Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 45

Thread: The BEST Salad Dressing Ever

  1. #1

    Default The BEST Salad Dressing Ever

    Here are the ingredients for the very BEST salad dressing ever:

    1. Fresh squeezed lemon juice
    2. Extra virgin olive oil
    3. Raw garlic (pressed)
    4. Cayenne powder
    5. Oregano flakes
    6. Basil flakes
    7. Cumin
    8. Salt

    [DISCLAIMER - Please read]: By choosing to make and try this salad dressing, you are agreeing to absolve me of any and all liability and responsibility should your taste buds explode

    As you can see, I didn't include any measurements. That's because my family has always approximated the appropriate amount of each ingredient to add.

    I really love this salad dressing...but there's something that I love even more...economics. Why? Because it's really important for me to understand exactly why I'm 99.9% certain that if I went to my local grocery store right this second, I would be able to find all the ingredients that are necessary to make a salad dressing that would provide my friends, family and I with lots of joy, happiness, pleasure, benefit, utility and welfare.

    Economics is the field of study that focuses on what can be done to try and ensure that we have all the "ingredients" that we need to maximize joy, happiness, pleasure, benefit, utility and welfare. The two main economic theories are the "market" theory and the "planned" or "command" theory.

    Personally, the market theory makes far more sense to me than the "planned" theory. In fact, the "planned" theory makes so little sense that I prefer to refer to it as the "non sequitur" theory.

    The market theory makes sense because...if I want to make the BEST salad dressing ever...I have the freedom to go to the store and exchange my money for the necessary ingredients. By giving my money to the cashier...I'm giving a "high five" to everybody responsible for making these products possible. My money gives them the incentive to continue using society's limited resources for my benefit. Except, clearly I'm not the only one who finds value in giving them positive feedback. The market works because it's the epitome of a group effort.

    The non sequitur theory, on the other hand, makes no sense because, well, it's a non sequitur. If I go to the store, place all the necessary ingredients in my cart, and give my money to the cashier...my money...my "high five"...my positive feedback...my encouragement...my gratitude...my appreciation...my sacrifice...wouldn't go to the people responsible for producing the ingredients that I had placed in my cart...it would be redirected to the people responsible for producing fennel, bananas, tofu, plastic utensils and cheese whiz. As a result, there would be a disconnect between the demand (the premise) and the supply (the conclusion). The shelves would be overflowing with some ingredients/inputs and completely devoid of other ingredients/inputs.

    Nearly all countries have mixed economies. A mixed economy is one where the private sector operates on the market theory while the public sector operates on the non sequitur theory. But do we really want the public sector to be a non sequitur economy? Why would you want to exchange your taxes for a bundle of public goods which does not even come close to matching your preferences? Why would we want the shelves to be overflowing with tanks but completely devoid of environmental protection?

    In essence...economics is the study of why freedom matters. I think I know why freedom matters...which is why I want you to have the freedom to choose which government organizations you give your taxes to. I want you to have the freedom to choose whether you eliminate tanks from your "recipe" just like you have the freedom to choose whether you eliminate garlic from the recipe that I've shared with you. Should you eliminate garlic from the BEST salad dressing ever? No way! Should you have the freedom to do so? Absolutely.

    Is my salad dressing truly the BEST ever? If it really is...then why would I hesitate allowing you to decide for yourself? Is your recipe for life truly the BEST ever? If you really believe it is...then why would you hesitate allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves?

    Here are the three most common reasons why people hesitate:

    1.
    Argument: People are too uninformed to make good decisions
    Counter argument: If people are uninformed it's because they have a vanishingly small say how their taxes are spent. The technical term for this is rational ignorance.

    2.
    Argument: "Important" government organizations would be underfunded.
    Counter argument: How "important" a government organization is to society can only be revealed by our actions. The technical term for this is demonstrated preference.

    3.
    Argument: It would be unfair because rich people would have more influence than poor people.
    Counter argument: Given that nobody evenly distributes their money, a market economy in the public sector would be considerably more fair than the current non sequitur economy. The technical term for this is dollar voting.

    Please make it a priority to understand why society's total welfare absolutely depends on you having the option not to "buy" things. If you don't like what I'm trying to "sell" to you...if you really don't "buy" it...then please, by all means, add me to your ignore list. But if you choose to do so...then your actions would be speaking louder than your words. Clearly you would value the freedom to place any government organization on your ignore list.

    If you do decide to make it a priority to understand why your priorities should matter...then here are a couple of resources that might be of some interest. They aren't interesting because they are pro tax choice...on the contrary...their focus is primarily on the downside of having too many choices. But they are interesting because they assume that you have a firm grasp on why your freedom is important.

    1. Here's a psychologist, Barry Schwartz, making an argument against having too many options...The Paradox of Choice. Not sure if you have to register to watch the video...but it's also available on Netflix. On the TED website you have the option to just read the transcript...but then you'd miss out on all the funny comic strips he shares.

    2. Here's a paper...The Dark Side of Choice...by Simona Botti and Sheena S. Iyengar that offers a more in depth exploration of the same topic discussed by Barry Schwartz.

    Both offer a lot of food for thought...so hopefully you'll take a look at them.

    Is there really a BEST salad dressing? No way...and thank goodness. Life wouldn't be worth living if there wasn't room for improvement. So where's there room for improvement with my salad dressing? I have no idea. I've been too busy trying to find where there's room for improvement in my argument for your freedom.

    Trying to find room for improvement is second nature to us. Not just us though...right next to me there's a cat on a blanket shifting around trying to find where there's room for improvement. The market works because we have the freedom to reward the people who've discovered exactly where there's room for improvement. Is there room for improvement in the public sector? Most definitely. So let's create a market in the public sector and give our taxes to whichever government organizations are doing the most to improve our lives.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,515
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Congratulations. Your salad dressing is basically just infused olive oil.

    I wonder if you really do dress your salads that way, or if you left off vinegar on purpose? It might be in that wall of text...
    May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Congratulations. Your salad dressing is basically just infused olive oil.

    I wonder if you really do dress your salads that way, or if you left off vinegar on purpose? It might be in that wall of text...
    Heh. For salad dressing... lemon juice beats vinegar any day of the week. Not that I don't like a good Greek salad dressing...but lemon juice is definitely my preference.

    Have you ever tried a salad dressing with lemon juice instead of vinegar?

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Here are the ingredients for the very BEST salad dressing ever:

    1. Fresh squeezed lemon juice
    2. Extra virgin olive oil
    3. Raw garlic (pressed)
    4. Cayenne powder
    5. Oregano flakes
    6. Basil flakes
    7. Cumin
    8. Salt

    [DISCLAIMER - Please read]: By choosing to make and try this salad dressing, you are agreeing to absolve me of any and all liability and responsibility should your taste buds explode

    As you can see, I didn't include any measurements. That's because my family has always approximated the appropriate amount of each ingredient to add.

    I really love this salad dressing...but there's something that I love even more...economics. Why? Because it's really important for me to understand exactly why I'm 99.9% certain that if I went to my local grocery store right this second, I would be able to find all the ingredients that are necessary to make a salad dressing that would provide my friends, family and I with lots of joy, happiness, pleasure, benefit, utility and welfare.

    Economics is the field of study that focuses on what can be done to try and ensure that we have all the "ingredients" that we need to maximize joy, happiness, pleasure, benefit, utility and welfare. The two main economic theories are the "market" theory and the "planned" or "command" theory.

    Personally, the market theory makes far more sense to me than the "planned" theory. In fact, the "planned" theory makes so little sense that I prefer to refer to it as the "non sequitur" theory.

    The market theory makes sense because...if I want to make the BEST salad dressing ever...I have the freedom to go to the store and exchange my money for the necessary ingredients. By giving my money to the cashier...I'm giving a "high five" to everybody responsible for making these products possible. My money gives them the incentive to continue using society's limited resources for my benefit. Except, clearly I'm not the only one who finds value in giving them positive feedback. The market works because it's the epitome of a group effort.

    The non sequitur theory, on the other hand, makes no sense because, well, it's a non sequitur. If I go to the store, place all the necessary ingredients in my cart, and give my money to the cashier...my money...my "high five"...my positive feedback...my encouragement...my gratitude...my appreciation...my sacrifice...wouldn't go to the people responsible for producing the ingredients that I had placed in my cart...it would be redirected to the people responsible for producing fennel, bananas, tofu, plastic utensils and cheese whiz. As a result, there would be a disconnect between the demand (the premise) and the supply (the conclusion). The shelves would be overflowing with some ingredients/inputs and completely devoid of other ingredients/inputs.

    Nearly all countries have mixed economies. A mixed economy is one where the private sector operates on the market theory while the public sector operates on the non sequitur theory. But do we really want the public sector to be a non sequitur economy? Why would you want to exchange your taxes for a bundle of public goods which does not even come close to matching your preferences? Why would we want the shelves to be overflowing with tanks but completely devoid of environmental protection?

    In essence...economics is the study of why freedom matters. I think I know why freedom matters...which is why I want you to have the freedom to choose which government organizations you give your taxes to. I want you to have the freedom to choose whether you eliminate tanks from your "recipe" just like you have the freedom to choose whether you eliminate garlic from the recipe that I've shared with you. Should you eliminate garlic from the BEST salad dressing ever? No way! Should you have the freedom to do so? Absolutely.

    Is my salad dressing truly the BEST ever? If it really is...then why would I hesitate allowing you to decide for yourself? Is your recipe for life truly the BEST ever? If you really believe it is...then why would you hesitate allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves?

    Here are the three most common reasons why people hesitate:

    1.
    Argument: People are too uninformed to make good decisions
    Counter argument: If people are uninformed it's because they have a vanishingly small say how their taxes are spent. The technical term for this is rational ignorance.

    2.
    Argument: "Important" government organizations would be underfunded.
    Counter argument: How "important" a government organization is to society can only be revealed by our actions. The technical term for this is demonstrated preference.

    3.
    Argument: It would be unfair because rich people would have more influence than poor people.
    Counter argument: Given that nobody evenly distributes their money, a market economy in the public sector would be considerably more fair than the current non sequitur economy. The technical term for this is dollar voting.

    Please make it a priority to understand why society's total welfare absolutely depends on you having the option not to "buy" things. If you don't like what I'm trying to "sell" to you...if you really don't "buy" it...then please, by all means, add me to your ignore list. But if you choose to do so...then your actions would be speaking louder than your words. Clearly you would value the freedom to place any government organization on your ignore list.

    If you do decide to make it a priority to understand why your priorities should matter...then here are a couple of resources that might be of some interest. They aren't interesting because they are pro tax choice...on the contrary...their focus is primarily on the downside of having too many choices. But they are interesting because they assume that you have a firm grasp on why your freedom is important.

    1. Here's a psychologist, Barry Schwartz, making an argument against having too many options...The Paradox of Choice. Not sure if you have to register to watch the video...but it's also available on Netflix. On the TED website you have the option to just read the transcript...but then you'd miss out on all the funny comic strips he shares.

    2. Here's a paper...The Dark Side of Choice...by Simona Botti and Sheena S. Iyengar that offers a more in depth exploration of the same topic discussed by Barry Schwartz.

    Both offer a lot of food for thought...so hopefully you'll take a look at them.

    Is there really a BEST salad dressing? No way...and thank goodness. Life wouldn't be worth living if there wasn't room for improvement. So where's there room for improvement with my salad dressing? I have no idea. I've been too busy trying to find where there's room for improvement in my argument for your freedom.

    Trying to find room for improvement is second nature to us. Not just us though...right next to me there's a cat on a blanket shifting around trying to find where there's room for improvement. The market works because we have the freedom to reward the people who've discovered exactly where there's room for improvement. Is there room for improvement in the public sector? Most definitely. So let's create a market in the public sector and give our taxes to whichever government organizations are doing the most to improve our lives.
    If you are forced to make salad dressing, no matter what kind of freedom you have to pick the ingredients, you aren't free. What if I want a salad without dressing? This is obvious to everyone here. There is no need to try to convince anyone otherwise.

    But, it does sound like a tasty recipe. Thanks.

  6. #5

    Default

    Salad without dressing? BLASPHEMY!

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninepointfive View Post
    Salad without dressing? BLASPHEMY!
    Don't tread on me bro! It's what I value!

  8. #7
    Untimely ripped fisharmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location! Location!
    Posts
    7,124

    Default

    907 posts and every single one is hucking pragmastablishmentarianism.
    I think you beat out the Whitney Houston guy at this point.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    If you are forced to make salad dressing, no matter what kind of freedom you have to pick the ingredients, you aren't free. What if I want a salad without dressing? This is obvious to everyone here. There is no need to try to convince anyone otherwise.

    But, it does sound like a tasty recipe. Thanks.
    People believe that government organizations improve their lives. Is there any need to dissuade them of this belief? I don't think so. Here's why...

    Men have a natural propensity to make the best bargain they can, when not prevented by an opposing force; that is, they like to obtain as much as they possibly can for their labour, whether the advantage is obtained from a foreign producer, or a skillful mechanical producer. - Bastiat
    Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. Therefore, taxpayers will want the most value for their tax dollars. Will they get more bang for their buck in the public sector? If so...then it's a good thing that you didn't get rid of the public sector. If not...then you've just opened the eyes of half the country.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    People believe that government organizations improve their lives. Is there any need to dissuade them of this belief? I don't think so.
    Really? Wow. That's quite a statement.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Don't tread on me bro! It's what I value!
    hehehe

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Really? Wow. That's quite a statement.
    If most people didn't believe that government organizations improve their lives...then why would one of the primary objections to tax choice be the concern that "important" government organizations would be underfunded?

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    907 posts and every single one is hucking pragmastablishmentarianism.
    I think you beat out the Whitney Houston guy at this point.
    Did you see that I included a paragraph just for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Please make it a priority to understand why society's total welfare absolutely depends on you having the option not to "buy" things. If you don't like what I'm trying to "sell" to you...if you really don't "buy" it...then please, by all means, add me to your ignore list. But if you choose to do so...then your actions would be speaking louder than your words. Clearly you would value the freedom to place any government organization on your ignore list.

  14. #13

    Default

    Ya...lemon juice takes the place of vinegar in this case.

    My addition to this dressing would be to use fresh herbs rather than dried...you'll get twice the taste.
    And if you put a teaspoon of dijon mustard in there and whisk it hard, the dressing will emulsify and you'll have a vinaigrette.

  15. #14

    Default

    How many times can this zombie come back to life?

    Oh I know! Let's combine LVT and Pragmatarianism. We'll divide up the country into tax districts, each to fund a different govt. agency. Just think about all those people crowding in to buy the EPA properties. Imagine how the "free market" price of that land will go up and the LVT rent will just skyrocket! Wow, the govt. will just be rolling in dough! Yay Liberty! We can all be free at last!

    Those poor misguided economic ignoramuses who refuse to pay their fair share by choosing to be homeless should just leave. Or maybe we can herd them together into camps we set up on the Entitlement properties. For their own protection of course. And we absolutely must find some thing productive they can do to occupy their time.
    Last edited by Len Larson; 12-23-2012 at 11:48 PM.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    If most people didn't believe that government organizations improve their lives...then why would one of the primary objections to tax choice be the concern that "important" government organizations would be underfunded?
    I wasn't reacting to that part, I was reacting to this part:

    Originally Posted by Xerographica

    People believe that government organizations improve their lives. Is there any need to dissuade them of this belief? I don't think so.
    That's a pretty profound statement man...quite possibly a window into your deeply held beliefs.

  17. #16

    Default

    The best salad dressing is Bleu Cheese

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Argument: People are too uninformed to make good decisions

    Please make it a priority to understand why society's total welfare absolutely depends on you having the option not to "buy" things. If you don't like what I'm trying to "sell" to you...if you really don't "buy" it...then please, by all means, add me to your ignore list.
    Gee, I wonder why people are too uninformed to make good decisions? Could it be deceit? Like, for instance, could it be that someone who didn't want to hear any more spam about the fallacy that citizens distributing tax dollars is practical, but might be interested in a salad dressing, might resent falling for this Trojan Horse?

    No thanks on the demonstrably unworkable tax plan. No thanks on a salad dressing that makes salad taste sort of like chili, either. And no thanks for the Trojan Horse.

    But, Merry Christmas anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Coolidge View Post
    'About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776... and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.'

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    I wasn't reacting to that part, I was reacting to this part:

    That's a pretty profound statement man...quite possibly a window into your deeply held beliefs.
    It's a rainy day...you need an umbrella and I'm selling umbrellas. It either is...or it isn't...worth it for you to buy an umbrella from me.

    Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector. Each and every taxpayer would decide whether it is...or it isn't...worth it to exchange their taxes for public healthcare. You say it won't be worth it for them. Therefore, if you're correct, then taxpayers won't spend their taxes on public healthcare. This would narrow the scope of government and lower the tax rate.

    My deeply held belief is really no mystery. I've already shared it with you once but evidently I need to share it with you again...

    Men have a natural propensity to make the best bargain they can, when not prevented by an opposing force; that is, they like to obtain as much as they possibly can for their labour, whether the advantage is obtained from a foreign producer, or a skillful mechanical producer. - Bastiat
    And again...

    To satisfy our wants to the utmost with the least effort - to procure the greatest amount of what is desirable at the expense of the least that is undesirable - in other words, to maximize pleasure, is the problem of economics. - William Stanley Jevons
    Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. Why? Because as Henry David Thoreau said, "the price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it."

    So yeah...clearly you derive utility from believing that I'm sort of a not-so-in-the-closest lover of the state. But if your belief is true or accurate...then why would I have just created a Wikipedia entry for legal plunder?

    I'm not a lover of the state...I'm a lover of the market. I know why and how the market works...which is why I advocate creating a market in the public sector. Given that you don't see any value in creating a market in the public sector, then clearly you've allocated all your time to understanding the moral arguments for liberty and none of your time to understanding the economic arguments for liberty.

    Do you think I fail to understand the moral arguments? Do you think it requires a certain level of genius to understand the argument that taxes are theft? Do you think I fail to understand the self-ownership principle? No no no...the moral argument is easy to understand. Are the economic arguments as easy to understand? Obviously not. But I've made the effort to understand them which is why I can say with a good measure of certainty that they are far more powerful, meaningful and universal than the moral arguments.

    So seriously considering allocating some of your scarce time to learning about libertarian economics. And if you're not interested in learning about economics...then...well...clearly you're in the wrong forum category.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarzan View Post
    Ya...lemon juice takes the place of vinegar in this case.
    My addition to this dressing would be to use fresh herbs rather than dried...you'll get twice the taste.
    And if you put a teaspoon of dijon mustard in there and whisk it hard, the dressing will emulsify and you'll have a vinaigrette.
    lemon juice on a salad is a distasteful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Gee, I wonder why people are too uninformed to make good decisions? Could it be deceit? Like, for instance, could it be that someone who didn't want to hear any more spam about the fallacy that citizens distributing tax dollars is practical, but might be interested in a salad dressing, might resent falling for this Trojan Horse?
    LOL...if this is the first time that I've fooled you...then, well, shame on me. But chances are pretty good that this won't be the last time that I'll use another topic to try and help people understand why market economies are far superior to non sequitur economies. So, unless you want to be fooled again, then you might want to put me on your ignore list.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    No thanks on the demonstrably unworkable tax plan. No thanks on a salad dressing that makes salad taste sort of like chili, either. And no thanks for the Trojan Horse.
    It's far easier to simply say that it would be unworkable than it would be to actually use economics to explain why it would be unworkable to create a market in the public sector.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    No thanks on a salad dressing that makes salad taste sort of like chili, either. And no thanks for the Trojan Horse
    Hehe...you don't value my salad dressing, you don't value my Trojan Horse, you don't value my attempt to help people understand economics...therefore you don't want to "buy" anything that I'm selling. It's funny because what I'm "selling" is a system which would give taxpayers the freedom not to "buy" whatever a government organization is trying to sell.

  22. #21

    Default

    uhhh i thought this was a recipe, not philosophy class?

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    lemon juice on a salad is a distasteful.
    Therefore...values are subjective...therefore...taxpayers should be able to give their taxes to whichever government organizations are producing "tasteful" public goods?

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    It's far easier to simply say that it would be unworkable than it would be to actually use economics to explain why it would be unworkable to create a market in the public sector.
    Did it occur to you that people might have better things to do on Christmas Eve than rehash all the same arguments that we used to express our doubts about this plan in several other threads?

    What am I saying? Of course it did. Which is why you waited until today, and started a brand new thread.

    Merry Christmas, Mr. X. And just to prove I mean it, I won't negrep you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Coolidge View Post
    'About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776... and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.'

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trey4sports View Post
    uhhh i thought this was a recipe, not philosophy class?
    Read through the responses over at the NationStates forum...The BEST Salad Dressing Ever. I create a thread and people are free to talk about whatever they like.

  26. #25
    Member MelissaWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Audient Void
    Posts
    15,515
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Did it occur to you that people might have better things to do on Christmas Eve than rehash all the same arguments that we used to express our doubts about this plan in several other threads?

    What am I saying? Of course it did. Which is why you waited until today, and started a brand new thread.

    Merry Christmas, Mr. X. And just to prove I mean it, I won't negrep you.
    He started it yesterday

    And yeah... I don't like lemony olive oil as a dressing.
    May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    It's a rainy day...you need an umbrella and I'm selling umbrellas. It either is...or it isn't...worth it for you to buy an umbrella from me.

    Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector. Each and every taxpayer would decide whether it is...or it isn't...worth it to exchange their taxes for public healthcare. You say it won't be worth it for them. Therefore, if you're correct, then taxpayers won't spend their taxes on public healthcare. This would narrow the scope of government and lower the tax rate.

    My deeply held belief is really no mystery. I've already shared it with you once but evidently I need to share it with you again...



    And again...



    Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. Why? Because as Henry David Thoreau said, "the price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it."

    So yeah...clearly you derive utility from believing that I'm sort of a not-so-in-the-closest lover of the state. But if your belief is true or accurate...then why would I have just created a Wikipedia entry for legal plunder?

    I'm not a lover of the state...I'm a lover of the market. I know why and how the market works...which is why I advocate creating a market in the public sector. Given that you don't see any value in creating a market in the public sector, then clearly you've allocated all your time to understanding the moral arguments for liberty and none of your time to understanding the economic arguments for liberty.

    Do you think I fail to understand the moral arguments? Do you think it requires a certain level of genius to understand the argument that taxes are theft? Do you think I fail to understand the self-ownership principle? No no no...the moral argument is easy to understand. Are the economic arguments as easy to understand? Obviously not. But I've made the effort to understand them which is why I can say with a good measure of certainty that they are far more powerful, meaningful and universal than the moral arguments.

    So seriously considering allocating some of your scarce time to learning about libertarian economics. And if you're not interested in learning about economics...then...well...clearly you're in the wrong forum category.
    Ughh. Your propensity for self-promotion is a huge turn off. The people that I respect most on this forum are people like Erowe1, who is a guy who shares his doctorate-level knowledge with this forum for free (and without self-promoting links to his blogs). In fact, if Erowe1 had a blog, I would read it frequently, because a) I respect his knowledge and b) he has never shamelessly promoted himself.


    Anyway, you keep employing pragmatism as a method for teaching people to want smaller government. You are using pragmatism as a theory of knowledge. But pragmatism fails as a theory of knowledge because if the mark of success is the way to ascertain truth, then one cannot know the truth until after one has acted. But one of the primary purposes of knowledge is to permit a person to make an informed choice (before one has acted), and choices are always about the future, not the past. In pragmatism, one always knows too late. One cannot know, and make choices based on knoweldge, in a pragmatic framework.

    So even using pragmatism as a way to teach people about smaller government will result in failure.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Did it occur to you that people might have better things to do on Christmas Eve than rehash all the same arguments that we used to express our doubts about this plan in several other threads?
    Did it occur to you that I'm the guy who created the Wikipedia entry for demonstrated preference?

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Merry Christmas, Mr. X. And just to prove I mean it, I won't negrep you.
    LOL...my rep is red. So why would you think that I care about negrep?

    What I care about is helping people understand market economics. If you think I'm failing in this area...then please specify exactly where there's room for improvement. But better yet...don't just tell me...SHOW me where you've had good success in helping people understand why market economies are far superior to non sequitur economies.

  29. #28

    Default

    How about pragmatic behavior in the realm of non-coersed trade? Why must pragmatic behavior be inclusive of property theft (simply because it is difficult to reverse the widespread theft)?

    A true pragmatic thinker would understand that alienating a subset of the population through force and coersion is not pragmatic at all - it is self-defeating.

    A truely pragmatic solution would be to implement solutions in a peaceful way and those who are entrenched in their Statist views can 1) open their eyes and see where the real wealth is being created or 2) remain ignorant by their own accord and set in their ways.

    Theft (tax) is not pragmatic, nor is cattering to the ignorance of those who support it.

    Lead and they will follow. If they do not follow, it is their fault.
    "Like an army falling, one by one by one" - Linkin Park

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Ughh. Your propensity for self-promotion is a huge turn off. The people that I respect most on this forum are people like Erowe1, who is a guy who shares his doctorate-level knowledge with this forum for free (and without self-promoting links to his blogs). In fact, if Erowe1 had a blog, I would read it frequently, because a) I respect his knowledge and b) he has never shamelessly promoted himself.
    You say he has valuable knowledge...but then you say that he doesn't have a blog. Does he not understand that blogs help disseminate knowledge?

    If he truly has shared valuable knowledge with you...then why haven't you shared any economic concepts in this thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Anyway, you keep employing pragmatism as a method for teaching people to want smaller government. You are using pragmatism as a theory of knowledge. But pragmatism fails as a theory of knowledge because if the mark of success is the way to ascertain truth, then one cannot know the truth until after one has acted. But one of the primary purposes of knowledge is to permit a person to make an informed choice (before one has acted), and choices are always about the future, not the past. In pragmatism, one always knows too late. One cannot know, and make choices based on knoweldge, in a pragmatic framework.

    So even using pragmatism as a way to teach people about smaller government will result in failure.
    Yeah, this is actually the relevant Wikipedia entry...tax choice. Tax choice = pragmatarianism ≈ pragmatism.

    If you want to learn about pragmatic ethics vs deontological ethics...then let me shamelessly promote myself by again directing you to my blog...Deontological Ethics vs Pragmatic Ethics.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    How about pragmatic behavior in the realm of non-coersed trade? Why must pragmatic behavior be inclusive of property theft (simply because it is difficult to reverse the widespread theft)?
    Just like a liberal...you're not thinking things through. If I stop paying taxes...the people who subject me to violence aren't going to do it for free. They're going to do it because they are paid to do it. Who pays them? Obviously the government...but more specifically...government planners. They are the ones who determine how much funding each government organization receives.

    Everything we know about economics tells us that government planners cannot possibly know the true values of millions and millions of people. If they could...then all the socialist experiments would have been successful. Given that they all failed miserably...we know that there's a disparity between how planners distribute public funds and how the market would distribute public funds.

    What I'm advocating is that we allow taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. This would create a market in the public sector.

    So if you want to guess that the distribution of public funds would be exactly the same...if you want to guess that taxpayers would give the same amount of funds to the government organizations that engage in violent activity...then...you're indicating two things..

    1. that you believe that socialism is a perfectly viable concept
    2. that a stateless society would be just as violent as a state society

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •