tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post5891786862817049842..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman: If You Oppose "Infrastructure Spending," You Support SlaveryWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-72567037794889473412011-02-26T23:22:31.652-05:002011-02-26T23:22:31.652-05:00David,
Thanks for the nice words. As you rightly ...David,<br /><br />Thanks for the nice words. As you rightly said, a few words of appreciation go a long way towards restoring one's balance :)Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-58108333232779556532011-02-25T07:37:40.283-05:002011-02-25T07:37:40.283-05:00I think Dan's problem is he is mistaking the U...I think Dan's problem is he is mistaking the US for a free country.<br /><br />Unfortunately almost everything needs government sanction in order to do it.Mike Cheelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-48785691087325070682011-02-25T00:58:38.189-05:002011-02-25T00:58:38.189-05:00Bala,
That was by far the nerdiest joke I've ...Bala,<br /><br />That was by far the nerdiest joke I've ever told in my life. It's a sigh of relief that someone appreciated it.<br /><br />And I'm very happy that person was you. I've long been a fan.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-54592553130667388502011-02-24T21:16:58.934-05:002011-02-24T21:16:58.934-05:00"Your "Ah Ha!" moment fals flat on ..."Your "Ah Ha!" moment fals flat on its face."<br /><br />Whatever told you THAT was my "Ah Ha!" moment? You got it completely wrong. The real "Ah Ha!" moment was this<br /><br />"Now consider the theory that an act is morally right if and only if it is called for by the set of desires and dispositions the having of which by everyone would result in at least as good consequences judged impartially as any other."<br /><br />IMO, no paper you cite can provide justification for making utility comparison across people given that utility is subjective and ordinal. Stop hiding behind the Griffin paper and present its (non-)argument yourself. I have already done you a favour by searching and reading up on that nonsense called rule-consequentialism. I have no more time for additional nonsense. Once you present it, I am sure it wouldn;t take me more than a minute to tear it apart as well just as I tore apart the Brad Hooker thesis on rule-(in)consequentialism.<br /><br />David,<br /><br />Thanks for the laughs. This guy is (deliberately acting) too obtuse to understand that simple but important point you are making.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-79054191710301007342011-02-24T20:36:29.243-05:002011-02-24T20:36:29.243-05:00Well I feel 42.63% for knowing that interpersonal ...<i>Well I feel 42.63% for knowing that interpersonal utility comparisons are possible.</i><br /><br />Well I feel 42.63% <i>better</i> for knowing that interpersonal utility comparisons are possible.<br /><br />And now I feel 22.138% worse. Of coruse, you might have measured me at 36.91. It depends on your snapshot in time.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-34007982450025587652011-02-24T20:35:15.008-05:002011-02-24T20:35:15.008-05:00Well I feel 42.63% for knowing that interpersonal ...Well I feel 42.63% for knowing that interpersonal utility comparisons are possible.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-45101546971709249632011-02-24T20:29:02.184-05:002011-02-24T20:29:02.184-05:00You are quoting from Brad Hooker, "Rule-Conse...You are quoting from Brad Hooker, "Rule-Consequentialism," Mind 99.393 (1990): 67-77, an article I am perfectly familar with.<br /><br /><i>"One of the most popular objections to utilitarianism is that interpersonal comparisons of utility are impossible. I assume any plausible version of rule-consequentialism will have a utilitarian component, .... "</i><br /><br />You don't quote p. 68, note 6:<br /><br /><i>"As consequentialists have long pointed out, it had better be, if we are to be able to conform even with a common-sense duty of beneficence, such as W. D. Ross's (on which see Ross, The Right and the Good, Oxford, Clarendon Press, I930, ch. 2). For a recent defence of interpersonal comparisons of utility, see J. Griffin, Well-being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance, Oxford, Clarendon Press, I986, Part Two."</i><br /><br />Therefore he does not just "assume" it is possible, as he provides a reference to J. Griffin, <i>Well-being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance</i>, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1986, which offers a defense of exactly how it is possible. <br /><br />Your "Ah Ha!" moment fals flat on its face.<br /><br />Agian, the result of selective quotation, and failing to read properly.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-87292666873231505342011-02-24T19:28:59.610-05:002011-02-24T19:28:59.610-05:00LK,
Here's the source, in case you think I am...LK,<br /><br />Here's the source, in case you think I am misquoting Brad Hooker.<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/6ab4l3dBalanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-4761205379591819232011-02-24T19:24:34.600-05:002011-02-24T19:24:34.600-05:00LK,
Here's the great Brad Hooker "addres...LK,<br /><br />Here's the great Brad Hooker "addressing" my objection.<br /><br />"One of the most popular objections to utilitarianism is that interpersonal comparisons of utility are impossible. I assume any plausible version of rule-consequentialism will have a utilitarian component, and will therefore need an answer to the objection about interpersonal comparisons. But for the purposes of this paper I shall simply assume that some acceptable way of making interpersonal comparisons is possible"<br /><br />Ha Ha Ha!!! He just "assumes" that it is possible??????? This is far worse than hilarious. It's what you call ludicrous. And THIS drivel is the ethical theory that you find the most sensible???? Oh man! That guy even tells you why his theory is garbage and you still find it good?<br /><br />You really made my day and gave me a tummy-ache like I have never got just laughing my you-know-what off.<br /><br />ROFLMFAOBalanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-5441186216652533822011-02-24T19:16:05.917-05:002011-02-24T19:16:05.917-05:00"Typical sell out/ free rider rhetoric" ..."Typical sell out/ free rider rhetoric" I paid $37000 in taxes in 2010. Some free ride.Robert Tulleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-15183256077930800632011-02-24T18:57:59.841-05:002011-02-24T18:57:59.841-05:00LK,
Here's the drivel that you call rule cons...LK,<br /><br />Here's the drivel that you call rule consequentialism torn apart in a few words based on the words of the "great" Brad Hooker himself. Here's what he has to say<br /><br />"Suppose that accepting rules is a matter of having certain desires and dispositions. Now consider the theory that an act is morally right if and only if it is called for by the set of desires and dispositions the having of which by everyone would result in at least as good consequences judged impartially as any other. For lack of a better name, we might call this theory disposition/rule-consequentialism, or just rule-consequentialism for short."<br /><br />How can you ever judge "good" impartially? The judgement of the "goodness" of an act is inherently subjective and ordinal. How on earth do you rule-consequentialists go about measuring, adding and comparing "good"? Your ideas are downright hilarious.<br /><br />Thanks for the laughs and for quickly and completely discrediting yourself.<br /><br />p.s. Please do not try to pick other lines to divert attention. These are the words of Brad Hooker himself.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-55588144825350180012011-02-24T18:50:18.091-05:002011-02-24T18:50:18.091-05:00@Dan,
"So, if you, individualist as you are,...@Dan,<br /><br />"So, if you, individualist as you are, personally benefit from this arrangement, why shouldn't you be taxed? No one is "coercing" you to be another fat, lazy American living in suburbia."<br /><br />Firstly David was absolutely right speaking for me. I live in India (which explains why it has taken me this long to reply. Sleep time, you see).<br /><br />Secondly, let's say for the moment I accept (not that I do, but just for the sake of argument)the legitimacy of taxing me because I benefit from the arrangement called society. Let society come and collect it from me. Representatives are fine, but let them be representatives of society.<br /><br />p.s. No metaphors please.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-79018736666018719392011-02-24T18:23:32.001-05:002011-02-24T18:23:32.001-05:00I would also like to declare that I could have mad...I would also like to declare that I could have made a very lame Austin Powers joke if I'd commented around the time that Bala and LK were mentioning Randian philosophy. <br /><br />'Do I make you Randian, baby?'<br /><br />A part of me is tempted to try this pickup line out in the philosophy section of the local Barnes and Noble, or maybe pay some poor sod $20 to do so for me. The results would be interesting. =PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-64708029348595029332011-02-24T18:20:29.723-05:002011-02-24T18:20:29.723-05:00@Dan: Tell you what. Why don't you start by ex...@Dan: Tell you what. Why don't you start by explaining what game theory and the nash equilibrium are? Use your own words, please. No copy/paste. I'll be using turnitin.com and duplichecker.com to check your work. <br /><br />This ought to be good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-67396763283228912472011-02-24T18:16:31.692-05:002011-02-24T18:16:31.692-05:00@David: Thank you. I apologize if I come off as a ...@David: Thank you. I apologize if I come off as a little bit... Annoying? Is that the word I'm looking for?<br /><br />Let me put it this way: I'm an atheist libertarian who has a habit of debating on youtube, so I might be a bit hyper-sensitive to this sort of thing. It's also why I find trolls such as Dan to be a bit old hat. =PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-66477592088924391022011-02-24T17:45:38.676-05:002011-02-24T17:45:38.676-05:00ROFL. That was awesome. Nice work, Dan. You gave m...ROFL. That was awesome. Nice work, Dan. You gave me a really good chuckle. I'm going to go work on my goat pen now. I just want you to know that you have brightened my day.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-75808165956669649672011-02-24T17:19:15.493-05:002011-02-24T17:19:15.493-05:00"Yes, that's right, my work. I am not obl..."Yes, that's right, my work. I am not obliged to make any further contribution."<br />Typical sellout/free-rider rhetoric. Why don't you move to Waziristan and see how much income your work gets you there.<br /><br />Shouldn't private agreements and pay as you go between their citizens have forged a workable society by now? <br /><br />Utilizing economies of scale that a democratic government can organize to build infrastructure means nothing when you can round up a few of the locals to build a goat pen right?<br /><br />That's your paradise man!Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-39267067486888760252011-02-24T15:51:58.890-05:002011-02-24T15:51:58.890-05:00And one other thing, it isn't just the suburba...And one other thing, it isn't just the suburbanites that are fat and lazy. I have met people from all economic levels who do what they can to take as much from the system as possible, rich and poor. I have met people who instead of looking for a job spend their unemployment check at the local bar. And they freely admit it.Mike Cheelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-24032370306132893162011-02-24T15:49:43.373-05:002011-02-24T15:49:43.373-05:00@Dan "So, if you, individualist as you are, p...@Dan "So, if you, individualist as you are, personally benefit from this arrangement, why shouldn't you be taxed? No one is "coercing" you to be another fat, lazy American living in suburbia. Sounds like you wanna be a free rider. Remember, no free lunches my friend."<br /><br />Explain what is wrong with pay as you go versus forced contribution. You claim to know about Americans but you don't seem to have any inkling at all of just how bad the US Government is and has been taking its citizens for a ride. Do you really not see the incredible squandering of its ill gotten gains? Do you really not see that it is the friends of the government who end up on top? Is this the reason you support them and their wealth confiscation programs so much? Please tell me.Mike Cheelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-7877865621375302942011-02-24T15:11:12.125-05:002011-02-24T15:11:12.125-05:00"why don't YOU try to answer why an indiv..."why don't YOU try to answer why an individual who benefits from a society's norms and institutions should not be obliged to pay taxes"<br /><br />The answer is very simple. You believe I am obliged to pay taxes, therefore you must also believe I have a source of income. That source of income is work. So since I work, I have already made a contribution to the well-being of the society. Can you guess what the contribution is? Yes, that's right, my work. I am not obliged to make any further contribution.Robert Tulleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-46792060501216354992011-02-24T15:02:59.194-05:002011-02-24T15:02:59.194-05:00Dan,
But you did broach the topic:
Let me add f...Dan, <br /><br />But you did broach the topic:<br /><br /><i>Let me add for all you nutball individualists that you should learn some basic game theory. Mainly, Prisoner's dilemma and Nash Equilibrium.<br /><br />The fact that individuals wish to maximize their utility is not rocket science...even tho Bala seems to think it is.<br /><br />However, in many cases a society can maximize its overall payoff by coordinating a solution among disparate players....basic Nash equilibrium.<br /><br />On the other hand, prisoners dilemma shows the pitfalls of each individual working in his/her own interest regardless of what is the better outcome for all.</i><br /><br />So for the third time, I offer my question:<br /><br />How does Nash equilibrium and Prisoner's Dilemna apply to the division of labor working with scarce resources and an infinite array of choices and ideas?Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-77185964003529342902011-02-24T14:58:59.222-05:002011-02-24T14:58:59.222-05:00I have no problem explaining my beliefs. My quest...I have no problem explaining my beliefs. My question was never answered in the first place. I'm definately not interested in going down another 30 comment trail so you can clarify your fringe ideologies on a topic I never broached...<br /><br />Recipe for more Austrian hot air...Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-10420333613685173662011-02-24T14:15:15.761-05:002011-02-24T14:15:15.761-05:00@Anonymous,
I thank you for your comment. I do kn...@Anonymous,<br /><br />I thank you for your comment. I do know some atheists/evolutionists that are strongly grounded in libertarian philosphy. I have had lengthy discussions with them and enjoy it. I don't particularly enjoy the company of Atheists who claim to have answers to the most difficult philosophical questions. At that point, they sound creepily like theologians and it becomes just another religion.<br /><br />I'm not interesting in feeding trolls. I like feeding on them :)<br /><br />Lord Keynes has walked himself into a trap. If, as he states, moral intuition is a product of evolution, he must now explain why rule utilitarianism is needed. Judging by his first attempt to explain this, he's in for big trouble. I'm sure you can see why.<br /><br />As for Dan the Man, the best way to deal with a blowhard is to ask them to explain their beliefs. If they could explain them, they wouldn't be blowhards.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-85453253622293879992011-02-24T12:42:39.316-05:002011-02-24T12:42:39.316-05:00Dan,
I'm here to learn. You said that Nash e...Dan, <br /><br />I'm here to learn. You said that Nash equilibrium and prisoner dilemna are superior in solving these problems. <br /><br />I don't know why you won't answer the question I posed. I will put it out there again:<br /><br />How does Nash equilibrium and Prisoner's Dilemna apply to the division of labor working with scarce resources and an infinite array of choices and ideas?<br /><br />I want to learn. Teach me.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-9957714144712700232011-02-24T12:34:16.570-05:002011-02-24T12:34:16.570-05:00blah blah blah...
Given my example, why don't...blah blah blah...<br /><br />Given my example, why don't YOU try to answer why an individual who benefits from a society's norms and institutions should not be obliged to pay taxes. You forget that this conversation started which the assertion that taxation is nothing more than confiscation and coercion of your hard earned money...boo hoo.<br /><br />That has been my argument from the beginning, no matter which logical bunny trail you try to run down. So answer my question...I'm just calling you what you are...a free rider.Dannoreply@blogger.com