|
On November 06 2010 04:58 domovoi wrote:
My posts have been attempts to correct misconceptions and biases Europeans have toward Americans. Not sure why you would think that's a bad thing. What happened to respect for the "scientific method"? One of the core philosophies is the elimination of bias, and you can't have that if it's only Europeans creating an echo chamber.
It's a bad thing because that's not what the thread is about. The title of the thread is not "Americans defending the American system against foreigners". By turning the thread into that you create the impression that America has to be defended. If everything is as great as you want to make it sound then that shouldn't be necessary. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are or how correct the points you raise are, your credibility is undermined right from the start because you give off the image of a rabid American rushing to defend his precious nationalism.
And scientific method? We're not trying to create a new theory over here. This is a thread to collect some opinions. Obviously some of those opinions are going to be retarded and uninformed, that's just the nature of things. But the point was to collect some insight as to how the US is viewed from the outside, whether that view is accurate or not. We can't even do that because over half the posts are Americans talking about how capitalism is the only system that works or how great the Founding Fathers were. Even most of your posts in this thread are just parts of arguments with 3-4 people over economic theory. 90% of the European posts here are just people offering their opinions like the thread asked and then never posting again. How did you "correct" them? If you think there are some biases or issues that need to be corrected or put into better focus then make your own thread.
It's also amusingly ironic that the only people tripping over themselves to defend America in this thread have all been conservatives, while at the same time the most common complaint the actual foreigners have against America is that there are too many conservatives. Aren't you kind of proving their whole point for them just by posting?
|
On November 06 2010 04:58 domovoi wrote:
My posts have been attempts to correct misconceptions and biases Europeans have toward Americans. Not sure why you would think that's a bad thing. What happened to respect for the "scientific method"? One of the core philosophies is the elimination of bias, and you can't have that if it's only Europeans creating an echo chamber.
Well, it's a thread on how foreigners do view on US politics. Of course that can contain misconceptions or superficial observations, the question was for an opinion after all and not for a scientific analysis.
On November 06 2010 02:34 Iodem wrote:I think it's interesting. Americans are already the most charitable people in the world, + Show Spoiler + but we stop at socialism because we don't like the idea of 'forced charitableness.' If the government were more efficient at actual aid than most private donations, I would bet people would be willing to offer more of their money to the government if it went to healthcare(or what not, using that as example) for the poor/uninsured, if most of it was guaranteed to reach the poor person rather than going through so much bureaucracy that only 5 cents on the dollar(random number) actually goes to his needs.
Do you really think so?
Those percentages down there don't look so well.
35% Church - Where's the charity in that? Can't find it. Well, yeah, it's giving away money at least but for what purpose...
13% Education - Dunno what's that supposed to mean, is it because the gouvernment only spends enough money for a school for it to actually have four walls and a roof?
And then there is a long list of small percentages for stuff which most European countries offer as a public service via tax money and national social security - better don't even let deficiencies like millions of homeless people happen from the start than putting some drops into the ocean when it's too late already.
Well, it's the U.S. system. If some jerks want to be egocentric at society's expanse they're allowed to and defend it as their private right... It's kinda disgusting to be honest.
|
On November 06 2010 05:15 Krigwin wrote:
It's a bad thing because that's not what the thread is about. The title of the thread is not "Americans defending the American system against foreigners". By turning the thread into that you create the impression that America has to be defended. If everything is as great as you want to make it sound then that shouldn't be necessary. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are or how correct the points you raise are, your credibility is undermined right from the start because you give off the image of a rabid American rushing to defend his precious nationalism.
Well, first of all, the OP clearly asks for American thoughts on their political system. To the extent that European comments go beyond commenting on the political system (which is the only thing the OP asks for) and instead on American policy, it would seem fair game for Americans to respond in kind.
And I still find it odd that a European feels troubled about an American correcting misconceptions. Seriously, what happened to progressiveness and enlightenment? Are all Europeans this close-minded with their opinions toward Americans?
How did you "correct" them? If you think there are some biases or issues that need to be corrected or put into better focus then make your own thread.
To the extent that non-Americans state an opinion on incorrect facts, then I have "corrected" them. No need to flood the forum with extra threads when this thread is the most appropriate.
It's also amusingly ironic that the only people tripping over themselves to defend America in this thread have all been conservatives, while at the same time the most common complaint the actual foreigners have against America is that there are too many conservatives. Aren't you kind of proving their whole point for them just by posting?
I don't know. I'm not a conservative, at least as it is being used in this thread. I'm only a conservative in the sense that current Western institutions are doing fairly well in making us happy, and I have no desire to destroy its foundations. I think the same could be said for all of us, except the most ardent of Marxists and anarchists (who are a little crazy anyway).
Of course, there are many things that could be done to improve America (same with Europe). I greatly admire the cooperativeness and civic-mindedness of Scandinavians and wish Americans were more like that, though a lot of that is driven by culture not politics/policies.
Please leave your biases about me and about America at the door, otherwise you end up looking as silly as Tea-partiers.
|
On November 06 2010 05:25 teekesselchen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 04:58 domovoi wrote:
My posts have been attempts to correct misconceptions and biases Europeans have toward Americans. Not sure why you would think that's a bad thing. What happened to respect for the "scientific method"? One of the core philosophies is the elimination of bias, and you can't have that if it's only Europeans creating an echo chamber. Well, it's a thread on how foreigners do view on US politics. Of course that can contain misconceptions or superficial observations, the question was for an opinion after all and not for a scientific analysis.
And do you see me attempting to block anyone's ability to express their opinion? To the extent such opinions are based on misconceptions about America, is it not a good thing to correct such misconceptions? I'm honestly shocked that progressive, supposedly open-minded Europeans don't like hearing disagreements and would rather misconceptions go uncorrected.
|
I love to hear others' outside opinion on US politics, since our media here is so screwed and the populous gets spoon-fed a bunch of bias. Not to mention that Americans are known for being very sheltered in regards to knowledge about the world in comparison to most other educated countries. Especially in regards to culture, politics, etc.
|
On November 06 2010 05:30 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 05:25 teekesselchen wrote:On November 06 2010 04:58 domovoi wrote:
My posts have been attempts to correct misconceptions and biases Europeans have toward Americans. Not sure why you would think that's a bad thing. What happened to respect for the "scientific method"? One of the core philosophies is the elimination of bias, and you can't have that if it's only Europeans creating an echo chamber. Well, it's a thread on how foreigners do view on US politics. Of course that can contain misconceptions or superficial observations, the question was for an opinion after all and not for a scientific analysis. And do you see me attempting to block anyone's ability to express their opinion? To the extent such opinions are based on misconceptions about America, is it not a good thing to correct such misconceptions? I'm honestly shocked that progressive, supposedly open-minded Europeans don't like hearing disagreements and would rather misconceptions go uncorrected.
Wether it's right or not is irrelevant - what's being presented is the viewpoint of random europeans, not tokens of divine truth or unarguable empirical facts.
If you feel like correcting every viewpoint that somehow conflicts with yours to make you feel better, then good for you, but doing so in a thread where the validity of the statements is irrelevant aside from a way to look at other peoples' viewpoints, is really putting effort into the wrong area. It's like arguing that tacos is the superior food and should be eaten at all times, when the topic at the table was sharing recipes for some variation in dinner plans.
|
On November 06 2010 05:30 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 05:25 teekesselchen wrote:On November 06 2010 04:58 domovoi wrote:
My posts have been attempts to correct misconceptions and biases Europeans have toward Americans. Not sure why you would think that's a bad thing. What happened to respect for the "scientific method"? One of the core philosophies is the elimination of bias, and you can't have that if it's only Europeans creating an echo chamber. Well, it's a thread on how foreigners do view on US politics. Of course that can contain misconceptions or superficial observations, the question was for an opinion after all and not for a scientific analysis. And do you see me attempting to block anyone's ability to express their opinion? To the extent such opinions are based on misconceptions about America, is it not a good thing to correct such misconceptions? I'm honestly shocked that progressive, supposedly open-minded Europeans don't like hearing disagreements and would rather misconceptions go uncorrected.
Of course that's fine, but to me it sounds like you're trying to have a debate about the actual pro and contras of US politics which would not fulfill this threads purpose, which is to collect foreign point of views onto US politics.
However, I'm always in for such discussion 
|
On November 06 2010 05:38 plated.rawr wrote:
Wether it's right or not is irrelevant - what's being presented is the viewpoint of random europeans, not tokens of divine truth or unarguable empirical facts.
If you feel like correcting every viewpoint that somehow conflicts with yours to make you feel better, then good for you, but doing so in a thread where the validity of the statements is irrelevant aside from a way to look at other peoples' viewpoints, is really putting effort into the wrong area. It's like arguing that tacos is the superior food and should be eaten at all times, when the topic at the table was sharing recipes for some variation in dinner plans.
Again, to the extent those opinions are based on misconceptions (i.e. that America is more "capitalist" than Europe), then I don't understand why anyone would have an issue with correcting those misconceptions. One would think Europeans would want all of their opinions to be of the informed variety; the rejection of religion should also be a rejection of dogmatic belief, for they are one and the same.
|
On November 06 2010 05:42 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 05:38 plated.rawr wrote:
Wether it's right or not is irrelevant - what's being presented is the viewpoint of random europeans, not tokens of divine truth or unarguable empirical facts.
If you feel like correcting every viewpoint that somehow conflicts with yours to make you feel better, then good for you, but doing so in a thread where the validity of the statements is irrelevant aside from a way to look at other peoples' viewpoints, is really putting effort into the wrong area. It's like arguing that tacos is the superior food and should be eaten at all times, when the topic at the table was sharing recipes for some variation in dinner plans. Again, to the extent those opinions are based on misconceptions (i.e. that America is more "capitalist" than Europe), then I don't understand why anyone would have an issue with correcting those misconceptions. One would think Europeans would want all of their opinions to be of the informed variety; the rejection of religion should also be a rejection of dogmatic belief, for they are one and the same.
If you want to argue definitions and semantics, I'm sure we could make a different discussion altogether, but that's again not the point in this thread, and not the point i'm trying to argue with you.
In this thread - we divulge our view of a foreign government, read other peoples' opinions, laugh of ignorance and agree with similarities of our own delusions. In another thread, we can rape each others' faces with political and financial-philosophical theories. But if we mix those two threads together, it'll be far too big of a topic to cover in one thread.
So my point is, arguing wether peoples' opinions are right or wrong is irrelevant, and will only get the thread even more off track and bloated with irrelevance than it already is, since right or wrong is not an issue here, only personal viewpoints.
|
On November 06 2010 05:28 domovoi wrote:
Well, first of all, the OP clearly asks for American thoughts on their political system. To the extent that European comments go beyond commenting on the political system (which is the only thing the OP asks for) and instead on American policy, it would seem fair game for Americans to respond in kind.
Oh, I apologize, I must have missed that part in the OP. That was like two days ago or something though. But it's still not the point of this thread. At this point you're hardly explaining the political system of the US to anyone, you're having 5-6 page long debates with people (sometimes even other Americans, which is definitely not the point of this thread) over capitalism versus socialism or the American budget.
To the extent that non-Americans state an opinion on incorrect facts, then I have "corrected" them. No need to flood the forum with extra threads when this thread is the most appropriate.
Except that, as I just stated, most people just stated their opinions and then stopped posting. How many minds do you think you're changing here? Or are you just correcting for the sake of the thread? Except that's not what the thread is about either. Or let's put it this way: if you were conducting a poll by phone for a survey group to see how people feel about, I dunno, electric cars or something, obviously once your sample population gets large enough some of the opinions are going to be stupid or just outright uninformed. Are you going to take the time to individually argue with each person over the phone in an attempt to "correct" them? That's not the point of the poll.
And I still find it odd that a European feels troubled about an American correcting misconceptions. Seriously, what happened to progressiveness and enlightenment? Are all Europeans this close-minded with their opinions toward Americans?
I don't know. I'm not a conservative, at least as it is being used in this thread. I'm only a conservative in the sense that current Western institutions are doing fairly well in making us happy, and I have no desire to destroy its foundations. I think the same could be said for all of us, except the most ardent of Marxists and anarchists (who are a little crazy anyway).
What biases are you talking about? I haven't stated my opinion on anyone or anything in this entire thread. And I assumed you were a conservative because you explicitly stated you were right of center in some post a while ago?
And why the hell do you think I'm a European? What, do you naturally assume all Americans are like you and feel a burning need in their hearts to defend their country everywhere, especially on internet message boards? This is actually pretty funny since you're the one claiming others have biases and misconceptions.
|
On November 06 2010 04:55 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 03:56 Treemonkeys wrote:
The US has military bases in over 170 different countries around the world. That is the cost of American wealth, it requires an empire. They told you it was a democracy in school (or maybe even republic lolz) but don't be fooled, it looks like an empire, it acts like an empire, it's an empire.
The money "America" (it's government) gives to "developing nations" (their government) to help out is nothing but bribes to foreign governments to get them to line up with American policy. It almost always hurts the common people of that country. It's basically a "we'll pay you this if you let us screw over your population...and if you say no we'll send in the military so you might as well say yes" type of deal. Oh and American taxpayer's have to pay for it too, so the common people get screwed on both ends while the government grows more powerful as usual.
Just look at the situation with Iran. For awhile they had been "offereing" to pay them money and let them run their nuclear power - that way Iran gets some chump change but becomes more and more dependent on the west at the same time. They say no, we want do it ourselves Then the US/Israel threatens with bombs. It's how they do business. It's obvious if you actually pay attention instead of trusting what they say.
It's not how economics "works", it's one of the ways it can work, and it's the way America has chosen to do business. They use their world wide prowess to setup "sanctions" and starve their opponents out, and when that doesn't work they send in the military. Story of Iraq for the past 15-20 years. It's how Keynesian economics works and it's what our financial system is based on.
This is just the demonizing of America? I just call things as they are, I'm not the one who did it, and the US government has been doing some horrible things nearly unchallenged for awhile now. You are confusing two disparate topics. How America conducts its foreign policy vis a vis Iran and Iraq has little to do with wealth in America and the global economy. Your understanding of economics is apparently quite poor given your assumption that wealth is zero-sum. It is not. I advise you to look at global poverty rates over the last century and tell me how you can honestly believe the tremendous wealth of Western nations has made things worse for the rest of the world. Iraq and Afghanistan have so far been a debacle, I agree. Our posture toward Iran is actually pretty good (Israel's is a different matter); we are generally letting the EU and the UN handle negotiations. But that has nothing to do with American wealth coming at the cost of other countries. 1 billion risen out of poverty over the last 30 years. That is the benefit of American (and European/Asian) wealth.
War and economy are NEVER separated.
I already understand the economics does not have to be a zero sum game, I already said that. Just because that is true does not mean that when you point a gun at someone and demand $30 dollars, one guy doesn't lose $30 at the expense of the other. Obviously there can still be zero sum situations, and therefore zero sum based economy, which is what the USA has. It is the nature of Keynesian systems to loot and loot and loot, do you even know what I am referring to? Anyone who uses the currency is prone to be looted.
Israel and the US are also tied at the hip. Your reading comprehension is poor, instead of addressing anything I said you just repeated the same thing while throwing in that my understanding of economics is poor. Great way to make your point.
|
On November 06 2010 05:25 teekesselchen wrote:
13% Education - Dunno what's that supposed to mean, is it because the gouvernment only spends enough money for a school for it to actually have four walls and a roof?
The state governments run all the public schools; I'm fairly certain people don't donate money to public schools, except maybe to donate money to fund extracurricular activities. This probably means donations to private schools or universities.
|
On November 06 2010 05:51 Treemonkeys wrote:
Obviously there can still be zero sum situations, and therefore zero sum based economy, which is what the USA has.
The US has recently caused a lot of destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes. That does not make the American economy zero-sum. Zero-sum would mean every time I buy an iPod, an Iraqi child is killed as a causative effect. Your complaints about American foreign policy have merit, but to couch them as complaints about the American economic system (which is generally the same system as all other modern countries) makes little sense.
It is the nature of Keynesian systems to loot and loot and loot, do you even know what I am referring to? Anyone who uses the currency is prone to be looted.
I have no idea what you're referring to. Keynesianism is a macroeconomic theory, not an economic system.
Israel and the US are also tied at the hip.
But that does not mean the US controls what Israel does (I wish the US actually did control Israel more, because Israel's current stance on Iran is inconsistent with America's).
|
Honestly, Europeans are no more fond of having their prejudices shattered than anyone else. Part of the problem is also that many of the words used to describe policies are not sufficiently precise that we can use them without fear of misunderstanding.
Btw, I do not see how anyone can defend the treatment of Romani by (primarily, but not solely) Italy and France. And Berlusconi is IMHO worse than anything the Republicans have produced.
|
On November 06 2010 05:50 Krigwin wrote:
What biases are you talking about? I haven't stated my opinion on anyone or anything in this entire thread. And I assumed you were a conservative because you explicitly stated you were right of center in some post a while ago?
Right-of-center does not mean conservative. I don't really have a label for myself, because I agree with some right-wing ideas (free trade, less regulation) and I agree with some left-wing ideas (strong social safety net, open immigration). I said "right-of-center" because I thought it would be helpful for readers to properly gauge my opinion.
And why the hell do you think I'm a European? What, do you naturally assume all Americans are like you and feel a burning need in their hearts to defend their country everywhere, especially on internet message boards? This is actually pretty funny since you're the one claiming others have biases and misconceptions.
Honest mistake. I glanced at your name and thought the "November" was "Norway."
|
On November 06 2010 04:38 TributeBoxer wrote:Show nested quote +[B]
Statements like this generally make me pray your knowledge of economics is not representative for the average American. Your genius EU economics and regulations really helped you avoid the worldwide recession right. Right?
yep,
unemployment fell 0.4% in the recession in germany.
wouldn't be possible without goverment help and Unions working with employers.
|
On November 06 2010 06:02 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 04:38 TributeBoxer wrote:[B]
Statements like this generally make me pray your knowledge of economics is not representative for the average American. Your genius EU economics and regulations really helped you avoid the worldwide recession right. Right? yep, unemployment fell 0.4% in the recession in germany.
Actually, it didn't. The number of people that should be counted in the unemployment statistics but aren't due to administrative regulations is huge. And the fact that the german economy did fairly well during the crisis was because of changes made years ago (Agenda 2010). While Germany may not have been hit as hard as other countries, there are enough people here that did (and still) suffer from the consquences.
|
On November 06 2010 05:58 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 05:51 Treemonkeys wrote:
Obviously there can still be zero sum situations, and therefore zero sum based economy, which is what the USA has. The US has recently caused a lot of destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes. That does not make the American economy zero-sum. Zero-sum would mean every time I buy an iPod, an Iraqi child is killed as a causative effect. Your complaints about American foreign policy have merit, but to couch them as complaints about the American economic system (which is generally the same system as all other modern countries) makes little sense. Show nested quote +It is the nature of Keynesian systems to loot and loot and loot, do you even know what I am referring to? Anyone who uses the currency is prone to be looted. I have no idea what you're referring to. Keynesianism is a macroeconomic theory, not an economic system. But that does not mean the US controls what Israel does (I wish the US actually did control Israel more, because Israel's current stance on Iran is inconsistent with America's).
You think I don't know what I'm talking about and you think economics would be so simple as one death per ipod? Really?
It works based on how many people who use the currency, the more users you have, the more "borrowing" you can do to get a de facto unlimited supply. Currently at well over 13 trillion as far as unlimited supply goes. The supply doesn't run out until they lose control. The more arm twisting you can do, the more countries you have using your currency. This is of course where military might comes into play - great for arm twisting. Keep in mind they don't have to be using the same exact currency, those are just papers with labels after all, what is important is that they are all managed with the interests of the IMF/Federal Reserve in mind, which they are. Groups such as the Council for Foreign Relations and members of the G20 summit all work for these interests.
Without the current US financial system, the US would completely lack both funding and interest in attacking countries like Iraq. Plain and simple.
Since you want it simple what it comes down to is the US saying "use our economic system, or else...". That's why when you look at US allies you see a wide range of governments ranging from democracies to ruthless dictators - because the US values cooperation with their financial system first and foremost with everything else including human rights and dignity being quite irrelevant. This is why every country on the "axis of evil" also happened to be countries that expressed interest in selling barrels of oil NOT priced based on US dollars. Countries like Iraq, Venezuela (which the US most likely tried to overthrow), and Iran.
Keynes developed economic theory that the Federal Reserve system and therefore the entire US economy is based on.
You have no idea who controls the US or Israel, let alone if they are working together. All action points put to yes they are, of course they are. The US/Israel stance on Iran is basically good cop/bad cop. Work with us, before we give Israel permission to bomb you! We can't hold them back forever!
|
On November 06 2010 06:09 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 06:02 Gaga wrote:On November 06 2010 04:38 TributeBoxer wrote:[B]
Statements like this generally make me pray your knowledge of economics is not representative for the average American. Your genius EU economics and regulations really helped you avoid the worldwide recession right. Right? yep, unemployment fell 0.4% in the recession in germany. Actually, it didn't. The number of people that should be counted in the unemployment statistics but aren't due to administrative regulations is huge. And the fact that the german economy did fairly well during the crisis was because of changes made years ago (Agenda 2010). While Germany may not have been hit as hard as other countries, there are enough people here that did (and still) suffer from the consquences.
not counted people was huge before the recession as well... and compred to other international unempolyment numbers ours is already pretty strict.
i don't know why you wanted to state your other opinions ... but i agree the agenda 2010 helped a lot.
|
On November 05 2010 14:47 piratekaybear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 13:16 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On November 05 2010 11:14 kzn wrote:On November 05 2010 10:48 McMonty wrote:
So wait, Are you saying that 80% or the population is poor lazy people? no im sure that you are not. In fact, most of those "poor lazy people" work 40 hour weeks. Sure they dont invest, but they dont have any money to invest so thats not their fault. My point was that 80% of people control 7% of wealth, but probably do almost 50% of the work. So they work hard for significantly less. Im not talking about homeless people here. Im talking about 80% of the population. This 80% being anything middle class and below. This thread in general, and this post in particular, is an amazing example of how people have somehow reversed the burden of proof with regards to wealth distribution. It is not necessary for me to establish that the 80% of the people who control 7% of the wealth "deserve" to control only that much. That is a wealth distribution that demonstrably arose from voluntary transactions. If you think that for some reason that 80% deserve a different proportion of the wealth, the burden of proof is on you to show why. The 20% of people who control (apparently) 93% of the wealth are invariably: 1) In possession of a very rare skill (or combination of skills) that is in high demand 2) Lucky as all fuck 3) Both of the above 4) Descended from someone who was one of the above With the exception of 2), you really cant justify wealth redistribution on ethical grounds, and trying to identify who got lucky is pretty ridiculous. On November 05 2010 10:47 iamho wrote:
I really hope you're being sarcastic. This is pretty stupid, even for a libertarian. A guy making 10 million dollars a year is not in "modern day slavery" because he gives 3 million of that to the government, especially since many years ago he would have been paying a lotttt more than that. This is not an argument. It is completely irrelevant that he would have paid more before to the question of whether its analogous to slavery. In fact, income taxation is almost precisely identical to forced labor (whether you want to call that slavery or not is a different matter, I guess) - the market sets the value for your labor, you perform your labor, and the government takes some of that labor-generated value by force. In part, this can actually be justified (vaguely, at least) on practical grounds, if not on ethical grounds - but its pretty much no longer a point of contention that the analogy holds. "Poor people are poor because they are stupid." This line of reasoning is so absurdly wrong. Capital gain is all about risk. This is an undeniable fact. Wall Street stocks are nothing but officiated gambling rings, and all monetary gains are literally premised on the idea of speculative future gains at an initial cost. With every risk-dependent venture, luck is incredibly huge. The fundamental "rags-to-riches" tale is that of business, but that's almost wholly dictated by luck. No matter how talented you are, you aren't going to be a prophet who can predict the future. The "forced labor" reference is an absurd antique from ultra-liberal Rousseau-based thought. It doesn't make sense because A) labor cannot be "divided" in the same way money can, ie it is a binary of all-or-nothing and cannot be translated into monetary terms ["dollars per hour" don't make sense when you cannot claim that say the first 1/5 fraction of your hours is being appropriated to taxes as that would be an arbitrary delineation] and B) the whole "the product of my labor is an extension of my body" link is based on a concept of property that is incredibly weak. If you entirely own a can of soup, and you pour that can of soup into the ocean, you do not own that ocean. Neither does your labor directly translate into the end-product you pour it into, ie the official employment you have and whatever specific tasks that takes, and the monetary product of that work. omg i laughed so hard at this last part, "If you entirely own a can of soup, and you pour that can of soup into the ocean, you do not own that ocean. Neither does your labor directly translate into the end-product you pour it into, ie the official employment you have and whatever specific tasks that takes, and the monetary product of that work." Abstract: I think your mind is a funny place If I asked 'the man who poured that can of soup into the ocean', (call him K), why it is the case that he decided to pour his legally obtained can of soup into the ocean, would he tell me that he was of the mind to obtain the ocean; in just the same manner as when one proclaims that the ocean is his own property? What would that mean he was implying? Not anything intelligible. Basically, who the fuck fills the ocean with cans of soup? Get it K? Who the fuck are you? Any normal person could be expected to have the following answer about why it is that they would buy a can of soup: that they like the taste of the soupy contents of the can, that the can is of aesthetic or artistic value, maybe they just have the cash and thought it would be a good deal, etc. And now I ask you, how is pouring a can of soup into the ocean going to even remotely fulfill any meaningful task? Furthermore, should we assume that K was in fact attempting to possess the ocean by dumping the can of soup into the ocean we might intuitively refer to our belief that the ocean stands as a symbol in our lives, and as a major ecological adaptive entity that we all contend with; oceans and the activity of people as concerns beaches and more mysterious contentious events if you can imagine. If our concept of 'ocean' is anything like what oceans really are like, then the soup might as well have been dropped on the ground instead, or on my dog Shelley, or over a Picasso painting...What I mean to say is that one cannot ever succeed at owning the ocean in any manner a would be economist would ever speak the word 'property' to be. Even supposing that we all just decide to agree that your 'can' metaphor is in some form useful, I must confess I do not believe that your ability to describe the actual value that a human life possesses is anything at all to what this powerful notion, correctly considered, actually means. And if you don't know the value of human life, or cannot think up a definition that you have the nerve to propose (esp. considering the nature of the subject matter), maybe you should quit trying to run your own equations; until you get that right, take the human 'variables' out of your economic theorems. If you must know how one may 'correctly consider', read this: you must consider what value you prescribe for yourself, and understand 'the how' of the poorest citizens of your community. The rest will follow from there. tl;dr Thought experiments should never be used like a whore. Treat them with respect, and you will grow in the process; especially if you ween off of the cliches ;D
This is why you don't massively misinterpret a metaphor as a "thought experiment." You end up with absurd posts like this. The "motives" of the person pouring the can and what-not are entirely irrelevant to its point, nor does the ocean perform some "symbolic" role of earth, nature, or what have you. Given the quite obvious context, aka "taxes = slavery," its focus is PROPERTY, and the translation of property from initial output to product. It's as if someone used a metaphor of fire for love (to convey its spontaneity, its volatility, for instance), and you tried to question the chemical equation in which love combusted. You clearly don't have a grasp of figurative language, but then again, silly me, I used a simile, so most likely you'll horribly distort that too.
The odd-example of the can is one that I recalled from reading through a comparative lecture on Sandel/Rawls, and either originated there or from the person giving it. Just in case you actually had some bit of common sense up there and were perhaps trying to pose a reasonable question of where such an "out-there" example came from.
It's quite funny because your paragraphs seem to be completely inane rants, which isn't surprising given the absurd premise you derived your post from. Eg: "your ability to describe the actual value that a human life posses" - that idea might find itself out of place here, since my post had absolutely nothing to do with valuing a human life, nor economic theorems (please look up the words before you use them, theorem is in no way representative of what I did nor tried to do, it just indicates that you're trying too hard).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v4yUV.jpg)
