Vent

Valuing empathy doesn't necessitate action, or give a reason to act one way or another in any situation when you find yourself with a particular disposition. Acting on empathy could actually often be irrational. What is the reason to value empathy? For it to be rational to be empathic we need a reason why we should value empathy.

I think rational action is a poor standard for morality because rational action can generally be defined as action for the satisfaction of some desire of the acting agent. This, to me at least, seems a poor, even cavalier, starting point for a basis of morality because human desire is arguably infinite. It also then gets us involved in the discussion of 'what desires are valid?', and, ergo, into smoke and mirrors because the desires in the first place 'must be rational to be valid'. We enter a loop we can't get out of it seems. Personally i think a better starting is to assume that there's no confusion with morality per se, but only with what do we do with it. So rather than ask what is morality or how do we define an individual act as moral or not we should rather assume morality as a given (at least for social arguments concerning it), and then ask where do we want our morals and ethics to leads us. The question is an individual one as much as it is a collective one but i think this let's us phrase the dilemma better; rather than 'what is moral?' it is instead, 'what should be moral?' and why. As an aside, i'm not convinced of my own argument, but thought i'd say it anyway.

You betcha ;-)

Employers don't pay for the health insurance, the employee does, it's just not written on your payslip so it can be labelled as an incentive to work for said company. Your salary is lower because of these incentives.

You could get rid of party politics, but personally i wouldn't agree to ignoring minorities as i think each party should have say since otherwise a percentage of the population is being ignored. It would be the worst kind of democracy in my opinion as it would be mob rule. In the UK this would lead to a minority governing the majority for example... which it is already but the other party's have a say on the governance.

What was the misquote of the patent office commissioner again? If we have a quick run down of inventions with rough dates we've got: Steam engine around 1700 Electricity around 1800 Automobile around 1900 Transistor 1950 Microprocessor 1970 Personal computer 1980 Internet 1990 (commercial) And for the following decade i think alternative fuel is a good bet, although still young obviously. Electricity took about 90 years for fruition, microprocessor took about 30 years, internet took about 7 years (after commercial launch) It would seem that thoughts of doomsday might be a little premature to me. Although maybe i'm just not pessimistic (realistic?) enough.

No, because the biggest consumer is the US government. Lobbyists are a bane of course, but the one that capitulates is again the US government. I believe the power resides on its shoulders.

I find it difficult to believe some of the stuff said here. Most notably, the idea that junk food is cheaper than healthy food for one, and the idea that people don't know the difference between healthy food and non-healthy food for another. Considering the two viewpoints argued seem to both be arguing from a rights-based perspective, where one side is don't increase tax because you're infringing on people's liberty to pay for others' eating habits, and on the other side is increase tax because people's eating habits are infringing on others' liberty, if we assent to the first paragraph and side with the second argument, and assuming that health care is to remain social, would it not be more humane, ethical and, basically, nice, to use some of the US military defense budget instead? Why not? Maybe US education could get some love as well with some of that budget? Just a thought.

Are you guys kidding that fast food is cheaper than getting shopping from supermarkets?

I assumed that the consciousness that started our universe done so for the purpose of experiencing the universe on our scale (or that of other perceivers), so being detached from this initial consciousness, and/or not knowing about its existence or intent, would seem counterproductive to the initial intent, because having knowledge of this initial intent would allow us to follow paths and find experiences conducive to this initial intent, as opposed to not knowing and therefore maybe not following our purpose in being here in the first place. That sounds convoluted but it portrays what i wanted to say. This discussion is beyond my knowledge so count me out anyway. I'll just read it.

That's an interesting take. It could be as though consciousness gave rise to our universe in order that it may have the opportunity to experience perception on a more, how shall i say, delicate scale. Although our detached knowledge of this purpose would seem to be counterproductive

To address what i think was the central idea of your post you're arguing for and assuming the primacy of consciousness, yes? Since the opposite of this idea is the primacy of existence this idea states that a consciousness can not only be conscious of nothing (in the literal, platonic sense, if you will), but actually have existence without existence. On a different note, let's assume that these non-physical entities (souls?), exist for the moment. How is it that a non-physical entity can interact with a physical entity? Consciousness must have a physical explanation because its manifestation and product is physical.

Wouldn't this have to be done through the Federal Reserve? I'm confused how it would work since i don't see it selling assets for the funding or being able to keep all the funds electronic. It certainly wouldn't use reserves for it? Can you explain?

I think the question or argument of the method of science against the method of religion for understanding reality is a poor one, not because of anything inherently implausible about such a question of alternate methods for understanding reality but rather because religion doesn't have a methodology. Further, the knowledge that religion does give to our species is, in the most part, contradictory to the knowledge that another method, a method that, to date, "has" given very workable knowledge to our species. That method happens to have the name of science. We gave it this name so the connotations that the name has for certain people are mostly irrelevant. You may like to read the following book for some relatively recent knowledge on the "why religion" question. http://www.amazon.co...27604627&sr=8-1 Or even this youtube video for a quick take on it. Edit: wrong video

This idea of God as a higher power from natural law is the idea of an objective standard it seems, or did i miss something or someone say that already?

Sounds like a reasonable idea.

Of course. The government has consequences in every transaction that's made in the market. It has a blanketing nature, due in large part to the law. Unravelling every effect it has on each trade would be a mammoth task.

I think you have to be a little careful with ideas of this sort because the claim that government involvement hampers an economy is not necessarily the case. There's a number of reasons why you need to be careful, not least of which is that it actually isn't the case that they "always" have a negative effect, and they can actually have a very beneficial effect on an economy, especially if taken over the long term. Take Korea and Singapore for the two most often used examples. The government, especially in Singapore, actually built that economy and it's now one of the central hubs in the world. Yes, it could be argued that they took years to do it (over a decade for various ventures in Korea and over two decades for Singapore), and therefore the funds that they were directing into various avenues in these time periods were actually being redirected away from areas that the population would have directed them instead. But then take the other extreme where companies in the west (most notably the Plc's), don't drive their resources towards the benefit of the future but rather drive them into the pockets of the shareholders. It's about the quick buck. It's why they flip and merge then sell. Granted, this is easier in the UK than the US, but it's hardly a formula for prosperity i think you'll agree. So when taken over the long term a government can have a beneficial effect on an economy, especially when you pit it against companies being run in the short term interest of the stockholders. There's also the law, which, for example, allowed legislation to be enacted (and therefore enforced over a whole nation), that allowed companies to expand their capital way beyond their personal funds. If it wasn't for limited liability, which was only possible in the manner it was done due to the monopoly over the law which governments hold, our nation's companies wouldn't have been able to accumulate the vast amount of capital that they have done that has led to a vastly improved standard of living for everyone. The wealth of our nations is due to the capital accumulation of the past, which has been possible on the scale that it has achieved due our governments allowing growth by credit to be secured on the assets of a company only. Yes, law doesn't have to be monopolistic, but the fact of the matter is that it is in the world today, so when arguing that governments hamper economies you should understand that you aren't (and can't), argue against regulation only. You are in fact arguing against the entirety of the system that we currently live under and therefore you shouldn't be surprised that it's not just as easy as getting government out of the economy for it to prosper but rather you are also arguing against the government holding the law as well. You are in fact arguing for a whole new way of doing things if you think through your argument thoroughly. It's an extremely intricate system that we have and is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, there's no room for the non-professional politician. Just to be clear, yes there is room for argument and i'm certainly not trying to shut you down (there is plenty of room for argument in politics if you ask me because our system is anything but perfect), but it's not as simple and easy as just removing the regulation. In fact, it's probably political philosophy that you want to direct your energies if you want to be involved in the argument to change things, not economics. It's philosophy then law then economics, not economics, philosophy, law (although yes, they are wrapped quite tightly together).

In my opinion, to argue with a theist on the voracity of their belief in a God is to already highlight your belief in the negative. How can you argue against something when you haven't formulated a belief on it? [note the word against]. I'm a anti-theist for this reason because the idea of a God, in the first instance, comes from theism, so i can legitimately argue against the existence of God because i reject the founding. I think Atheism is a relatively incoherent stance to take on the issue, unless you decide not to have an opinion.

The trouble with arguments of this type is that people don't qualify their terms. It's no good saying the "free market ideal was the cause…" or that "government intervention was the cause…" without qualifying what you mean with the terms. Take the basic idea of a "free market", generally associated with neo-classical economics, this is an extremely ambiguous term in todays media. We're often hearing that the free market did this, the free market did that, laissez faire no more, etc. So, because those who are seen as savvy among us tell us that it was the free markets fault, those opposed to the consequences of the system we've been following then blame the "free market" for the pitfalls of the world's economy and cite laissez faire capitalism as the root cause. The problem is further compounded because as soon as someone says "capitalism" the world hears "political capitalism" and associates it with everything that goes with that monstrosity. The list actually goes on and the argument becomes extremely convoluted and confusing because no one defines their terms and they assume that everyone knows what they mean, even though they're proceeding from faulty, or at least lax, definitions. You have to infer their definitions from the way they speak and from the arguments they endorse and cite. And this is only one side of the story, we can just as easily say the same from the other sides' perspective. Let me clear something up for you. There's no such thing as a free market in today's world (and rarely in history for any length of time), so blaming the free market or laissez faire capitalism for anything awry about the economy makes little sense. For an explicit example to show you the muddle that unqualified terms get us in we can look at some of the evidence presented in the posts above. Take the following for examples: http://politicalcorr...ck/201110140001 http://modeledbehavi...ddie-acquitted/ http://www.americanp...ial_crisis.html http://www.ritholtz....housing-crisis/ http://economistsvie...snt-fannie.html http://economistsvie...again-it-w.html The above are basically arguments against the idea that regulation was the problem and that it wasn't Fanny and Freddie's, subprime mortgages, or the regulated banks fault. This compels us to infer that, therefore, the problem was lack of regulation on the private banks. But what does the information there actually show us? It shows us, in basic terms, that the cause of the problems was the banks' ability to expand credit. Expand it beyond, for want of a better term, sensible and sustainable levels. That's the conclusion we should see (quite clearly), but does this prove that "the cause" was indeed "the lack of regulation" of the banks, and that therefore the free market was to blame for the mess? Yes and no. It depends on how you view things, which largely depends on how you define the terms of your argument. There are two ways that people will view the above, and they both can be seen slamming each other in an attempt to claim the right of truth. Firstly is the regulators argument, which basically says that there was not enough regulation on the banks and we need more to keep them in-line to prevent this mess from happening again. A good argument i think. But is that the end of the story and the free market proponents have lost? That depends on the free market definition you take. If you associate free market with the Republicans, or Friedman, or neo-classical economics then you've lost the argument and you should concede because, basically, you haven't got a leg to stand on (by the way, how is a nation specific regulation, such as CRA '77, meant to be responsible for a global financial crisis?), but if you take a "strict" free market approach the above is evidence for your theory also because the "ability" to credit expand is a consequence of political decisions, a decision that is removed under the laissez faire, free market doctrines. Both free marketers and the pro-regulators agree here. They have the same theory and cite the same cause, the difference is only in the cure. After all is said and done we have two opposing theories and the vague beginnings of an hypothesis, the next task is to explore the consequences of each theory and choose one. Either decision will be an ideological one, and i'm not sure how anyone can say that one side only of a political-economic theory is based on ideology. The difference between the two is the stance they take on ethics, not in the approach, and is after all why economics became divorced from politics in the nineteenth century because economics teaches that one man's gain is not necessarily another mans loss, which is, generally what politics teaches. Capitalists fight for individualism and personal responsibility whilst those who fight for mixed economies fight for social credit and community welfare. Ideology still rules politics, the only reason we don't think it does is because the ideology we follow has been the pursuit and advancement of social services for so long that we think this is the way things are and forget that it's based on the ideology we chose to follow in the past. It isn't so much as what's logically correct that politics proceeds by, but rather what do we think will work in favour of the goal towards which we are trying to achieve.

The value of an economy is not the same as the value of the commodity used to trade within that economy. One of the problems is the time lag between economic seminars and papers and the policy implemented by the policy makers. For the most part, policy makers don't use the most current economic understandiing, this is something we were taught many years ago, not least of which was by Keynes in his general theory.

Just as a side note, the value of the US dollar is not tied to oil. The "value" of the dollar is dependent on it's use-value, and the use-value is dependent on the quantity. Economics is a social science, and one of the problems of a social science, with regard to accurate data and forecasting, is the difficulty of doing it due to the amount of variables and contingencies that require accommodation; which is the idea behind the "fudge factors" in the new equations and the argument behind throwing out neo-classical assumptions.

Ah i see, universal coverage. Cost wouldn't be a moot point under equal coverage since equal generally implies a quantity. No matter, i thought there was a new kind of idea for a US health system

I don't think it's a leap of faith to assume that some companies would spring up to cure and not just treat symptoms. It's still the motive of profit after all. Company A charges 10 for treatment of symptoms and company B charges 100 for cure, for an erroneous example. Based on this oversimplification of business the profit is still driven by the competition in satisfying consumers it seems. I'm interested in how everyone can be covered equally. Does everyone have an individual quota of medical funds available in the collective pool? What about those who require more expensive treatment? Personally i think this confuses the issue a little. War doesn't exist due to the armament industries but rather the armament industries exist due to humans want of war. If humans didn't feel the need to wage war, or more accurately, couldn't see the purpose of it because it doesn't return a profit, then the armament industries would go broke. Sure, they could start a war themselves to stay in business but who are they fighting? The other armament industries? I think a private penal system sounds complicated on the other hand and have never thought that it should be private, but maybe i'm wrong; i'm not even sure if i think healthcare should be private but i can see both points of view i think.