Magikusar's daily/weekly musings

[tbombz]

right... because a slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy 

american'ts are a simple breed

  does that really fall underneath the category of a logical fallacy?   

 i was being half sarcastic in my comment.  i do think that one should be very cautious about considering the philosophical implications about the wide range of other issues that can be advocated for based on the reasoning one is using to justify some particular decision.

 but at the same time, i do realize that pragmatism and reasonability are certainly more important than being firm in your "principledness".

[Mr. Magoo]

 does that really fall underneath the category of a logical fallacy?    

 i was being half sarcastic in my comment. i do think that one should be very cautious about considering the philosophical implications about the wide range of other issues that can be advocated for based on the reasoning one is using to justify some particular decision.

 but at the same time, i do realize that pragmatism and reasonability are certainly more important than being firm in your "principledness".

Wow what a sentence... which says absolutely nothing.

In regards to this thread, the easiest reply would be: Whynot free housing? Ground it as a human right to own property, ala jeremy waldron/aristotle/hegel/etc and we're off to the races.

[tbombz]

i dont understand why you would belittle that comment of mine, unless you think its so obvious and such common sense that it need not be uttered? is that the case?

[garebear]

Why hasn't this thread been properly named?

It should be "Magikusar's Big, Stupid Thread with all of his 'ideas'"

[Montague]

who cares spammer

more useless threads than VOLAND, TALLGERMAN, LUNDGRENISGOD, etc...

Autocorrected

[magikusar]

I mean say you are a self taught computer engineer like myself who has done it for 14 years.

Is it lucky when I make more per hour than a cab driver?

If someone works 80 hours a week for a decade, is it lucky that they get paid and promoted more?

I know people love to say we are all the same.

That is true maybe at birth.

People have vastly varying productive output.

I think there is no problems with extremes of wealth as long as it is not crony gotten and it is earned.

Why?

Since when I choose to buy something good at a good price I benefit more than the money I fork over.

This seems lost on many people.

If both sides to voluntary trade dont benefit they wont make the trade!

[magikusar]

look at the numbers

www.foxnews.com

[tbombz]

It has less to do with thinking the wealth was unearned and more to do with the marginal utility of extra wealth once you've passed a certain point and how much more valuable that same dollar is to a poor person.   Basically, the ends justify the means because of w utilitarian view of govenment.

[magikusar]

american'ts amuse me

canada will be crying when dems tax them for benefitting from USA military power

USA would do  lil better with 0 defense budget too

by the way single payer canada shows to be good system  is drowning in debt, how many more decades can it last?

[magikusar]

why was my post re titled?

this is not cool

[magikusar]

It has less to do with thinking the wealth was unearned and more to do with the marginal utility of extra wealth once you've passed a certain point and how much more valuable that same dollar is to a poor person.   Basically, the ends justify the means because of w utilitarian view of govenment.

say what?

[tbombz]

Most democrats support redistribution because wealth beyond a certain point doesn't add much to a persons ability to pursue happiness and taking away that "excess" wealth that isn't very valuable to a wealthy person and giving it to programs that help the poor (who greatly value that wealth). Is a more efficient way of using that wealth to increase total prosperity among the masses its utilitarian.

[magikusar]

persue happiness as youtube ayn rand shows means

you have right to freely trade, not to show up and demand a mansion

[magikusar]

you can't justify taking wealth from the one who produced it

if you do you not only give the producer no reason to continue, but you give to someone who did nothing, so everyone wants to join the nothing group

[tbombz]

The foundation of modern government rests upon utilitarian principles that the common welfar is the goal of the state. Among what makes up welfar is freedom wealth health etc.  If you have to take a little bit of feedom and a little bit of wealth in order to gain a whole lot of welfare then the benefits outweigh the lossess.    I'm not saying I agree. I'm just saying.

[tbombz]

One can justify whatever one wishes.  Its up to consensus to determine what justifications are legitemate. In todays world the consensus is that robin hood had legitemate justification.

[magikusar]

Remeber this is why usa is a republic not a democracy.

in a democracy 51% can vote to execute 49%

this is bad

or as ben franklin said: two wolf and 1 lamb voting whats for dinner

liberty is well armed lamb arguing the vote

I love individual freedom and very limited government, same as founders.

This is secret to usa success.


The government schools slip in this idea that all wealth is owned by governmetn so now question is to how to distribute it.

It is not in my view.

Wealth is owned by the producer.

[tbombz]

Republic is still subject to the will or the people.  Representatives are elected and can be voted out. Justices nominated by elected representatives. Constitutional amendments can be passed. In the end the majorit opinion always rules. And that's howqant government ought to work. Otherwiwe' who decides?  If not the people,  then which dictator or dictators?  You see?   

[magikusar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/us/politics/feinstein-to-investigate-benghazi-talking-points.html

yes the obama coverup of what was clearly terrorism and failure to defend US diplomats lives goes on.

[magikusar]

Republic is still subject to the will or the people.  Representatives are elected and can be voted out. Justices nominated by elected representatives. Constitutional amendments can be passed. In the end the majorit opinion always rules. And that's howqant government ought to work. Otherwiwe' who decides?  If not the people,  then which dictator or dictators?  You see?   

The idea is that politicians are elected as represenatives.  A republic.  Not a dictator, not sure where you got that.  The idea was also dispersal of power.  3 braches balancing and most fo the power in the states.  The federal governmetn has grabbed way way too much power and money through the commerce clause and this is why all case law should be abolished.  Get back to constitution.  No more debt spending.  balanced budget.  no war without congressional approval etc.

bottom line: far far far less government spending

politicians with money=crony

remember 2008=fed fannie clinton rule to give loan not bush

[tbombz]

2008 was only partly related to government encouragement of fannie to make son prime loans. And bush encouraged that moreThan Clinton did.  The other part was several big private banks bindoing the bad loans and paying off eating agencies so they could sell the loans to people who thought they were good investments so the bank making the bag loan wasn't on the hook for the rent and simply made more money for more volume and thisStarted engagong in predatory lending telling people thruir house price was going to go up forever and putting them in house they couldn't afford etc.  Also have to blame all the people who took out loans they couldn't pay for.  You really ought to circl your facts broo.     

[tbombz]

About dictator vs democracy.   What gives anyone the authority to impose their will on others?  If any government has such authority OT necessarily must be founded on majority rule or else you have a minority opinion being forced on everyone.  Which represents a dictator or dictators.

[magikusar]

and for gosh sakes end all foriegn aid money

[magikusar]

and ended fanie may
and ended fed
and reduced taxes
and reduced regulations
and balanced budget meaning 0 debt spending
lowered spending until surplus to pay off debt
recession over in 1 year

and usa be in nonstop upward growth spiral due to capitalism

instead opposite 8% unemplyment growing and 18% with non job seekers counted
we also repeat FDR mistake overspending which caused great depression to last 12 years not 1
rememebr grwoth at end of ww2 from lower gov spending since war spending stopped

[magikusar]

2008 was only partly related to government encouragement of fannie to make son prime loans. And bush encouraged that moreThan Clinton did.  The other part was several big private banks bindoing the bad loans and paying off eating agencies so they could sell the loans to people who thought they were good investments so the bank making the bag loan wasn't on the hook for the rent and simply made more money for more volume and thisStarted engagong in predatory lending telling people thruir house price was going to go up forever and putting them in house they couldn't afford etc.  Also have to blame all the people who took out loans they couldn't pay for.  You really ought to circl your facts broo.     

no
wrong

cliton allowed law that fannie must give loan, forcing fannie to make them even to those they knew not pay
then fed provided $$ outa thin air
bam bubble
barney frank and dem congress on TV saying no way gota give poor home loan
see john alison on youtube explaining all this easily

2008 not iraw but gov created housing bubble

wall st just after effect

and obama and dems then bailed out

oil on the fire

the wrong way to fix

dodd frank didnt end fannie or freddy and no one stopping fed fed bolde than ever now has unlimited money printing to buy mortgages

we should be occupying the fed!!