Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Entitlement

Page 7 of 7 [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Previous topic | Next topic

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

23 Sep 2012, 8:44 pm

marshall wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Works. For. WHO, GGPViper?

Oh yeah that's right. It works the corporation since they really have no incentive to care about the economy as a whole or whether or not anyone has a job since they have one and they're makin big bucks.


I find this statement to be somewhat naive. It is not the *job* of a company to care about "the economy as a whole" or "whether or not anyone has a job".

The underlying concept of the market economy is that it maximizes society surplus... It does *not* concern itself with the distribution of said surplus...


You cannot call someone "naive" for disagreeing with your particular libertarian normative proclamations you dunce. The fact that the market does not care about the distribution of said surplus and would just as well allow the jobless to starve on the street is the problem.


You miss the mark completely. Since I am quite eloquent, I could probably concoct a semiotic machination infused with the teleological nomenclature of "f**k You!" as a rebuttal to the conjecture that I lack the genetic adaptation of heuristic accumulation.

I was - however - simply pointing out that the market *doesn't care* and that there is no reason to expect it to care. It is not in the nature of markets to do so. My point is: It works. But this simply means that the data fits the theory... There is no normative proclamation at all...



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

23 Sep 2012, 8:49 pm

One thing I've noticed about libertarians is that they don't seem to understand the difference between normative and positive statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_statement

They always act like anyone who morally disagrees with a statement like "capitalism is the best and most fair system there is" is somehow naive, misinformed, or ignorant of economics. They forget that "capitalism is the best and most fair system there is" is not a positive statement that can be either proved or disproved. IT IS A VALUE STATEMENT, i.e. an OPINION. Whether someone is or is not "entitled" to something is likewise a normative value statement.

Always steering the debate towards these value disagreements while pretending to be discussing positive verifiable factual truths about the world as it exists is bound to annoy people who don't already believe in the moral libertarian dogma just as Christians quoting bible verses as fact is bound to annoy people who don't already accept the bible as "the word of God".



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Sep 2012, 9:29 pm

marshall wrote:
One thing I've noticed about libertarians is that they don't seem to understand the difference between normative and positive statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_statement

They always act like anyone who morally disagrees with a statement like "capitalism is the best and most fair system there is" is somehow naive, misinformed, or ignorant of economics. They forget that "capitalism is the best and most fair system there is" is not a positive statement that can be either proved or disproved. IT IS A VALUE STATEMENT, i.e. an OPINION. Whether someone is or is not "entitled" to something is likewise a normative value statement.

Always steering the debate towards these value disagreements while pretending to be discussing positive verifiable factual truths about the world as it exists is bound to annoy people who don't already believe in the moral libertarian dogma just as Christians quoting bible verses as fact is bound to annoy people who don't already accept the bible as "the word of God".


Capitalism if far from a fair system but it has a good track-record for producing lots of new material goods. If you want productivity capitalism is a better bet. If you want social justice, go elsewhere.

ruveyn



AspieRogue

24 Sep 2012, 1:34 am

GGPViper wrote:

A lot of undocumented claims without references to peer-reviewed scientific articles.



Projecting now are we?



AspieRogue

24 Sep 2012, 2:04 pm

marshall wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Works. For. WHO, GGPViper?

Oh yeah that's right. It works the corporation since they really have no incentive to care about the economy as a whole or whether or not anyone has a job since they have one and they're makin big bucks.


I find this statement to be somewhat naive. It is not the *job* of a company to care about "the economy as a whole" or "whether or not anyone has a job".

The underlying concept of the market economy is that it maximizes society surplus... It does *not* concern itself with the distribution of said surplus...


You cannot call someone "naive" for disagreeing with your particular libertarian normative proclamations you dunce.




There's a word for this kind of tactic, its called: AD HOMINEM



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

24 Sep 2012, 2:39 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
A lot of undocumented claims without references to peer-reviewed scientific articles.


Projecting now are we?


Completely off the mark, and I fail to see the connection. I make no claim to knowledge based on my perception of reality alone.

I find it, interesting, however, that your Wiki-Fu criticises the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I always found that this interpretation was arrogant, myself, as in "Our models cannot explain reality, thus reality cannot be explained". But picking a fight with PPR posters in one thing, picking a fight with theoretical physics is another.



AspieRogue

24 Sep 2012, 2:51 pm

GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
A lot of undocumented claims without references to peer-reviewed scientific articles.


Projecting now are we?


Completely off the mark, and I fail to see the connection. I make no claim to knowledge based on my perception of reality alone.

I find it, interesting, however, that your Wiki-Fu criticises the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I always found that this interpretation was arrogant, myself, as in "Our models cannot explain reality, thus reality cannot be explained". But picking a fight with PPR posters in one thing, picking a fight with theoretical physics is another.


RED HERRING



FYI I never said nor implied that reality cannot be explained. It's petty clear that you've lost the argument as now you're resorting to passive-aggression via logical fallacies. Business is not about science, kid. Neither is anything in this thread. I made a claim about what is necessary to start a business, and you tried in vain to throw me off by saying that I made a claim with no "peer reviewed scientific evidence"..............:lmao:



Last edited by AspieRogue on 24 Sep 2012, 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

24 Sep 2012, 2:56 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
A lot of undocumented claims without references to peer-reviewed scientific articles.


Projecting now are we?


Completely off the mark, and I fail to see the connection. I make no claim to knowledge based on my perception of reality alone.

I find it, interesting, however, that your Wiki-Fu criticises the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I always found that this interpretation was arrogant, myself, as in "Our models cannot explain reality, thus reality cannot be explained". But picking a fight with PPR posters in one thing, picking a fight with theoretical physics is another.


RED HERRING

FYI I never said nor implied that reality cannot be explained. It's petty clear that you've lost the argument as now you're resorting to passive-aggression via logical fallacies.


Once you provide documented claims with references to peer-reviewed scientific articles (and I find myself unable to provide rebuttals), then I will gladly concede defeat. My claim was that there was no connection between my request for empirical evidence and the mind projection fallacy...



AspieRogue

24 Sep 2012, 2:57 pm

GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
A lot of undocumented claims without references to peer-reviewed scientific articles.


Projecting now are we?


Completely off the mark, and I fail to see the connection. I make no claim to knowledge based on my perception of reality alone.

I find it, interesting, however, that your Wiki-Fu criticises the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I always found that this interpretation was arrogant, myself, as in "Our models cannot explain reality, thus reality cannot be explained". But picking a fight with PPR posters in one thing, picking a fight with theoretical physics is another.


RED HERRING

FYI I never said nor implied that reality cannot be explained. It's petty clear that you've lost the argument as now you're resorting to passive-aggression via logical fallacies.


Once you provide documented claims with references to peer-reviewed scientific articles (and I find myself unable to provide rebuttals), then I will gladly concede defeat. My claim was that there was no connection between my request for empirical evidence and the mind projection fallacy...



So you're asking for scientific articles on how to start a business?
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

24 Sep 2012, 3:39 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
A lot of undocumented claims without references to peer-reviewed scientific articles.


Projecting now are we?


Completely off the mark, and I fail to see the connection. I make no claim to knowledge based on my perception of reality alone.

I find it, interesting, however, that your Wiki-Fu criticises the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I always found that this interpretation was arrogant, myself, as in "Our models cannot explain reality, thus reality cannot be explained". But picking a fight with PPR posters in one thing, picking a fight with theoretical physics is another.


RED HERRING

FYI I never said nor implied that reality cannot be explained. It's petty clear that you've lost the argument as now you're resorting to passive-aggression via logical fallacies.


Once you provide documented claims with references to peer-reviewed scientific articles (and I find myself unable to provide rebuttals), then I will gladly concede defeat. My claim was that there was no connection between my request for empirical evidence and the mind projection fallacy...


So you're asking for scientific articles on how to start a business?
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


Yes, I am. I doubt you will provide any, but I consider it a reasonable request when being presented by sweeping generalizations about the nature of starting businesses.

Results from a 2 minute Google Search (And these are only journals exclusively devoted to entrepreneurship - I speculate that mainstream economic journals occasionally provide some contributions as well)
https://www.globalaea.org/journal
http://joe.sagepub.com/