Some simple logic

[justoffal]

I have seen this before but for those who have not...it's a good read.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-passing-of-obamacare-bad-for-the-american-public

Why socialism doesn't work (you may have seen this before)

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

 

[Yuri Zhivago]

I have seen this before but for those who have not...it's a good read.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-passing-of-obamacare-bad-for-the-american-public

Why socialism doesn't work (you may have seen this before)

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

indeed- simplistic primitive, but no one would call that logic, amoeba

 

[ITALIA]

Yeah I have seen this phony story before. Got anymore fairy tales?

 

[worldlymrb]

Got anymore fairy tales?

Obama's birth certificate/SSN

 

[BobbyT]

I have seen this before but for those who have not...it's a good read.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-passing-of-obamacare-bad-for-the-american-public

Why socialism doesn't work (you may have seen this before)

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

No one is advocating socialism.

Nonetheless, for your example to be an analogy of what we are advocating for, it would have the professor administer a test to students. When the blind student asks for the test to be read aloud to him, or for the test to be provided in braille, the professor would respond: pull yourself up from your bootstraps and take the test the same way as everyone else is. If a student in a wheelchair couldn't get into the test arena because there steps leading to it, the professor would say: the test takes place in here, get yourself in here or you fail.

Some people start out with all the advantages in the world. Some start out with a host of disadvantages. All we are asking for is equal opportunity (really equal opportunity, not just the opportunity for a blind student to take the same test in the same way as everyone else), not equal outcomes.

 

[justoffal]

No one is advocating socialism.

Nonetheless, for your example to be an analogy of what we are advocating for, it would have the professor administer a test to students. When the blind student asks for the test to be read aloud to him, or for the test to be provided in braille, the professor would respond: pull yourself up from your bootstraps and take the test the same way as everyone else is. If a student in a wheelchair couldn't get into the test arena because there steps leading to it, the professor would say: the test takes place in here, get yourself in here or you fail.

Some people start out with all the advantages in the world. Some start out with a host of disadvantages. All we are asking for is equal opportunity (really equal opportunity, not just the opportunity for a blind student to take the same test in the same way as everyone else), not equal outcomes.

Good points in your post..... I don't think we're talking so much about right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral here. The discussion is focused more on the realities of accounting for the costs of all the ingredients involved in the social pie.

Life such as it is ... is a vicious proposition. Life, death, pain and suffering are all parts of our existence that we either learn to deal with or blissfully ignore until they disallow our ignorance of them.

In the economic equivalent to the classroom anecdote there are indeed those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged and nobody says that this is a fair shake or even a desirable circumstance; However fair often has little or nothing to do with the realities of success or failure.

It is unfair that a 5'2" man weighing 140 pounds is unable to clean and jerk the 500 pound barbell that the 6'2" man weighing 280 pounds is able to clean and jerk. However to pretend that they are both equal and will produce equally simply because it satisfies our sense of justice will lead us to a terribly bankrupt viewpoint of reality such as it is. Such an unfortunate albeit desirable viewpoint may in fact cause more damage than the spartan demands of pragmatism. Insisting that the 140 pound guy step up to the plate and be by virtue of his will power an equal to his fellow who is a physical giant is short sighted at most and foolhardy at least. Expecting that we can supply the needed elements to make them equal is also a fool's errand. One position is the child of wishful thinking the other is born of results oriented reality....and both can be devastating in their own right but we must choose one of them. Our choice will bear on whether or not we come to grips with reality and continue to thrive or we ignore reality and eventually experience failure.

Finally we owe it to ourselves to admit that they are not equal and never will be....or we lie to ourselves in order to satisfy our sense of justice. Both of these options are available but only one of them is workable.

The real question is not what we desire or wish....the real question is whether or not we can bring the concept of universal egalitarianism to a real and functional
status that is not a smoke and mirrors version of what is actual. So far it seems we have not been able to solve that particular conundrum and that may be because we are not listening to the messages that our own human nature is trying to communicate to us and are carelessly substituting wishful thinking and feel good rationality for what is nothing more than the ugly truth.

To ignore the disastrous results of fertilizing weakness and rewarding lack of initiative
is not a plan for the survival of humanity nor is the pretense that we can always embrace our most vulnerable members and thrust them forward into eventualities that they are not able to obtain on their own.

 

[BobbyT]

Good points in your post..... I don't think we're talking so much about right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral here. The discussion is focused more on the realities of accounting for the costs of all the ingredients involved in the social pie.

Of course; note I didn’t mention right, wrong, good, bad, moral, or immoral.

Life such as it is ... is a vicious proposition. Life, death, pain and suffering are all parts of our existence that we either learn to deal with or blissfully ignore until they disallow our ignorance of them.

Not sure where the “life is brutal and short” lecture came from ….. someone forget to get that mole checked?

In the economic equivalent to the classroom anecdote there are indeed those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged and nobody says that this is a fair shake or even a desirable circumstance; However fair often has little or nothing to do with the realities of success or failure.

I never said anything about “fair,” you’re having an argument here with someone else.

It is unfair that a 5'2" man weighing 140 pounds is unable to clean and jerk the 500 pound barbell that the 6'2" man weighing 280 pounds is able to clean and jerk. However to pretend that they are both equal and will produce equally simply because it satisfies our sense of justice will lead us to a terribly bankrupt viewpoint of reality such as it is. Such an unfortunate albeit desirable viewpoint may in fact cause more damage than the spartan demands of pragmatism. Insisting that the 140 pound guy step up to the plate and be by virtue of his will power an equal to his fellow who is a physical giant is short sighted at most and foolhardy at least. Expecting that we can supply the needed elements to make them equal is also a fool's errand. One position is the child of wishful thinking the other is born of results oriented reality....and both can be devastating in their own right but we must choose one of them. Our choice will bear on whether or not we come to grips with reality and continue to thrive or we ignore reality and eventually experience failure.

Your little-guy clean-n-jerk example is a red herring. Competitive weightlifting is subdivided by body mass categories, so the little guy can be competitive within his weight class. Just as a blind student can “compete” with sighted students for good test scores if the blind student is provided with the tools to read or hear the test questions. Thus we can “supply the needed elements to make them equal,” as they have equal opportunities to compete for ‘gold medals’ in their relative weight classes, or “A’s” in their class. We can’t guarantee a particular person will ‘win,’ but we can enable the opportunity to try.
Leaving aside the sports analogy, the blind student is better for society when he is a working, tax-paying citizen. That is the benefit to society of bearing the comparatively smaller cost of enabling him to be educated. In your paragraph above you imply two choices: “supply the needed elements to make them equal” or “come to grips with reality.” This is where you veer into strawman territory. I clearly noted in the post you’re responding to that I was not advocating for equal outcomes but for equal opportunity.

 

[BobbyT]

Rest of response ....

Finally we owe it to ourselves to admit that they are not equal and never will be....or we lie to ourselves in order to satisfy our sense of justice. Both of these options are available but only one of them is workable.

It’s not about “justice,” it’s about what’s best for all of us – we all benefit when we increase the number of people contributing to society and reduce the number of people dependent upon society. It’s not about “equal,” either, it’s about opportunity.

The real question is not what we desire or wish....the real question is whether or not we can bring the concept of universal egalitarianism to a real and functional status that is not a smoke and mirrors version of what is actual. So far it seems we have not been able to solve that particular conundrum and that may be because we are not listening to the messages that our own human nature is trying to communicate to us and are carelessly substituting wishful thinking and feel good rationality for what is nothing more than the ugly truth.

How are you using the “concept of universal egalitarianism”? We’ have to agree on a definition to discuss that, as there are several ways in which ‘equal’ can be applied. Here’s one: “As currently used, the label “egalitarian” does not necessarily indicate that the doctrine so called holds that it is desirable that people's condition be made the same in any respect or that people ought to be treated the same in any respect. An egalitarian might rather be one who maintains that people ought to be treated as equals—as possessing equal fundamental worth and dignity and as equally morally considerable. In this sense, a sample non-egalitarian would be one who believes that people born into a higher social caste, or a favored race or ethnicity, or with an above-average stock of traits deemed desirable, ought somehow to count for more than others in calculations that determine what morally ought to be done.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/
I like that view of egalitarianism, and it should be universal.

To ignore the disastrous results of fertilizing weakness and rewarding lack of initiative is not a plan for the survival of humanity nor is the pretense that we can always embrace our most vulnerable members and thrust them forward into eventualities that they are not able to obtain on their own.

Why do you take such extremes? “fertilizing weakness and rewarding lack of initiative”? Really? With such a low opinion of those who might need help at some point in their life.

 

[justoffal]

Of course; note I didn’t mention right, wrong, good, bad, moral, or immoral.

Not sure where the “life is brutal and short” lecture came from ….. someone forget to get that mole checked?

I never said anything about “fair,” you’re having an argument here with someone else.

Your little-guy clean-n-jerk example is a red herring. Competitive weightlifting is subdivided by body mass categories, so the little guy can be competitive within his weight class. Just as a blind student can “compete” with sighted students for good test scores if the blind student is provided with the tools to read or hear the test questions. Thus we can “supply the needed elements to make them equal,” as they have equal opportunities to compete for ‘gold medals’ in their relative weight classes, or “A’s” in their class. We can’t guarantee a particular person will ‘win,’ but we can enable the opportunity to try.
Leaving aside the sports analogy, the blind student is better for society when he is a working, tax-paying citizen. That is the benefit to society of bearing the comparatively smaller cost of enabling him to be educated. In your paragraph above you imply two choices: “supply the needed elements to make them equal” or “come to grips with reality.” This is where you veer into strawman territory. I clearly noted in the post you’re responding to that I was not advocating for equal outcomes but for equal opportunity.

Hmmm...

Well yes you did say something about fair.

I can see you are not too good beyond the first few layers of thinking so let me spell it out for you.

You complained about a blind student being asked to average his grades in with sighted students.

Now ignoring the rest of your sloppy surgery above...

Exactly what point were you trying to make when you brought that up?

We both know the answer

Now man up and accept the positions you like to hide behind but don't have the fortitude to argue.

We can continue this discussion when you stop changing your positions....other than that the entire discussion is rather pointless.

If you can find an example of an egalitarian system that actually exists and actually works please point it out. They don't exist because they don't work. It would be nice if they did. But then again it would be nice if everyone was Bill Gates.

The subject here is not about charity or lack therof much rather it is about pragmatism and reality.

JO

 

[worldlymrb]

No one is advocating socialism.

SOCIALISM is well past advocating and is now in the mop-up stage.

 

[BobbyT]

Hmmm...

Well yes you did say something about fair.

I can see you are not too good beyond the first few layers of thinking so let me spell it out for you.

You complained about a blind student being asked to average his grades in with sighted students.

Now ignoring the rest of your sloppy surgery above...

Exactly what point were you trying to make when you brought that up?

We both know the answer

Now man up and accept the positions you like to hide behind but don't have the fortitude to argue.

We can continue this discussion when you stop changing your positions....other than that the entire discussion is rather pointless.

If you can find an example of an egalitarian system that actually exists and actually works please point it out. They don't exist because they don't work. It would be nice if they did. But then again it would be nice if everyone was Bill Gates.

The subject here is not about charity or lack therof much rather it is about pragmatism and reality.

JO

Actually I said nothing about fair - if you think I did, post the quote illustrating it. Further I didn't say anything about a blind student "averaging in his grades" - did you even read my post? I talked about the blind student being provided the tools to take the test. You know, so he could compete with the sighted students on a level playing field. The point is that we can't guarantee everyone the same outcomes (e.g., the blind student could fail the test even if he has the tools to take it), but we should strive to enable everyone to have the opportunity to compete.

If you agree to the definition of egalitarian that I provided, then yes I agree there never has been an egalitarian society. However, again going with my definition, it is a good ideal:

[P]eople ought to be treated as equals—as possessing equal fundamental worth and dignity and as equally morally considerable. In this sense, a sample non-egalitarian would be one who believes that people born into a higher social caste, or a favored race or ethnicity, or with an above-average stock of traits deemed desirable, ought somehow to count for more than others in calculations that determine what morally ought to be done.​