In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
Humans respond to incentives. Positive and negative incentives. I'm more interested in good or effective policy than any of the ideological labels.
That's because all of the policies you advocate align with your ideological beliefs. Of course you don't care what label they carry.
True. I am ideologically practicalretarded challenged.
Microsoft cockblocked my edit.
They’re a bunch of Nazis, which translates to socialists in Right Winglish.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality of outcome opportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
And the carrots are all provided at others' expense.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
And the carrots are all provided at others' expense.
There's no carrots or toilet paper under socialism.
Maybe some shitty ones mixed in with peas. Sukatash sucks.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality of outcome opportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
No system of government can help a morally deplorable populace.
If you meant, "sucking at life" economically, well then I would point out that free markets, devoid of government central planning, have consistently performed better for everyone in a populace than any social engineering has ever achieved.
The concept that free markets have ever "run wild" is built on an American idea that laissez faire capitalism was responsible for the guilded age, which is patently false. Most robber barons built their empires using imminent domain, lobbying, and government approved monopolies, not the free market.
Very few other countries have flirted with freedom the way the US has. Most that have are pretty high on the economic development scale.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
And the carrots are all provided at others' expense.
There's no carrots or toilet paper under socialism.
Maybe some shitty ones mixed in with peas. Sukatash sucks.
I feel like we need to come up with agreed upon definitions of what is socialism and what it not socialism for the tug. There's no shortage of carrots in a lot of countries that are free market but with high levels of wealth redistribution such as ours. There, however, have always been carrot shortages in countries where the state owns the means of production and plans the economy.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
And the carrots are all provided at others' expense.
There's no carrots or toilet paper under socialism.
Maybe some shitty ones mixed in with peas. Sukatash sucks.
I feel like we need to come up with agreed upon definitions of what is socialism and what it not socialism for the tug. There's no shortage of carrots in a lot of countries that are free market but with high levels of wealth redistribution such as ours. There, however, have always been carrot shortages in countries where the state owns the means of production and plans the economy.
I'm hearing that if the government only plans certain sectors of the economy the rules of economics completely change though.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality of outcome opportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
Or let them die like we will need to do with senior citizens to save social security and sick people so we can have medicare for all.
We have equality of opportunity. If people suck and hate the system they can leave or die.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality of outcome opportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
Or let them die like we will need to do with senior citizens to save social security and sick people so we can have medicare for all.
We have equality of opportunity. If people suck and hate the system they can leave or die.
That's called a stick
I don't know that I would agree with that. We have equality before the law, but a lot of one's outcome in life depends upon you're genetic inheritance (IQ and other things) and your home environment from age zero to 18. Now life's not fucking fair and I get that and I don't want to be taxed at 50% to make it so.
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality of outcome opportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
Or let them die like we will need to do with senior citizens to save social security and sick people so we can have medicare for all.
We have equality of opportunity. If people suck and hate the system they can leave or die.
That's called a stick
I don't know that I would agree with that. We have equality before the law, but a lot of one's outcome in life depends upon you're genetic inheritance (IQ and other things) and your home environment from age zero to 18. Now life's not fucking fair and I get that and I don't want to be taxed at 50% to make it so.
Opportunity doesn't depend on birth. Too many horrible childhoods leading to success and rich kids dying in the gutter from drugs
Life isn't fair. JFK was right. But America is the last best hope. Reagan was right.
Teach kids the system is rigged against them and they have no shot and they might believe it.
There is no utopia on this earth. Only toil and trouble. Thank God for drugs
In this thread H argues that junkies have no choice or free will. Like Trump's brother who killed himself
In the other thread H argues that all you have to do is be born lucky and you'll end up a billionaire. Like Trump
As the saying goes, Kunt Logic - is there nothing it can't do?
The philosophy that individuals have no agency or free will is at the heart of progressivism.
The correct answer is probably somewhere between free will and determinism. Neither extreme of the debate works for me.
Sure, the difference being that real liberalism seeks to protect the small amount of free will individuals may have.
Progressivism denies agency and seeks to eliminate any that we may possess.
I don't think humans have as much free will as many on the right would like to believe. But we can also agree that humans respond really well to carrots and sticks. The problem with progressive policy is that it's all carrots and no sticks.
Except that the concept of government as social engineer is outside of the premise of government as limited to protecting ones individual freedoms. Enumerated powers is a dead concept on the left.
But here's where my primary critique libertarianism or classical liberalism comes into play...
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality of outcome opportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.
Or let them die like we will need to do with senior citizens to save social security and sick people so we can have medicare for all.
We have equality of opportunity. If people suck and hate the system they can leave or die.
That's called a stick
I don't know that I would agree with that. We have equality before the law, but a lot of one's outcome in life depends upon you're genetic inheritance (IQ and other things) and your home environment from age zero to 18. Now life's not fucking fair and I get that and I don't want to be taxed at 50% to make it so.
Opportunity doesn't depend on birth. Too many horrible childhoods leading to success and rich kids dying in the gutter from drugs
Life isn't fair. JFK was right. But America is the last best hope. Reagan was right.
Teach kids the system is rigged against them and they have no shot and they might believe it.
There is no utopia on this earth. Only toil and trouble. Thank God for drugs
Agree with the last 3 sentences. The first is probably fodder for another day.
Comments
If the premise of government is to secure our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we can agree then that there is cost associated with the state protecting us from those that suck. When a large percentage of the population is sucking at life and doesn't buy into the system, government can either work towards creating more equality of
outcomeopportunity, or we've got to spend more on prisons and policing.There's no carrots or toilet paper under socialism.
Maybe some shitty ones mixed in with peas. Sukatash sucks.
If you meant, "sucking at life" economically, well then I would point out that free markets, devoid of government central planning, have consistently performed better for everyone in a populace than any social engineering has ever achieved.
The concept that free markets have ever "run wild" is built on an American idea that laissez faire capitalism was responsible for the guilded age, which is patently false. Most robber barons built their empires using imminent domain, lobbying, and government approved monopolies, not the free market.
Very few other countries have flirted with freedom the way the US has. Most that have are pretty high on the economic development scale.
We have equality of opportunity. If people suck and hate the system they can leave or die.
That's called a stick
Life isn't fair. JFK was right. But America is the last best hope. Reagan was right.
Teach kids the system is rigged against them and they have no shot and they might believe it.
There is no utopia on this earth. Only toil and trouble. Thank God for drugs
I take your point. We should emulate the UK and Canada.
You don't actually think I'd take your word for anything do you?
@DerekJohnson 2019