There's an Atlas Shrugged movie coming out today

[Professor Zoom]

Which doesn't actually address the point. The point you were making is there is some Federal voodoo making people retire early. Is there? Is there material from the government that says, hey, retire! It's the easy way to live!

Isn't one of the factors that's kept the number of unemployed up the fact that people close to retirement in 2008 saw their savings and net worth shrivel up and so many stayed working rather than retiring on meager savings? All of that leading to increased unemployment as younger workers aren't able to fill jobs that aren't available?

How does raising the retirement age help that part of our problem?

That part of the problem, no, that won't be solved by raising the retirement age.

I think the Free Market, Supply and Demand is the only solution... and by free market, I mean the grocery market: we're gonna have to start eating the young until there is less supply.

 

[David cgc]

^It worked for the Goa'uld.

 

[scotpens]

. . . I think the Free Market, Supply and Demand is the only solution... and by free market, I mean the grocery market: we're gonna have to start eating the young until there is less supply.

Seems a fairly modest proposal.

 

[Professor Zoom]

. . . I think the Free Market, Supply and Demand is the only solution... and by free market, I mean the grocery market: we're gonna have to start eating the young until there is less supply.

Seems a fairly modest proposal.

I'll pre-heat the barbecue...

 

[IndyJones]

Secret's in the sauce!

 

[chardman]

Spoiler: Atlas Shrugged

...you would know that that is an important central element of the book.

I know what happens in the book. I'm talking about real life here.

The industrialists in A.S. "go on strike" essentially "abandoning the rest of us, leaving us helpless without their massive contributions to our civilization", and establish their own perfect little society in a magical valley.

Great idea.

Now if only we Rand's real-world followers actually had the balls necessary to pick up stakes, go away, leave the rest of us alone, while they created their own Objectivist paradise elsewhere (the further away the better, as far as I'm concerned), you'd maybe have a point. But you don't, because they don't.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Better food and water, yes. Surely we don't need the red tape of government bureaucracy to slow such advances down. Untainted food and water is more profitable than tainted, because what would you prefer to buy?

The shallowness and naïveté of the so-called reasoning here is frightening.

 

[siskokid888]

If the movie is half as funny as the book, it would almost be worth seeing, in spite of the assinine one demensional characters and the self serving empty "philosophy". If there's boobies, I'm in!

 

[Pink Skin]

A free market is not a perfect market.

If you don't understand the significance of that difference you shouldn't be discussing economics.

 

[Professor Zoom]

If the movie is half as funny as the book, it would almost be worth seeing, in spite of the assinine one demensional characters and the self serving empty "philosophy". If there's boobies, I'm in!

I think the only boobs are the ones in the audience.

 

[Squiggy]

 

[Gaith]

Better food and water, yes. Surely we don't need the red tape of government bureaucracy to slow such advances down. Untainted food and water is more profitable than tainted, because what would you prefer to buy?

The shallowness and naïveté of the so-called reasoning here is frightening.

But this Soylent Green is cheap and delicious tofu that has many essential nutrients!

 

[Rush Limborg]

Better food and water, yes. Surely we don't need the red tape of government bureaucracy to slow such advances down. Untainted food and water is more profitable than tainted, because what would you prefer to buy?

The shallowness and naïveté of the so-called reasoning here is frightening.

Ad hominem...

Lord. I forgot. It's like quick sand. One can't have a succinct response... an avalanche of words seems to be the only answer...

Everyone, I'm going in...

Right... advances in medicene. And I'm sure NONE of the money for that came from Federal monies. It was just TOTALLY the free market.

...And, again, I'm sure it was TOTALLY private money that contributed to those advancements.

If it had been--i.e., had the Federal Government not meddled unconstitutionally into the affairs of the private sector--it would have been even more succesfull than it actually was.

Well reasoned response. One that is TOTALLY unprovable. But, there you go.

Neither one of us can prove that either way.

All we can say, for a fact, that government funding medical research, either given to universities, or to private institution through grants, helped advance medicine.

On the contrary. I can prove that theory to you right now. All you have to do is answer this question:

If a new idea looks like it'll work...wouldn't it be profitable to invest in it?

If it would not be profitable to invest in it (and thus, would need government subsidies), why should the government fund it?

That's right. And when did we start seeing a significant INCREASE in the life span of humanity?

As advances in medicine and health appeared.

Yeah. What's your point? Are you saying a company shouldn't have a right to make a profit from their work, by using the government to enforce that?

Now, there have been companies that have taken undue advantage of the FDA and patent laws, but, why do you think companies shouldn't make a profit? Should they give it away? I'm confused, are you a libertarian or not?

Do not try to twist my words, sir. Companies SHOULD make a profit--I am amused you would think I said otherwise. The government SHOULD NOT favor some companies over others. That is false "crony capitalism"--the screwed-up system we have now.

Rather, let the market forces determine who wins and who loses.

The government should stay OUT of the private sector, only intervening in CRIMINAL matters--such as fraud, or theft (racketeering), or murder (Soylent Green, The Jungle, etc.).

But then, Libertarians and Objectivists agree with Conservatives like me that criminal justice is a legit function of governement.

You're right, we don't need the government, I should totally trust the company what they tell me is in the food and water they sell me. Like, why would a company LIE?

Like government politicians are somehow more trustworthy?

Again, fraud is a matter of CRIMINAL JUSTICE--a legit function of government.

Give me a date. Because, until recently, like the past 15-20 years, the public school system seems to have been pretty good. If not great. So, let's be a tad more specific, shall we?

Besides, one could argue, the public school system started falling apart when the right decided they wanted to include such stellar ideas as Intelligent Design.

One could--but that argument is invalid. There is a reason that private schools--most of which are RELIGIOUS schools--are by and large superior to the public school system.

Yeah. So? I chose a date. At random. You don't seem satisfied with that. So... why should I keep doing your work. I think I defended my point pretty well. Why do we live without the Government involved in our lives, well, in 1919, you were gonna live 40 years LESS. Done and done.

Not done. That is a fallacy called cum hoc, ergo proctor hoc--the assumption that just because two things occur at the same time, one was caused by the other.

Have you asked him? Seriously though, so what? Some of the Founder of this country owned people. Should we go back to that?

Straw man. I gave his direct quote.

The reason WHY FDR thought we should have Social Security hasn't changed, just how long.

Nor has the reason why he thought the dole should only be temporary.

However, I don't entirely disagree. But sometimes people need help. Sometimes they need government to step in and say, here's a roof over your head for you and your family, we're gonna help you get back on your feet.

You know what's a subtle destroyer of the human spirit? Some of the language aimed at those on welfare. It's dehumanizing. It's belittling. People need help, not to be kicked while they are down.

They don't need to be told over and over by the Micheal Moores of the world, "You can't make it on your own--the system is rigged!"

Which doesn't actually address the point. The point you were making is there is some Federal voodoo making people retire early. Is there? Is there material from the government that says, hey, retire! It's the easy way to live!

You find me that document, and then I'll believe you that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT wants people to retire while they are still of strong mind and body.

Currently, it's just when people are ELIGIBLE. Ie, the power is in the hands of the individual when they want to start collecting.

The people who retire expecting Social Security want the maximum of that. Frankly, I don't blame them--it was their money they paid to the government through payroll taxes.

Thus, they would retire as early as they legally can to get the full amount, the most of those checks possible.

I'll tell you my story. I can't get health insurance on the private market. I can't. I have a pre-existing condition. One that is NOT life threatening, nor requiring of medication.

I applied to three places, each turned me down. I even offered MORE money.... you know, trying to make the free market work. They said no.

So, now I'm in a state program.

AND, perhaps the situation is, the company you work for provides insurance while you are with them, but don't after you leave, retire, what then? Should they have been paying for something all along? Have two insurances?

AND, Social Security has nothing to do with medical insurance. You're thinking of MEDICARE.

Social Security is there to help people in retirement who may not have made a lot of money in their lives, OR, I don't know, had their 401Ks wiped out by the whims of some selfish CEOs.

...I'll explain the reason why insurance won't cover me.

Insurance is a bet. I'm betting that I'll get sick, and the insurance is betting I won't. They look at my health situation, and go... hmm... he's got a condition. He's not a good bet for us.

Same thing with the old. They aren't good bets. They will COST THEM MONEY.

It's not about the market, it's about the bet.

One could argue that the insurance companies WANT the Government to continue to provide Medicare for the elderly... it means less payout for them.

...It's not about the market and competition. If you were paying for someone's health care, would you rather have someone that is young and healthy or someone who is older and healthy?

Which one?

Probably the young and healthy. Why? Because that young and healthy person most likely won't have the same issues that someone who is 70 and healthy will have.

...What happens if you are in a healthcare facility... what happens when the voucher money runs out?

Once again, in situations where people literally can't gain basic necessities on their own, it is the duty of the family.

If they cannot do it, it is the duty of the Church--as Paul, Peter, and Christ himself instructed it to.

If, for whatever reason, the Church can't handle all those who need help in spite of their own efforts--then it falls to private charities.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Nor is it an argument against Social Security.

But, ok,

On the contrary. I am pointing out that it is, frankly, irrational to use a "set" age as the standard for retirement.

As I said, maybe we need to change the age of Social Security eligibility.

Any "set" age is purely arbitrary.

But, that's not what you are ultimately arguing for... you want to get rid of it.

But the problem of health and security doesn't change. It still exists. Maybe not so much at 70, but at 80? 85? Yeah, still there.

Again, it is the duty of the family, the religious institutions, and private charities. And there would be more private charities to this effect, were the government not to corner the market on such things.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Again, it is the duty of the family, the religious institutions, and private charities. And there would be more private charities to this effect, were the government not to corner the market on such things.

On what basis are you making the assertion that religious and private charities would have more resources in a world without the social safety net? You're assuming a change in human behavior that isn't warranted.

As an example, just because someone who lives paycheck to paycheck has more take-home pay because FICA taxes has been abolished, it doesn't automatically follow that they're going to tithe more or give more to charity. They're already living paycheck to paycheck, after all, and that money they're no longer paying to fund the social safety net is going to make their short-term life easier.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Better food and water, yes. Surely we don't need the red tape of government bureaucracy to slow such advances down. Untainted food and water is more profitable than tainted, because what would you prefer to buy?

The shallowness and naïveté of the so-called reasoning here is frightening.

Ad hominem...



On the contrary. I can prove that theory to you right now. All you have to do is answer this question:

If a new idea looks like it'll work...wouldn't it be profitable to invest in it?

If it would not be profitable to invest in it (and thus, would need government subsidies), why should the government fund it?



As advances in medicine and health appeared.




Do not try to twist my words, sir. Companies SHOULD make a profit--I am amused you would think I said otherwise. The government SHOULD NOT favor some companies over others. That is false "crony capitalism"--the screwed-up system we have now.

Rather, let the market forces determine who wins and who loses.

The government should stay OUT of the private sector, only intervening in CRIMINAL matters--such as fraud, or theft (racketeering), or murder (Soylent Green, The Jungle, etc.).

But then, Libertarians and Objectivists agree with Conservatives like me that criminal justice is a legit function of governement.



Like government politicians are somehow more trustworthy?

Again, fraud is a matter of CRIMINAL JUSTICE--a legit function of government.



One could--but that argument is invalid. There is a reason that private schools--most of which are RELIGIOUS schools--are by and large superior to the public school system.



Not done. That is a fallacy called cum hoc, ergo proctor hoc--the assumption that just because two things occur at the same time, one was caused by the other.



Straw man. I gave his direct quote.



Nor has the reason why he thought the dole should only be temporary.




They don't need to be told over and over by the Micheal Moores of the world, "You can't make it on your own--the system is rigged!"



The people who retire expecting Social Security want the maximum of that. Frankly, I don't blame them--it was their money they paid to the government through payroll taxes.

Thus, they would retire as early as they legally can to get the full amount, the most of those checks possible.




Once again, in situations where people literally can't gain basic necessities on their own, it is the duty of the family.

If they cannot do it, it is the duty of the Church--as Paul, Peter, and Christ himself instructed it to.

If, for whatever reason, the Church can't handle all those who need help in spite of their own efforts--then it falls to private charities.

As I said, maybe we need to change the age of Social Security eligibility.

Any "set" age is purely arbitrary.

But, that's not what you are ultimately arguing for... you want to get rid of it.

But the problem of health and security doesn't change. It still exists. Maybe not so much at 70, but at 80? 85? Yeah, still there.

Again, it is the duty of the family, the religious institutions, and private charities. And there would be more private charities to this effect, were the government not to corner the market on such things.

I'm not going to respond to all of it, because, one, it's a hopelessly naive philosophy (ad hominem attack +1) but the libertarian world will NEVER come about, as it's not practical nor desirable, and since I'm a practical person, I'm not going to continue debating tiny little details....

But, I will address this point: you say it's the family and the churches "duty"... but why? What "enlightened self interest" is there in taking care of a family member? One who couldn't clearly take care of themselves? Wouldn't that just be a waste of resources? And why should a Church do the same? For Rand, isn't the only duty to one's self?

(Though, I do have to say, it's HILARIOUS: there would be more charities if the government didn't "corner the market".... because charity is such a profitable business.... Even the FREE MARKET RULES CHARITY....

Isn't that like the exact OPPOSITE of charity... )

 

[Goliath]

Better food and water, yes. Surely we don't need the red tape of government bureaucracy to slow such advances down. Untainted food and water is more profitable than tainted, because what would you prefer to buy?

The shallowness and naïveté of the so-called reasoning here is frightening.

Ad hominem...

Just a quick point: you don't seem to understand what "ad hominem" means. Either that, or you're intentionally using those words wrongly, and lying about CorporalCaptain's post.

An "ad hominem" is a fallacious argument. For example:

1. Rush Limborg believes that government regulation is not needed to ensure the purity of food and drink. The discipline of the market will ensure that food and drink will remain pure.
2. But Rush Limborg is shallow and naïve.
3. Therefore, Rush Limborg is wrong.

That is a fallacious argument, because its conclusion does not follow from its premises. You may indeed be shallow and naïve: but shallow and naïve people are not necessarily wrong. As the saying goes--even a broken clock is right twice a day.

But that is not what CorporalCaptain actually said. What he actually said was that your reasoning was frighteningly shallow and naïve. And that's not an ad hominem. It's not even an argument. It's just an observation.

What's more: if CorporalCaptain was being truthful about his subjective impressions, and really was frightened by what he saw as the shallowness and naïvete of your reasoning, then it was an accurate observation. But I think it's more likely that this was just a rhetorical device.

One could even stretch his observation into a valid argument. For example:

1. Rush Limborg's arguments are shallow and naïve.
2. We should not trust arguments that are shallow and naïve.
3. Therefore, we should not trust Rush Limborg's arguments.

That is valid reasoning, though I'm sure you would argue that it's unsound. The important point, however, is that it's not an ad hominem.

If you're going to use terms like that, please use them correctly.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Better food and water, yes. Surely we don't need the red tape of government bureaucracy to slow such advances down. Untainted food and water is more profitable than tainted, because what would you prefer to buy?

That's not how it works. We only have the entire history of human capitalism to prove it; that's why the FDA and related agencies were created in the first place. Prior to it, the food supply was often ludicrously unsafe.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

. . . I think the Free Market, Supply and Demand is the only solution... and by free market, I mean the grocery market: we're gonna have to start eating the young until there is less supply.

Seems a fairly modest proposal.

I'm impressed by your Swift response!

 

[Rush Limborg]

On what basis are you making the assertion that religious and private charities would have more resources in a world without the social safety net? You're assuming a change in human behavior that isn't warranted.

As an example, just because someone who lives paycheck to paycheck has more take-home pay because FICA taxes has been abolished, it doesn't automatically follow that they're going to tithe more or give more to charity. They're already living paycheck to paycheck, after all, and that money they're no longer paying to fund the social safety net is going to make their short-term life easier.

I'm not going to respond to all of it, because, one, it's a hopelessly naive philosophy (ad hominem attack +1) but the libertarian world will NEVER come about, as it's not practical nor desirable, and since I'm a practical person, I'm not going to continue debating tiny little details....

But, I will address this point: you say it's the family and the churches "duty"... but why? What "enlightened self interest" is there in taking care of a family member? One who couldn't clearly take care of themselves? Wouldn't that just be a waste of resources? And why should a Church do the same? For Rand, isn't the only duty to one's self?

(Though, I do have to say, it's HILARIOUS: there would be more charities if the government didn't "corner the market".... because charity is such a profitable business.... Even the FREE MARKET RULES CHARITY....

Isn't that like the exact OPPOSITE of charity... )

Look at the Reagan era.

Charitable donations went up as taxes went down--as the more money in people's pockets, the more likely it becomes that they have money to give--and when you compare all the waste inherent in government bureaucracy--all the money spent going back-and-forth--and when you observe that charity money goes directly to programs helping those worse off...the evidence speaks. Efficiency is everything.

Just a quick point: you don't seem to understand what "ad hominem" means. Either that, or you're intentionally using those words wrongly, and lying about CorporalCaptain's post.

An "ad hominem" is a fallacious argument. For example:

1. Rush Limborg believes that government regulation is not needed to ensure the purity of food and drink. The discipline of the market will ensure that food and drink will remain pure.
2. But Rush Limborg is shallow and naïve.
3. Therefore, Rush Limborg is wrong.

That is a fallacious argument, because its conclusion does not follow from its premises. You may indeed be shallow and naïve: but shallow and naïve people are not necessarily wrong. As the saying goes--even a broken clock is right twice a day.

But that is not what CorporalCaptain actually said. What he actually said was that your reasoning was frighteningly shallow and naïve. And that's not an ad hominem. It's not even an argument. It's just an observation.

What's more: if CorporalCaptain was being truthful about his subjective impressions, and really was frightened by what he saw as the shallowness and naïvete of your reasoning, then it was an accurate observation. But I think it's more likely that this was just a rhetorical device.

One could even stretch his observation into a valid argument. For example:

1. Rush Limborg's arguments are shallow and naïve.
2. We should not trust arguments that are shallow and naïve.
3. Therefore, we should not trust Rush Limborg's arguments.

That is valid reasoning, though I'm sure you would argue that it's unsound. The important point, however, is that it's not an ad hominem.

If you're going to use terms like that, please use them correctly.

I am aware of the meaning of "ad hominem"--"to the person". Rather than adressing the argument, resorting to name-calling.

Just saying something doesn't make it so--you must provide a rational argument saying why it is so.

Better food and water, yes. Surely we don't need the red tape of government bureaucracy to slow such advances down. Untainted food and water is more profitable than tainted, because what would you prefer to buy?

That's not how it works. We only have the entire history of human capitalism to prove it; that's why the FDA and related agencies were created in the first place. Prior to it, the food supply was often ludicrously unsafe.

And the FDA sure helped a lot, didn't it? Samonela...Swine Flu...e-coli...all those things the FDA didn't see coming. They end up cleaning up the mess--which would have happened anyway.

Again--in a government bureaucracy meddling in the market, there is bribery--there are loopholes.


Once again--read well--it IS a proper function of government to supply Criminal Justice--policies against fraud, against incuring physical harm, etc.--laws which apply to everyone--business or not.

 

[Professor Zoom]

On what basis are you making the assertion that religious and private charities would have more resources in a world without the social safety net? You're assuming a change in human behavior that isn't warranted.

As an example, just because someone who lives paycheck to paycheck has more take-home pay because FICA taxes has been abolished, it doesn't automatically follow that they're going to tithe more or give more to charity. They're already living paycheck to paycheck, after all, and that money they're no longer paying to fund the social safety net is going to make their short-term life easier.

I'm not going to respond to all of it, because, one, it's a hopelessly naive philosophy (ad hominem attack +1) but the libertarian world will NEVER come about, as it's not practical nor desirable, and since I'm a practical person, I'm not going to continue debating tiny little details....

But, I will address this point: you say it's the family and the churches "duty"... but why? What "enlightened self interest" is there in taking care of a family member? One who couldn't clearly take care of themselves? Wouldn't that just be a waste of resources? And why should a Church do the same? For Rand, isn't the only duty to one's self?

(Though, I do have to say, it's HILARIOUS: there would be more charities if the government didn't "corner the market".... because charity is such a profitable business.... Even the FREE MARKET RULES CHARITY....

Isn't that like the exact OPPOSITE of charity... )

Look at the Reagan era.

Charitable donations went up as taxes went down--as the more money in people's pockets, the more likely it becomes that they have money to give--and when you compare all the waste inherent in government bureaucracy--all the money spent going back-and-forth--and when you observe that charity money goes directly to programs helping those worse off...the evidence speaks. Efficiency is everything.

You didn't actually address the question. Why is it anyone's duty to take care of anyone else?