Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
From Gerard.
Julie Borowski put up a post over at the Hello Kitty of Blogging asking if anyone else was as tired as she was of these “spread the wealth” celebs. Someone came along to post this:
At this point the thread has 358 replies under it, some being replies-to-replies. Lots of good stuff in there, like for example, this…
“Anti-capitalists” are not against profit or money. They are against class mobility. They hate the idea of one of their vote serfs leaving dependence and accumulating wealth – it makes them feel less special and elite. And they certainly don’t want to lose all *their* money just because they make some bonehead investment. Socialism doesn’t eliminate the rich – it just makes it impossible for the poor to become rich, or the rich to become poor.
That, I think, is food for thought. There may even be a good battle strategy in there somewhere against the “spread the wealth” types. For the longest time, their numbers have evidently been piled on top of each other, in an uneasy and unholy alliance between those who refuse to accept the reality of class-mobility, and those who do understand it’s there but cannot tolerate it.
And then there are those who seem to think if it’s compassion that motivates, the outcome can never be bad.
And those who are motivated by “spread it all, but leave mine out of it.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Historically, and consistently, the greatest disparity in wealth, lack of commerce, corruption, inequity in “justice”, mass execution, and otherwise dismal living conditions, exist in……?
1. Communism
2.Socialism
3. Fascism
4. Capitalism
5.Monarchy
Bonus: The answer to the above can be fixed by doing WHAT differently the next time?
- CaptDMO | 10/26/2013 @ 06:26Extra credit: The repaired political system would be better served by…?
1.Patriarchy
2.Matriarchy
3.Other
“…but it is totally irresponsible to cite economics as a science, or a foundation of government.”
- CaptDMO | 10/26/2013 @ 06:35Strawman. While dependence may arguably be the result, most “anti-capitalists” believe their policies would be beneficial for society, especially those people on the lower rungs of society.
CaptDMO: Historically, and consistently, the greatest disparity in wealth, lack of commerce, corruption, inequity in “justice”, mass execution, and otherwise dismal living conditions, exist in……?
While communist societies have had “otherwise dismal living conditions,” income inequality tended to be relatively low. Meanwhile, former Soviet countries have experienced rapidly rising income inequality since the fall of communism. See World Bank Group, Explaining the increase in inequality during the transition, 1998.
- Zachriel | 10/27/2013 @ 09:50Strawman
There are very few things in life of which I’m absolutely certain, but among those is my understanding that that one is not a strawman. That comes under the heading of “When ya throw a rock into a pack o’ wild dogs, the one that yelps is the one ya done hit.”
- mkfreeberg | 10/27/2013 @ 11:19Ever notice how the cry of “straw man” is itself, 99 times out of 100, a straw man?
Yes, “income inequality” does tend to be rather low in communist countries — technically– because under communism “income” doesn’t exist. Technically. Which means that “income inequality” does tend to rise quite a bit in recently liberated countries, because that’s what happens when the baseline is zero.
And the World Bank Group agrees.
- Severian | 10/27/2013 @ 12:11mkfreeberg: There are very few things in life of which I’m absolutely certain, but among those is my understanding that that one is not a strawman.
Saying “Is not” is not an argument.
Liberals are generally concerned with caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. See Graham et al., The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Divide, 2012.
- Zachriel | 10/27/2013 @ 12:21Severian: Yes, “income inequality” does tend to be rather low in communist countries — technically– because under communism “income” doesn’t exist.
While pure equality is the goal under Marxist theory; in the Soviet Union and Cuba, for instance, income inequality was generally lower than in the United States.
- Zachriel | 10/27/2013 @ 12:24Boooooo-ring!!!
These were silly the first 6,485 times y’all cut-n-pasted them.. Get some new material. This should help you get started
- Severian | 10/27/2013 @ 13:11.
Saying “Is not” is not an argument.
Maybe…but it’s valid as a statement.
Liberals are generally concerned with caring for the weak, fairness and liberty.
My own personal observations, along with the personal observations of many others, directly contradict this. So…is not.
PS Cuttlefish, shouldn’t there be a linking clause in place of the semicolon up there? Something that relates logically or causally to “while”? I think your ctrl key is stuck.
- Severian | 10/27/2013 @ 14:02mkfreeberg: Maybe…but it’s valid as a statement.
Valid, but unsupported, and contradicted by the evidence provided.
mkfreeberg: My own personal observations, along with the personal observations of many others, directly contradict this.
“The plural of anecdote is not data.”
- Zachriel | 10/27/2013 @ 14:37Valid, but unsupported, and contradicted by the evidence provided.
What evidence is that?
- mkfreeberg | 10/27/2013 @ 15:48mkfreeberg: What evidence is that?
As the study showed, a statistically significant sample of people identifying as liberals are generally concerned with caring for the weak, fairness and liberty.
- Zachriel | 10/27/2013 @ 18:25The ObamaCare fiasco has demonstrated clearly that caring for the weak, fairness and liberty in deed, is different from claiming in verbiage to care about those things.
When we watch what liberals actually do, we find many examples that show CaptDMO was correct in his statement. We see a consistent pattern in which, the poor are such-and-such badly off…liberals win an election, run things, enact their liberal programs and these make the poor much worse off. Were the liberals then truly caring about the plight of the poor, they’d reverse course and back out of the cul de sac. Instead, they double down, without too much interest in the worsening of the situation of these poor, other than how it could justify yet more liberalism.
That is an argument. “A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.”
- mkfreeberg | 10/27/2013 @ 19:01mkfreeberg: What evidence is that?
You asked a question, then ignored the answer.
mkfreeberg: Were the liberals then truly caring about the plight of the poor, they’d reverse course and back out of the cul de sac.
The poor are part of the Medicaid expansion.
- Zachriel | 10/28/2013 @ 04:57You asked a question, then ignored the answer.
If by “ignored the answer” what you really mean to say is, “asked what within our cited study is the thing we would call ‘evidence’,” then that is an accurate statement. Otherwise it isn’t, and I think most people would find it a stretch to draw that kind of equivalence.
The work you cited is 33 pages. Now, where should I go looking for this evidence.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
That quote has some problems (see comment from “Joram”). At any rate, we know anecdotes certainly are data. People may rely overly much on them from time to time, but this is no more reckless than what others do when they dismiss the anecdotes as “merely” anecdotal. They either happened or they didn’t…
…and it certainly isn’t just my own anecdotes that apply here.
Let’s agree to say, a lot of liberals claim to care about the poor. And the facts on the ground say that as a general rule, there is a yawning gap here between their words and their deeds.
- mkfreeberg | 10/28/2013 @ 06:07mkfreeberg: If by “ignored the answer” what you really mean to say is, “asked what within our cited study is the thing we would call ‘evidence’,” then that is an accurate statement.
As the study showed, a statistically significant sample of people identifying as liberals are generally more concerned with caring for the weak, fairness and liberty.
mkfreeberg: The work you cited is 33 pages.
You could start with the abstract. Or you could look at the table of results at the end of the paper. See also Graham, Haidt & Nosek, Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009.
mkfreeberg: At any rate, we know anecdotes certainly are data.
Sure, but they may not be representative data. That’s why we use statistics.
mkfreeberg: Let’s agree to say, a lot of liberals claim to care about the poor.
Sure. Furthermore, conservatives generally agree that liberals care more about the weak, fairness and liberty.
mkfreeberg: And the facts on the ground say that as a general rule, there is a yawning gap here between their words and their deeds.
Not so yawning. “It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.”
Also, there were apparently methodological problems with Brooks’ study, which resulted in misidentifying liberals and conservatives. See Margolis & Sances, Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States, Social Science Research Network 2013.
- Zachriel | 10/28/2013 @ 06:31Yes, liberals do care a great deal about getting the last word, all of the time.
And there are “methodological problems” with taking peoples’ word for it when they care about something. Especially fi they’re liberals.
Many anecdotes show this to be true. And not just mine.
- mkfreeberg | 10/28/2013 @ 06:48mkfreeberg: And there are “methodological problems” with taking peoples’ word for it when they care about something.
While scientific surveys have margins of error, and may have systemic biases, they can still provide important information. Do you have objective evidence that this survey is in error?
- Zachriel | 10/28/2013 @ 07:54While scientific surveys have margins of error, and may have systemic biases, they can still provide important information. Do you have objective evidence that this survey is in error?
I’m not talking about error. But it’s cute that you automatically limit the intent of my remarks to just that. Why so hasty?
Specifically, my comment concerns people lying. To the people taking the survey, and more importantly, to themselves. Such that intent to deceive need not necessarily play a part in the inaccuracy.
If liberals truly cared about the poor, they’d give some thought to…deliberately losing elections.
- mkfreeberg | 10/28/2013 @ 17:34mkfreeberg: Specifically, my comment concerns people lying.
That would be a source of error. However, other polls, such as voting polls are often reasonably accurate. A few percent wouldn’t affect the overall conclusion in this case.
mkfreeberg: To the people taking the survey, and more importantly, to themselves.
Ah! Lying to themselves! Again, this seems unlikely to be a broad effect. Indeed, according to the same study, even non-liberals are convinced that liberals care about the weak, fairness and liberty. If you have objective evidence that this phenomenon you describe is pervasive, we’d be happy to look at it.
- Zachriel | 10/28/2013 @ 18:01Isn’t it cute that Science’s BFFs want objective proof of subjective feelings? Science is fun.
I’m sure non-liberals think liberals think they care about the weak, fairness, and liberty. I, personally, think liberals think this. What I think they think, however, is immaterial, as is what they think they think. I’m concerned with what they do.
For you see, “caring about the weak, fairness, and liberty” isn’t just confined to liberals. Ask any North Korean — they’ll tell you all about how much the Dear Leader cares about the weak, fairness and liberty.
Shouldn’t you all be writing your dissertation, instead of trolling blogs?
- Severian | 10/28/2013 @ 18:52Detroit.
And who gives a flying fig about what someone feels or thinks about it. That would be nothing more than hand-waving. Detroit’s Detroit.
- mkfreeberg | 10/28/2013 @ 19:43mkfreeberg: Isn’t it cute that Science’s BFFs want objective proof of subjective feelings? Science is fun.
We asked for objective evidence that liberals are lying or self-deceptive. Are you saying this isn’t possible, even in principle?
mkfreeberg: What I think they think, however, is immaterial, as is what they think they think. I’m concerned with what they do.
Then you retract your previous claim, which concerned beliefs, not action?
mkfreeberg: And who gives a flying fig about what someone feels or thinks about it.
Well, the original post concerned “hate” and “feel”, and that is the objection we raised. This is the statement you defended:
- Zachriel | 10/29/2013 @ 05:37I’ll stand behind the one statement correctly attributed to me. It is at the heart of observing things and evaluating their true meaning, independent of one’s preconceived notions.
I remember when that used to be the way news, science & surveys were done, and I’m not that old.
- mkfreeberg | 10/29/2013 @ 06:54mkfreeberg: I’ll stand behind the one statement correctly attributed to me.
You made many related claims on this thread, defending the statement concerning ‘hate’ and ‘feel’. Please the “one statement” that you believe to be defensible.
- Zachriel | 10/29/2013 @ 07:27The evidence is in the same dossier with the evidence that the North Koreans don’t truly love their Dear Leader. It’s filed under A, for “Attributions, Correct.” You’ll want to review the rest of the subject area for your midterms.
Please the “one statement” that you believe to be defensible.
Please proofread and resubmit. This is horribly sloppy work, far below the academic standards of Chesty LaRue’s Erotic Massage Academy.
- Severian | 10/29/2013 @ 07:38Severian: The evidence is in the same dossier with the evidence that the North Koreans don’t truly love their Dear Leader.
So your claim is that American liberals lie to pollsters because to do otherwise would result in they and their families being sent to the gulag or executed.
- Zachriel | 10/29/2013 @ 15:36MKF: Look, there’s Detroit. There it is. It’s a fact.
The Z: Yeah, but here’s a citation with a year and everything…anecdotes and data are (somehow) different.
I think we should all just admit that we’re not all trying to inspect reality, more like we have two sides of the conversation here — one concerned with real reality and one more immersed in an alternative one. In the alternative one, when theory collides with fact, fact must yield and theory must prevail.
If I like my health plan I’ll be able to keep my health plan, if I like my doctor I can keep my doctor, the economy has been in a constant state of recovery over the last five years and that’s why it still sucks so much, Chicago and Washington DC have much lower homicide rates than the rest of the nation and if they don’t, it’s somehow the fault of Republicans. Chris Wallace, having spent the past several years hosting some kind of news/debate/informative “show” which seems to be limited to him accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being a racist, is uniquely qualified to write a book about how Reagan and Tip O’Neill got along so well because of that sense of camaraderie that’s tragically missing today…oh yeah, and every single speech Obama gives is the very best one in recorded history since Cicero.
The consistent trend seems to be, not only is theory to prevail when it is upset by the facts on the ground, with the facts on the ground yielding to the theory, but there’s a certain way we get there: Facts that don’t fit are removed. Ignorance is to be treated as if it is learning. The abjuration of information is to be regarded as the accumulation of it.
- mkfreeberg | 10/29/2013 @ 17:23@Morgan,
weird, innit? And right on cue, we have the Cuttlefish jumping to “So your claim is that American liberals lie to pollsters because to do otherwise would result in they and their families being sent to the gulag or executed.”
With any other tedious collective of substandard graduate students, I’d assume this was a feeble attempt at humor. But that seems to be their pattern — demand quantitative evidence for qualitative phenomena, and when that isn’t forthcoming, to proceed as if you’d actually said what they merely wish you’d said.
Because science, I guess.
A moment’s pause for thought would of course reveal that while I have no ironclad way of determining what’s really in some American survey respondent’s secret heart when he says “I believe liberals are all about fairness” — you know, since brain scanners don’t exist — neither do the Cuttlefish have any way of determining what’s in a North Korean’s secret heart when he says he loves Dear Leader, because ditto.
We can assume, and we can infer, and we can wishcast, but we can’t know.
For either group. It’s as true for American liberals as it is for North Koreans, or for any other discrete group of humans. Which is why folks who are concerned with real-world outcomes put much more stock in what people do than what they say. Do North Koreans behave as if they love Dear Leader? You betcha. Does the American liberal behave as if he’s all about fairness, caring for the weak, and liberty?
That’s the question. You and I say no, and invite the Cuttlefish to provide quantitative evidence to the contrary. Since, you know, Detroit is a real place with a real history, this should be easy for them. But instead they jump to conclusions, and commit simple category errors, and omit clauses and misattribute statements.
Because science, I guess. Science is fun.
- Severian | 10/29/2013 @ 20:20mkfreeberg: The consistent trend seems to be, not only is theory to prevail when it is upset by the facts on the ground, with the facts on the ground yielding to the theory, but there’s a certain way we get there: Facts that don’t fit are removed. Ignorance is to be treated as if it is learning. The abjuration of information is to be regarded as the accumulation of it.
That’s right. We keep pointing to objective facts, and you keep waving your hands.
Severian: Which is why folks who are concerned with real-world outcomes put much more stock in what people do than what they say.
We objected to a claim about what liberals ‘hate’ and ‘feel’. We can make reasonable inferences, but the claim wasn’t supported.
- Zachriel | 10/30/2013 @ 05:03Once again, the accusations of hand waving are, themselves, hand waving.
- mkfreeberg | 10/30/2013 @ 08:41mkfreeberg: Once again, the accusations of hand waving are, themselves, hand waving.
We’ve provided specifics to support our objections. We’d be happy to review them.
Zachriel: Liberals are generally concerned with caring for the weak, fairness and liberty.
mkfreeberg: My own personal observations, along with the personal observations of many others, directly contradict this. So…is not.
We pointed out that personal observations may not be representative, and provided a scientific survey contradicting your stance.
- Zachriel | 10/30/2013 @ 09:34We objected to a claim about what liberals ‘hate’ and ‘feel’.
Hmmm. And you’re attributing this statement to me? Jesus, y’all really don’t read too good. I know Chesty LaRue’s Erotic Massage Academy ain’t exactly Harvard, but I thought they had some standards.
What I said was:
Making up something you wish your opponent said, and then proceeding as if that’s what he actually did say….hmmmm…. there’s a word for that. Or maybe y’all were just in such a rush to exploit this gotcha! you thought you discovered that you didn’t bother to check your references.
Maybe if y’all spent more time on your reading comprehension skills, you wouldn’t still be in school. C’mon, kids, how hard is it to learn how to give happy endings? Just read each word s-l-o-w-l-y and c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y. Sound it out if you’re having trouble. And remember, it’s always best to actually argue from a position, instead of rooting around for gotchas! like a squirrel with ADD.
- Severian | 10/30/2013 @ 14:11Severian: And you’re attributing this statement to me?
No. We attributed a defense of “{anti-capitalists} hate the idea of one of their vote serfs leaving dependence and accumulating wealth – it makes them feel less special and elite” to mkfreeberg. He based it on his personal experience, but rejected contrary evidence out-of-hand.
It shouldn’t be necessary, but let’s review the exchange.
Severian: We can assume, and we can infer, and we can wishcast, but we can’t know (what’s in someone’s heart).
While there is no absolute knowledge, it’s not a blank slate either. People have a great propensity for discerning truthfulness in others, and while this sense can be fallible, it is not completely random either. Furthermore, surveys can be quite accurate in determining people’s actions, such as voting polls.
Severian: It’s as true for American liberals as it is for North Koreans, or for any other discrete group of humans.
Except we know that North Koreans are under extreme duress when expressing their opinions on political matters.
Severian: Which is why folks who are concerned with real-world outcomes put much more stock in what people do than what they say.
Which brings us to our response to you.
Zachriel: We objected to a claim about what liberals ‘hate’ and ‘feel’. We can make reasonable inferences, but the claim wasn’t supported.
Our comment to you reminds you of the issue under discussion, which is mkfreeberg’s defense of a claim about feelings. While we don’t agree we can never have any information about feelings, your argument undercuts mkfreeberg’s position.
- Zachriel | 10/30/2013 @ 15:09Heh. It’s cute when y’all try to lecture folks about what the topic under discussion actually is. How’s that working out for y’all?
You all claim it’s an objective fact that liberals care about helping the weak, fairness, and liberty. You base this on some survey where a bunch of liberals were asked “do you care about helping the weak, fairness, and liberty?” and they said yes. Then they asked a bunch of conservatives “do you think liberals believe they’re all about helping the weak, fairness, and liberty?” and they said yes.
And then you claim to know, with complete certainty, that none of those respondents are lying, to the survey-takers or themselves. You somehow know with complete certainty that they were under no kind of duress. And you somehow know with complete certainty that no North Korean who claims to love Dear Leader actually does, because they’re all under duress all the time.
Impressive, young Jedi. That’s some top-notch mind reading.
Jesus, if that’s the standard for “science” these days, I’m shocked y’all haven’t graduated yet. What’s the problem, an oversensitive gag reflex? Maybe you should practice with zucchini or something.
- Severian | 10/30/2013 @ 15:53For the record, here are the comments that are actually mine, about “‘spread the wealth’ types”:
So I did generalize, but let us not over-simplify the way I generalized — there are two layers of complexity to it. Two intersecting sets: Those who refuse to recognize class mobility, seeing everyone with a pulse capable of possessing money, as walking around with a “W” brand on their foreheads for “Winner” or an “L” brand for “Loser,” womb to tomb. And, those who do accept that poor do become rich and vice-versa, but have not made their peace with this. The ones who want hard, crisp castes to be defined, formed and preserved.
Given that two-degree level of complexity to the generalization I have committed, am I willing to stand behind that still? Oh yes, absolutely. If anyone fell outside of those two set definitions — if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types. Unless they’re insane, or irrational Barrack-Obama-fans, or in some other way have renounced independent, critical thinking. If the poor do have the opportunity to learn new things and become rich, it isn’t logical to support spread-the-wealth schemes because they should not be needed; by taking advantage of the opportunities that are there, the poor help themselves, and they help the rest of us as well. It is what makes sense.
- mkfreeberg | 10/30/2013 @ 17:00But Morgan, you didn’t actually say that. You actually said some totally other stuff. See Winger, Ratt, and Poison, “Some Stuff That’s Totally Verifiable.” Science and Shit, November 1985.
- Severian | 10/30/2013 @ 19:22Zachriel: While there is no absolute knowledge, it’s not a blank slate either. People have a great propensity for discerning truthfulness in others, and while this sense can be fallible, it is not completely random either. Furthermore, surveys can be quite accurate in determining people’s actions, such as voting polls.
Severian: And then you claim to know, with complete certainty, that none of those respondents are lying, to the survey-takers or themselves.
As you can see, that’s a misrepresentation of our views.
mkfreeberg: Given that two-degree level of complexity to the generalization I have committed, am I willing to stand behind that still? Oh yes, absolutely. If anyone fell outside of those two set definitions — if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types.
That’s a fallacy of black-and-white thinking. Just because someone thinks there should be some redistribution of wealth doesn’t mean they think all wealth should be redistributed. For instance, someone might advocate for the government to pave the roads downtown, or a pittance of tax money be allotted to feed starving children on the streets, without also advocating radical redistribution.
More specifically, someone can advocate for class mobility and robust markets, while also advocating for a social safety net for the weak or elderly.
- Zachriel | 10/31/2013 @ 05:44More specifically, someone can advocate for class mobility and robust markets, while also advocating for a social safety net for the weak or elderly.
And, someone can “advocate for” a lot of things without realizing it. The gutless disclaimer of “only to a certain extent” is often a refuge for immature, childish thinkers. A lot of armchair dictators fall into this trap. We’re seeing it right now with ObamaCare: “I thought I could support this new law and make other people pay for my health insurance, I just realized I am the other people.”
Reminds me of the cartoon about the hippie carrying the sign saying “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.” Marching around, so proudly, then he runs into this little kid carrying a sign saying “Don’t trust anyone over fifteen.” It’s easy to say — sure, I wanted this, but not that. Trouble is, when we share a society with other people who also want to have a say, we can’t think these things out in terms of “only to such-and-such an extent,” because it turns out that society is not merely some dashboard responding to the whims of a single person, we all have to live together.
Liberalism is an ideology for people who haven’t figured that out yet. That’s why the more affluent among the people who support it, very often are caught wailing that familiar, sad refrain: “No, I meant spread other people’s wealth around…not mine!”
As you can see, that’s a misrepresentation of our views.
Say the folks who still misattribute stuff half the time.
Tell ya what, Cuttlefish– attribute the correct line to the correct speaker five times in a row, and then we’ll talk about what is or isn’t a misrepresentation of what.
@Morgan,
That’s the delicious irony, isn’t it? What could possibly be more black-and-white than “help group A over there… but with group B’s money.” Because there’s never any overlap between groups, and even if there is, I’m sure some wise, benevolent leader can figure it all out. Just so long as nobody takes a dime of mine. I’m all right Jack, keep your hands off of my stack….
- Severian | 10/31/2013 @ 06:20Severian: Say the folks who …
Notably, you didn’t defend your misrepresentation.
mkfreeberg: And, someone can “advocate for” a lot of things without realizing it. The gutless disclaimer of “only to a certain extent” is often a refuge for immature, childish thinkers.
We provided an exception to your false dichotomy—it only takes one.
- Zachriel | 10/31/2013 @ 06:52Notably, you didn’t defend your misrepresentation.
Notably, y’all are still going on about a statement — “hey hate the idea of one of their vote serfs leaving dependence and accumulating wealth” — you incorrectly attributed to Morgan.
I know reading comprehension can be hard, but just keep working on it. I’ve heard good things about Hooked on Phonics. Check it out!
- Severian | 10/31/2013 @ 07:03Severian: Notably, y’all are still going on about a statement — “hey hate the idea of one of their vote serfs leaving dependence and accumulating wealth” — you incorrectly attributed to Morgan.
No, but we did attribute a defense of that statement to mkfreeberg. We said this directly to you previously.
—
Severian: And you’re attributing this statement to me?
Zachriel: No. We attributed a defense of “{anti-capitalists} hate the idea of one of their vote serfs leaving dependence and accumulating wealth – it makes them feel less special and elite” to mkfreeberg.
- Zachriel | 10/31/2013 @ 07:18Ah, I see. Interesting. Penumbras and emanations!
Since y’all are spergs, and spergs don’t really get how interpersonal communication works, I’ll explain it to you, using situations you’ll be familiar with.
Morgan called the proposition “{anti-capitalists} hate the idea of one of their vote serfs leaving dependence and accumulating wealth – it makes them feel less special and elite” food for thought.
“Food for thought” means “worth thinking further about.” It isn’t a wholehearted endorsement of the proposition. For instance, when I say to y’all “hey Zachriel, did you know that anal fissures and STDs are strongly associated with a certain kind of streetwalking? Food for thought,” I’m not stating a belief that y’all are in fact currently engaged in low-end sex work. (Because that’s not my belief; I’ve said many times I think y’all are still stuck in grad school because you spend too much time trolling blogs and not enough working on your reading comprehension). BUT: given how much time you all have invested in the charade of global warming, and y’all’s well-documented willingness to spread it for any liberal cause that comes down the pike, it seems like peddling your bum at an interstate rest stop is a logical lateral career move. So I’d be remiss if I didn’t draw your attention to some of the downsides. See? Food for thought.
- Severian | 10/31/2013 @ 07:41Severian: Morgan called the proposition “{anti-capitalists} hate the idea of one of their vote serfs leaving dependence and accumulating wealth – it makes them feel less special and elite” food for thought.
That’s right, so in our first comment we posted our thoughts on the proposition, saying “Strawman. While dependence may arguably be the result, most ‘anti-capitalists’ believe their policies would be beneficial for society, especially those people on the lower rungs of society.” We then provided data to support our claim.
Severian: It isn’t a wholehearted endorsement of the proposition.
That’s right. But mkfreeberg defended it in later comments.
- Zachriel | 10/31/2013 @ 09:51That’s right. But mkfreeberg defended it in later comments.
And And here’s what he said about it. A claim about action, not verbiage.
To which y’all responded with more verbiage about verbiage. Very meta, and another nice illustration of y’all’s truly spectacular ability to miss clear and obvious points. Y’all are the Tiger Woods of obtuseness.
And He followed it up with a statement about logic and observation.
To which y’all haven’t replied anything of substance. Which admittedly isn’t a problem in the ivory tower, but the real world doesn’t work that way. If that’s the best you’ve got, well, you might want to check out this handy job-training guide. Competition’s tough at the truck stop these days, I’ve heard.
- Severian | 10/31/2013 @ 10:28Severian: A claim about action, not verbiage.
Okay.
mkfreeberg: The ObamaCare fiasco has demonstrated clearly that caring for the weak, fairness and liberty in deed, is different from claiming in verbiage to care about those things.
He cites a controversial example. The long term effects are far from certain, but millions of poor are being included in the Medicaid expansion.
mkfreeberg: We see a consistent pattern in which, the poor are such-and-such badly off…liberals win an election, run things, enact their liberal programs and these make the poor much worse off.
It’s hardly consistent. Liberal causes of the past have included Social Security and Medicare, which have been instrumental in lifting millions of the elderly out of poverty; civil rights legislation, ending Jim Crow, and so on.
But leaving that aside, we can certainly find examples of programs that arguably have negative effects on the very people it is meant to help. This still leaves the possibility that liberals want to help the weak, but that their policies are often counterproductive.
mkfreeberg: That is an argument. “A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.”
Sure it’s an argument, but it’s based on false premises. We addressed it two ways. Not all liberal programs have been detrimental; and just because some programs have unintended consequences doesn’t mean good intentions weren’t involved. Indeed, one theory is that the very success of early liberal ideas led to hubris and overreach.
Severian: And He followed it up with a statement about logic and observation.
He posed an obviously false dichotomy.
mkfreeberg: if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types
Most countries in the west are now structured as robust markets with strong social safety nets. Thinking that some money should be set aside for social programs and to alleviate the plight of the poor doesn’t mean you don’t accept class mobility. That mkfreeberg insists that they can’t coexist, in spite of the fact that they do, is a clear case of black-and-white thinking.
- Zachriel | 10/31/2013 @ 11:20He posed an obviously false dichotomy.
Saying “it’s a false dichotomy” does not, in fact, make a dichotomy false. Y’all have this fascinating faith in the talismanic power of words. As we see here:
just because some programs have unintended consequences doesn’t mean good intentions weren’t involved
Frankly, m’dear, I don’t give a damn what somebody’s intentions were. It either produces the intended result or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, you go back to the drawing board.
At least, that’s what people who actually care about what they claim to care about do. Liberals invariably do a little dance — “it is too working!” followed by “it’s not working because it’s not big enough!” followed by “you’re a racist for noticing that it doesn’t work.” Followed by, in y’all’s case, a cut-n-paste of a bibliography.
If you claim that you want X, but pursue a policy that produces the exact opposite of X while attacking anyone who points out all the not-X that’s being produced, it’s reasonable to wonder whether X was really the goal after all. And that is a fact of human existence that no silly little soash 101 survey will ever change, no matter how many undergrads you make take it for class credit.
But hey, if you want to cite Graham et al to “prove” that’s really a zucchini you’re sucking on, be my guest. Whatever gets you through the night.
- Severian | 10/31/2013 @ 12:31Severian: Saying “it’s a false dichotomy” does not, in fact, make a dichotomy false.
No, but providing an example does, which we did.
Severian: Frankly, m’dear, I don’t give a damn what somebody’s intentions were.
Then you’re not part of the discussion which concerned a claim about feelings in the original post.
- Zachriel | 10/31/2013 @ 15:25…providing an example does [make a dichotomy false], which we did.
Uh huh. You did say so before.
There is a name for what y’all are practicing so ineptly. It’s called the black swan problem.
Now let’s do an autopsy on this rebuttal y’all think y’all managed to offer up. Stuart Gathman says, “‘Anti-capitalists’ are not against profit or money. They are against class mobility.” That could mean, all anti-capitalists in existence; most anti-capitalists; or all the anti-capitalists who have made the acquaintance of Mr. Gathman. Since y’all are lunging and pouncing at imaginary “gotchas” like a starving jaguar on crack going after the red dot out of a laser pen…
So y’all want it to have meant, “all in this universe.” That’s not what he said. So your black-swan exercise fails. But let’s give that to you anyway. After that I come along and say…
Which, as has already been pointed out to y’all at least twice, could mean just about anything. But, the jaguar is starving, and y’all want it to mean “I agree wholeheartedly!” With, what y’all want Mr. Gathman’s statement to have been, not what it really was.
Next, let’s inspect this ebony avian y’all managed to produce for our inspection.
As has already been explained to y’all though,
Einstein had something to say about this…
So your “black swan” example, apart from the fact that it’s just a theory and not an actual example, wouldn’t do well as an example anyway even if y’all could verify that there is such a black swan somewhere. That bird’s just plain nuts. I think it would be quite fair to establish the parameter to our discussion that insane-people are out of the scope, or else ought to be out of the scope anyway.
When it comes to ObamaCare, can lefties who claim to care about the poor, really hide behind the defense of surprise at unintended and unanticipated consequences? I’m not so sure. The problem is, some people lack access to health care and cannot afford insurance. Solution is, slap a big fine on them when they don’t buy it.
Aside from all that, somewhere there is a rule…if there isn’t one, there certainly should be one, for reasons that are obvious…that when you’re trying to lower a beatdown with your black-swan argument, you can’t go claiming benefit of the doubt for each & every little thing on your side of the discussion, Saul-Alinsky style. To do so is to form a rebuttal of: You said all swans are white, here is a swan of unknown color and that falsifies your statement, because we’re assuming the swan of unknown color is a black swan, it happys us to think that about it, and we’re going to oblige everyone else to make the same presumptions we’re making, because we’re asking for it, and we’re not accustomed to hearing “no” for an answer. That doesn’t work. Anyone who needs to have it explained to them why it doesn’t, I’m not sure where I could begin.
Y’all seem to be practicing a variety of debate-class rebuttals that have been known to work well in their structure, but without conceptual understanding of that structure. Frankly, your style of thinking these things out sheds new light, for me anyway, on why the health care website roll-out went as poorly as it did. It’s like you’re expecting a debate coach to pop up on stage and hand y’all a big blue ribbon, because y’all saw it happen to someone else once, just like President Obama thought He could have a web site brought online merely by communicating to His underlings that that’s what He wanted to have happen. Cargo-cult thinking, through-and-through.
- mkfreeberg | 10/31/2013 @ 17:42mkfreeberg: When it comes to ObamaCare, can lefties who claim to care about the poor, really hide behind the defense of surprise at unintended and unanticipated consequences?
The poor are covered by the Medicaid expansion. They don’t face a fine, or have to buy insurance on the exchanges.
Zachriel: …someone can advocate for class mobility and robust markets, while also advocating for a social safety net for the weak or elderly.
mkfreeberg: If you claim that you want X, but pursue a policy that produces the exact opposite of X while attacking anyone who points out all the not-X that’s being produced, it’s reasonable to wonder whether X was really the goal after all.
While you say it can’t possibly exist, even in principle, people continue to support class mobility and robust markets while also advocating for a social safety net for the weak and elderly. Indeed, that’s the very structure of all modern societies, and most people support some version of it.
- Zachriel | 11/01/2013 @ 05:44While you say it can’t possibly exist, even in principle, people continue to support class mobility and robust markets while also advocating for a social safety net for the weak and elderly. Indeed, that’s the very structure of all modern societies, and most people support some version of it.
The very nature of your “black swan” is the anti-capitalist who only wants to attack capitalism just-so-much, spread the wealth only-so-much. Where’s your proof of my false dichotomy? Where’s the anti-capitalist who said “okay, that’s enough of the wealth-spreading, we should stop now”?
Other than the one who squawks about it when someone makes a move to spread his OWN cache of cash…
- mkfreeberg | 11/01/2013 @ 06:03mkfreeberg: Where’s the anti-capitalist who said “okay, that’s enough of the wealth-spreading, we should stop now”?
In the U.S., polls show overwhelming support for continuing Social Security, as well as overwhelming support for free markets. That implies a sizable overlap. Indeed, there are many conservatives who support Social Security.
- Zachriel | 11/01/2013 @ 06:15In the U.S., polls show overwhelming support for continuing Social Security, as well as overwhelming support for free markets. That implies a sizable overlap. Indeed, there are many conservatives who support Social Security.
You need to do more than “imply” to play your “it only takes one” game. You have to produce an actual black swan.
U.S. polls do not show “overwhelming support” for the kind of anti-capitalist rantings burbled forth by Russell Brand & crew. That crowd, so far as we can see, can be fairly categorized the way I categorized them. Which y’all called a “false dichotomy.” Looks like y’all were wrong in saying that.
- mkfreeberg | 11/01/2013 @ 06:20Then you’re not part of the discussion which concerned a claim about feelings in the original post.
How’s that whole unilaterally-deciding-how-the-world-works thing working out for y’all? Y’all in a good place with that?
I liked my health care. I didn’t get to keep my health care. Please cut-n-paste “if you like your health care, you can keep your health care” six hundred more times, such that reality will reconfigure itself. Since, you know, liberals care about fairness and stuff.
- Severian | 11/01/2013 @ 06:22mkfreeberg: You need to do more than “imply” to play your “it only takes one” game.
This is pretty simple. Support for Social Security is over 80%. Support for free markets is over 60%. That means at least 40% of the American people support Social Security (wealth-spreading) while also supporting free markets. Many of those people are conservatives who do not support Obamacare or any other form of wealth-spreading. Surely you’ve heard their rallying cry “Keep the government’s hands off my Social Security!”
- Zachriel | 11/01/2013 @ 06:37I feel like I’m Emperor Palpatine here. “Your logic is your weakness, Severian.”
Your faith in your polls is yours!!
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a public opinion poll that didn’t contain some massive internal inconsistency. Let’s subject this one to some real-world testing.
Given that “a majority of respondents support social security,” and “a majority of respondents support free markets,” is it more likely to be the case that:
a) Most folks haven’t fully thought out the implications of the conjunction of those positions, and are treating each question as a discrete item; or
b) Most folks are 100% intellectually coherent, and have finely micro-calibrated the exact amount of wealth redistribution they’d like to see within a basically free-market framework?
Anyone with any experience of actual humans outside a seminar room knows that the answer is a), and that the answer will continue to be a) no matter how many times Graham et al insist that it’s b).
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Check any liberal blog. They’re constantly posting poll results that show things like “the majority of conservatives consider themselves ‘well informed’ on political issues, but most of them can’t even name their congressman!! Hehe stupid wingnutz.” Shouldn’t y’all be over at Daily Kos, informing them that this is not possible, see Winger et al 1986?
- Severian | 11/01/2013 @ 06:44Severian: Anyone with any experience of actual humans outside a seminar room knows that the answer is a), and that the answer will continue to be a) no matter how many times Graham et al insist that it’s b).
Graham et al. never claimed that people were infallible or that humans were completely consistent in their views. Nor do we agree that they are inconsistent positions, given that social programs can and do coexist with robust markets.
In any case, your objections doesn’t address the claim.
mkfreeberg: if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types
Mkfreeberg isn’t claiming that there may be some internal contradiction (short of insanity), but that these people don’t exist (other than the insane).
- Zachriel | 11/01/2013 @ 07:24In any case, your objections doesn’t address the claim.
Oh, the claim y’all claim Morgan is making? That claim? Or do you mean the one he actually made? There’s quite a bit after “it is a logical impossibility”, and that stuff is important:
Which ain’t quiiiiiiiite the same thing y’all claim it is.
I’d like to say it’s fascinating how, ummm, nuanced y’all are with texts, but it’s not. It’s drearily commonplace with leftists — “interpret everything we say completely literally, unless it’s metaphorical, or unless there’s some contradiction in it, or unless somebody in our coalition gets offended, in which case we were joking.”
But it is fascinating how bad y’all are at it.
This is — hey, whaddaya know!– the kind of thing Morgan was talking about. Y’all have found some blocks of text that you like, that seem to plug in well to the algorithms of debate you think you’ve discovered, and you have literally renounced your critical thinking apparatus to them. If something can’t be dealt with by one of your little cut-n-pastes — stuff that in some cases you’ve been cutting and pasting, word for word, since 2005 (!!) — you’ll snip and twist and rearrange the text of a conversation until you find some way to ctrl-v one of your pat “answers” in. And if that doesn’t work, you’ll cite a bibliography. And if that doesn’t work, you’ll just cut-n-paste again.
Please, kids: think for a second. 2005 was eight years ago. Eight. Do you know anyone who could comfortably say “oh yeah, I’m exactly the same guy at 28 that I was at 20?” Life is going to be extremely unkind to you if you persist in believing that all the answers are there in some .txt file, just waiting to be cut-and-pasted. For one thing, you’ll never get laid… not even the Chesty LaRue Academy’s career placement office is that good.
- Severian | 11/01/2013 @ 08:04Severian: Which ain’t quiiiiiiiite the same thing y’all claim it is.
We addressed that. It’s an obvious case of black-and-white thinking. His claim is that if someone wants to redistribute even a pittance, then they must, as a logical necessity, want to redistribute everything. Even that dyed-in-the-wool capitalist Scrooge allowed for workhouses.
- Zachriel | 11/01/2013 @ 08:11Yes, “obvious.” Because you claim it is. Let’s ask him:
Morgan, is your claim that “if someone wants to redistribute even a pittance, then they must, as a logical necessity, want to redistribute everything?”
The “Scrooge allowed for workhouses” bit is a nice touch, by the way. What was that, Christmas 2004?
- Severian | 11/01/2013 @ 08:16Severian: What was that, Christmas 2004?
Christmas 1843.
- Zachriel | 11/01/2013 @ 08:43Cute. But you forgot “see Dickens et al, “A Christmas Carol” (1843)”. Please note that citation methods will be on the midterm.
- Severian | 11/01/2013 @ 08:48Severian: But you forgot “see Dickens et al, “A Christmas Carol” (1843)”.
Dickens was the sole author. There were no et alii.
- Zachriel | 11/01/2013 @ 08:54Aren’t they great? C’mon, everybody, let’s give ’em a big hand!!!
- Severian | 11/01/2013 @ 13:18This is pretty simple. Support for Social Security is over 80%. Support for free markets is over 60%. That means at least 40% of the American people support Social Security (wealth-spreading) while also supporting free markets. Many of those people are conservatives who do not support Obamacare or any other form of wealth-spreading. Surely you’ve heard their rallying cry “Keep the government’s hands off my Social Security!”
That isn’t the rallying cry, any more than it’s an actual quote from Sarah Palin that “I can see Russia from my house!” or that dinosaurs were Satan’s lizards. All three of these make liberals feel good and give them a good cue to act smug…they tend to confuse that with reality. The grain of truth in conservatives, particularly free-market conservatives and right-wing libertarians, “supporting Social Security” is that their support looks like this: Now that you’ve pilfered all this money out of me, if the same rules that say it’s alright for you to pilfer it now say you have to give it back, by all means you’d better give it back.
This is a pretty darn sensible position to take; it just makes sense. It looks risible and silly when rephrased as “Keep the government out of my Social Security,” so our friends on the left, never too keen on allowing reality to stand between them and yet another occasion to act supercilious and snooty, are all too willing to shift into their comfort zone of “seldom correct, never in doubt.” When the oppositions words must be changed in order to be ridiculed, the question they ask isn’t quite so much “when” or “how” or “why,” but “what t’heck are we waiting for?” And so, change it they do.
Meanwhile, y’all got a problem with set-arithmetic. Eighty percent support SS — many among them, it is known as a fact, are among the set I have described — but y’all want to think of that as support for wealth redistribution. Clearly, there are problems with that supposition.
- mkfreeberg | 11/01/2013 @ 15:37mkfreeberg: The grain of truth in conservatives, particularly free-market conservatives and right-wing libertarians, “supporting Social Security” is that their support looks like this: Now that you’ve pilfered all this money out of me, if the same rules that say it’s alright for you to pilfer it now say you have to give it back, by all means you’d better give it back.
Social Security is an income redistribution from young to old. There is strong support for continuing the program, that is, continuing to “pilfer”, even among the young.
- Zachriel | 11/02/2013 @ 06:23By the way, mkfreeberg, did you ever answer this: “is your claim that ‘if someone wants to redistribute even a pittance, then they must, as a logical necessity, want to redistribute everything?'”
- Zachriel | 11/02/2013 @ 07:32Social Security is an income redistribution from young to old. There is strong support for continuing the program, that is, continuing to “pilfer”, even among the young.
Yes, the young are generally very much into redistributing income. It takes a bit of time to realize through life’s hard-knocks that redistribution is a sucker’s game. One has to go through the experience of being given & responding to incentives, and watching it happen to other people. Some people never have this awakening.
By the way, mkfreeberg, did you ever answer this: “is your claim that ‘if someone wants to redistribute even a pittance, then they must, as a logical necessity, want to redistribute everything?’”
Maybe we should inspect the examples. It would be obviously good to keep such suppositions grounded in reality, and I cannot claim to possess an exhaustive knowledge of all of humanity.
I will volunteer, however, that within my experience I have yet to meet any spread-the-wealth, make-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share, types who were willing to say: “Yes, that is a fair share, we can stop spreading now.” The one exception is the situation wherein their own stash is about to be spread; then, there are plenty who want to pull the stop button, and wail away that they didn’t mean for their own loot to be spread around. Other than that one exception, I have none of any others I can offer. Do y’all?
Let’s try some of these people complaining “Bank of America only paid such-and-such in taxes in such-and-such a year.” Lots of people complaining about that. Have y’all met any, among that crowd, who’d be willing to say: “Once BOfA pays some other amount, I think that’s enough, and they shouldn’t be taxed any more than that.” Or, the Koch brothers. Have you met some libs who are foaming at the mouth with hatey-hate at the Koch brothers, willing to offer some maximum amount by which the Koch brothers should be taxed, and they shouldn’t be taxed any more than that. Is there such a limit? I haven’t personally met any spread-the-wealth types wiling to impose one.
I notice the politicians are willing to come up with some numbers, which they have to do in order to get the legislation passed. Here in California, the minimum wage is going up to $10 an hour. But the same politicians who pushed for that, are the ones who pushed for it to go to $7.25 a few years ago, and will be pushing for it to go to $13.50 a few years from now. So the only two answers I could offer from my own experience are “yes,” or “I lack the experience to say (and so does everyone else, unless someone has a good exception to offer).” Have y’all got an exception to offer?
- mkfreeberg | 11/02/2013 @ 07:47Here is something interesting about that…
This is not an event from our history that is widely known, which is a pity. Are there any spread-the-wealth advocates who’d be willing to say: FDR was off his rocker, 94% is too much and 100% is too much? You’d have to clue them in on what was going on in 1942, and then get their reaction to it. Good luck on that.
As we saw with Will Smith’s reaction to the 75% rate in France, some spread-the-wealth types can certainly be truly shocked at how far some of the other spread-the-wealth types might take this. But, with those two anecdotes, we still don’t have a counter-example of an advocate for limited redistribution, willing to impose a cap on how much redistribution is supposed to take place, and to stand behind such a cap and say: “No, that’s too much spreading; I meant this much, not that much. You’re taxing the rich too much there.”
I’d be interested to see if such an example really does exist.
- mkfreeberg | 11/02/2013 @ 08:15mkfreeberg: But, with those two anecdotes, we still don’t have a counter-example of an advocate for limited redistribution, willing to impose a cap on how much redistribution is supposed to take place, and to stand behind such a cap and say: “No, that’s too much spreading; I meant this much, not that much. You’re taxing the rich too much there.”
Geez! You just pointed such a person yourself.
In any case, we have provided polling data that shows that people support some redistribution, but still support free markets. The entire western world’s economy is based on a mixed structure of regulation, social safety nets, and robust markets. It’s as if you live in some alternate universe.
- Zachriel | 11/02/2013 @ 08:24You do realize that all taxation involves redistribution. A road gets built here not there. Poor children get free lunches, not rich men. This town gets a new armory, not that town.
- Zachriel | 11/02/2013 @ 08:29Geez! You just pointed such a person yourself. In any case, we have provided polling data that shows that people support some redistribution, but still support free markets.
Wow, I thought severian was being tough on y’all with the “reading comprehension” thing. Now I see he was understating the truth of it. Y’all got some real problems. Care to try again?
You do realize that all taxation involves redistribution. A road gets built here not there. Poor children get free lunches, not rich men. This town gets a new armory, not that town.
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
- mkfreeberg | 11/02/2013 @ 08:51As usual, you ignored our response, and even ignored your own claim. The claim under discussion isn’t your position on redistribution, but whether there are people who support some redistribution without supporting total redistribution. It’s a rather silly claim you should have already abandoned. You pointed to counterexamples yourself, so when this is pointed out, you changed the subject.
- Zachriel | 11/02/2013 @ 09:06As usual, you ignored our response, and even ignored your own claim. The claim under discussion isn’t your position on redistribution, but whether there are people who support some redistribution without supporting total redistribution. It’s a rather silly claim you should have already abandoned. You pointed to counterexamples yourself, so when this is pointed out, you changed the subject.
I’m waiting for the counter-examples. None have been brought.
Do y’all have some to offer? It says quite a lot if y’all haven’t.
- mkfreeberg | 11/02/2013 @ 09:08mkfreeberg: I’m waiting for the counter-examples. None have been brought.
You introduced them yourself. Will Smith who wants higher taxes in the U.S., but not as high as in France. The Democrats in Congress in the 1940s, who wanted high marginal tax rates, but not 100%.
Not to mention the polling which shows that at least 40% of the American people want to redistribute income through Social Security, but also support free markets.
- Zachriel | 11/02/2013 @ 09:21Will Smith who wants higher taxes in the U.S., but not as high as in France. The Democrats in Congress in the 1940s, who wanted high marginal tax rates, but not 100%.
Did Will Smith actually oppose the high tax rate? I didn’t see that.
As far as FDR’s proposal, are y’all seriously offering that as an example of spread-the-wealth types limiting their own spread-the-wealth fervor? You’re saying, there’s an example of spread-the-wealth people keeping one of their own in check? I don’t have any information that it was spreadh-the-wealth democrats in Congress who whacked that top tax rate down from 100% to 94%, and in any case that’s not much of a limiting when you consider it’s Congress’ job to impose an obstacle of negotiation, to polish down the rough edges of things that haven’t been so well thought-out. By 1942, there were some Republicans in Congress. Not many, but some. And you don’t have to be a spead-the-wealth type to be a democrat.
We have yet to see an example of a spread-the-wealth type taking active steps to limit the spreading; going on record saying, no, that’s too much. That goes beyond what I had in mind. We have a spread-the-wealth actor expressing clear surprise at the discovery that his doctrine does have an extremist edge to it; looks like he was just starting to learn what y’all right now are working so hard to deny. And we have Congress watering down a brain-fart from a socialist President who might even have been coping with some mental problems at the time. If y’all think those examples are good enough, it raises serious questions about what exactly it is y’all are trying to prove, and suggests desperation.
Got anything else?
- mkfreeberg | 11/02/2013 @ 09:32mkfreeberg: Did Will Smith actually oppose the high tax rate? I didn’t see that.
Yes, he indicated it was too high, as your cite pointed out.
mkfreeberg: As far as FDR’s proposal, are y’all seriously offering that as an example of spread-the-wealth types limiting their own spread-the-wealth fervor?
Yes, and that was during a time of national crisis.
mkfreeberg: We have yet to see an example of a spread-the-wealth type taking active steps to limit the spreading; going on record saying, no, that’s too much.
Indeed, you simply pretend the examples aren’t there. You introduced them yourself. Not to mention the polling which shows that at least 40% of the American people want to redistribute income through Social Security, but also support free markets.
By the way, mkfreeberg, did you ever answer this: “is your claim that ‘if someone wants to redistribute even a pittance, then they must, as a logical necessity, want to redistribute everything?’”
- Zachriel | 11/02/2013 @ 12:10Huh. From the Reading Comprehension Files:
The Democrats in Congress in the 1940s, who wanted high marginal tax rates, but not 100%.
We know that for a fact, do we? That because Roosevelt said he wanted 100% — and never, so far as we can determine, backed down on that — but only got 94%, Congressional Democrats had a hard limit of 94%? That they sat around and said yes, this is the maximal amount of income redistribution we will tolerate; that last 6% is sacrosanct?
Fascinating, Captain Kirk. Do go on.
And from the Will Smith article:
There’s an embedded video, and then the very next sentences:
So here again, we somehow know that Will Smith believes 75% is the absolute tippy-top, that the other 25% is sacrosanct. It is simply not possible that Smith’s thought process was something like “75%? Holy crap! But still, if President Obama were to ask me to pay it, I would, because I have no problem paying whatever I need to pay to keep my country growing.”
And lastly, we know that it’s simply not possible that the people who support the continuance of social security do it because they’re in favor of top-down, Great Society-style wealth redistribution. There’s no conceivable way they could feel as Morgan suggested — hey, you took it from me, I want it back, rules are rules.
With y’all’s amazing ability to mind-read, how is it that you’re still in school? Again, practicing with that zucchini might help y’all overcome the gag reflex. It seems to be the only thing holding you back.
- Severian | 11/02/2013 @ 13:41What was it Reagan said? It isn’t that they’re ignorant, it’s that they know so many things that just aren’t so.
- mkfreeberg | 11/02/2013 @ 16:47Severian: That they sat around and said yes, this is the maximal amount of income redistribution we will tolerate; that last 6% is sacrosanct?
No, it means that there were varying opinions, and a compromise was reached.
mkfreeberg: What was it …
Never received an answer: “Is your claim that ‘if someone wants to redistribute even a pittance, then they must, as a logical necessity, want to redistribute everything?’”
- Zachriel | 11/03/2013 @ 05:49This was answered already, so we’re back to that reading-comprehension thing again.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2013 @ 06:38mkfreeberg: This was answered already, so we’re back to that reading-comprehension thing again.
We did read your comments, but we’ll review them.
Zachriel: By the way, mkfreeberg, did you ever answer this: “is your claim that ‘if someone wants to redistribute even a pittance, then they must, as a logical necessity, want to redistribute everything?’”
mkfreeberg: Maybe we should inspect the examples… I will volunteer, however, that within my experience I have yet to meet any spread-the-wealth, make-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share, types who were willing to say: “Yes, that is a fair share, we can stop spreading now.”
So, you’re not making any sort of objective claim, just reporting your personal experiences?
- Zachriel | 11/03/2013 @ 06:44Personal experiences are an important part to the process of learning new things.
Think that excerpt is from the comment at 11/02 7:47. That comment is what I had in mind, although there is a great deal more to it…including an inquiry, to y’all, about y’all’s own personal experiences. I’m asking for a spread-the-wealth type saying “that is too much spreading,” imposing a limit, to demonstrate that this doctrine is not inherently extremist. Y’all point to Will Smith’s shock and amazement at discovering the doctrine *is* extremist. And, Congress whittling down President Roosevelt’s 100% marginal tax rate to 94%. These don’t “prove” what y’all think they might be proving.
Let’s compare it to alcoholism. Alcoholism is certainly a seduction against a man’s rational thinking process, is it not? And alcoholics are sometimes cut off by the bartender, as Congress cut off FDR at 94 shots of whiskey when he wanted a hundred. This does not prove the alcoholic never had a problem. Alcoholics are routinely shocked, as Will Smith was shocked, to discover they are not whole people who have their habits under control, and require intervention. Their shock and surprise is genuine, but it would be laughable to suggest this shock/surprise proves in any way that they never had a problem.
By the way: Making sure no one can make more than $25,000 in a year, doesn’t seem to me to have much to *do* with a war effort. Struggling to find a connection, I feel like the school board trying to figure out what sexual harrassment has to do with pandas.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2013 @ 06:59mkfreeberg: Personal experiences are an important part to the process of learning new things.
Sure, but your personal experiences don’t take the place of scientific methodology. Nor are they typically persuasive with an audience that doesn’t share your personal experiences, particularly when you reject the objective evidence provided.
- Zachriel | 11/03/2013 @ 07:05I wonder what kind of science demands invulnerability against the red flags raised by peoples’ personal experiences?
And, what is this objective evidence produced by scientific methodology I’m rejecting?
So weird, it’s like y’all have some righteous scolding carefully memorized and rehearsed, and there’s this detectable feeling of frustration y’all are giving off as y’all try to shoehorn it into a situation into which it does not fit.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2013 @ 07:12mkfreeberg: I wonder what kind of science demands invulnerability against the red flags raised by peoples’ personal experiences?
Science is always tentative, but history shows that personal perception is not always accurate. Personal experience can often lead to discovery, but can’t substitute for objective methods. Furthermore, as no one shares exactly the same personal experiences, objectivity provides a way to convince others of your position, while also providing a check on your own conclusions.
mkfreeberg: And, what is this objective evidence produced by scientific methodology I’m rejecting?
You always reject objective evidence when it conflicts with your preconceptions.
- Zachriel | 11/03/2013 @ 07:32Wise people pay attention to their experiences. This is, in fact, a necessary prerequisite to wisdom.
Which matters, because if so-called “science” says something, but it has been practiced and peer-reviewed by unwise people, it very often turns out to be tainted science. Our personal experiences with science show that to be true.
So let’s turn y’all’s favorite tactics around on y’all. Is it your position that the foolish and unwise people who discard their personal experiences, therefore see no incompatibility emerging in need of reconciliation when scientific orthodoxy says one thing and personal experience says another — have it right? That personal experience should always be summarily rejected in favor of science, even if the science is questionable?
By the way, you didn’t answer the question. What objective evidence produced by scientific methodology am I rejecting?
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2013 @ 07:42mkfreeberg: Wise people pay attention to their experiences.
Sure, but they don’t confuse their personal experiences with objective evidence, or unwisely use their personal experiences to reach gross overgeneralizations.
mkfreeberg: Which matters, because if so-called “science” says something, but it has been practiced and peer-reviewed by unwise people, it very often turns out to be tainted science.
Scientists are not more or less wise than others. The reason science has been so effective is the methodology, not the quality of the practitioners.
mkfreeberg: Our personal experiences with science show that to be true.
Your personal experience with science includes electricity, whole earth, and the eradication of smallpox.
mkfreeberg: Is it your position that the foolish and unwise people who discard their personal experiences,
No. As we said, personal experience can often lead to discovery, but can’t substitute for objective methods.
mkfreeberg: What objective evidence produced by scientific methodology am I rejecting?
Pretty much anything that conflicts with your preconceptions. When this happens, you always resort to handwaving.
- Zachriel | 11/03/2013 @ 07:52That doesn’t answer the question. And “objective evidence produced by scientific methodology” is rather off-topic here, since none has been presented on this question of wealth-distributionism being inherently extremist or being potentially sensible & moderate. Nevertheless, the temptation is too overpowering since I think we’re getting to something here:
What the heck do y’all think this “scientific methodology” is, if it isn’t based on someone’s experience? Even a perfectly objective experiment is, by definition, an experience. Did y’all not know that, you who have insisted “the plural of anecdote is not data”? (Which, by the way, it arguably is, and one of the authorities to whom the quote is credited has gone on record saying so.)
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2013 @ 09:51mkfreeberg: And “objective evidence produced by scientific methodology” is rather off-topic here, since none has been presented on this question of wealth-distributionism being inherently extremist or being potentially sensible & moderate.
So even though you’ve made claims, you haven’t provided any support for those claims. That’s what we wanted to clarify.
- Zachriel | 11/03/2013 @ 10:42Can y’all summarize accurately what the claim was that I made?
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2013 @ 13:54mkfreeberg: Can y’all summarize accurately what the claim was that I made?
You’ve made a number of claims, but one is that if someone is willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for that person to be spread-the-wealth types. Hence, we asked “if someone wants to redistribute even a pittance, then they must, as a logical necessity, want to redistribute everything?” This should follow from your previous claim, but now you say this is just personal experience, but won’t support otherwise.
- Zachriel | 11/03/2013 @ 14:11This should follow from your previous claim…
Incorrect.
Again, it seems y’all have a righteous beatdown lecture all memorized and rehearsed and ready to go, and are trying to shoehorn it into the current situation when it doesn’t really fit. Or to be more precise about it, are trying to morph the current situation around, like silly putty, to fit this read-to-go lecture y’all want to paste in. Probably in some text file saved in a local drive or something.
To answer y’all’s question as best I can, and I already did say this, I would speculate it’s like alcoholism. It’s a disease that affects rational thought. After all, if y’all could time-warp and interrogate some of these members of Congress who said no to Roosevelt’s 100% tax but voted yea on the 94% tax, do y’all really think there’d be a coherent and quality answer coming back RE what’s so important about those six points?
Spread-the-wealth types getting the spread-the-wealth policies they want, are no different from an alcoholic getting his next shot. They don’t really think of it as a problem getting solved. They might feel about it that way, but they don’t think about it that way.
A better metaphor: A shark, or a wolf, getting hold of some flesh after smelling blood. This is not a rational problem-solving process, it’s an instinct-driven lust. This is obvious. Frankly, I’d be a bit surprised if we had to have a knock-down-drag-out argument about it…but only a bit.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2013 @ 14:34You asked us to summarize your claim. When we do, you resort to handwaving, hoping no one will notice.
mkfreeberg: if someone were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types.
Your claim is that easy acceptance of class mobility is logically inconsistent with spread-the-wealth. As it is logically coherent for a person supportive of class mobility to advocate spreading the wealth, your statement is false. It’s false even if in your limited personal experience, and with your best blinders on, you know of no such person.
- Zachriel | 11/03/2013 @ 19:00Ah, now I see what “hand waving” is. Y’all get to tell people what they’re thinking, and if they say “no, that isn’t quite it” — that is “hand waving.”
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2013 @ 20:16mkfreeberg: Spread-the-wealth types getting the spread-the-wealth policies they want, are no different from an alcoholic getting his next shot.
Some drink in moderation, while many alcoholics don’t drink at all.
mkfreeberg: Ah, now I see what “hand waving” is.
Handwaving is when you make a claim, then someone points out a problem with your claim, you go “Squirrel!”
mkfreeberg: Y’all get to tell people what they’re thinking, and if they say “no, that isn’t quite it” — that is “hand waving.”
Are you saying your previous claim was in error, and that you wish to change your position? That would be fine, and if so, we would be happy to look at your new stance. However, if you are simply changing the subject without admitting your previous claim was in error, then we will simply be going in circles.
mkfreeberg: if someone were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types.
You made a claim about logical impossibility, which therefore doesn’t depend on your personal experience.
- Zachriel | 11/04/2013 @ 05:55Handwaving is when you make a claim, then someone points out a problem with your claim, you go “Squirrel!”
If y’all say so. What’s happening here is I’m making a claim, y’all are restating it to me and in so doing, changing it to something else so that y’all can have an easier time debunking it. I’m the one making the claim, so I carry great weight in saying: “No, that’s not it.” Turns out, I get to do that.
And then y’all are the ones going “squirrel.” That means, y’all are the ones hand waving. According to y’all’s definition. I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 11/04/2013 @ 07:07mkfreeberg: What’s happening here is I’m making a claim, y’all are restating it to me and in so doing, changing it to something else so that y’all can have an easier time debunking it.
So you stand by your claim, but say that we misunderstand it.
You said it was a “logical impossibility” that people who feel at ease with class mobility to also advocate for spread-the-wealth, even a pittance for poor children living under the bridge. Where have we misstated your position?
- Zachriel | 11/04/2013 @ 07:20Given the Zachriel’s well-known love for the Global Warming farce, perhaps we should call this their “debate AlGore-ithm.”
They’ve got this canned reply somewhere in the cut-n-paste masterfile, and it’s devastating, but darn it, you just won’t say the one thing they need to make it work. So they’re just going to keep trying to shoehorn your comments in there, so they can hit ctrl-v, yell gotcha!, drop the mic, and walk away. It’s like playing chess with a first grader. “Are you sure you don’t want to move your king over there? I think your king would look so much better over there. Oh, ah, umm, I mean, don’t move your king over there! I’d be totally hosed if you did that! Haha, silly me.”
- Severian | 11/04/2013 @ 07:25Severian: They’ve got this canned reply somewhere in the cut-n-paste masterfile …
No. Mkfreeberg posted something as “food for thought”. We then posted our thoughts on the matter. Then he posted a defense of the original post, making specific claims. When we asked for support for those claims, he starting going in circles. For instance, to defend his claim of “logical impossibility”, he pointed to personal experience; but logical results are independent of personal experience. He now feels we misread his claim, so we want to clarify that first.
- Zachriel | 11/04/2013 @ 07:29Let’s look at the claim:
If anyone fell outside of those two set definitions — if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types.
Now we inspect your restatement of it:
You said it was a “logical impossibility” that people who feel at ease with class mobility to also advocate for spread-the-wealth, even a pittance for poor children living under the bridge.
Pulling money out of one’s own pocket to help the unfortunate is not being a spread-the-wealth type. That’s called charity. For your restatement to work, you must be talking about hardcore liberals, pushing for a program requiring other people to support the poor children living under the bridge. “A liberal is a nice fellow who is willing to give you the shirt off someone else’s back,” as the saying goes. That’s a spread-the-wealth type.
Point is, if such a person is sane, and believes in class mobility, and accepts it, there’s no point to push for such a thing because such a person would believe in the power of people to solve their own problems. There are those who insist the mental feebleness behind wealth redistribution relies on a premise that people are helpless, once born poor, they’ll stay that way unless there’s outside help. I’ve taken it to the next level and said, some of them might acknowledge class mobility is possible, and view that as some kind of a problem. But we can probably assume safely that spread-the-wealth-ism falls into one of those two camps.
Now, y’all think I’ve gone wrong somewhere? Where? From your earlier comments, it looks like this upcoming debunking over which y’all are salivating, has something to do with casting my statement as something more rigid and inflexible than it really is. Which suggests rather strongly that the debunking is not going to be very impressive.
It helps to argue from an actual position, rather than searching for gotchas….
- mkfreeberg | 11/04/2013 @ 07:30mkfreeberg: Pulling money out of one’s own pocket to help the unfortunate is not being a spread-the-wealth type.
We agree that we’ve been using term “spread-the-wealth” to refer to the expenditure of tax monies, not personal wealth.
So with that in mind, You said it was a “logical impossibility” that people who feel at ease with class mobility to also advocate for spread-the-wealth, even a pittance of tax money for poor children living under the bridge.
- Zachriel | 11/04/2013 @ 07:32If they choose to spend tax money to help those poor children living under the bridge, as opposed to spending money out of their own pocket, they must either not believe in class mobility or else they do believe in it and aren’t happy about it. The very concept of class mobility acknowledges a very real possibility that kids forced to live under a bridge today, might enjoy better and more comfortable circumstances tomorrow.
Granted that to get there, they may need a helping hand. With charity, one can provide exactly this over the shorter term, and enjoy the associated benefit of seeing first-hand that things are panning out, even supervise the process. “Gran Torino” dramatized just such a thing. Equivalent material assistance provided out of the city, state or nation’s tax coffers is less personal, less confined to the shorter term of time, conducive to new cycles of dependency spreading far into the future.
Of course, we’re talking intent here, not effect. But we’re also talking logic. Charity is the logical thing to do, if one truly believes the kids under the bridge have what it takes to work their way out of their present circumstance.
- mkfreeberg | 11/04/2013 @ 19:06mkfreeberg: If they choose to spend tax money to help those poor children living under the bridge, as opposed to spending money out of their own pocket, they must either not believe in class mobility or else they do believe in it and aren’t happy about it…
Or think that class mobility is limited in some respects. For instance, the class mobility of a young child living under a bridge may be rather restricted. Given enough to eat, and an education, that child’s prospects can be considerably improved. Furthermore, some stingy conservatives believe that basic public assistance is useful in that it provides benefits for commerce, such as reducing the number of pickpockets on the streets.
In any case, your claim is that someone who believes in state support for orphanages or for schools must therefore, *by logical necessity*, not support markets is simply not tenable. People can support some limited government aid, while supporting markets. Not everyone who supports free markets is a anarcho-capitalist. Indeed, most aren’t.
- Zachriel | 11/05/2013 @ 05:01Or think that class mobility is limited in some respects. For instance, the class mobility of a young child living under a bridge may be rather restricted.
We agree then. Their faith in the welfare state displaces, and in so doing manifests, the deficit in their belief in class mobility.
Of course, if the vision is for the child to work his way out of a cycle of dependency, charity is the logical choice. But a liberal is such a nice guy he’ll give you the shirt off someone else’s back…
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 05:12Here’s a wild and crazy thought. How about just skip this “restating” step, the “your claim is” step, when y’all are trying to debunk claims. Just see what y’all can do about debunking the claim as it was stated.
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 05:13mkfreeberg: How about just skip this “restating” step, the “your claim is” step, when y’all are trying to debunk claims.
mkfreeberg: Can y’all summarize accurately what the claim was that I made?
mkfreeberg: Just see what y’all can do about debunking the claim as it was stated.
That’s what we’ve been doing. You said it was a “logical impossibility” that people who feel at ease with class mobility to also advocate for spread-the-wealth, even a pittance for poor children living under the bridge. We’ve shown this claim is not correct.
Can you name a few notable people you think are at ease with class mobility?
- Zachriel | 11/05/2013 @ 05:21Hence, we asked “if someone wants to redistribute even a pittance, then they must, as a logical necessity, want to redistribute everything?” This should follow from your previous claim…
A more direct approach might be: Here is an example of someone who accepts class mobility, and is not trying to destroy it, and yet is a spread-the-wealth type. To date, y’all have brought no examples of this at all, save for the beneficiaries of Social Security who simply want to be paid back what they’ve been putting into the program. Y’all claim I brought two examples, but under inspection we find those have no bearing at all on the claim I’ve made.
So not only has my claim held up so far, but it also seems I’ve been doing most of the work here. Which is rather remarkable considering how much typing has been going on. Advocacy for spreading-the-wealth-around must be a faltering in faith in class mobility, or else a resentment against the reality of class mobility; one must either be afraid that the dependency class can’t lift itself upward, or else one must be afraid that the dependency class can.
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 05:29mkfreeberg: Here is an example of someone who accepts class mobility, and is not trying to destroy it, and yet is a spread-the-wealth type.
We tried that. You have such strange notions, it’s hard to even know who you would consider someone who supports class mobility. That’s why we asked *you* to name a few notable people who support class mobility.
- Zachriel | 11/05/2013 @ 05:33You have such strange notions, it’s hard to even know who you would consider someone who supports class mobility.
Yeah! No notion stranger than, “if people are able to lift themselves up from their poor circumstances, we should, ya know, maybe, go ahead & let them do that.” That’s crazy-talk!
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 05:35mkfreeberg: Yeah! No notion stranger than, “if people are able to lift themselves up from their poor circumstances, we should, ya know, maybe, go ahead & let them do that.”
Please name a few notable people who hold that position. Mitt Romney? Bill Gates?
- Zachriel | 11/05/2013 @ 05:42Me. Good enough?
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 05:44Not sure why every discussion has to be this way. Please name a few persons of public interest whom you consider to be someone who supports class mobility.
- Zachriel | 11/05/2013 @ 05:52In this case, the connection between the original claim and y’all’s challenge is tenuous at best. “For the longest time, their numbers have evidently been piled on top of each other, in an uneasy and unholy alliance between those who refuse to accept the reality of class-mobility, and those who do understand it’s there but cannot tolerate it.” 10/30 at 17:00, I called it a logical impossibility for one to qualify for neither one of those, and still push for wealth distro.
Your demand is for me to name a notable figure who supports class mobility. Wouldn’t it be more logical for y’all to come up with your own examples that disprove what I said? Y’all were trying, earlier, have y’all given up on that? Those offers, at least, had a stronger connection to what I said.
Prof. Thomas Sowell, is that good enough?
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 06:11But Morgan, don’t you see? It’s un-possible for a conservative to support class mobility, because — let’s all say it together — “conservatives advocate for greater inequality.”
That’s the big beat-down they’ve got queued up. Their fingers are cramping over the ctrl-v keys, so they’ll keep “restating” your position until they can finally press ’em.
They’ve been doing it since 2005 (!!); they must actually believe it works.
- Severian | 11/05/2013 @ 07:53Wow, 2005. What positions have I not had to change even in the slightest, since aught-five. I’m almost envious.
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 13:09I’m almost envious.
I know, right?
I’m just now realizing that what I should’ve done after one of those ramen-powered, bong-centric 3am dorm room bull sessions freshman year was to go back to my room and type all our brilliant solutions into a text file. Not only would writing every single paper for every single humanities class have been a snap, but I could’ve won every single internet argument since CompuServe. I mean, we had stuff figured out.
Alas. If youth only knew, if old age only could.
- Severian | 11/05/2013 @ 13:39mkfreeberg: Prof. Thomas Sowell, is that good enough?
Thank you. By going so far outside the mainstream, you show the restricted nature of your categorization. That’s why we asked for an example.
Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
Severian: It’s un-possible for a conservative to support class mobility, because — let’s all say it together — “conservatives advocate for greater inequality.”
Actually, conservatives would argue that inequality is essential to class mobility; that it is the incentive to improve one’s position that leads to class mobility, and increased prosperity for society as a whole.
- Zachriel | 11/05/2013 @ 15:45By going so far outside the mainstream, you show the restricted nature of your categorization.
Incorrect. More likely, y’all had some speech prepared about Mitt Romney and/or Bill Gates, and are feeling deflated that y’all weren’t able to paste it in. Y’all really thought I had a bunch of rich white dudes in mind, didn’t y’all? Life’s full of surprises sometimes.
Actually, conservatives would argue that inequality is essential to class mobility; that it is the incentive to improve one’s position that leads to class mobility, and increased prosperity for society as a whole.
Most conservatives I know would agree with the “incentive” part of it, not so much with the rest of it. Think we’re having an Inigo-Montoya moment with the word “inequality.” Wouldn’t y’all agree that, with the prospect of victory and defeat both present, and everyone living within a community achieving roughly equal outcomes even though the possibilities were wildly divergent, the incentive was therefore triggered within the efforts of each individual? Both in terms of carrots and sticks. With failure possible, my scenario entails much of what has come to be called “inequality” even though it doesn’t include any in the technical sense — not much inequality of outcome, and absolutely no inequality of opportunity.
This shows that statements like “conservatives argue inequality is essential” become true, if & only if simple words like “inequality” are re-defined to something other than what they’re supposed to mean. Equality != Absolute security. Same things are same; different things are different.
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 16:56mkfreeberg: Y’all really thought I had a bunch of rich white dudes in mind, didn’t y’all?
No, we thought you would probably choose someone well outside the mainstream, again, showing that you are using a very restrictive definition.
mkfreeberg: Wouldn’t y’all agree that, with the prospect of victory and defeat both present, and everyone living within a community achieving roughly equal outcomes even though the possibilities were wildly divergent, the incentive was therefore triggered within the efforts of each individual?
If the monetary outcomes are roughly equal, then there is little financial incentive, and without financial incentives, markets don’t work. In markets, people take risks, and there are winners and losers.
–
- Zachriel | 11/05/2013 @ 17:11As usual, you avoided answering a simple question. Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
If the monetary outcomes are roughly equal, then there is little financial incentive, and without financial incentives, markets don’t work. In markets, people take risks, and there are winners and losers.
Misunderstanding here. I’ll not fault y’all for it, since I’m sure there might have been opportunity for my wording to be improved. But then again, I’m drawing a fine distinction here, perhaps not so fine to those who have the appropriate background on this, and it isn’t clear that y’all are among those people. The distinction is this:
At the end of it all, everyone achieves more-or-less the same results. But in prospect, the danger of failure is real, and it is real for everybody. So, equal opportunity, and — as luck would have it, and thank goodness — equal results, since nobody actually failed. Although they could have.
Point is: Y’all are confusing guarantees in life, with “equality.” Them two are different things.
Think of, twenty new recruits going to a very tough boot camp. The boot camp has a high washout rate, but these twenty happen to be tough lads, so nobody washes out. But before graduation day, the possibility is very real. But, equal opportunity. Equal results, as luck would have it. Therefore, there is no technically accurate way to apply the word “inequality” to this situation, except perhaps, “there was no inequality.” Just the very real possibility of failure.
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 17:47mkfreeberg: At the end of it all, everyone achieves more-or-less the same results.
Um, no they don’t. Not on Earth anyway.
- Zachriel | 11/05/2013 @ 17:52My scenario involved twenty tough guys going to boot camp. All of them making it, even though boot camp is tough? Not impossible. Not even unlikely. It’s certainly been done.
This gets into that One Big Divide that separates one half of humanity from the other half: “If so-and-so got it done, that means there’s hope for everybody,” versus, “If so-and-so can’t do it, nobody else should be able to do it either.”
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 18:27mkfreeberg: My scenario involved twenty tough guys going to boot camp.
The topic is whether class mobility is logically consistent with income redistribution. As both mobility and redistribution are continuous functions, not binary conditions, it is certainly coherent to support class mobility and limited income redistribution.
The secondary point just raised is whether markets require differences in outcome. The nature of markets is such that there are winners and losers, risks and rewards.
You continue to avoid answering the question. Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
- Zachriel | 11/05/2013 @ 18:58…it is certainly coherent to support class mobility and limited income redistribution.
No, the problem is that to support income redistribution you have to infringe on peoples’ property rights. You have to intrude on the normal process of assessing a tax liability against people for the necessary and minimal functions of government, and say an ancillary function of that is to make sure they don’t have too much money, when it’s nobody else’s business.
That can make some sense in some situations. I’ve said before that I would support this kind of thing, as would most people, on a life raft adrift in the ocean with 20 or 30 people on it, or 5 or 6; it becomes reasonable, there, to think the way liberals think all of the time. Someone turns out to have been hoarding chocolate, or water, that guy must be a jackass and he deserves to be thrown overboard.
“Spread-the-wealth types,” though, make the mistake of thinking that way ALL OF THE TIME. Modern America is not adrift on a life raft. Our poor people are fat. Against the backdrop of all recorded human history, this is just an amazing accomplishment. There’s tragedy in it, but it’s a reality, and within that reality — there really isn’t anything wrong with having twice as much chocolate. It means you’ve been doing something right, and others should spread your work ethic, not your wealth.
But I’m glad to see y’all are becoming much more surgically precise about class membership. Wasn’t so long ago y’all were counting as “spread the wealth types,” those who simply wanted to get back out of the Social Security system what they’ve been paying into it all their lives. That was sloppy work.
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2013 @ 19:12mkfreeberg: That can make some sense in some situations
Then it’s not a logical necessity, as you had claimed, but dependent on situation.
You continue to avoid answering the question. Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
- Zachriel | 11/05/2013 @ 19:23Then it’s not a logical necessity, as you had claimed, but dependent on situation.
We’re not in that situation. Again: Our poor people are fat.
Imagining the entire nation loose on the Pacific ocean in a life raft stocked with a limited supply of food and potable water, treads close to the boundary of insanity. Again, if we’re talking logical things, we need to exclude insane people.
Y’all haven’t defined Mitt Romney’s relevance to this. Y’all asked me to name a person, I did, the person I chose was not Romney. Somehow, that has caused a level of frustration that approaches, perhaps even exceeds, your ability to cope.
Tell y’all what, why don’t y’all pretend I answered “Mitt Romney” and hit the paste button. Let it out.
- mkfreeberg | 11/06/2013 @ 05:47mkfreeberg: Y’all haven’t defined Mitt Romney’s relevance to this.
The issue concerns views on social mobility.
Zachriel: Then it’s not a logical necessity, as you had claimed, but dependent on situation.
mkfreeberg: We’re not in that situation.
Then it’s not a logical necessity, as you had claimed, but dependent on situation.
mkfreeberg: Tell y’all what, why don’t y’all pretend I answered “Mitt Romney” and hit the paste button. Let it out.
Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
- Zachriel | 11/06/2013 @ 06:08Then it’s not a logical necessity, as you had claimed, but dependent on situation.
That’s actually quite alright. I didn’t say “it’s a logical possibility in all situations.” If it is situational, and I say it’s a logical impossibility, those two premises are easily reconcilable: I’m speaking of situations in which one is not floating around on the Pacific in a life raft with limited supplies.
Turns out, that’s quite reasonable. Our poor people are fat.
Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
Still don’t see how Mitt Romney’s name has to be brought into this. You’ve already been given the go-ahead to paste in your monologue about Romney. We don’t need to resort to these games to pretend I’m the one who brought him up, when I’m not.
But I’m going to get some entertainment seeing how much effort y’all put into the thread-history-rewriting, before y’all hit the paste button. What do y’all have to say about Mitt Romney? What would your smack-down be, had I been the one to bring up his name? Y’all can go ahead and pretend.
- mkfreeberg | 11/06/2013 @ 06:27mkfreeberg: I didn’t say “it’s a logical possibility in all situations.”
If it’s situational, then it isn’t a logical necessity. So your claim is false. You could restate your claim, but that’s something you have thus far refused to do.
mkfreeberg: Still don’t see how Mitt Romney’s name has to be brought into this.
You asked us for a counterexample. We are trying to understand what you mean by someone who supports social mobility. We provided an example and want to see how you apply your definition. That you continue to avoid answering just shows readers that your position is without foundation.
- Zachriel | 11/06/2013 @ 06:36If it’s situational, then it isn’t a logical necessity.
Incorrect. Logical necessities can certainly be situational.
- mkfreeberg | 11/06/2013 @ 06:39In fact, I would go further: Most are.
- mkfreeberg | 11/06/2013 @ 06:40mkfreeberg: Logical necessities can certainly be situational.
In classical logic, as invoked with the phrase “logically impossible”, conclusions follow from premises. Anything else is irrelevant. To resolve this, you have to modify your original claim.
By the way, you forgot to answer this question: Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
- Zachriel | 11/06/2013 @ 07:01…conclusions follow from premises. Anything else is irrelevant.
Premises are situational.
“Small-government people do not care about children.” In a general situation, such a statement has a few problems, but none so daunting as what arises when we change the situation, and say that the government is $17 trillion in debt, and not in a plausible situation to ever pay such a debt off. Then, the small-government types stand on firmer ground to come back and say, “Actually, we’re the only ones who really care about the children.” Situations change, logical possibilities & logical impossibilities change.
- mkfreeberg | 11/06/2013 @ 07:08mkfreeberg: “Small-government people do not care about children.”
That’s not a logical deduction.
mkfreeberg: Premises are situational.
Indeed, it is *our* position that class mobility and income redistribution are situational. You are the one who said “if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types.” There is no wiggle room, no situational give in the premises.
To resolve this conundrum, you have to modify your original claim. We suggested, and it is rather obvious, that class mobility and income redistribution are not binary qualities, but continuums. But that would undermine your entire stance, something you have never been willing to accept.
–
- Zachriel | 11/06/2013 @ 07:24By the way, you forgot to answer the question—seven times previous: Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
Hey, this is fun!
Ok, I’ll bite: I believe Mitt Romney supports class….ic cars. Big GTO fan, I’ve heard, although I would’ve pegged him more as a ’65 Mustang hard-top guy.
I’m also totally confident that Mitt Romney supports class mobi….le phones. Yep, everyone in class should have one, to keep in touch with their families. Big family togetherness guy is Mitt.
And I’m positive Mitt Romney supports class mo….rmonism. I’m sure all the little Romneys were regular attendees at Sunday school.
- Severian | 11/06/2013 @ 07:32To resolve this conundrum, you have to modify your original claim.
We’ve been here before. It’s like y’all are using a tactic y’all have seen someone else use, but y’all don’t understand how it’s supposed to work, don’t understand the content. There is no conundrum here and no need to modify the claim.
Let us say it works that way. What do we need to presume, to produce this conundrum y’all desperately want so much? The presumption would have to be: If things work a certain way in one situation — out on the Pacific Ocean, in a life raft with limited rations — they must work that way everywhere! Even in the reality of modern America, the setting in which I made the statement…where our poor people are fat.
That, in a nutshell, is the mental feebleness of liberalism. No matter what reality is, we always have to pretend we’re stranded in a life raft. This actually explains a lot. As I said, if I was stranded on a life raft with Gilligan, Skipper, Ginger et al, and I found out the Howells were hoarding chocolate, I’d want to tear them apart. B-u-u-u-t…if you care about logic and thinking and arguments, you have to care about reality, and the reality is we’re not there.
By the way, you forgot to answer the question—seven times previous: Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
And I will keep “forgetting,” until & unless y’all explain what Mitt Romney has to do with any of this.
Y’all have already been given the go-ahead to pretend I brought up Mitt Romney, so y’all can paste in y’all’s little beat-down. Let’s just let the record show that pretending is what we’re doing. Again, the reality-thing. Y’all seem to have problems with this.
- mkfreeberg | 11/06/2013 @ 07:50mkfreeberg: If things work a certain way in one situation — out on the Pacific Ocean, in a life raft with limited rations — they must work that way everywhere!
You said “if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types.” The premises are not situational. It doesn’t say, except on a life raft. And by using the term “logical impossibility”, you have invoked classical logic, meaning the conclusion must follow inevitably from the premises. You are claiming the two sets are disjunctive, not merely in fact, but by logical necessity.
mkfreeberg: unless y’all explain what Mitt Romney has to do with any of this.
We have and we just did. Your claim involves people who accept class mobility. We’re testing your classification of those who accept class mobility.
It takes forever to get a simple answer out of you, if ever. All it does is show how weak your position is. You can’t convince anyone, or learn anything, unless you are willing to subject your views to scrutiny. If you can’t or won’t answer, then so be it, and good luck. But no one will take you seriously outside the echo chamber.
- Zachriel | 11/06/2013 @ 08:13If you can’t or won’t answer, then so be it, and good luck. But no one will take you seriously outside the echo chamber.
U mad bro?
He already told you you’re free to paste in whatever knock-down trump-card argument y’all think you possess. Just pretend he said it. Here, I’ll help you out:
mkfreeberg: Yes, I agree that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.”
Now go ahead and hit ctrl-v. Mainline that virtue juice. It’s ok — we all have our vices. You’re in a safe space…..
- Severian | 11/06/2013 @ 08:37Severian: Just pretend he said it.
We’ve asked many times, explained why it is relevant, and would like to hear his answer. It shouldn’t be that difficult.
- Zachriel | 11/06/2013 @ 08:58Awwww, u still mad, bro?
It appears y’all gotten as much as you’re going to get. So y’all pretty much have only two options at this point: You can pretend he said it — as you’ve been greenlit to do several times — and go ahead and cut-n-paste y’all’s little homily, or you can toodle off to the student union and grumble about unreasonable wingnutz into an organic, shade-grown, free-trade latte mochaccino in a 50% post-consumer-recycled cup.
And hey — it’s your right to choose!
- Severian | 11/06/2013 @ 09:16Severian: You can pretend he said it —
Which would be rather pointless.
Severian: You can pretend he said it —
Or we can await his response, reply to that, then if he still hasn’t answered, remind him again.
- Zachriel | 11/06/2013 @ 10:04Oooh, this ought to be fun!! Which will break first — y’all’s OCD compulsion to always have the last word in any thread, or y’all’s need to get a virtue fix by cutting-and-pasting some lecture somewhere on Morgan’s site?
Time will tell, I suppose. I’ll make some popcorn!
- Severian | 11/06/2013 @ 14:19The premises are not situational. It doesn’t say, except on a life raft. And by using the term “logical impossibility”, you have invoked classical logic, meaning the conclusion must follow inevitably from the premises. You are claiming the two sets are disjunctive, not merely in fact, but by logical necessity.
The premises are situational. The United States is not adrift on a life raft, and that matters.
It matters because of what we have, so far, that people adrift on a life raft do not have: An economy, with incomes, expenditures, savings and debts, which individuals can use to chart whether or not they are on the right direction in life. Conservatives generally like that and liberals generally hate it, because a conservative’s credo tends to be one of “I want to make better decisions today than I did yesterday” whereas the liberal’s credo is more like “I just want to be right and feel smug all the time.” On the life raft, none of this matters because nobody is thinking about savings, they’re stuck on the first level of the Maslow pyramid of needs.
And, it matters because of what kind of person would do the hoarding. I’d line up, just like any good liberal, to tear the throats out of Thurston and Lovey Howell for hoarding all the water or all the chocolate, because they’d be monstrous people. If they’re hoarding water while Skipper, Gilligan and the rest are just a tad bit thirsty, it may be safely presumed they’d continue to hoard it while the others are lying supine, knocking at death’s door. That would make them monsters. Liberals have little problem presuming something similar about, oh let’s say by way of example, Mitt and Ann Romney; you may not remember them, Mitt was the Republican candidate for President in 2012 — simply because Romney is a Republican, and worth roughly the same as John Kerry, democrat candidate for President in aught-four, who married into his wealth. Why they mad? Near as I can figure, because Romney won’t spread his wealth, as if we were all stranded on a life raft…when we’re not. We’re a first-world economy, struggling to stay first-world, we need everyone to be as productive as possible and do what they can to make good decisions in their lives…but our poor people are fat.
So obsessed have y’all been with y’all’s “it isn’t situational, it only takes one to upset your applecart so we win that argument” that y’all have failed to notice — not only is the premise situational, but it really doesn’t need to be. Let’s do something y’all can’t do, and show our educations by entertaining a thought without accepting it: Say yes, y’all are right, I blew it, the life raft thing disproves this believe-in-mobility support-wealth-distro thing. Now, all we have to do is find the person who believes in economic class mobility who’s ripping into the Howells for not sharing the chocolate, and I’ve lost the argument! So who is that person? Among the sane people.
Uh…turns out there’s no such person on that raft. There isn’t any economic-class mobility into which one can put one’s faith. It’s not there, because the castaways have not achieved even what they had on the island, a lifestyle that is at the very least sustainable. That’s not there, death is just a matter of time, the mobility can’t be there, just like asphalt can’t be laid on a road when the bedrock has yet to be put down. Furthermore, that’s exactly the situation we wanted to get out of the example, when we began discussing the example. So yes, it is situational.
That’s the whole point: Wealth redistribution starts to make sense after the economic class mobility has been stripped away. Belief in it, is logically a renouncement of belief in the mobility.
People who insist they believe in both, at the same time and in the same situation, are people who are lying to themselves. And probably liberals. Either that, or crazy people. Who are liberals.
So there you have it, and as a courtesy to y’all, I worked in a mention of Mitt Romney.
- mkfreeberg | 11/07/2013 @ 06:10mkfreeberg: The United States is not adrift on a life raft, and that matters.
Sure it matters. That was our point. You’re the one who claimed it was a logical impossibility. Are you changing your position then?
Zachriel: Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
mkfreeberg: Near as I can figure, because Romney won’t spread his wealth, as if we were all stranded on a life raft…when we’re not.
Not really sure of your answer. Are you saying Romney supports class mobility?
- Zachriel | 11/07/2013 @ 06:25Logical impossibility: 2 + 2 = 5. Does the answer matter if you’re on a life raft, wearing a sweater, drinking soda pop? No. No, it doesn’t.
- Zachriel | 11/07/2013 @ 06:27I think I’ve addressed all of y’all’s concerns. Not only does my statement emerge from the exercise intact, but y’all have demonstrated a lack of understanding about some very important and rudimentary things. Among these are: Mobility among the economic classes, within a conversation that is supposed to be all about that mobility. Maybe y’all need to go read Prof. Sowell’s column.
Now, what did y’all want to say about Mitt Romney?
- mkfreeberg | 11/07/2013 @ 06:29mkfreeberg: I think I’ve addressed all of y’all’s concerns.
Still don’t know if you think Mitt Romney supports class mobility.
- Zachriel | 11/07/2013 @ 06:31Maybe you mean Romney supports class mobility in some situations, but not others. Is that your position? If so, it rather makes a mess of your original claim that the sets of supporters of class mobility and supporters of spread-the-wealth are disjunctive. Do you see why?
- Zachriel | 11/07/2013 @ 06:56And if you think Romney supports class mobility in some situations, but not others, then do you think Romney supports class mobility in the current economic situation?
- Zachriel | 11/07/2013 @ 07:06@Morgan,
Gosh, now I’m almost kinda wishing you would bite, just to see this little lecture they’ve cooked up about Mitt Romney. They must really think it’s a wowzer. Look at them go — three increasingly desperate pleas in a row, each about twenty minutes apart. They must be jonesing baaaad for that virtue fix.
- Severian | 11/07/2013 @ 07:13Do you see why?
Yes. Wealth distribution is a doctrine embraced by liberals, in all their zaniness — specifically, what makes it possible for them, without their actually crossing the threshold into insanity, is that they do what you have been doing. Which is, specifically, to arbitrarily rule that all these matters are not situational, when common sense says that they have to be.
There is living in a gigantic first-world paradise — albeit a crumbling one — of three hundred million people, in which the so-called “poor” people “own” television sets several times larger than the teevee sets owned by those who subsidize their lifestyles, and are fat. There is, “living” on a life raft adrift in the Pacific Ocean, with no land in sight, only limited supplies of potable water and chocolate rations, with sharks circling. It has somehow become “conservative extremist” to recognize the difference in those two situations. Not sure when, or how. But our much wiser, mainstream modern-liberal countrymen feel very smug about the whole thing, and have no qualms reminding the rest of us at full volume how smug they feel…because they envision these two situations as being exactly the same.
And y’all are here to represent their viewpoint? I think we’re getting new insight on why healthcare.gov doesn’t work.
- mkfreeberg | 11/07/2013 @ 20:08mkfreeberg: Wealth distribution is a doctrine embraced by liberals, in all their zaniness — specifically, what makes it possible for them, without their actually crossing the threshold into insanity, is that they do what you have been doing. Which is, specifically, to arbitrarily rule that all these matters are not situational, when common sense says that they have to be.
It was your position that didn’t allow for various situations when you said “if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types.” Logical impossibilities allow for no exceptions. So we take it you have abandoned that position.
–
- Zachriel | 11/08/2013 @ 05:34Logical impossibility: 2 + 2 = 5. Does the answer change if you’re on a life raft, wearing a sweater, drinking soda pop? No. No, it doesn’t.
Logical impossibility: 2 + 2 = 5. Does the answer change if you’re on a life raft, wearing a sweater, drinking soda pop? No. No, it doesn’t.
So y’all have found an example — my example — in which, someone believes in both wealth distribution and class mobility. But the example doesn’t work because there is no class mobility.
Now we have to spend 150 more comments in this thread getting the idea across to you that this doesn’t work. Alright, so let’s get in front of the thing and ask the salient question: What class mobility can y’all point to, that exists on the life raft?
It matters, because the rebuttal y’all are trying to make, relies on these class-mobility believers who now support the wealth distribution. As would I. On the raft. Where there is no class mobility. Because there are no classes.
It seems y’all are supporting a way of looking at things, which finds appeal only within those who, for one reason or another, can’t or won’t tell one thing apart from another thing. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.
- mkfreeberg | 11/08/2013 @ 06:36mkfreeberg: So y’all have found an example — my example — in which, someone believes in both wealth distribution and class mobility. But the example doesn’t work because there is no class mobility.
We haven’t apparently found anything because you still talk in riddles. You make claims about categories, but won’t help us understand how you are defining those categories. This is how it is done:
Fruits: Are apples a fruit? How about oranges? Tomatoes?
Mammals: Are dogs mammals? What about the platypus?
People who support class mobility: Mitt Romney? William Bligh?
mkfreeberg: What class mobility can y’all point to, that exists on the life raft?
The archetypal lifeboat is a tyranny with little class mobility. See how easy that was? There are exceptions, however. When there is no recognized authority, for instance, people may vote for leaders, and can change leaders through consensus.
mkfreeberg: On the raft. Where there is no class mobility. Because there are no classes.
That’s not necessarily correct. Captain Bligh was also the captain of the lifeboat. Most lifeboats end up with a hierarchy inherited from the ship. There are exceptions to this too. “We keep you alive to serve this ship.”
So you continue to pretend to defend your statement that “if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types,” even though you don’t actually defend it.
So, in that case, does Romney support class mobility in the current economic situation?
- Zachriel | 11/08/2013 @ 07:02We haven’t apparently found anything because you still talk in riddles. You make claims about categories, but won’t help us understand how you are defining those categories.
It isn’t that complicated. There is the life raft, where everyone is starving and dehydrating toward an imminent demise because their lifestyle is not self-sustaining. There is 21st century America, with comfort, conveniences, and an ever-expanding welfare state. The former doesn’t have class mobility, the latter does. The former doesn’t have classes at all; the latter does. In the former, those who refuse to share life-sustaining assets may be viewed with legitimate scorn and derision; not so with the latter. People are expected to starve and die in the former; in the latter, our poor people are fat.
“Talk in riddles”? I point out differences that are terminal to the rebuttal y’all are trying to make.
It seems, far from figuring out which idea is the right one, and why, what we’re really figuring out is what it takes for belief in wealth redistribution to be compatible with belief in class mobility, as I have maintained it is not. And now we have our answer: To believe in the compatibility that isn’t there, one has to see different things as the same. One has to pretend situations are non-situational. One has to constantly be envisioning America as adrift on the Pacific Ocean in a life raft, with everyone in danger of starving, even though the reality is that our poor people are fat.
I have maintained that for awhile, too. So there really aren’t any surprises here.
- mkfreeberg | 11/08/2013 @ 07:14mkfreeberg: There is 21st century America, with comfort, conveniences, and an ever-expanding welfare state.
U.S. government spending is usually about 40% of GDP, significantly less than the “good example” of Sweden you provided in another thread.
mkfreeberg: The former doesn’t have classes at all; the latter does.
We already pointed out that this is incorrect. A simple counter-example is William Bligh’s epic voyage in an open boat in 1789. Bligh was the only officer on the boat. There was even some class mobility as Bligh could appoint any of the able-bodies to any position of responsibility.
mkfreeberg: “Talk in riddles”? I point out differences that are terminal to the rebuttal y’all are trying to make.
Well, when we ask simple questions about your claim, you refuse to answer, even after multiple attempts. You keep talking of “class mobility”, but refuse to discuss it in detail.
This is your claim: “if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types,”
There is no allowance in your claim for situations. In fact, beliefs in class mobility and spread-the-wealth do depend on the situation. A national emergency may result in people finding a different balance than in times of peace and prosperity. And people may spread-the-wealth for varying reasons. Perhaps, if you search history, you may find a conservative reason?
Your statement is that there are two sets that are necessarily disjunct; advocacy of class mobility and belief in spread-the-wealth. Perhaps you are using the terms in non-standard ways. Let’s try a few examples to see how you apply your categorization. Does Romney support class mobility in the current economic situation?
- Zachriel | 11/08/2013 @ 08:01The archetypal lifeboat is a tyranny with little class mobility. See how easy that was? There are exceptions, however. When there is no recognized authority, for instance, people may vote for leaders, and can change leaders through consensus.
What, no bibliography? Surely you’ve got at least four references. I need to see footnotes before I believe a claim like this. I suggest you start with “Lifeboat Typicality: A Review of Archetypal Open-Water Survival Situations.” Howell, Gilligan, et al, 1964.
There was even some class mobility as Bligh could appoint any of the able-bodies to any position of responsibility.
Again, we gotta see some references. Where are your sources? Have you consulted the experts?
- Severian | 11/08/2013 @ 08:13Severian: Again, we gotta see some references. Where are your sources? Have you consulted the experts?
There’s an extensive historical record. You might start with the court records of the Court-Martial of William Bligh et al. for the Loss of the Bounty 1790.
- Zachriel | 11/08/2013 @ 08:21There’s an extensive historical record.
Ah, so you’re maintaining that Captain Bligh’s situation is archetypal. Fascinating, Captain Kirk. Do go on.
- Severian | 11/08/2013 @ 08:23Severian: Ah, so you’re maintaining that Captain Bligh’s situation is archetypal.
The open boat voyage of Bligh and company should provide you with more than enough information concerning how the command structure of a ship is transferred to a lifeboat. In modern times, each lifeboat is assigned a trained crewmember to act as commander of the boat.
- Zachriel | 11/08/2013 @ 08:33In modern times, each lifeboat is assigned a trained crewmember to act as commander of the boat.
References? Sources? Sloppy work, kids. D-. I’ll let you revise and resubmit for an extra letter grade.
Oh, and by the way, you didn’t answer the question. Are you maintaining that Captain Bligh’s situation is archetypal?
- Severian | 11/08/2013 @ 08:41Severian: References?
See the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, as well as national implementations of the Convention.
Severian: Are you maintaining that Captain Bligh’s situation is archetypal?
We already answered in the affirmative. Naval laws of various seafaring nations indicated that the command structure of the ship would be transferred to the lifeboats, as required. We provided Bligh’s voyage as an example, and the court-martial provides details of how this process worked. The wreck of the Pandora would be another. Breakdowns in this process has led to more stringent regulation.
- Zachriel | 11/08/2013 @ 09:09We already answered in the affirmative.
Where? Quote it.
- Severian | 11/08/2013 @ 09:17This seems to be somewhat off-topic, and it isn’t clear if Severian is attempting to advance the discussion or not.
Z: The archetypal lifeboat is a tyranny with little class mobility.
Z: Captain Bligh was also the captain of the lifeboat. Most lifeboats end up with a hierarchy inherited from the ship.
Z: The open boat voyage of Bligh and company should provide you with more than enough information concerning how the command structure of a ship is transferred to a lifeboat. In modern times, each lifeboat is assigned a trained crewmember to act as commander of the boat.
Z: A simple counter-example is William Bligh’s epic voyage in an open boat in 1789. Bligh was the only officer on the boat.
Z: There’s an extensive historical record. You might start with the court records of the Court-Martial of William Bligh et al. for the Loss of the Bounty 1790.
Z: See the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, as well as national implementations of the Convention.
If you are still confused, the command structure of the lifeboat is typically carried over from the ship. Bligh’s longboat voyage is an example of this, as is the aftermath of the Pandora wreck, and countless others.
- Zachriel | 11/08/2013 @ 09:44Ah, I see. We’re supposed to deduce y’all’s position from…let’s see… six separate statements, over several different posts. Got it.
- Severian | 11/08/2013 @ 11:19Severian: Ah, I see.
We made a claim, then supported it as you asked. Not sure how else to help you.
- Zachriel | 11/08/2013 @ 11:22Don’t worry, kids — everyone who is capable of seeing the point already has.
- Severian | 11/08/2013 @ 14:11So now we have class mobility, on a lifeboat, with no property anywhere save for the bottled water & chocolate rations that are the subject of the hypothetical. Classes and class mobility, because William Bligh was a naval officer with a rank.
I guess this is the part where I thank y’all for proving my point. To believe in wealth distribution, in modern America — where the “poor” own large teevee sets, larger than the teevees owned by those who must involuntarily subsidize their lifestyles — the “poor” who “own” these enormous teevee sets, and are fat — it is necessary to draw a parallel that does not exist, between this and being stranded on a lifeboat, with all persons in that lifeboat in a life-and-death struggle for scraps. Draw the parallel that doesn’t exist, simply by denying any differences between those two situations.
It has been said that when all you have is a shiny new golden hammer, everything looks like a nail. Y’all have a golden hammer that brings about this delusion, and it seems this one has to do with warping reality. And what a hammer it is. Even mighty Superman is threatened by the nonsense powers of Mister Mxyzptlk.
The U.S. in 2013, with its poorest citizens who aren’t even citizens, playing XBox 360 on huge television screens and being fat. Equals. A life raft adrift with its dozen occupants fighting over seaweed. A smug, supercilious rebuttal awaiting anyone who dares to postulate a difference between the two. Seriously, I don’t know whether to shake my head sadly at y’all, or offer y’all a hearty congratulations.
Perhaps both?
8. [blank] and [blank] are meaningfully different; what works for one does not necessarily work for the other.
- mkfreeberg | 11/08/2013 @ 16:48mkfreeberg: I guess this is the part where I thank y’all for proving my point.
You made a claim. None of what you posted is relevant to that claim. We suggested you revise the claim, and while you dance around it, you never support it.
By the way, does Romney support class mobility in the current economic situation?
- Zachriel | 11/08/2013 @ 18:35None of what you posted is relevant to that claim.
Turns out, that in itself is a claim.
An incorrect one.
- mkfreeberg | 11/08/2013 @ 18:46Zachriel: None of what you posted is relevant to that claim.
mkfreeberg: Turns out, that in itself is a claim.
Sure it is. You claimed “if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types.” This is not merely a claim about no overlap between the sets, but that no overlap can logically occur. You have yet to support the claim, or even to show a willingness to answer simple questions about your position. Indeed, you said it is situational, which *directly contradicts your claim*.
Consider a simple example. Does Romney support class mobility in the current economic situation?
- Zachriel | 11/08/2013 @ 18:58This is not merely a claim about no overlap between the sets, but that no overlap can logically occur. You have yet to support the claim, or even to show a willingness to answer simple questions about your position.
Oh good. Y’all have shown some ability to comprehend the claim, that’s an improvement. “No overlap between the sets,” and “no overlap can logically occur.”
Not sure what Mitt Romney has to do with it.
For there to be overlap, someone, somewhere, has to be proven to have faith in a) mobility between/amongst the economic classes, and b) wealth redistribution. Your ways of attacking this, thus far, have been 1) demanding that I support my position with hard evidence, which is called “proving a negative”; 2) something about Lieutenant Bligh; 3) something about Mitt Romney; 4) US is spending about 40% of GDP, significantly less than Sweden.
Why not just come up with an example of someone putting faith in both class mobility and wealth redistribution? Then y’all could puncture the balloon with the pinprick of black-swan, which is something y’all seem to like doing anyway, with y’all’s pre-typed text inserts of “it only takes one example” — why not, ya know, provide the example? Then we could proceed to the next part about whether your example is being sincere in his or her stated faith in class mobility, which I say is not logically possible.
Lacking such an example, we can certainly proceed to the logic involved, by way of a hypothetical. Let us say someone believes in class mobility. Poor kids can grow up to be rich, rich people can blow it and become poor. “Rags to riches to rags in three generations.” Why, then, would they favor wealth redistribution, from the rich, to the poor, knowing full well that people are being rotated into & out of these classes almost routinely.
What would be the point of that? If they discover kids living under a bridge, who might become rich if only given some capital, they could always dig into their own pockets and accomplish this by way of good old-fashioned charity. If they insist that isn’t good enough and we have to force wealthy strangers to pay for it, we can safely assume such a person does not believe in class mobility after all, since he would be putting zero faith in it. Now, where am I going wrong?
That question is central to the whole point. It’s much more on-topic than “Does Romney support class mobility in the current economic situation?”
- mkfreeberg | 11/09/2013 @ 06:08mkfreeberg: Y’all have shown some ability to comprehend the claim, that’s an improvement. “No overlap between the sets,” and “no overlap can logically occur.”
Z: You are claiming the two sets are disjunctive, not merely in fact, but by logical necessity.
Z: it rather makes a mess of your original claim that the sets of supporters of class mobility and supporters of spread-the-wealth are disjunctive.
Z: Your statement is that there are two sets that are necessarily disjunct; advocacy of class mobility and belief in spread-the-wealth. Perhaps you are using the terms in non-standard ways.
Z: This is not merely a claim about no overlap between the sets, but that no overlap can logically occur.
mkfreeberg: Not sure what Mitt Romney has to do with it.
We’re asking whether he belongs in the set of those who support class mobility. Most people would say that Mitt Romney supports class mobility, having said he would “spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our Opportunity Society, led by free people and free enterprises.” Would you agree?
mkfreeberg: Why, then, would they favor wealth redistribution, from the rich, to the poor, knowing full well that people are being rotated into & out of these classes almost routinely.
That wasn’t always true, of course. And even in modern society, children with poor nutrition and educational prospects have much less chance of success than those with good nutrition and educational prospects.
In any case, please tell us whether Mitt Romney belongs in the set of those who support class mobility. If the boundaries of the set are fuzzy, say so. If you can’t answer because you don’t know, say so.
- Zachriel | 11/09/2013 @ 07:16And so. After repeated opportunities, y’all have yet to produce a single example demonstrating any untruth in what I said. Y’all have over-promised and under-delivered here.
I get that y’all have a question y’all want me to answer, and I haven’t answered it. But that’s off-topic. Hand waving is not an argument.
- mkfreeberg | 11/09/2013 @ 08:00mkfreeberg: After repeated opportunities, y’all have yet to produce a single example demonstrating any untruth in what I said.
Does Mitt Romney belong to the set of those who support class mobility?
- Zachriel | 11/09/2013 @ 08:10My statement therefore stands intact.
Now, I understand y’all don’t like it. But hand waving is not an argument.
- mkfreeberg | 11/09/2013 @ 08:11mkfreeberg: My statement therefore stands intact.
No, your statement is unsupported, and as you can’t even answer simple questions about your classifications, meaningless words strung together.
You are purporting to be making a claim about two sets and their intersection. We are trying to determine what is in each of the sets. Typically, when you pose such a classification, you would then apply it. If you are incapable of applying your classification, then your claim is just meaningless words strung together.
Fruits: Are apples a fruit? How about figs? Tomatoes?
- Zachriel | 11/09/2013 @ 08:19Mammals: Are dolphins mammals? What about the platypus? Frogs?
People who support class mobility: Mitt Romney? Adam Smith? Vladimir Lenin?
My statement is a negative. For a few moments there, it looked like y’all comprehended what it was, but I see y’all are back to demanding proof…of a negative.
Do y’all have an example that would disprove my statement?
- mkfreeberg | 11/09/2013 @ 08:23mkfreeberg: My statement is a negative.
Your claim depends on the construction of the two sets you identified. Let’s start like this:
Class-mobility advocates
{Adam Smith}
Spread-the-wealth advocate
{Vladimir Lenin}
Now, which set does Mitt Romney belong in? Franklin Roosevelt? Mahatma Gandhi?
mkfreeberg: Do y’all have an example that would disprove my statement?
If you can’t tell which people go in which sets, then your claim is composed of meaningless terms. There’s nothing to disprove.
- Zachriel | 11/09/2013 @ 08:45Are y’all offering Mitt Romney as an example of someone who believes in both spread-the-wealth and class mobility?
- mkfreeberg | 11/09/2013 @ 09:02mkfreeberg: Are y’all offering Mitt Romney as an example of someone who believes in both spread-the-wealth and class mobility?
We’re asking if he is in the class mobility set. Perhaps he is not in either set. Are your sets jointly exhaustive?
- Zachriel | 11/09/2013 @ 09:26Reminds me of Palin and Couric. The latter is supposed to have shown the former to have been some kind of goofball, certainly an incompetent…but when all’s said & done, the reporter has ONE gig in life. That one thing she does is attract viewers; when the rubber meets the road and the chips are all down, she fails, and the goofball she “showed” to be an incompetent, succeeded. Beat her at her own game.
This is exactly that situation. Y’all have ONE gig in life, which is arguing. Y’all sure do suck at it.
Here’s how I would do what y’all are trying to do. Start out the way y’all did, “This is not merely a claim about no overlap between the sets, but that no overlap can logically occur.” Then, “HERE, mkfreeberg, is an example of someone who belongs to both sets.” Then if y’all can answer to some inspection of that example, ,y’all could proceed to that favorite catchphrase of y’all’s, which it seems y’all must have watched someone else do at some point…”it only takes one example” or so forth. But first y’all have to find the example. Have to get to step 2 before y’all can proceed to step 3, no matter how much fun y’all think step 3 might be.
Instead, I get back this “You have yet to provide support for your claim.” Which, apart from not being true, raises repeated doubts about y’all’s understanding of what the claim is.
How come I have to show y’all how to argue on the Internet, when I have to do lots of other things besides that, and it’s now very apparent this is y’all’s One Big Thing in life?
- mkfreeberg | 11/09/2013 @ 09:38You still can’t answer simple questions about your claim. Are your sets jointly exhaustive? Which set does Mitt Romney belong in, if any?
- Zachriel | 11/09/2013 @ 09:39Hand waving is not an argument.
And it seems, at the end of the day, y’all know precious little about hand waving OR about arguing.
What exactly is y’all’s field of specialized knowledge?
- mkfreeberg | 11/09/2013 @ 09:46mkfreeberg: Hand waving is not an argument.
No, it’s not. You still can’t answer simple questions about your claim.
- Zachriel | 11/09/2013 @ 09:49And even when shown the proper steps to take, y’all can’t properly argue on the Internet.
So what do y’all know how to do?
- mkfreeberg | 11/09/2013 @ 09:50mkfreeberg: And even when shown the proper steps to take,
Sure. You made a claim about two sets, so you must provide a clear operational definition.
You claimed “if they were willing to accept class mobility, and feel at ease with it — it is a logical impossibility for such people to be spread-the-wealth types.” This is not merely a claim about no overlap between the sets, but that no overlap can logically occur. You also said it is situational, which *directly contradicts your claim*.
Even though you have expressed contradictory positions, we have been willing to consider your claim in more detail. We are asking a few questions about those two sets. In your understanding, are the sets jointly exhaustive? Which set does Mitt Romney belong in, if any?
- Zachriel | 11/09/2013 @ 09:59You made a claim about two sets, so you must provide a clear operational definition.
Check! Got it done.
And all y’all have to say about it is some vague question about Mitt Romney.
So sad. Y’all’s one big thing in life. You had ONE job…arguing on the Internet. Lowest of all low bars.
- mkfreeberg | 11/09/2013 @ 10:10mkfreeberg: Check! Got it done.
Great! Then it should be no problem putting people into the two boxes.
mkfreeberg: And all y’all have to say about it is some vague question about Mitt Romney.
The questions are very precise. Are the sets jointly exhaustive? Does Mitt Romney fit into the class-mobility set?
- Zachriel | 11/09/2013 @ 10:16If y’all have other talents to offer the world besides arguing on the Internet, my suggestion is that y’all go ahead and brush up on those.
- mkfreeberg | 11/09/2013 @ 10:21Am I the only one reading this trainwreck and thinking of Archer the Pirate King arguing with Noah the Grad Student? “Only a doctoral candidate, eh?” Delivered with all the sarcasm the human voice can muster.
I’m definitely getting seminar room flashbacks here. If we had a white board, some dry-erase markers, and a whole lot of weed, somebody would be furiously drawing Venn diagrams: “Here’s the intersection of ‘believes in class mobility,’ ‘is on a lifeboat and is Captain Bligh,’ ‘is on a lifeboat but isn’t Captain Bligh,’ ‘is Mitt Romney,’ and… ooh, you got any snacks?”
I think there’s really only one place to go from here: Captain Picard was a better commander than Captain Kirk. Discuss.
- Severian | 11/09/2013 @ 11:30