Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
A technicality raised by you. Your thought process is muddy and needs work. You arrogance is unfounded and a hinderance to your developement.
|
Argumentum ad hominem.
Quote:
I might even agree with that statement. But you don't support it in any way, you simply state it as a fact. The relationship between Capitalism, free choice and happiness is subjective and in now way examined by you. I assume you inteded to do more than bluster, but underneath all the showing off that's all you're doing. You can dress a turd in a gown and take it to th prom, but it won't dance.
|
You assume that I need to examine something in order to know it. All I need to have are a few self-evident (or, more appropriately, commonly induced) axioms. Happiness
is subjective. That is precisely my point.
I am a product of the marginalist revolution (aka when economists realized that value is subjective). Now, clearly every person seeks to maximize the utility of their life. The amount of happiness derived from something is dependant upon the individual. What that means is that a system which allows people to choose what to purchase, how much to work, and how much to invest in education in return for future profits will allow those people to maximize the utility of their life.
With economic equality, however, this becomes distorted. Some people become happier; and some less happy. However, there is a net loss of happiness as wealth is transferred from those who would derive the most pleasure from it to those would derive less from it.
Now I realize that is a equilibrium thesis, in which every person is immortal and no wealth is handed down. But it is still very appropriate for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that many will receive gratification by knowing that their money will go down to the family. In any case, such hand downs are usually minor; the big cases of them are so few that they can be nearly discounted.
Quote:
Huh. That's why George Bush got bailed out by friends of his father whenever his businesses failed, right? His really great functioning in the market. That's why Michael Powell is head of the FCC sitting pretty for huge thinly veiled industry bribes and why W's brother can go to Asia and get a salary and whores, becuase of they function so well in the market. Your faith in the Market and it's functional incorruptability are quasi religous and pro forma. In addition they are entirely theoretical. I would be a lot less sure of yoruslef until you work for a living and pay your own bills. Also, kids who use 'thus' in their writting are asking for a wedgie.
|
I just addressed this. Despite that, haven't you noticed that you are pointing out those who have strong ties to government? Michael Powell is outside of the market.
Quote:
experimentally this can't be proven since it's never been attempted. In addition, as a statement does not automatically justify it's converse. I would also suggest that they may be other worthy goals in the world than merely the accumulation of unmeasurable, unquantifiable pleasure units. Jutsice gives me pleasure.
|
Pleasure can be measured by brain reactions. Justice does not exist any more than natural rights do. Even if it did, I would ascribe to Nozick's version of justice rather than Rawls.
Quote:
Surely I can't. You don't make comparisons with any system. You use a meaningless statment implying the measurability of imeasurables and pair it with the word logic. Income is measurable. Time spent working is measurable. Access to health care and other neccesities are measurable.
Here's my point. You are thrilled with yourself. Your narcicism encourages you to overvalue your arguments, such as they are. It is a very unbecoming characteristic. I think you should concider the very strong possability that you might actually learn something by listening instead of expounding.
|
I've already made a strong case for my argument.