Now, obviously noone wants to be raped, murdered, or force-fed salad dressing,
but if you got to choose, obviously you would pick getting force-fed salad dressing, every time!
This proves that the free market principles of choosing where your taxes go is an effective way to govern!
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
Nothing in this response engaged the argument I have with your theory of knowledge. This is what I said:Originally Posted by Xerographica
I am not talking about pragmatism vs. deontology, I am refuting pragmatism as you are using it: as a theory for knowledge. Pragmatism does not and cannot give people knowledge. So your entire argument (that we must employ tax choice as a way to find out what government is best) fails before it even starts. Why don't you engage my refutation?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.
Chefs refer to this as a "citronette" when citric acid acid substitutes for acetic.
Right now government planners determine exactly how much public funds are given to the government organizations that force-feed us salad dressing. Are they giving an amount that accurately reflects exactly how much society truly values these government organizations?
If your answer is "yes"...then here's what you're indicating...
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
Let's make it really easy.
1. Go to the Wikipedia entry on tax choice
2. Copy and paste whatever it is you disagree with into your reply
3. Share whichever economic concepts refute the argument(s) that you copy and pasted
Do you know of any "citronette" salad dressings available at supermarkets?
Yeah, fresh herbs are always better than dried...good call. Regarding the dijon mustard...if you saw exactly how much raw garlic went into my dressing...then not sure you'd recommend emulsifying it. Would emulsifying it make it thicker? If so...then it would be like salad dressing pudding. But I'm all about the "kick" so next time I'll cut back on the garlic and see how the dijon flavor gets along with the garlic power.
I'm not talking about economics. I'm talking about your theory of knowledge. (third time I've said this)
Your method of teaching people about economics is faulty. Pragmatism cannot teach anybody anything, because it cannot give people knowledge to make choices.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.
If you knew the first thing about knowledge then you'd know that Hayek was the preeminent Austrian economist in this area. So if you want to learn about knowledge...then go to the Wikipedia entry on decentralized knowledge...and read over every single passage that's included.
Do you know who, exactly, added every single one of those passages? I did. My point isn't to toot my own horn...my point is to demonstrate that I've thoroughly researched the topic of knowledge...which is why I advocate creating a market in the public sector.
Not if you add something sweet in the salad. Mandarin oranges come to mind.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote