Politics and Personality

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Politics and Personality

Postby zenten » Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:22 pm UTC

I've noticed a distinct lack of Libertarians who think that anyone regardless of ability or luck should live a decent life, a lack of socialists who are driven to succeed and are workaholics (I'm a lazy socialists btw), and a lack of atheists who think that religion always makes people's lives better. This seems to be true for other political camps.

So, if the belief of what would make a better world always seems to fit a person's own personal beliefs, how can one actually assess predictions? It seems like (to use a bad political model) left wing people will seem to think that welfare is good for the economy, and right wing people will seem to think that it's bad. If someone doesn't fit into that, it seems to be a case of them just having one specific belief not matching up with the norm, not a case of them believing that welfare is a moral necessity but bad for the economy (or vice versa).

Now, one could try to just look at the facts, but these are such complex questions that I don't think one person alone could do it without being clouded by their own biases, and any groups that work on it (such as economic schools) will just be even more slanted.

So what to do? These seem like questions that if solved would do a lot of good.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:38 pm UTC

I don't think enough people are empiricists for better science to make a significant change.

As well, a more complete understanding of how systems work doesn't mean that everyone will fall into the one, "correct" party. There will still be value differences; personal responsibility vs. communal responsibility (or compassion, however you want to put it), individualism vs. collectivism, fairness of opportunity vs. fairness of outcome. Counterproductive policies will disappear, but people will still be pointed in different directions.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:41 pm UTC

I am a hard-working socialist so bite my ass (which is fine, because I have Universal Health Care). I do see what you mean, though, a person's personality typically takes precedent over their beliefs, and they gravitate to the belief systems (socialism, aetheism, republicanism, shamanism) that they can identify with. Now, I'm a libertarian socialist, but I'm also a hard worker, because if I wasn't, I'd be poor, and I like to see my hard work become something beautiful and useful.

User avatar
Brian
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Postby Brian » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:46 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:As well, a more complete understanding of how systems work doesn't mean that everyone will fall into the one, "correct" party. There will still be value differences; personal responsibility vs. communal responsibility (or compassion, however you want to put it), individualism vs. collectivism, fairness of opportunity vs. fairness of outcome. Counterproductive policies will disappear, but people will still be pointed in different directions.

I wouldn't go so far as to argue this point, seeing as omnipotence implies quite a few things beyond just the knowledge it denotes. If everyone knew and understood everyone else's point of view, I think laws wouldn't collide and policy making would be straight-forward and uncomplicated. However, I'd think that everyone having such understanding would also lead to segregation, which, in this case, would be useful for providing happiness for everyone.

De facto segregation, that is.

edit: Actually, on second read of what I quoted and what I wrote, I agree with you. :shock: Also, I'm retarded.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:23 pm UTC

a lack of socialists who are driven to succeed and are workaholics
Are you FUCKIN kidding me? Ever hear about 5-year plans and such?
and a lack of atheists who think that religion always makes people's lives better.
Well athiest in general are not stupid, thus won't say that.

Some things like fighting for feminism and bieng a liberal have a common factor, like wanting everyone to live a decent life.

Things like athiesm, and scientificness also have a common cause like "smart".

People that are usually athiestic, or scientific, or leftist, usually are so because of their beliefs not vise versa.

I am inclined to say the opposite is true for the other side, but won't make that claim, since I am not willing to prove my point.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:25 pm UTC

Are you FUCKIN kidding me? Ever hear about 5-year plans and such?
Where socialists had to work themselves into a frenzy to duplicate what capitalists will do all the time?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:26 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Are you FUCKIN kidding me? Ever hear about 5-year plans and such?
Where socialists had to work themselves into a frenzy to duplicate what capitalists will do all the time?
No where socialist/communist achieved in 10 years what capitalists had achieved in 200 using slavery, and having been the winner of a World War.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
tessuraea
Not Phallic Enough
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Postby tessuraea » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:29 pm UTC

...yeah, because capitalists are SO GOOD at looking to the future.

(As long as by future you mean "next quarterly report" it's true.)

Anyway, I'm also a counterexample, workaholic socialist. I think a lot of socialists actually really do like working hard--it kind of depends on which end of socialism you come into. I think that having meaningful, productive work you choose for yourself and can do well at is part of being a fully realized human being.

So I work hard (damn hard; in general, I Am The Job, so I have to have jobs I can be proud of) because I want to, and think it's the right thing to do. I do not see this as incompatible with socialism.

I'm also from New England, a bit of the U.S. famous for the work ethic of its citizens.
This is not a reference to anyone's junk.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:36 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
Vaniver wrote:
Are you FUCKIN kidding me? Ever hear about 5-year plans and such?
Where socialists had to work themselves into a frenzy to duplicate what capitalists will do all the time?
No where socialist/communist achieved in 10 years what capitalists had achieved in 200 using slavery, and having been the winner of a World War.
That's... not very accurate.

...yeah, because capitalists are SO GOOD at looking to the future.
The ones that are are the ones that profit over the long term. Warren Buffet's immense fortunes are the result of his foresight and willingness to make decisions for the future.

I think that having meaningful, productive work you choose for yourself and can do well at is part of being a fully realized human being.
Letting people pick their job (or invent their job, if they are so inclined) is critical for efficiency and growth.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:38 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
I think that having meaningful, productive work you choose for yourself and can do well at is part of being a fully realized human being.
Letting people pick their job (or invent their job, if they are so inclined) is critical for efficiency and growth.


Yep, i'm happy with the government not telling me what my job is going to be.

Independence and drive is at the core of capitalism.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

User avatar
tessuraea
Not Phallic Enough
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Postby tessuraea » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:44 pm UTC

I wrote:...yeah, because capitalists are SO GOOD at looking to the future.

Vaniver wrote:The ones that are are the ones that profit over the long term. Warren Buffet's immense fortunes are the result of his foresight and willingness to make decisions for the future.


I think you know better than to say that because a few exceptional individuals do something, than capitalists as a whole do it, or capitalism encourages it. These statements are not true. Capitalism in its current form does not encourage long-range thinking, or we, collectively, would not have continued to seriously damage our environment in the name of profit long after it became obvious we were doing so.

I wrote:I think that having meaningful, productive work you choose for yourself and can do well at is part of being a fully realized human being.


Vaniver wrote:Letting people pick their job (or invent their job, if they are so inclined) is critical for efficiency and growth.


It's nice to be able to agree with you on something. Very nice. I doubt we agree on whether or not this is already going on, but then we have radically different economic perspectives. I have no idea of your background, but mine includes a bunch of crap minimum-wage jobs that very nearly no one would actually choose to do if they didn't have to find a way to pay the bills.

To come back to the topic, these experiences--poverty, homelessness, hunger--have definitely helped shape my personality, and are part of the reason I'm a socialist. Capitalism is a giant pyramid scheme, and even though I'm not on the bottom anymore, I don't like the fact that I'm standing on the people who are.
This is not a reference to anyone's junk.

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:50 pm UTC

tessuraea wrote: Capitalism is a giant pyramid scheme, and even though I'm not on the bottom anymore, I don't like the fact that I'm standing on the people who are.


How is natural selection any different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Survival of the Fittest, is a tried and true way of life that has worked wonders up to this point, if Socialism weren't trying to stop/reverse this process in a socio-economic manner i might not have such a problem with it.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:53 pm UTC

How is natural selection any different?


Did somebody say natural selection was better?
Last edited by Belial on Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:54 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:54 pm UTC

I think you know better than to say that because a few exceptional individuals do something, than capitalists as a whole do it, or capitalism encourages it.
Does something have to explicitly encourage something to encourage it? Market crashes can be very unforgiving to short-term thinkers, which could be seen as discouraging them. I'm not sure it's capitalism's fault that some people think in the short term; you'll find around the same number of short-term thinkers in a socialist population.

Capitalism in its current form does not encourage long-range thinking, or we, collectively, would not have continued to seriously damage our environment in the name of profit long after it became obvious we were doing so.
But, for example, the best response to pollution is a pollutant tax, instead of a pollutant cap, as a well-chosen pollutant tax uses the market's structure to send information about how much polluting adds in cost to a certain activity or product. Thus, if it's not worth polluting for, it won't be polluted for, and if it is worth polluting for, it will.

Capitalism is a giant pyramid scheme, and even though I'm not on the bottom anymore, I don't like the fact that I'm standing on the people who are.
I, for one, would like to thank capitalism for replacing the pyramid scheme of social class with the pyramid scheme of wealth.* It's easier to earn a comfortable income than it is to be born as nobility.

*I'd like to call it a pyramid scheme of merit, but that's not entirely true.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:54 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Did somebody say natural selection was better?


I was saying that.

Especially since most everyone here agrees about Evolution, i figured it would be an appropriate analogy. If i'm mistaken feel free to delete my off-topic post.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:55 pm UTC

With the inexplicably high value people seem to place on survival of the fittest, evolutionary causes, so forth, it is somewhat unsurprising that creationists sometimes accuse those who accept Darwin's theory of being religious about evolution.

In short, natural selection is not necessarily the best or most morally superior system, nor is it some sort of imperative that we need to cling to. It's just how we got here.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
tessuraea
Not Phallic Enough
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Postby tessuraea » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:55 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Did somebody say natural selection was better?


I sure didn't.

Lots of things are perfectly natural and have gone on for a long time, but I'm still not a fan. I'd rather figure out some form of intentional population control than rely on genocide, famine, and disease, for example. I've known only a few Social Darwinists, and those I've known have been highly unpleasant individuals.

We like to think we're the smart animals, right? So let's do some of that planning and forward-thinking the frontal lobe lets us do.
This is not a reference to anyone's junk.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:56 pm UTC

In short, natural selection is not necessarily the best or most morally superior system, nor is it some sort of imperative that we need to cling to. It's just how we got here.
This strikes me as a strange concept. Survival of the fittest is the only system of survival; all that varies is what is "fit."
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:58 pm UTC

tessuraea wrote:To come back to the topic, these experiences--poverty, homelessness, hunger--have definitely helped shape my personality, and are part of the reason I'm a socialist. Capitalism is a giant pyramid scheme, and even though I'm not on the bottom anymore, I don't like the fact that I'm standing on the people who are.

I think I lurve you.

Socialism breeds, I think, a particular form of work ethic, when a child is raised to realize that it is only through everyone working hard does everyone prosper. Yes, there will be those who think that, thanks to socialism, they can live in a trailer and play Magic The Gathering all day (and they do), but I like to think they're overshadowed by the people like me, and like most of my friends, who work our asses off, do our jobs, and enjoy the fruits of what we create. Although Canada is definitely socialist in many regards, it's not perfect socialism, so if you work harder, you do get more reward, and I won't deny that I like to work harder so I'll make more money, but we are also, by most standards, taxed to death in order to pay for our extensive social programs (No Student Left Behind? Try looking up aat your neighbors, instead of down at them).

Phenriz wrote:How is natural selection any different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Survival of the Fittest, is a tried and true way of life that has worked wonders up to this point, if Socialism weren't trying to stop/reverse this process in a socio-economic manner i might not have such a problem with it.

So you have no moral objection to me killing people and stealing their stuff, since I am more fit, and therefore going to survive? Is that actually the point you're making, that all the social development of mankind throughout history has been wrong, and we should simply go back to the hunter-gatherer method?

There are no words for how difficult it is for me to grasp what you just said.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:04 pm UTC

This strikes me as a strange concept. Survival of the fittest is the only system of survival; all that varies is what is "fit."


You are using the term somewhat differently than Phenriz is, I think.

Much like all food is made out of organic compounds, but that's not what people mean when they say "organic food"
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:08 pm UTC

You are using the term somewhat differently than Phenriz is, I think.
I don't think I'm using it all that differently than Phenriz is, but I'm rather sure MJ is using it rather differently than Phrenriz is. Antisocial behavior like MJ suggests hasn't been "fit" for quite some time, and the survival of the fittest argument is on the side of civilization- civilized societies outgrew and destroyed hunter-gatherers easily. It may be that there's an optimal level of civilization, and that as Western society passes that level it will collapse and/or be replaced by a civilization that it has not.
Last edited by Vaniver on Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:09 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Yes, there will be those who think that, thanks to socialism, they can live in a trailer and play Magic The Gathering all day (and they do), but I like to think they're overshadowed by the people like me, and like most of my friends, who work our asses off, do our jobs, and enjoy the fruits of what we create.


See i don't like the fact that because i work, my time was spent(without my approval mind you) feeding/clothing/housing someone who's too lazy to go out and live life for them self. (i'm using your example here, so lazy is appropriate in this sense)

I couldn't find myself approving of such a system.

So you have no moral objection to me killing people and stealing their stuff, since I am more fit, and therefore going to survive? Is that actually the point you're making, that all the social development of mankind throughout history has been wrong, and we should simply go back to the hunter-gatherer method?

There are no words for how difficult it is for me to grasp what you just said.


No, basically i'm saying that capitalism is a modernized variant of the same idea. Capitalism benefits those who more often than not, work more to earn more.

Survival of the Fittest as an ideal, rather than a literal interpretation can be applied to most everything.

The way you're saying it, writes me off as a loon who thinks we should all be wearing loincloths and beating women over the head. My apologies if i was unclear.


I don't work 2 jobs so i can pay for some guy to sit around with his buddies 24/7 so they can spend my tax dollars playing World of Warcraft all day. I like giving what i can to charity, but i don't believe in hand-outs to lazy asses.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:12 pm UTC

Capitalism benefits those who more often than not, produce more.
Fixed. The amount of value one produces and the amount of effort one puts forth are rather weakly correlated, if they are at all; one of the benefits of capitalism is it checks whether or not someone is working hard at the right job.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:12 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
You are using the term somewhat differently than Phenriz is, I think.
I don't think I'm using it all that differently than Phenriz is, but I'm rather sure MJ is using it rather differently than Phrenriz is. Antisocial behavior like MJ suggests hasn't been "fit" for quite some time, and the survival of the fittest argument is on the side of civilization- civilized societies outgrew and destroyed hunter-gatherers easily. It may be that there's an optimal level of civilization, and that as Western society passes that level it will collapse and/or be replaced by a civilization that it has not.

He didn't specify what form of Survival of the Fittest he was referring to, but simply linked to the entire article. I, therefore, had to assume that he was referring to fundamental Survival of the Fittest, not the societal variant you speak of.
Phenriz wrote:
I don't work 2 jobs so i can pay for some guy to sit around with his buddies 24/7 so they can spend my tax dollars playing World of Warcraft all day. I like giving what i can to charity, but i don't believe in hand-outs to lazy asses.

Neither do I, I work two jobs so that I can have a house and a car and enjoy life. It just so happens that, in the process, I provide medical care, food, and a small amount of rent money to someone who has not yet joined the work force.
Vaniver wrote:
Capitalism benefits those who more often than not, produce more.
Fixed. The amount of value one produces and the amount of effort one puts forth are rather weakly correlated, if they are at all; one of the benefits of capitalism is it checks whether or not someone is working hard at the right job.

Why do I keep agreeing with Vaniver? Anyways, can you honestly tell me that my friend who works as a welder up north on the pipeline, all winter, 60 hour weeks, is not working as hard as, say, a massage therapist, despite the fact that the massage therapist earns more than he does?

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:31 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Anyways, can you honestly tell me that my friend who works as a welder up north on the pipeline, all winter, 60 hour weeks, is not working as hard as, say, a massage therapist, despite the fact that the massage therapist earns more than he does?


Nope, but a benefit of capitalism are that your friend could change to a more profitable profession. If that's what he really desired.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:34 pm UTC

Phenriz wrote:
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Anyways, can you honestly tell me that my friend who works as a welder up north on the pipeline, all winter, 60 hour weeks, is not working as hard as, say, a massage therapist, despite the fact that the massage therapist earns more than he does?


Nope, but a benefit of capitalism are that your friend could change to a more profitable profession. If that's what he really desired.

No, he couldn't. The problem with capitalism is this is the highest paying job he's ever likely to get.

He wants to be a welder. He likes being a welder. But can you seriously tell me that his earnings are related to 'how hard he works'?

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:42 pm UTC

He wants to be a welder. He likes being a welder.
If one counts job satisfaction as a form of profit, then one could argue he doesn't have access to a more profitable profession (or, to put it in a nicer fashion, is working the most profitable job for him).
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:44 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
He wants to be a welder. He likes being a welder.
If one counts job satisfaction as a form of profit, then one could argue he doesn't have access to a more profitable profession (or, to put it in a nicer fashion, is working the most profitable job for him).

And is not being rewarded as much as someone who works 30 hours a week, indoors, in a temperature-controlled office, without fear of losing limbs or exploding. Yes, one could argue that.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:49 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:And is not being rewarded as much as someone who works 30 hours a week, indoors, in a temperature-controlled office, without fear of losing limbs or exploding. Yes, one could argue that.
The amount of money people will offer him for his time is a decision made on their side of the table, and is rarely particularly concerned with what that will allow him to buy. Whether or not that's a good deal for him is a different story, and depends heavily on the aforementioned job satisfaction.

If it's a worse deal than other offered to him, quitting or switching is always an option.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:58 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:quitting or switching is always an option.

The fact that you said that proves there's no way I can talk to you about this subject at the moment, I don't have NEARLY enough time to type it all out.

User avatar
solarchem
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm UTC
Location: Northampton, MA
Contact:

Re: Politics and Personality

Postby solarchem » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:59 pm UTC

zenten wrote:I've noticed a distinct lack of Libertarians who think that anyone regardless of ability or luck should live a decent life, a lack of socialists who are driven to succeed and are workaholics (I'm a lazy socialists btw), and a lack of atheists who think that religion always makes people's lives better. This seems to be true for other political camps.


Well, I am libertarian (for the most part) and I think everyone should have a decent life. I just don't think it's the government's job to take my money and decide who to distribute it to. If I want my money to better someone's life, I'll be the one to decide how much money goes and who's life it benefits thank you.
I'm not a socialist, so can't comment there except to say I'm not sure why being a socialist would equal no drive. That sounds like being lazy, not being socialist.

The one you've got right is the atheism part. Religion ALWAYS makes people's lives better? Tell that to the Jehovah's Witnesses who die because their religion doesn't allow transfusions or the various groups that have been persecuted through the years.
Never tell me the odds - Han Solo

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:01 pm UTC

Solarchem wrote:Well, I am libertarian (for the most part) and I think everyone should have a decent life. I just don't think it's the government's job to take my money and decide who to distribute it to. If I want my money to better someone's life, I'll be the one to decide how much money goes and who's life it benefits thank you.


I don't consider myself libertarian (although other people might), but i most agree with this line of thinking.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:06 pm UTC

I don't really think either of you would scrupulously hand over 9% of your income (or whatever) per month, every month, to people in need, were you not giving that 9% to the government. No offense, but libertarian or not, that's INCREDIBLY unlikely.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:06 pm UTC

Phenriz wrote:
Belial wrote:Did somebody say natural selection was better?


I was saying that.
Yay for social darwinism...

I think you have to read up on why it is a repulsive philosophy and how it supports every kind of repulsive opressive and horrible behaviour since whatever you CAN do you are justified in doing as you have earned your position rather than lucked out. Hint, you have just lucked out.
'
This strikes me as a strange concept. Survival of the fittest is the only system of survival; all that varies is what is "fit."

This depends on if your define it as social darwinism where we let people die to "weed out the weak" or if we try to save everyone but people invariably die. The way he defined it, that socialism "helps the weak"(who ought to die), ie the ones that end up incredibly abused in a capitalist system is the first category. I find it repulsive and elitist beyond meassure.


I don't think I'm using it all that differently than Phenriz is, but I'm rather sure MJ is using it rather differently than Phrenriz is. Antisocial behavior like MJ suggests hasn't been "fit" for quite some time, and the survival of the fittest argument is on the side of civilization- civilized societies outgrew and destroyed hunter-gatherers easily. It may be that there's an optimal level of civilization, and that as Western society passes that level it will collapse and/or be replaced by a civilization that it has not.

The difference is what is deemed socially acceptable and benefitial to society, having a safety net is benefitial to society and thus social darwinism opposed to a safety net would be inefficient, and more of a moral statement than a rational one.


See i don't like the fact that because i work, my time was spent(without my approval mind you) feeding/clothing/housing someone who's too lazy to go out and live life for them self. (i'm using your example here, so lazy is appropriate in this sense)

You forget the HUGE portion of people who are working poor, ie, they are so desperate that they are willing to work for a wage lower than what will sustain them. it is not that htey are LAZY, usually poor people work more than you will, it's that they have no margin to invest to "blimc the ladder", the assertion that poor people are just "lazy" and "living the good life" is so incredibly stupid It makes my brain boil. Why perhaps then don't you go living of some "sweet" minimum wage jb (where you perhaps are earning more than you" ought" to, according to the glorious free market) and eat using food stamps etc, live in some project. ... too ... much .. ignornace ... brian ... imploding!

Ill continue this post when i get home in half an hour
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:14 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Vaniver wrote:
He wants to be a welder. He likes being a welder.
If one counts job satisfaction as a form of profit, then one could argue he doesn't have access to a more profitable profession (or, to put it in a nicer fashion, is working the most profitable job for him).

And is not being rewarded as much as someone who works 30 hours a week, indoors, in a temperature-controlled office, without fear of losing limbs or exploding. Yes, one could argue that.


I don't know what to say other than.. he should move to the states. Massage Therapists in the states on average seem to earn about what the average Welder would earn.

True, welders in the states are often part of unions and massage therapists are not, but while the welders only pay union dues, the massage therapists often work like barbers or strippers: that is, they essentially rent out their office space and have to take a portion of their earnings to pay the monthly rent on the space, supplies, paying the receptionist, and so on.

I'd argue that Welders, on average, make more. In the US. Maybe in Canada they massage moose or something?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
solarchem
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm UTC
Location: Northampton, MA
Contact:

Postby solarchem » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:17 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I don't really think either of you would scrupulously hand over 9% of your income (or whatever) per month, every month, to people in need, were you not giving that 9% to the government. No offense, but libertarian or not, that's INCREDIBLY unlikely.


Well, first off, what percentage of that initial 9 is wasted? I think money is better handled locally and we would have a much greater impact even when contributing a smaller portion of our income.

Second, not everyone can legitimately afford 9%. Why should they be obligated to pay into a system that is largely wasteful, often ineffective, and may in some cases go to people who don't deserve the money any more than the person whose pockets you took it from.

And third, there are ways to help besides cash. Would I donate 9% every month? Probably not. But I do help out at a food bank and soup kitchen.
Never tell me the odds - Han Solo

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:18 pm UTC

solarchem wrote:
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I don't really think either of you would scrupulously hand over 9% of your income (or whatever) per month, every month, to people in need, were you not giving that 9% to the government. No offense, but libertarian or not, that's INCREDIBLY unlikely.


Well, first off, what percentage of that initial 9 is wasted? I think money is better handled locally and we would have a much greater impact even when contributing a smaller portion of our income.

Second, not everyone can legitimately afford 9%. Why should they be obligated to pay into a system that is largely wasteful, often ineffective, and may in some cases go to people who don't deserve the money any more than the person whose pockets you took it from.

And third, there are ways to help besides cash. Would I donate 9% every month? Probably not. But I do help out at a food bank and soup kitchen.

So "no" to supplying poor people with food, medicine, education, and shelter.... Check. Your pro-soup stance is admirable, though.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:24 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Vaniver wrote:quitting or switching is always an option.

The fact that you said that proves there's no way I can talk to you about this subject at the moment, I don't have NEARLY enough time to type it all out.
As always, just because an option exists doesn't mean it's a good option.

So "no" then. Check.
But, if he was willing to donate 5% to a system that worked twice as well as the government's system (and that's a fairly conservative estimate of how much more effective private spending is than public, for most charities), it would end up being better.

I have never been a fan of forced charity, much like I have never been a fan of forced volunteerism.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:25 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:So "no" to supplying poor people with food, medicine, education, and shelter.... Check. Your pro-soup stance is admirable, though.


If they're constantly living off of "government" money, rather than trying to further their well-being, then yes.

(read government as: everyone who works and pays taxes)


There's a difference between helping someone, helping people is good, and giving them a free ride, which can lead to dependence on the system then a dependence on the government that supplies the system, for an indefinite amount of time. You seem to be supporting the latter.

Teach a man how to fish instead of constantly giving him the fish he needs.
Last edited by Phenriz on Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:30 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

User avatar
solarchem
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm UTC
Location: Northampton, MA
Contact:

Postby solarchem » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:25 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:So "no" to supplying poor people with food, medicine, education, and shelter.... Check. Your pro-soup stance is admirable, though.


I think you're twisting my statements around just a wee bit there MJ.

I'm not saying we shouldn't feel a moral obligation to help those in need. Just I don't trust the government to do it. Look around. Last I checked the state of the poor has changed, oh that would be not at all, in the 20 years or so I've been paying attention. All your government has succeeded in doing is swapping out the names on the checks.

edit:
And don't belittle the efforts of those who serve in the community. By getting out and seeing who needs what I'm able to see where my money would do the most good instead of sitting back with a smug look and saying 'well I paid my taxes this month, that covers it'
Last edited by solarchem on Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:30 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Never tell me the odds - Han Solo


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests