Well screw the middle class.

Post Reply New Topic

Obviously you pick the privately funded program, since people could elect to support that, whereas the government program is always based on forced participation.

You have a 3 step here:
1. Intention (Getting people out of poverty)
2. Method (Private or public)
3. Desired outcome (Less poverty)

If the outcome doesn't matter in this situation, why did it matter in the last one concerning how the middle class is getting "screwed over" by people on the welfare rolls? Oh that's right, because it's a belief that is easy and comfortable for you to accept in your libertarian mind with the least cognitive dissonance but now you have pretty much opened up the can of worms and revealed how your ideology is not consistent.

Why would there be a privately funded program? I mean its already been pointed out but its not like the pigs at the top care that much that they would want to create such a program and if they did it would probably be more for show than actually effective. Then again this current government isn't a whole lot better so not sure how to answer that I suppose either one....though if we had a competent government than I imagine government funded.

Also less poverty is nice, but the goal of eradicating poverty is better but people like to cling to the idea that its 'impossible' and there 'has' to be a hierarchy of course extreme wealth would also have to be eliminated at least financial wealth. But the pigs on top don't want that because having their needs met as well as the means to enjoy themselves is not enough, they want it all to themselves and would prefer the rest keep their grubby fingers out of it I imagine.

It was a theodicy problem designed to show how this guy is arguing from both sides of his mouth. When he can say that the welfare collectors are screwing the middle class, the outcome and not the intentions are weighed. But in this problem he sudden't doesnt care about the outcome of less poverty anymore and now he's starting to pick on the method. Do you not see how he's becoming a moving target like good ol Romney? His consequentialism is insincere because given the choice between a private or public option that can produce the same outcome, he will ALWAYS pick the private because the cognitive dissonance of not picking the private option is just too great for him to overcome.

Last edited by DancingDanny on 13 Oct 2012, 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As they say anyone is free to leave the country, and find one with a social contract that better fits them. Point is its not 'always' forced many people are quite fine paying taxes and would do so either way.

I mean come on people ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Oh no maybe it can be interpreted more than one way.

If you read the post I originally did it said that intentions are unimportant, outcomes are very important. The outcome here of less poverty matters, the intentions of why one does it, (to feel good about yourself, to help others etc) doesn't matter.

The outcome of the middle class getting screwed also matters, the intension of why the rich and poor do it is not terribly important.

I'm not being inconsistent you are being blinded by white hot rage and have lost your ability to read.

Every case so far, has been consistent "outcomes matter, intentions do not"

In the case of the middle class being bled from both sides, the outcome mattered and to a lesser degree the method mattered, not the intent.

In your faux murder dilemma the outcome and method mattered, not the intent.

In the poverty "theodicy" (it's ironic that you called it that, because theodicy is generally used to describe sh***y arguments, that are made by people blinded by their beliefs and rarely are logically consistent) it was also consistent, the intent didn't matter, the method did matter, and the outcome mattered.



Where did I say that the outcome didn't matter? You say I did, but I just re-read my posts and I surely didn't. I did answer that a private sector program is preferable, but private vs public sector doesn't deal with intent, it deals with the "how" of accomplishing something, not the "why".

The definition of "intent" is Adjective: Resolved or determined to do (something): "intent on achieving efficiency"

The definition of outcome is Noun: The way a thing turns out; a consequence: "it is the outcome of the vote that counts".

Private vs public sector is neither, it's a method of how to get from Intent to Outcome, so you brought the method into this argument by asking a question which implicitly required it to be included with both your (poor) attempts at proving me inconsistent.

The reason I picked the private sector program over the public program is simply due to the fact that the private one is a voluntary engagement whereas the public one is by definition compulsory.

Last edited by TM on 13 Oct 2012, 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh to live in a world where I am still right while I have fatally rolled over and shown my belly to the world. It must be like Romney felt after telling the group that 47 percent of Americans are bums then turning right around and saying he was wrong just to save his burning campaign. You can not help yourself but to call the welfare collectors a bunch of moochers on one hand but prefer that if they are going to have to mooch that they have to come to a philanthropist even though he isn't really effecting a better change than the public option.

I didn't call the welfare collectors moochers, you just did. If someone is going to get something from another person, I prefer them to get it voluntary from that person, I realize you prefer putting a gun to people's head and forcing them to act according to your ideals, but I'm a fairly tolerant person and not in favor of authoritarianism.

If you've rolled over and shown anything, it's that like most of the leftists on this board you couldn't construct an argument with a gun to your head and utterly fail at disconnecting your emotions from your logic.

Last edited by TM on 13 Oct 2012, 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Man if all of this were really nothing but moral philosophy to you you wouldn't have made up loaded language like that the poor are screwing the middle class with their welfare checks. That viewpoint is nothing but an ideological stance that you have taught yourself to believe because it is easy and it is comfortable.

The irony here is that while you're reacting with the white hot fervor of of a true class warrior on behalf of the poor, you're fine with my characterization of the rich equally screwing the middle class. Now that takes a striking lack of objectivity, it's almost as if you've trained yourself to believe an ideological stance because it's easy and comfortable. If you viewed humans as equal and worthy of the same respect and treatment, you should have been just as upset about my characterization of the rich.

I can break that paragraph into a single word; hypocrite.

Again, more loaded emotional language that has nothing to do with what is really happening in History or anything except what neoclassical economists and their allies have said. Your silly little libertarian ideology will be the first thing to hit the chopping block when the plutocrat fascists assume control just the way that alot of people who fought for National Socialism or Communism were the very first few victims of the regime! You must as well be giving the corporations the rope to hang yourself with!

Oh, I certainly agree that I am not a perfect Apollonian. Atleast I can do that. Atleast I don't try to wrap myself in the magic word of objectivity by making a quick crack at the rich just to appear balance while being an obvious partisan hack for neoclassical economics.

What history would that be, I'd love to hear it from you. Anyone can make blanket statements of "this is history" but it's very easy to do when you don't specify. If we look at it objectively, more people have been lifted out of poverty thanks to capitalism in the last 100 years than ever before in human history. In China alone 30 million have been lifted out of poverty, which ironically is about half of what Communism murdered in the years before.



Now, what were you saying about emotionally loaded language?

Last edited by TM on 13 Oct 2012, 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well you know, like most people with an education in economics, I lean towards neoclassical with some Keynesian influences. A bit strange that when dealing with global warming the left is screaming "listen to the people who study global warming" but when dealing with economics they scream "Don't listen to the people who study economics!"

I mean you do realize that a synonym for "neoclassical economics" is "mainstream economics" right?

I am not arguing against capitalism in favor of replacing it with the Soviet Union! I am arguing against your libertarian sandbox that wants to wear the power of logic divorced from emotion while the things that you believe in are indeed very emotionally motivated.

What history would that be? How about the history and the world where the government collecting taxes and spending is not tantamount to getting your wallet stolen at gunpoint? How about the consensus reality that all liberals and conservatives have agreed upon that there is a social contract that we have agreed upon with our government? The government is not an individual and it is not be held to the same morality that you hold an individual to or else is it effectively not empowered to collect tax and spend!

You lean towards of changing the subject and changing the scope of what you believe in when it is convenient to try to win some points. This entire argument you have argued like a libertarian and now all of sudden you have these Keynesian influences. Mind boggling.