tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post7470464404414349265..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman, Brooks, and Hijacked Good SenseWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-83380422848214820772010-11-16T16:42:05.566-05:002010-11-16T16:42:05.566-05:00At least it gives some good insight into the insan...At least it gives some good insight into the insanity of our self-appointed rulers. "Not only are we going to beat you to death with this tire iron, it's been approved by a majority vote so we're completely morally justified in doing so and you are immoral to resist. And no, you can't see the names on the ballot."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-2672430785002874232010-11-15T12:29:31.367-05:002010-11-15T12:29:31.367-05:00This is funny.
A totally irrelevant troll spending...This is funny.<br />A totally irrelevant troll spending an awful amount of time expanding a pathetic pseudo - utilitarian theory that already has been proven wrong by - well, every school of thought that is not utilitarian (the majority of schools of thought obvioulsy). And doing this to people whom he knows will never EVER agree with him.<br /><br />Lord Keynes, I have a suggestion for you - get a life. It is obvious that outside of the virtual world, you have none.Petarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-88568688463530496902010-11-15T05:39:46.590-05:002010-11-15T05:39:46.590-05:00LK,
"Who said anything about subjective util...LK,<br /><br />"Who said anything about subjective utility?"<br /><br />I know you never said it, but then utility is a concept in economics and you never talk of economics, only of economic history. I was just pointing out a concept in economics that shows you up for the imbecile you are.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-85136118933746975812010-11-15T05:38:38.638-05:002010-11-15T05:38:38.638-05:00LK you Bandit,
"This is about saving human l...LK you Bandit,<br /><br />"This is about saving human lives."<br /><br />Those who are keen to save human lives are always free to spend their own money to save them. The moment they try to rob others, they deserve to be punished for the bandits they are.<br /><br />So, go put your money where your big mouth is and donate your money to private charities that help people in dire need. Take your grubby hands out of the pockets of those who do not want them in their pockets.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-76852521999073648232010-11-15T05:11:51.992-05:002010-11-15T05:11:51.992-05:00Utility is a subjective concept and an ordinal num...<i>Utility is a subjective concept and an ordinal number. You can NEVER compare the utility lost by the person who was robbed (in the name of tax</i><br /><br />Who said anything about subjective utility?<br /><br />This is about saving <i>human lives.</i><br /><br />Another argument of yours collapses.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-62483369643024049702010-11-15T03:49:15.370-05:002010-11-15T03:49:15.370-05:00LK you shill,
"Rule utilitarianism already s...LK you shill,<br /><br />"Rule utilitarianism already shows these people are have debased sense of morality - like you."<br /><br />You are the one with a debased morality that says it is OK to initiate force against other people just because someone else will get some benefit. You are a totalitarian who cares a rats arse about human life.<br /><br />"They think absolute property rights come before human life. "<br /><br />And you are a certified imbecile who fails to realise that absolute property rights is synonymous with the preservation and enhancement of human life and insist on presenting a false dichotomy between the two as the basis of your depraved ideas.<br /><br />"Modern states *already* have property rights and functioning economies, and that is perfectly compatible with progressive taxes and public goods."<br /><br />You moron! The key word there was SUSTAINABLE. Sidestepping it is not a way answering it, you nincompoop.<br /><br />"But believing that no one should have ANY water at all, just because some selfish **%%h*& has an absolute right to property is the height of immorality"<br /><br />Who the f$@k said no one should have any water at all? You squawking popinjay! I am saying "Let those who want to use the water from the well owned by the 1 person PAY him for the water". The truth is that you want them to be able to take the water WITHOUT paying him. And if you argue that they would be ready to pay him, then no force was required in any case. All that is needed is negotiation to fix a price.<br /><br />"Really??<br />How so? By the kind of absolute garbage that passes for argument by Austrians?"<br /><br />You economic ignoramus. Utility is a subjective concept and an ordinal number. You can NEVER compare the utility lost by the person who was robbed (in the name of tax) with the utility gained by the person who receives the robbed money when it is spent. Hence, it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone at all to show a net benefit. The only thing that you can be sure of is that some Peters were robbed to pay some other Pauls.<br /><br />I would like to see the garbage you have to offer against this simple (and obvious) argument.<br /><br />"Or if they are really so outraged by the thought of taxes curing children and the sick and giving people basic welfare, they can always vote with their feet and leave - no one is stopping them."<br /><br />You dolt! What they are outraged about is that they were robbed. You get it? Freaking ROBBED!!!<br /><br />You are nothing but an ar$ehole who wants to justify legalised plunder. Go find some other site to pollute. I am sure you would get quite an audience considering that the majority is just waiting to lap up your $h1t.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-41701110398090703002010-11-15T02:45:20.706-05:002010-11-15T02:45:20.706-05:00And in fact probably the most moral choice a liber...And in fact probably the most <i>moral</i> choice a libertarian can make is to leave anyway:<br /><br /><b>(1)</b> Taxation is coercive and immoral;<br /><b>(2)</b> Public goods (roads, bridges, highways, public libraries etc) are immoral as they are built with stolen money taken by coercion.<br /><b>(3)</b> Any use of public goods is immoral use of stolen property<br /><b>(4)</b> A moral libertarian would not use stolen property<br /><b>(5)</b> The only moral course of action for a morally consistent libertarian is to leave a country with coercive taxes and public goods that are stolen property.<br /><br />So really the fact that libertarians freely choose to continue living in such a society just proves they are moral hypocrites and immoral users of public goods created by theft.<br /><br />Though I really don't care at all if you stay, you might at least have the courage to live up to your moral ideas and leave, by going and living somewhere else.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-62561870068524782092010-11-15T02:12:49.149-05:002010-11-15T02:12:49.149-05:00And no analysis can ever show that taxes confer a ...<i>And no analysis can ever show that taxes confer a net benefit. </i><br /><br />Really??<br />How so? By the kind of absolute garbage that passes for argument by Austrians?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-46398417969374788222010-11-15T02:09:04.313-05:002010-11-15T02:09:04.313-05:00Who the f#*k is the majority to tell the minority ...<i>Who the f#*k is the majority to tell the minority how they may behave and what they may keep?</i><br /><br />Rule utilitarianism already shows these people are have debased sense of morality - like you.<br />They think absolute property rights come before human life. <br /><br />Whatever coercion they suffer in paying progressive taxes for public goods (which they themselves use) is justified by saving of human lives.<br /><br />Or if they are really so outraged by the thought of taxes curing children and the sick and giving people basic welfare, they can always vote with their feet and leave - no one is stopping them.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-16085786321119008242010-11-15T02:03:56.381-05:002010-11-15T02:03:56.381-05:00All this still does not address the impossibility ...<i>All this still does not address the impossibility of a sustainable functioning economy without recognising absolute property rights</i><br /><br />Modern states *already* have property rights and functioning economies, and that is perfectly compatible with progressive taxes and public goods.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-4016050199825320652010-11-15T02:01:47.210-05:002010-11-15T02:01:47.210-05:00It is not just about direct harm to the well-owner...<i>It is not just about direct harm to the well-owner but indirect harm due to depletion of HIS water source. Are you claiming that his survival cannot in any way be jeopardised when his well is drained by all the parasites?</i><br /><br />If:<br /><br />(1) adequate water is available for all, then there is no issue of the water owner's "survival"; people would be justified in taking what they need;<br /><br />(2) if water is limited, then the water owner should be given his share to survive, just as other people should have their share.<br /><br />(3) If there is not enough water for all, then there are hard moral choices to be made: they should be worked out by community discussion. A good principle is that people should have it on basis of greatest need. <br />Some may choice to go in search of more water. Some parents may choose to let their children have preference. <br /><br />But believing that no one should have ANY water at all, just because some selfish **%%h*& has an absolute right to property is the height of immorality.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-65533990128016001682010-11-15T01:41:01.797-05:002010-11-15T01:41:01.797-05:00LK you thug,
Who the f#*k is the majority to tell...LK you thug,<br /><br />Who the f#*k is the majority to tell the minority how they may behave and what they may keep?<br /><br />And no analysis can ever show that taxes confer a net benefit. So even rule utilitarianism cannot justify taxation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-59078702053428904302010-11-15T01:35:04.852-05:002010-11-15T01:35:04.852-05:00LK you moron (the gloves are off now),
It is not ...LK you moron (the gloves are off now),<br /><br />It is not just about direct harm to the well-owner but indirect harm due to depletion of HIS water source. Are you claiming that his survival cannot in any way be jeopardised when his well is drained by all the parasites?<br /><br />All this still does not address the impossibility of a sustainable functioning economy without recognising absolute property rights. Npthing that you say or do can reverse the damage done by coercion to an economy.<br /><br />And yes. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is harmful to Peter. You can always count on Paul's support, but that does not negate the harm to Peter.<br /><br />BalaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-77931779982430117072010-11-15T01:30:35.196-05:002010-11-15T01:30:35.196-05:00Who decides what is necessary and what is unnecess...<i>Who decides what is necessary and what is unnecessary? </i><br /><br />The human beings who live in any nation, by using a system of ethics derived from rule utilitarianism.<br /><br />They freely vote for policies like progressive taxes and public health care in virtually very nation.<br /><br />Who the **%* are you to tell the majority how to vote and organise their society?? If rule utilitarianism shows that taxes are justified to provide a basic support system for themselves and their fellow citizens???Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6021085022516822132010-11-15T01:25:31.369-05:002010-11-15T01:25:31.369-05:00And what does this gibberish mean???:
Your attemp...And what does this gibberish mean???:<br /><br /><i>Your attempt at taking the act of saving a person that matters to one by pushing them off the path is the most laughable straw-man.</i><br /><br /><br /><i>In the case of taxation, the effects of the coercion are clearly harmful.</i><br /><br />Rubbish. <br />The use of public money to cure the sick is "clearly harmful"??Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-32879063722236426592010-11-15T01:23:03.283-05:002010-11-15T01:23:03.283-05:00Correction:
Your comment:
Why do you leave a loo...Correction:<br /><br />Your comment:<br /><br /><i>Why do you leave a loophole like "unjustified"? Justified by what standard?</i><br /><br />There is NO loophole. <br />I already told you the standard: by the rule utilitarianism that should also tell you that coercion is necessary and moral, if your wife/child/brother/complete stranger is about to walk in front of a speeding car, and you want to save them. <br /><br />And incidentally: you would use coercion in such an instance, would you??<br /><br />If so, your rubbish statement above ("coercion is always wrong") is exposed as false.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-53092650408166892692010-11-15T01:19:24.709-05:002010-11-15T01:19:24.709-05:00Already told you: by the rule utilitarianism that ...Already told you: by the rule utilitarianism that should also tell you that coercion is necessary and moral, if your wife/child/brother/complete stranger is about to walk in front of a speeding car, and you want to save them.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-86706831042895446142010-11-15T01:16:49.756-05:002010-11-15T01:16:49.756-05:00What about the water that the rest of the village ...<i>What about the water that the rest of the village has to grab to survive? What is the well owner's survival is put into jeopardy to do so? </i><br /><br />Read what I said, idiot:<br /><br /><i>If a village of 100 people has one well which is in the possession of one man, who suddenly refuses to give water to anyone else, and there is no rain or any other water and people are dying of thirst, you believe that the dying people may not under any circumstances use force against the man <b>(but not kill or wound him)</b> to take what water they need just to survive?</i><br /><br />Perhaps you have difficulty reading?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-221085516187236092010-11-15T00:57:49.164-05:002010-11-15T00:57:49.164-05:00LK,
"preventing unnecessary human suffering&...LK,<br /><br />"preventing unnecessary human suffering"<br /><br />Who decides what is necessary and what is unnecessary? Necessary or unnecessary for whom? You thug. Go peddle your nonsense someplace else.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-35100684961841435722010-11-15T00:56:07.871-05:002010-11-15T00:56:07.871-05:00LK,
"If "it is impossible for rational ...LK,<br /><br />"If "it is impossible for rational people" to support taxes, then you are saying that majority of people are "not rational"??"<br /><br />I am saying they are being irrational in choosing a civilised way of life and giving their support for taxes simultaneously. The reason I call it irrational is not a personal preference but the simple logical point that the two are contradictory. To support taxes is to reject civilisation and vice versa.<br /><br />"I have said NOTHING about killing anyone."<br /><br />ROFLMAO. What about the water that the rest of the village has to grab to survive? What is the well owner's survival is put into jeopardy to do so? Go drown in the nearest well you thug.<br /><br />"The only sensible position is that UNJUSTIFIED use of force/coercion is immoral."<br /><br />How crooked you are is revealed int his statement. Why do you leave a loophole like "unjustified"? Justified by what standard? I would prefer to say initiation of force is wrong.<br /><br />Your attempt at taking the act of saving a person that matters to one by pushing them off the path is the most laughable straw-man. Whether an act is an act of coercion or not is to be judged rationally by the consequences of acting or not acting. In the case of taxation, the effects of the coercion are clearly harmful. No amount of lipstick can make that pig look like a supermodel.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-70042454580955804882010-11-15T00:47:59.987-05:002010-11-15T00:47:59.987-05:00preventing unnecessary human sufferingpreventing <b>un</b>necessary human sufferingLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-2875817354744507702010-11-15T00:43:33.487-05:002010-11-15T00:43:33.487-05:00The simple difference between you and me is that w...<i>The simple difference between you and me is that while I say coercion is always wrong, you are ready to accept the legitimacy of coercion if the ends are acceptable to you. In short, my approach is governed by the principle of non-initiation of force while you care two hoots for that</i><br /><br />And also this kind of stupid argument even rules out force/coercion used in self-defense!<br /><br />Well done!!<br /><br />The only sensible position is that UNJUSTIFIED use of force/coercion is immoral.<br /><br />Rule utilitarianism shows how we justify the instances where force/coercion can be used, e.g., in preventing an accident, defending yourself, preventing necessary human suffering where taxes can provide basic protections against disease and starvation for vulnerable human beings.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-38358325554158691832010-11-15T00:29:11.504-05:002010-11-15T00:29:11.504-05:00And you never answer the question:
If "it is...And you never answer the question:<br /><br />If "it is impossible for rational people" to support taxes, then you are saying that majority of people are "not rational"??<br /><br />I bet you will continue to avoid that question.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-31858252239886686482010-11-15T00:26:31.870-05:002010-11-15T00:26:31.870-05:00If at all any one of us is immoral, it is you who ...<i>If at all any one of us is immoral, it is you who says that it is alright to kill one person if it will benefit another one who I feel should benefit.</i><br /><br />Contemptible straw man argument.<br /><br />I have said NOTHING about killing anyone. <br /><br />That shows a lot about your ability to argue.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-36409423446454125482010-11-15T00:24:07.098-05:002010-11-15T00:24:07.098-05:00The simple difference between you and me is that w...<i>The simple difference between you and me is that while I say coercion is always wrong, you are ready to accept the legitimacy of coercion if the ends are acceptable to you.</i><br /><br />So you say that "coercion is always wrong"??? <br />Always?? Is that true???<br /><br />Let's put that to the test, shall we?<br /><br />Say your 3 year old child/wife/brother (or indeed just a human being you just happen to see on the street) is about to walk unknowingly in front of a speeding car that will hit them and you are in a position to do something. There is no time to yell a warning. Do you:<br /><br />(1) Use coercion to stop them from running by grabbing them, or <br /><br />(2) Do nothing because "coercion is always wrong."<br /><br />If you do what any normal, moral human being does, you do (1).<br /><br />If you choose (2), you are revealed as a an utterly immoral idiot.<br /><br />And don't tell me that this could never happen, as I have seen it happen more than once, and it is not an uncommon situation.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.com