigger. That's a sort of coercion. And then
the guy looks at you and says "With another buck I could get some better
food..." haha.
I once got panhandled by a guy who approached me with a fistful of dollars;
he held them out and wanted to know if I had a ten. Turns out he had only
eight to trade for it...
miker
moviePig
He offered a fistful of dollars for a few dollars more. Hmm, I wonder
if he was good, bad, or ugly...
David Oberman
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>Dober, et al., are merely trying to repair your rear-view mirror.
Well, bigot that I am, I actually believe that there's an important
difference between giving voluntarily & being forced to give by law.
That's why I support a state opt-in program for health insurance, just
as an example, funded by & disseminated only to those who sign on the
dotted line.
David Oberman
>One recent example I'm thinking of is the early days of the Indonesian tidal
>wave, when they emphatically did not want Americans helping (our government
>wanted to be seen to be helping Muslims just then).
Who they? Sumatrans? Thais? Sri Lankans? Indians? East Africans?
miker
Thanks for the memory jog - I think it was the Sumatrans iirc.
miker
moviePig
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:51:58 -0800 (PST), moviePig
>
> >Dober, et al., are merely trying to repair your rear-view mirror.
>
> Well, bigot that I am, I actually believe that there's an important
> difference between giving voluntarily & being forced to give by law.
> That's why I support a state opt-in program for health insurance, just
> as an example, funded by & disseminated only to those who sign on the
> dotted line.
Sure, we all *feel* the difference when the king's retainers ride to
your hut and force you to throw money over your neighbor's fence. But
that emotion registers less strongly when the government merely
dispenses our taxes in furtherance of 'principle' (which we're all
presumed "obviously" to support). E.g., consider how you feel about
your tax dollars flowing into Haiti. Then, consider that (equally
"obviously" to many) we want *all* our citizens to be healthy.
(That's included under 'life'... which precedes 'liberty' and 'the
pursuit of happiness'.)
David Oberman
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>Sure, we all *feel* the difference when the king's retainers ride to
>your hut and force you to throw money over your neighbor's fence. But
>that emotion registers less strongly when the government merely
>dispenses our taxes in furtherance of 'principle' (which we're all
>presumed "obviously" to support). E.g., consider how you feel about
>your tax dollars flowing into Haiti. Then, consider that (equally
>"obviously" to many) we want *all* our citizens to be healthy.
>(That's included under 'life'... which precedes 'liberty' and 'the
>pursuit of happiness'.)
I know a guy who lives in Minneapolis -- he's about 40 years old, I
guess, & works clerical -- who used his credit cards in 2009 to follow
Fleetwood Mac around the country to see them perform at dozens of
shows. He got into financial hot water after that & he applied for aid
of various sorts. Ordinarily, I'm all for safety nets for citizens:
people lose their jobs, people go bankrupt paying for emergency
surgeries, etc.
But Judge Judy would look at this guy & say, "You're an IDIOT. An
IDIOT." Why should the rest of us throw him a net?
moviePig
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:48:34 -0800 (PST), moviePig
>
Indeed, in my (staunchly anti-capital punishment) heart, I say 'shoot
the bastard'. But, of course, neither of us would ...because we'd
think it "extreme". The question is whether denying health-care is
such an extreme... or whether, instead, such care should be part of
the minimum 'safety net' that citizenship provides (...even though
'safety nets', by their nature, can tell the deserving from the
undeserving no more than fishing nets can tell dolphin from tuna).
David Oberman
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> But Judge Judy would look at this guy & say, "You're an IDIOT. An
>> IDIOT." Why should the rest of us throw him a net?
>
>Indeed, in my (staunchly anti-capital punishment) heart, I say 'shoot
>the bastard'.
I mean, if you're going to camp-follow a Fleetwood Mac tour, it had
better be the Tusk or the Mirage tour -- NOT the crappty Unleashed
tour. Again I invoke Judge Judy: WHAT AN IDIOT.
>But, of course, neither of us would ...because we'd
>think it "extreme". The question is whether denying health-care is
>such an extreme... or whether, instead, such care should be part of
>the minimum 'safety net' that citizenship provides (...even though
>'safety nets', by their nature, can tell the deserving from the
>undeserving no more than fishing nets can tell dolphin from tuna).
At the very least, go through this frightening list:
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml
& get rid of a bunch of these pointless agencies. Then you'll have the
money to give everybody vaccines & blood lab work & emergency
medicine.
The money for all safety nets is ALREADY THERE -- no need to collect
more & more year after year -- if it weren't being squandered so
carelessly.
I haven't even mentioned political salaries. Why the heck should any
member of Congress or any president or any voter-appointed public
employee be making more than $100,000 a year? There is SO MUCH MONEY
being wasted that I can't put that fact aside in any discussion of the
use of public dollars. CLEAN UP THE FINANCES FIRST!!
miker
> being wasted that I can't put that fact aside in any discussion of the
> use of public dollars. CLEAN UP THE FINANCES FIRST!!
And that is why healthcare and other discussions are pointless. The
financial problem is too big to fix; the people in charge don't understand
the problem and in any case will not accept action that diminishes their own
power; the system is going down; and the only remaining question is how long
they can pretend and band-aid until the latest black swan gets them and
TSHTF. Arguing about (or re-arranging) the deck chairs on the Titanic is a
near-perfect metaphor.
I suppose as an intellectual exercise it might be enjoyable to debate what
healthcare should be, assuming we were to find ourselves someday in a
situation where something could be done. But we could, with equal validity,
discuss whether we as flying mammals should fly close to the ground or
higher up.
miker
steve
On 5-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > First, PM, you arent addressing the issue, which is the distinction
> > between
> > pragmatism and ideology. �You (and a few others, beginning with Dober)
> > seem
> > to think there is some value in discussing the degree to which I might
> > personally (and voluntarily) help others. �Before I say anything else,
> > please answer this question: Why do you think this is even relevant?
>
> 'Relevant'? I think it's the nub.
>
> Proponents of universal health-care (I think) take its desirability as
> axiomatic ...i.e., these truths to be self-evident. As *pre*-
> ideology, it's the unquestioned goal for pragmatism to seek. (When I
> myself share the sentiment, one quasi-justification I resort to is the
> primate behavior I mentioned.)
>
> Meanwhile, its opponents (e.g., you) seem in denial about (what may
> be) that fundamental component of human nature ...instead accelerating
> right past it toward more abstract, individualistic goals, and how to
> engineer society to meet those.
Jumpin' Jesus! Leftys may feel universal health-care is an unquestionable
goal, but that is simply because they arent open to examining the question.
Clearly, for anyone who is not malevolent, it is desirable that mankind in
general should progress and overcome the mortal limitations that are part of
our nature...cure disease, alleviate hunger and suffering, etc. But there
are competing desires, such as the desire for liberty and self actualization
in many forms. The provision of universal health care is at odds with many
of those desires. To claim that the imposition of govt power is simply a
pragmatic attempt to solve one without regard for the others is to ignore
the inherent ideological choice of health care over other desires. I
believe strongly that liberty trumps all other considerations (and the
Lockean bargain approach is an attempt to maximise liberty). To reject that
position is an ideological choice, just as choosing health care over others
is an ideologal choice. Further, to assume the desire that mankind in
general "should progress and overcome mortal limitations" is universal (or
even nearly so) does not lead immediately to a "pragmatic" question of
providing universal health care. Rather it leads to the much broader and
more basic question of how best to overcome those limitations. The question
of what other consideration are weighed against that (presumably universal)
desire, and specifically how they compare, is one of ideology.
And this is not abstract. The behavior of people indicates strongly that
they weigh thier own desires against the universal problems of mortal man.
When people spend thier money for entertainment (for example) when they
could use it to feed the poor, they demonstrate that the alleviation of
suffering generally is NOT thier highest priority. The most "fundamental
component of human nature" appears to be self interest (broadly defined),
and the general desire for the improvement of the human condition
(especially beyond those in our immediate sphere of interest) may not even
run a close second. Compassionate action for strangers is a luxury that
only those in relative comfort seem willing to entertain, which demonstrates
that compassionate action is low on the scale of desires.
You, for example, could be out working for the poor, yet you're discussing
this nonsense with me. You own a computer, when that money could have gone
to the red cross. I'll bet you own a car, a TV, DVD player, etc....get the
point?
steve
On 5-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Sure, we all *feel* the difference when the king's retainers ride to
> your hut and force you to throw money over your neighbor's fence. But
> that emotion registers less strongly when the government merely
> dispenses our taxes in furtherance of 'principle' (which we're all
> presumed "obviously" to support). E.g., consider how you feel about
> your tax dollars flowing into Haiti. Then, consider that (equally
> "obviously" to many) we want *all* our citizens to be healthy.
> (That's included under 'life'... which precedes 'liberty' and 'the
> pursuit of happiness'.)
You guys crack me up. The right to life, like any right that isnt designed
to control or contravene an exercize of govt power (like the right to due
process or to vote), confers no duty on anyone to act. Rather it confers
only the duty NOT to act so as to deny you that right. So the right to life
doesnt compel me to support your life, only that I cannot wantonly take it.
I dont have to feed you if you are starving, but I cant steal your food or
prevent you from eating or procuring food in whatever way you choose, so
long as you do not violate my rights in the process. This is the classic
theory of negative liberty (an unfortunate term in its connotation).
Positive liberty (the theory you guys are blithely trumpeting as
universal..far from it) is impossible to define and to limit. It becomes
whatever its proponents are willing to stomach or to press on others. It
makes us all slaves to the less fortunate, in theory. In practice, it makes
us all slaves to the govt.
steve
solution is itself a value judgement. Personally, I observe that many people
want us all to be our brothers keeper, but I do not agree with thier value
judgement and would take no steps to implement thier vision. I reject thier
ideology, therefore I take no pragmatic steps in its furtherance.
> Now, you presumably think Obama believes that
> we *must* afford to, come hell or high water ...and, if you were
> correct, then that would indeed make him a hard-left ideologue.
The bar for ideology isnt quite so high as "*must* afford to, come hell or
high water". A simple claim that we should do it is sufficient, because
that is a value judgement and inherently ideological. And if PEC coverage
was BHOs only lefty inclination, I would not conclude he was "hard" left.
It's just a telling peice of the puzzle.
> And, even in the current predictable frenzy of
> post-honeymoon disenchantment, I haven't heard 'stupid' bandied by
> anyone not plainly incompetent to choose more than tonight's
> channel...
"Insane" is the charge me and my friends throw about. We truly believe BHO
is left off the deep end. We find him neither brilliant nor stupid (though
he has been publically stupid on several occasions), but we do find him
incompetent (luckily) on many fronts.
steve
steve
steve
steve
steve
steve
steve
steve
steve
steve
Sir Blob
and what makes u such a coward is u actually write in your spare time
what only ppl write when they need the money. this belongs in a power
point presentation, and it makes u such a fucking cruel idiot geek.
again, ill repeat my ucking point above, why do we have to pay for
things we shouldnt have to be paying for? i just wanna see your utter
dribble get out of this one. please dont tell me, after so much
fucking pretentious dribble yours is just not a lobby for paying for
certain things (intellectual property, whatever that is) and not for
other things (taxes), doesnt that make u just a pathetic little
propagandist, in his free time, filling the past films ng with utter
fucking political bullshit?
Sir Blob
moviePig
I suppose some might even call universal health-care a Declaration of
*De*pendence,. But in quoting the famous phrase, I invoke only the
adjacent notion of "self-evident" goals. So, rest easy. (Still, I'd
wonder why a government dedicated to *preserving* certain things --
e.g., by keeping its hands of yours -- might not reasonably be
expected to *promote* them, as well.)
moviePig
> On 5-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > First, PM, you arent addressing the issue, which is the distinction
> > > between
> > > pragmatism and ideology. You (and a few others, beginning with Dober)
> > > seem
> > > to think there is some value in discussing the degree to which I might
> > > personally (and voluntarily) help others. Before I say anything else,
> > > please answer this question: Why do you think this is even relevant?
>
> > 'Relevant'? I think it's the nub.
>
> > Proponents of universal health-care (I think) take its desirability as
> > axiomatic ...i.e., these truths to be self-evident. As *pre*-
> > ideology, it's the unquestioned goal for pragmatism to seek. (When I
> > myself share the sentiment, one quasi-justification I resort to is the
> > primate behavior I mentioned.)
>
> > Meanwhile, its opponents (e.g., you) seem in denial about (what may
> > be) that fundamental component of human nature ...instead accelerating
> > right past it toward more abstract, individualistic goals, and how to
> > engineer society to meet those.
>
> Jumpin' Jesus! Leftys may feel universal health-care is an unquestionable
> goal, but that is simply because they arent open to examining the question.
(tautology alert)
Yes, I think I can just make it out in the haze: You're saying that
only a hypocrite would toss ten bucks into the collection plate
without including his credit cards and the deed to his house ...i.e.,
that we only look out for Number 1, and to think otherwise is pure
Number 2.
Okay, forget the humanitarian angle (...which may, after all, comprise
mainly a distraction, e.g., a lightning rod for anti-"bleeding heart
liberal" vitriol). The real question is whether (all else being
equal) health care belongs with "givens" like public schooling, and
clean air and water... or whether instead it should be the province of
a free-market survival of the fastest...
Tom
> <<I think Steve was thinking more in terms of that five bucks.>>
>
> Ok. :)
>
> How about, you get panhandled for $5 by someone with a good story, and feel
> coerced because you don't want to look cheap to the people you're with, or
> because you're alone and he's bigger.
Well, I really wouldn't care what others would think. I'd drive myself
crazy factoring that into my decision making. I've found panhandlers
to be fairly non-aggressive. I generally tend to be unafraid... I'm
kind big myself! ;-)
There's a couple of men who frequent the exit ramp I use for my
commute to work. The stop light is fairly long, so they have plenty of
time to walk the line of cars waiting for the light to change. I
should add they are never there together. It's either one or the
other.
I don't give them money. I give them food. Last spring, for example, I
made some sandwiches from our leftover Easter ham and gave whoever was
there at the time got lunch.
I also give canned goods if they are there.
>That's a sort of coercion.
I suppose, but only if you feel coerced.
> And then
> the guy looks at you and says "With another buck I could get some better
> food..." haha.
He'd be hard pressed to find better than the Easter ham! LOL!
>
> I once got panhandled by a guy who approached me with a fistful of dollars;
> he held them out and wanted to know if I had a ten. Turns out he had only
> eight to trade for it...
>
> miker
It's a shame someone that creative doesn't have a job.
Tom
Tom
> On Feb 5, 11:24 am, "miker" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > <<I think Steve was thinking more in terms of that five bucks.>>
>
> > Ok. :)
>
> > How about, you get panhandled for $5 by someone with a good story, and feel
> > coerced because you don't want to look cheap to the people you're with, or
> > the guy looks at you and says "With another buck I could get some better
> > food..." haha.
>
> > he held them out and wanted to know if I had a ten. Turns out he had only
> > eight to trade for it...
>
> if he was good, bad, or ugly...
>
You're good. You're very, very good!
Thanks for... er... making my day!
Tom
moviePig
[hands *off* yours]
Tom
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:48:34 -0800 (PST), moviePig
>
Well, I suppose it depends upon of what aid he availed himself. If he
applied for food stamps and Medicaid, then I, too, would have some
concerns. If he used an agency such as Consumer Credit Counseling
Service to manage his debt, then I'm OK with that.
The bottom line, tho, is he is an IDIOT. He's the guy President Obama
was speaking to the other day when he said something to effect that
just because the economy is turning around doesn't mean we should all
run to Vegas and blow our wad.
Tom
David Oberman
>The bottom line, tho, is he is an IDIOT. He's the guy President Obama
>was speaking to the other day when he said something to effect that
>just because the economy is turning around doesn't mean we should all
>run to Vegas and blow our wad.
And to camp-follow the Mac in 2010 -- instead of, say, 1978 or 1980 --
just bespeaks an aesthetic nincompoopery that can't be believed!
steve
On 6-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > Jumpin' Jesus! Leftys may feel universal health-care is an
> > unquestionable
> > goal, but that is simply because they arent open to examining the
> > question.
>
> (tautology alert)
Relax. That's just an opening remark.
> Yes, I think I can just make it out in the haze: You're saying that
> only a hypocrite would toss ten bucks into the collection plate
> without including his credit cards and the deed to his house ...i.e.,
> that we only look out for Number 1, and to think otherwise is pure
> Number 2.
Nope. I dont know why you see haze, either. Your contention (stated
generally...and correct me if it is a misstatement) is that the desire for a
better world is universal, therefore the desire for coverage of pre-existing
conditions is universal, and hence the decision to coercively mandate that
coverage is not ideological, but rather purely pragmatic.
My response is that the desire for a better world, even if universal, is
just one of many desires; that we all weigh our many desires against one
another and against the cost of fufillling those desires; that such behavior
is readily evident in the way we conduct our everyday lives; and therefore
you cannot assert that the desire and decision to eliminate any one of
life's particular difficulties is pragmatic. The necessity of choosing when
and how we use our energy and resources is one that requires value
judgements, and value judgements are ideological.
Have I cleared the haze?
> Okay, forget the humanitarian angle (...which may, after all, comprise
> mainly a distraction, e.g., a lightning rod for anti-"bleeding heart
> liberal" vitriol). The real question is whether (all else being
> equal) health care belongs with "givens" like public schooling, and
> clean air and water... or whether instead it should be the province of
> a free-market survival of the fastest...
Can I get another "Jumpin' Jesus" from the congregation?
> The real question is whether (all else being
> equal) health care belongs with "givens" like public schooling...
Public school a "given"? I wont argue against an empty phrase. Just what
is a "given" in this context, and how does public school qualify?
steve
--
"It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance, that it is directed by insolent
passion."
Edmund
Burke.
Tom
> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:38:23 -0800 (PST), Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> >The bottom line, tho, is he is an IDIOT. He's the guy President Obama
> >was speaking to the other day when he said something to effect that
> >just because the economy is turning around doesn't mean we should all
> >run to Vegas and blow our wad.
>
> And to camp-follow the Mac in 2010 -- instead of, say, 1978 or 1980 --
> just bespeaks an aesthetic nincompoopery that can't be believed!
<snicker>
That's funny!
The nincompoopery could rise, tho, if there is a Mac/Eagles tour this
year!
Tom
steve
On 6-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> I suppose some might even call universal health-care a Declaration of
> *De*pendence,. But in quoting the famous phrase, I invoke only the
> adjacent notion of "self-evident" goals. So, rest easy. (Still, I'd
> wonder why a government dedicated to *preserving* certain things --
> e.g., by keeping its hands of yours -- might not reasonably be
> expected to *promote* them, as well.)
Simply because the two goals are generally incompatible. That is the
problem with positive liberty theories...that they require the systematic
violation of rights, not to avoid greater or more frequent violations of
rights (the Lockean bargain, which can be justified as a best of all
imperfect possibilities), but in order to satisfy whatever desires the
proponents care to call rights ("right to health care", "right to affordable
housing", "...not to be offended", "... a job", ".. a good paying job",
"...a living wage", "...equal access to [fill in the blank]"). On the other
side of these fiat rights is a duty to provide, and the fullfillment of that
duty comes at the cost of true rights sacrificed. If you cannot show a
direct violation of a true right by one human upon another, then the
"bargain" approach is not legitimate. And when the bargain is a legit
approach, care must always be taken that the systematic violations by govt
(that prevent the greater violations, generally) are properly limited to
that function and that they are no more restrictive than necessary as a
practical matter. In short, the goal is (should be, anyway) to maximise
liberty.
moviePig
B. Franklin notwithstanding, isn't it true that we daily sacrifice
liberty for security? (...where 'security' includes 'freedom from
chaos'?) My major disagreement with the above is that you scare-wave
a '*right* to health care'... which, as I've taken care to
distinguish, is for reasonable proponents actually the mere assertion
that universal health care, like a new car, could be great... *if* we
can afford it...
moviePig
Somehow, the U.S. seems to have accepted the notion that a literate
citizenry is preferable to the alternative ...and, to the end, has not
only taxed the childless, but even dragged little wage-earners,
kicking and screaming, from the assembly line and into the classroom.
The question now being put to the country's collective wisdom is
whether universal health care might *likewise* be preferable to the
alternative. Although the answers may indeed be complex, the question
itself seems simple enough for Jesus to maybe skip those loftier
pulpits... where jumping can be dangerous...
steve
On 8-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Somehow, the U.S. seems to have accepted the notion that a literate
> citizenry is preferable to the alternative ...and, to the end, has not
> only taxed the childless, but even dragged little wage-earners,
> kicking and screaming, from the assembly line and into the classroom.
That's a statement (historically inaccurate, in fact) about what is, and not
about what is right, moral, or even effective. And, BTW, I believe our
citizenry would be better educated with no public schools (in conjunction
with minimal govt).
> The question now being put to the country's collective wisdom is
> whether universal health care might *likewise* be preferable to the
> alternative. Although the answers may indeed be complex, the question
> itself seems simple enough for Jesus to maybe skip those loftier
> pulpits... where jumping can be dangerous...
You disappoint me once again, PM. You make no argument.
steve
On 8-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> B. Franklin notwithstanding, isn't it true that we daily sacrifice
> liberty for security?
A minute portion of the power of govt could be credited as fullfilling the
Lockean Bargain (the maximization of liberty in practice) that I have
mentioned so often. But the power of govt goes light years beyond any such
rational justification.
> My major disagreement with the above is that you scare-wave
> a '*right* to health care'... which, as I've taken care to
> distinguish, is for reasonable proponents actually the mere assertion
> that universal health care, like a new car, could be great... *if* we
> can afford it...
And, again, you make no argument.
BTW, Ive been reading Thomas Sowells latest book (see link). Like many
others, he observes and argues that the left (like you) is unwilling to
critically examine thier own ideas and assertions. They, like you, they do
not engage in substantive debate. They, like you, presume that their ideas
are self evident and beyond question. I would think, on a personal and
psychological level, that this manner of thinking must be uncomfortable and
insecure.
http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Society-Thomas-Sowell/dp/046501948X
He uses what is apparently a common definition for "intellectual", which
includes any profession that deals with ideas alone. So if your ideas are
put into practice and subject to the tests of reality, however much that job
may involve the intellect, the definition doesnt apply. I dont particularly
like this definition, but it does distinguish a class of people worthy of a
unique and identifying label.
steve
moviePig
> On 8-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Somehow, the U.S. seems to have accepted the notion that a literate
> > citizenry is preferable to the alternative ...and, to the end, has not
> > only taxed the childless, but even dragged little wage-earners,
> > kicking and screaming, from the assembly line and into the classroom.
>
> That's a statement (historically inaccurate, in fact) about what is, and not
> about what is right, moral, or even effective. And, BTW, I believe our
> citizenry would be better educated with no public schools (in conjunction
> with minimal govt).
(That seems possible, but quite improbable.)
> > The question now being put to the country's collective wisdom is
> > whether universal health care might *likewise* be preferable to the
> > alternative. Although the answers may indeed be complex, the question
> > itself seems simple enough for Jesus to maybe skip those loftier
> > pulpits... where jumping can be dangerous...
>
> You disappoint me once again, PM. You make no argument.
Just a guess, but... your recurrent disappointment likely springs from
wishing me to make an argument "about what is right, moral, or even
effective" ...whereas my aim has always been merely to argue (in this
instance) that universal health care advocates don't necessarily bay
at the moon. (Meanwhile, though, I would hope never to conflate
theological attributes like "right" or "moral" with the pragmatic one
of what's "effective".)
moviePig
> On 8-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > B. Franklin notwithstanding, isn't it true that we daily sacrifice
> > liberty for security?
>
> A minute portion of the power of govt could be credited as fullfilling the
> Lockean Bargain (the maximization of liberty in practice) that I have
> mentioned so often. But the power of govt goes light years beyond any such
> rational justification.
>
> > My major disagreement with the above is that you scare-wave
> > a '*right* to health care'... which, as I've taken care to
> > distinguish, is for reasonable proponents actually the mere assertion
> > that universal health care, like a new car, could be great... *if* we
> > can afford it...
>
> And, again, you make no argument.
>
> BTW, Ive been reading Thomas Sowells latest book (see link). Like many
> others, he observes and argues that the left (like you) is unwilling to
> critically examine thier own ideas and assertions. They, like you, they do
> not engage in substantive debate. They, like you, presume that their ideas
> are self evident and beyond question.
(It's not that you haven't heard a word I've said... merely, it seems,
every *other* word...
> I would think, on a personal and
> psychological level, that this manner of thinking must be uncomfortable and
> insecure.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Society-Thomas-Sowell/dp/046501948X
>
> He uses what is apparently a common definition for "intellectual", which
> includes any profession that deals with ideas alone. So if your ideas are
> put into practice and subject to the tests of reality, however much that job
> may involve the intellect, the definition doesnt apply. I dont particularly
> like this definition, but it does distinguish a class of people worthy of a
> unique and identifying label.
Sounds like a wanted-poster for 'egghead-charlatans'. Yep, they'll be
our ruin...
steve
On 9-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > You disappoint me once again, PM. You make no argument.
>
> Just a guess, but... your recurrent disappointment likely springs from
> wishing me to make an argument "about what is right, moral, or even
> effective" ...whereas my aim has always been merely to argue (in this
> instance) that universal health care advocates don't necessarily bay
> at the moon.
Wrong.
I expect that when I lay out an argument in clear logical steps, that you
will address that argument in just as clear and logical a fashion. For
example, I wrote:
"My response is that the desire for a better world, even if universal, is
just one of many desires; that we all weigh our many desires against one
another and against the cost of fufillling those desires; that such behavior
is readily evident in the way we conduct our everyday lives; and therefore
you cannot assert that the desire and decision to eliminate any one of
life's particular difficulties is pragmatic. The necessity of choosing when
and how we use our energy and resources is one that requires value
judgements, and value judgements are ideological."
But your response came nowhere near my argument. In fact, when reading your
response, I wasnt even reminded of the argument and had to backtrack to see
what we were talking about.
But you are correct in one regard. You eschew moral argument, yet you imply
moral judgements all over the place. Perhaps you believe that your
positions are "purely pragmatic", but they rely on value judgements and are
therefore ideological. You escape this by simply avoiding substantive
discussion....by waxing general against speciifics...by conflating and
confusing...by doing anything but actually confronting my arguments.
I will now indulge myself and throw the ultimate insult.
You argue like a woman!
Heh heh.
Tom
Have you run that one past your wife? If you said that to my wife, she
would verbally and intellectually dismember you in a matter of
minutes.
Perhaps the two of should meet.
Tom
steve
On 9-Feb-2010, Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> > You argue like a woman!
> >
>
>
>
> Have you run that one past your wife? If you said that to my wife, she
> would verbally and intellectually dismember you in a matter of
> minutes.
Anytime she thinks she's man enough...
moviePig
> On 9-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > You disappoint me once again, PM. You make no argument.
>
> > Just a guess, but... your recurrent disappointment likely springs from
> > wishing me to make an argument "about what is right, moral, or even
> > effective" ...whereas my aim has always been merely to argue (in this
> > instance) that universal health care advocates don't necessarily bay
> > at the moon.
>
> Wrong.
>
> I expect that when I lay out an argument in clear logical steps, that you
> will address that argument in just as clear and logical a fashion. For
>
> example, I wrote:
>
> "My response is that the desire for a better world, even if universal, is
> just one of many desires; that we all weigh our many desires against one
> another and against the cost of fufillling those desires; that such behavior
> is readily evident in the way we conduct our everyday lives; and therefore
> you cannot assert that the desire and decision to eliminate any one of
> life's particular difficulties is pragmatic. The necessity of choosing when
> and how we use our energy and resources is one that requires value
> judgements, and value judgements are ideological."
Well -- apart from the possibility that your 'ideological' excludes,
say, 'hedonistic' (remote, I hope) -- the point you're declaiming
above seems so obvious as not to require even agreement, much less
refutation. (If helpful, I suppose I can affirm it with a summation:
"Ya' pays ya' nickel, ya' takes ya' choice..." )
> But your response came nowhere near my argument. In fact, when reading your
> response, I wasnt even reminded of the argument and had to backtrack to see
> what we were talking about.
>
> But you are correct in one regard. You eschew moral argument, yet you imply
> moral judgements all over the place. Perhaps you believe that your
> positions are "purely pragmatic", but they rely on value judgements and are
> therefore ideological.
(Oops, so much for the earlier possibility being 'remote'...)
> You escape this by simply avoiding substantive
> discussion....by waxing general against speciifics...by conflating and
> confusing...by doing anything but actually confronting my arguments.
I realize you like to post personal views you find exciting and
incisive, and then to challenge others to "prove you wrong". But,
indeed, you *will* have to look to 'others' for that... as I persist
in responding instead with my *own* views, though they seem often not
even co-planar with yours.
> I will now indulge myself and throw the ultimate insult.
>
> You argue like a woman!
>
> Heh heh.
Just what I expect from someone unable to recognize a 'why'-
chromosome...
steve
On 9-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Well -- apart from the possibility that your 'ideological' excludes,
> say, 'hedonistic' (remote, I hope) -- the point you're declaiming
> above seems so obvious as not to require even agreement, much less
> refutation. (If helpful, I suppose I can affirm it with a summation:
> "Ya' pays ya' nickel, ya' takes ya' choice..." )
You talk the talk (now) but you dont walk the walk. You agree that circles
cant be square..even smugly claim it's too obvious to even discuss... then
you talk about square circles...again and again.
> > You escape this by simply avoiding substantive
> > discussion....by waxing general against speciifics...by conflating and
> > confusing...by doing anything but actually confronting my arguments.
>
> I realize you like to post personal views you find exciting and
> incisive, and then to challenge others to "prove you wrong".
You're amazing. We have engaged on an issue, repeatedly, and you have
skirted the issue in every way possible. I didnt make a claim outside the
very topic we have been discussing (for some time). I argued a position
that is central to the ongoing argument. Im not tossing out a subject in
which you have expressed no interest, and then demanding a response. Im
attempting to engage you on issues where we have both expressed opposing
points of view. We disagree..and you are more than happy to express
disagreement... but you wont engage!
The problem is not that I expect you to play on my turf. The problem is that
you wont play on any turf!
Every time I kick the ball, you walk off the field. Every time you kick the
ball, you walk off the field.
Pick a field, pick a sport, bring your own ball (and let's get some
cheerleaders..with big pom poms)...but play the freakin' game, already!
That's all I ask, and it's entirely reasonable.
> But,
> indeed, you *will* have to look to 'others' for that... as I persist
> in responding instead with my *own* views, though they seem often not
> even co-planar with yours.
I want you to present your views and then defend them. You stop at the
presentation stage. When I call you out, quite specifically, on problems
with your presentation...you just present again. And when I present my
ideas, you dont address them as I do yours...logically breaking them down,
finding the essence of the argument, and dealing with it. You just diffuse.
> > I will now indulge myself and throw the ultimate insult.
> >
> > You argue like a woman!
> >
> > Heh heh.
>
> Just what I expect from someone unable to recognize a 'why'-
> chromosome...
Does that actually mean anything?
Tom
> On 9-Feb-2010, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > You argue like a woman!
>
> > Have you run that one past your wife? If you said that to my wife, she
> > would verbally and intellectually dismember you in a matter of
> > minutes.
>
> Anytime she thinks she's man enough...
> --
So, instead of answering my question, you chose to insult my wife?
What a smug prick you are.
Now, show us what a man you are and answer my question.
Tom
steve
On 9-Feb-2010, Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > You argue like a woman!
> >
> > > Have you run that one past your wife? If you said that to my wife, she
> > > would verbally and intellectually dismember you in a matter of
> > > minutes.
> >
> > Anytime she thinks she's man enough...
> > --
>
>
> So, instead of answering my question, you chose to insult my wife?
>
> What a smug prick you are.
>
> Now, show us what a man you are and answer my question.
What? You mean, have I said that to the wife? Of course. And probably
every girlfriend Ive ever had.
Who hasnt?
Satisfied?
moviePig
> On 9-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> I want you to present your views and then defend them. You stop at the
> presentation stage. When I call you out, quite specifically, on problems
> with your presentation...you just present again. And when I present my
> ideas, you dont address them as I do yours...logically breaking them down,
> finding the essence of the argument, and dealing with it. You just diffuse.
Some of my views on universal health care are that:
1) only ad hoc ideology would summarily dismiss it
B) only vested interests should fear the 'public option' (or
indeed anything ending in "option")
III) practicalities aside, it's a goal comfortably at home among
other widely acknowledge aspects of the commonweal
> > > I will now indulge myself and throw the ultimate insult.
>
> > > You argue like a woman!
>
> > > Heh heh.
>
> > Just what I expect from someone unable to recognize a 'why'-
> > chromosome...
>
> Does that actually mean anything?
Ultimately, it means that someone who's unearthed "the ground of all
reason" has actually just stopped digging...
Tom
> On 9-Feb-2010, Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> You argue like a woman!
>>>> Have you run that one past your wife? If you said that to my wife, she
>>>> would verbally and intellectually dismember you in a matter of
>>>> minutes.
>>> Anytime she thinks she's man enough...
>>> --
>>
>> So, instead of answering my question, you chose to insult my wife?
>>
>> What a smug prick you are.
>>
>> Now, show us what a man you are and answer my question.
>
> What? You mean, have I said that to the wife? Of course. And probably
> every girlfriend Ive ever had.
You're a real prince.
>
> Who hasnt?
Me and every other man who respects women.
>
> Satisfied?
Nah.
Tom
steve
On 9-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Some of my views on universal health care are that:
>
> 1) only ad hoc ideology would summarily dismiss it
"ad hoc ideology" ...what is that?
How about a thorough understanding of economics, health insurance, the
history of govt programs? Is that enough for summary dismissal?
> B) only vested interests should fear the 'public option' (or
> indeed anything ending in "option")
Two things.
1. Where is my option, as a taxpayer, not to subsidize it?
2. If you like options, how about making all financial regulation optional?
Banks, insurance companies, etc...allow companies to operate under govt
regulation or without it, make it public info, and let consumers choose who
they will deal with. And fund the regulation with fees on the regulated, so
only those who use the regulation pay for it. Then sit back and let the
market evolve. OK by you? I'd love it, and predict that free market forms
of "regulation" would eventually (perhaps quickly) displace govt, that the
economy would be far more efficient, and consumers w/b much better served.
> III) practicalities aside, it's a goal comfortably at home among
> other widely acknowledge aspects of the commonweal
If true, a sad comment on our society and our govt.
> > > Just what I expect from someone unable to recognize a 'why'-
> > > chromosome...
> >
> > Does that actually mean anything?
>
> Ultimately, it means that someone who's unearthed "the ground of all
> reason" has actually just stopped digging...
This from a guy who has yet to pick up a shovel.
moviePig
> On 9-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Some of my views on universal health care are that:
>
> > 1) only ad hoc ideology would summarily dismiss it
>
> "ad hoc ideology" ...what is that?
...an ideology formulated to summarily dismiss universal health care.
> How about a thorough understanding of economics, health insurance, the
> history of govt programs? Is that enough for summary dismissal?
Throw in a proof of Goldbach's Conjecture and it's a deal. But... I
wonder whose 'thorough understanding' we should anoint...
> > B) only vested interests should fear the 'public option' (or
> > indeed anything ending in "option")
>
> Two things.
>
> 1. Where is my option, as a taxpayer, not to subsidize it?
...right alongside your option not to subsidize public schooling.
> 2. If you like options, how about making all financial regulation optional?
> Banks, insurance companies, etc...allow companies to operate under govt
> regulation or without it, make it public info, and let consumers choose who
> they will deal with. And fund the regulation with fees on the regulated, so
> only those who use the regulation pay for it. Then sit back and let the
> market evolve. OK by you? I'd love it, and predict that free market forms
> of "regulation" would eventually (perhaps quickly) displace govt, that the
> economy would be far more efficient, and consumers w/b much better served.
(My only response is to doubt that you, I, or anyone has the first
clue about how such things would shake out.)
> > III) practicalities aside, it's a goal comfortably at home among
> > other widely acknowledge aspects of the commonweal
>
> If true, a sad comment on our society and our govt.
>
> > > > Just what I expect from someone unable to recognize a 'why'-
> > > > chromosome...
>
> > > Does that actually mean anything?
>
> > Ultimately, it means that someone who's unearthed "the ground of all
> > reason" has actually just stopped digging...
>
> This from a guy who has yet to pick up a shovel.
Might be better instead to pick up on when someone's shoveling.
steve
On 10-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > � � 1) �only ad hoc ideology would summarily dismiss it
> >
> > "ad hoc ideology" ...what is that?
>
> ...an ideology formulated to summarily dismiss universal health care.
I have no such ideology, and I dismiss it.
> > How about a thorough understanding of economics, health insurance, the
> > history of govt programs? �Is that enough for summary dismissal?
>
> Throw in a proof of Goldbach's Conjecture and it's a deal. But... I
> wonder whose 'thorough understanding' we should anoint...
Not the question. I just want to establish that there is a better criteria
than your "ad hoc ideology".
> > 1. Where is my option, as a taxpayer, not to subsidize it?
>
> ...right alongside your option not to subsidize public schooling.
Which I want, as well. In fact, I claim it is my right.
> > 2. If you like options, how about making all financial regulation
> > optional?
> > Banks, insurance companies, etc...allow companies to operate under govt
> > regulation or without it, make it public info, and let consumers choose
> > who
> > they will deal with. �And fund the regulation with fees on the
> > regulated, so
> > only those who use the regulation pay for it. �Then sit back and let the
> > market evolve. �OK by you? �I'd love it, and predict that free market
> > forms
> > of "regulation" would eventually (perhaps quickly) displace govt, that
> > the
> > economy would be far more efficient, and consumers w/b much better
> > served.
>
> (My only response is to doubt that you, I, or anyone has the first
> clue about how such things would shake out.)
Regardless...would you support the idea? It does, after all, provide the
most options. To paraphrase your own statement...How can anyone be against
options?
> > > Ultimately, it means that someone who's unearthed "the ground of all
> > > reason" has actually just stopped digging...
> >
> > This from a guy who has yet to pick up a shovel.
>
> Might be better instead to pick up on when someone's shoveling.
Which, again, requires you to educate yourself...which you flatly reject.
moviePig
> On 10-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> > > 1. Where is my option, as a taxpayer, not to subsidize [health care]?
>
> > ...right alongside your option not to subsidize public schooling.
>
> Which I want, as well. In fact, I claim it is my right.
...your right in what synthetic jungle? (Real ones don't know about
'Lockean bargains'.)
> > > 2. If you like options, how about making all financial regulation
> > > optional?
> > > Banks, insurance companies, etc...allow companies to operate under govt
> > > regulation or without it, make it public info, and let consumers choose
> > > who
> > > they will deal with. And fund the regulation with fees on the
> > > regulated, so
> > > only those who use the regulation pay for it. Then sit back and let the
> > > market evolve. OK by you? I'd love it, and predict that free market
> > > forms
> > > of "regulation" would eventually (perhaps quickly) displace govt, that
> > > the
> > > economy would be far more efficient, and consumers w/b much better
> > > served.
>
> > (My only response is to doubt that you, I, or anyone has the first
> > clue about how such things would shake out.)
>
> Regardless...would you support the idea? It does, after all, provide the
> most options. To paraphrase your own statement...How can anyone be against
> options?
I wouldn't un/support it, because I can't confidently predict its
consequences ...and (again) I doubt that anyone can. Yes, sometimes
revolutionary changes to complex real-world systems do work out, but
usually independently of my non/support ...and, regardless, like NASA,
I hold my breath every time.
> > > > Ultimately, it means that someone who's unearthed "the ground of all
> > > > reason" has actually just stopped digging...
>
> > > This from a guy who has yet to pick up a shovel.
>
> > Might be better instead to pick up on when someone's shoveling.
>
> Which, again, requires you to educate yourself...
Actually it doesn't (..which, ironically, is something worth
learning).
> ...which you flatly reject.
Yes (...unless, of course, 'flatly' means 'all-inclusively').
steve
> > > > 1. Where is my option, as a taxpayer, not to subsidize [health
> > > > care]?
> >
> > > ...right alongside your option not to subsidize public schooling.
> >
> > Which I want, as well. �In fact, I claim it is my right.
>
> ...your right in what synthetic jungle? (Real ones don't know about
> 'Lockean bargains'.)
What the fuck have we been talking about (for months, if not years)? Do you
think this discussion is just a cataloging of the status quo?
Bottom line: If I cant choose NOT to pay for it, it aint an option. If it
aint an option, you cant defend it as optional.
> > Regardless...would you support the idea? �It does, after all, provide
> > the
> > most options. � To paraphrase your own statement...How can anyone be
> > against
> > options?
>
> I wouldn't un/support it, because I can't confidently predict its
> consequences ...and (again) I doubt that anyone can.
Which, of course, exposes your contradiction. You dont want people to have
options. You want to control the outcome; to impose, by force, your own
will and vision; and you (and BHO) cynically use the appealing notion of an
option as a ploy. But your option is not optional. It's coercive. My
proposition allows people to decide for themselves, individually rather than
collectively, if govt regulation serves them, and to reject it if they
believe it doesnt. It also requires them to incur the costs (as well as
experience the benefits) of thier decision, regardless of which way they
choose to go. It's a true option, and it subjects govt to competition and
the test of reality. Im confident govt will fail that test (has failed, in
fact, but is protected by monopoly status), and Id be willing...giddy, in
fact... if I had the chance to test that theory.
> Yes, sometimes
> revolutionary changes to complex real-world systems do work out, but
> usually independently of my non/support ...and, regardless, like NASA,
> I hold my breath every time.
But if Im wrong and you're right, govt will win out. What are you afraid
of? Liberty?
> > > Might be better instead to pick up on when someone's shoveling.
> >
> > Which, again, requires you to educate yourself...
>
> Actually it doesn't (..which, ironically, is something worth
> learning).
LOL! And just how do you tell wisdom from foolishness if you dont
understand the issues? A sincere smile? A firm handshake? A (light
skinned) black face an an air of superiority?
moviePig
I've been trying to funnel this thread toward closure ...badly, I
suspect. Regardless, it keeps trying to expand ...so I'm herewith
unilaterally applying weed-killer to it. (No doubt, its more
important topics will re-surface.)
However, I agree that my remark above may warrant this clearer re-
phrasing:
One's approach/behavior in the presence of complex issues often arises
from personality traits that are visible irrespective of the issues
themselves. (E.g., emotional oversimplification, claims of
infallibility, aspiration to perceived expertise. The technology has
long since passed smiles and handshakes...)
It's why bullshitters (and sometimes you or I) can recognize bullshit
even from upwind... (or, concomitantly, reasonably infer its
absence...)
(Later...)
steve
On 11-Feb-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > LOL! �And just how do you tell wisdom from foolishness if you dont
> > understand the issues? �A sincere smile? �A firm handshake? �A (light
> > skinned) black face an an air of superiority?
>
> I've been trying to funnel this thread toward closure ...badly, I
> suspect. Regardless, it keeps trying to expand ...so I'm herewith
> unilaterally applying weed-killer to it. (No doubt, its more
> important topics will re-surface.)
I almost killed it twice myself. You have frustrated me, repeatedly.
> One's approach/behavior in the presence of complex issues often arises
> from personality traits that are visible irrespective of the issues
> themselves. (E.g., emotional oversimplification, claims of
> infallibility, aspiration to perceived expertise. The technology has
> long since passed smiles and handshakes...)
>
> It's why bullshitters (and sometimes you or I) can recognize bullshit
> even from upwind... (or, concomitantly, reasonably infer its
> absence...)
Ahhh...but there is a world of difference between sincerity and wisdom.
You're detecting the former, when it is the latter that is important. It's
not the people, it's the ideas.
"Always be sincere..even if you dont mean it." Benny Hill
> (Later...)
OK
steve
steve
On 11-Feb-2010, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> > (Later...)
>
> OK
>
> steve
One last item, PM. If you get Fox Business Channel, check out Stossell at
8:00 eastern tonight (and repeated several times over the next few days).
He promises to discuss Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". He invites/allows
dissenting views from both his guests and his studio audience (which, so
far, appears to be equally populated by both his supporters and his
detractors; the latter generally lefty students from various NYC
universities..if that isnt redundant).