ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags socialism

Reply
Old 26th May 2017, 09:37 AM   #321
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,727
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That is absolutely not a restriction on your freedom. It makes no sense how you can think it is.
What about slum landlords?

History is full of examples
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 09:38 AM   #322
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
What about slum landlords?

History is full of examples
What about them?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 09:42 AM   #323
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,560
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Just another point, you also seem to be missing the previous point made some time back that in more socialistic society's people don't see Taxation as a terrible taking of resources against their will, but rather as a way of investing in their county's future and the society that they live in. It's people on the right that have the belief that taxation is "taking their money." People on the left consider taxes as "paying their fair share towards creating a better society."
That's pretty much how I feel.

I look at places around the world, and the countries I would want to live in all have higher taxes and better conditions.

The places with lower taxes tend to be underdeveloped holes. Fun to visit, but not my style.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 09:58 AM   #324
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Haha, it is, it just isn't a serious one. It's a restriction on my freedom that I can't walk in and take everything. Society has rightly deemed my right to the freedom to just take **** as not particularly valuable and, in fact, quite damaging.

When most people walk into job negotiations, their freedom to negotiate and contract is highly limited. The farther down the socioeconomic scale one goes, the less freedom to negotiate a person has. This, again, is not always a problem, but there are certain protections that are necessary for a functioning society.

History and empirical reality has shown over and over that those protections will not manifest through individual contracts, in large part because the freedom you imagine is a fiction. Labor Unions and governments need to create those rules because they actually have some measure of power.
If we accept the framework that being prevented from stealing is a restriction on freedom, it doesn't follow that being told "I will not voluntarily give you X in exchange for Y" is a restriction on freedom. The force used to prevent you from taking X is the restriction, not simply the lack of voluntarily providing it.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 10:54 AM   #325
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It is equally free under unequal bargaining power.
This is self contradictory. Unequal bargaining power is nothing more than a lack of freedom to pursue other options so any deal made under such conditions already have a lack of freedom baked in. You can't just ignore this and say "yeah, but this small part is free". The totality of such agreements are not free.

It may or may not be worth intervention but any agreement under unequal bargaining power is not free.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 10:58 AM   #326
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
This is self contradictory. Unequal bargaining power is nothing more than a lack of freedom to pursue other options so any deal made under such conditions already have a lack of freedom baked in. You can't just ignore this and say "yeah, but this small part is free". The totality of such agreements are not free.

It may or may not be worth intervention but any agreement under unequal bargaining power is not free.
It isn't a lack of freedom. Before bargaining your options are X. Through bargaining your options are X + Y. Failure to bargain returns you to X. At no point are your options constrained.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:06 AM   #327
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post

When most people walk into job negotiations, their freedom to negotiate and contract is highly limited. The farther down the socioeconomic scale one goes, the less freedom to negotiate a person has.
Eg company towns in the 1800’s or the ancestors of European serfs at the dawn of the feudal system. People entered these agreements willingly but only because they had no other options. BTC’s notion of freedom is literally how serfdom began in the first place.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:09 AM   #328
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Eg company towns in the 1800’s or the ancestors of European serfs at the dawn of the feudal system. People entered these agreements willingly but only because they had no other options. BTC’s notion of freedom is literally how serfdom began in the first place.
But I am also not arguing that freedom is good. So even if my notion of freedom included serfdom (I don't agree it does, but let's ignore that for now), if we have the same perception of the goodness of serfdom then we are not promoting different outcomes.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:15 AM   #329
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It isn't a lack of freedom. Before bargaining your options are X. Through bargaining your options are X + Y. Failure to bargain returns you to X. At no point are your options constrained.
There is another form. Before bargaining your options are X -Y. Through bargaining your options are X. Failure to bargain returns you to X-Y. It’s pretty absurd to suggest you have any real choice but to accept the offer of X.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:17 AM   #330
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
There is another form. Before bargaining your options are X -Y. Through bargaining your options are X. Failure to bargain returns you to X-Y. It’s pretty absurd to suggest you have any real choice but to accept the offer of X.
Since you are not dividing by X, once again, this works out as not having your options restricted.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:19 AM   #331
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But I am also not arguing that freedom is good. So even if my notion of freedom included serfdom (I don't agree it does, but let's ignore that for now), if we have the same perception of the goodness of serfdom then we are not promoting different outcomes.
You are arguing for the validity of serfdom, the very thing freedom was meant to topple. Your position is completely at odds with freedom.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:23 AM   #332
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
You are arguing for the validity of serfdom, the very thing freedom was meant to topple. Your position is completely at odds with freedom.
I am not arguing for the validity of serfdom. If I define freedom as compatible with serfdom, then it isn't at odds with freedom. More importantly, I am not promoting serfdom as long as I am not promoting freedom.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:28 AM   #333
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If we accept the framework that being prevented from stealing is a restriction on freedom, it doesn't follow that being told "I will not voluntarily give you X in exchange for Y" is a restriction on freedom. The force used to prevent you from taking X is the restriction, not simply the lack of voluntarily providing it.
This is just gibberish.

There are different reasons why freedom may be restricted: the police may stop you, a lack of economic well-being may stop you, a disability may stop you, a jackass neighbor...

You are making irrelevant distinctions.

And yes, a lack of bargaining power is a restriction on freedom. Sometimes, as I said, it is justifiable; other times not. This is, once again, why trying to have this conversation on conceptual terms is an absolute waste of time.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:29 AM   #334
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
More importantly, I am not promoting serfdom as long as I am not promoting freedom.
Your concept of “freedom” promotes servitude and serfdom. The historical examples back this up.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If I define freedom as compatible with serfdom, then it isn't at odds with freedom.
Why would how you define if matter? You can dream up whatever fantasy world you want if you redefine all the concepts to fit your narrative, it doesn’t make it useful logical or sensible.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:29 AM   #335
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
This is just gibberish.

There are different reasons why freedom may be restricted: the police may stop you, a lack of economic well-being may stop you, a disability may stop you, a jackass neighbor...

You are making irrelevant distinctions.

And yes, a lack of bargaining power is a restriction on freedom. Sometimes, as I said, it is justifiable; other times not. This is, once again, why trying to have this conversation on conceptual terms is an absolute waste of time.
A disability may stop you? We are now calling physics and gravity a restriction on freedom?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:30 AM   #336
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Your concept of “freedom” promotes servitude and serfdom. The historical examples back this up.



Why would how you define if matter? You can dream up whatever fantasy world you want if you redefine all the concepts to fit your narrative, it doesn’t make it useful logical or sensible.
I'm not saying we should promote my concept of freedom as a desirable outcome. Therefore I am not promoting serfdom.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:34 AM   #337
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I am not arguing for the validity of serfdom.
You are, you just don't seem to realize it. This is the result of failing to consider the practical implications of a worldview.

Quote:
If I define freedom as compatible with serfdom, then it isn't at odds with freedom.
Haha, ok. There is no meaningful definition of freedom that is consistent with serfdom. That you can simply adopt some bizarre meaning devoid of historical content is hardly convincing.

I know, I know, you have no interest in convincing anyone of anything.

Quote:
More importantly, I am not promoting serfdom as long as I am not promoting freedom.
Just playing around in the sandbox. Firetruck, vroom, vroom.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:37 AM   #338
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
A disability may stop you? We are now calling physics and gravity a restriction on freedom?
Sad effort at a reductio.

Compare life with a disability prior to the ADA and after the ADA. You really want to argue there was no change in freedom for disabled folks? Inaction on accessibility dramatically affects the opportunity and freedom of people less physically capable.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:37 AM   #339
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post

Haha, ok. There is no meaningful definition of freedom that is consistent with serfdom. That you can simply adopt some bizarre meaning devoid of historical content is hardly convincing.
Asking that the definition be meaningful is moving the goalposts.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:38 AM   #340
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Asking that the definition be meaningful is moving the goalposts.
Yeah, my fault, it's one of those baseline assumptions I enter a debate with: the obligation to make sense.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:39 AM   #341
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Sad effort at a reductio.

Compare life with a disability prior to the ADA and after the ADA. You really want to argue there was no change in freedom for disabled folks? Inaction on accessibility dramatically affects the opportunity and freedom of people less physically capable.
There was a change in freedom....at the expense of the freedom of others. I agreed that laws against stealing is a restriction on freedom.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:40 AM   #342
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Yeah, my fault, it's one of those baseline assumptions I enter a debate with: the obligation to make sense.
It makes sense. Your objection seems to be that it has no implication outside it's own framework.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:45 AM   #343
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There was a change in freedom....at the expense of the freedom of others. I agreed that laws against stealing is a restriction on freedom.
Yes, it is always thus. I'm sure if we try we may be able to come up with a freedom given that doesn't affect the power and freedom of another - maybe just the right to think things - but as a matter of practicality, there is no way to give freedom without restricting it elsewhere.

It's a matter of priority.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:47 AM   #344
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It makes sense. Your objection seems to be that it has no implication outside it's own framework.
Well, I suppose we need to have a conversation about what "sense" means, then, because you've defined freedom in such a way that it contradicts almost every historical and philosophical use of the word save for the very cynical application of "Freedom to Abuse" as with those imposing serfdom.

I would argue this makes little sense conceptually or definitionally, but that means much less to me than it's complete and utter uselessness in the arena of reality.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:48 AM   #345
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Well, I suppose we need to have a conversation about what "sense" means, then, because you've defined freedom in such a way that it contradicts almost every historical and philosophical use of the word save for the very cynical application of "Freedom to Abuse" as with those imposing serfdom.

I would argue this makes little sense conceptually or definitionally, but that means much less to me than it's complete and utter uselessness in the arena of reality.
And usefulness in the arena of reality means nothing to me. It really is a stupid restriction on a discussion.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:52 AM   #346
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And usefulness in the arena of reality means nothing to me. It really is a stupid restriction on a discussion.
Right, I think I made that point some time ago.

It's amazing how this is always your fallback. I notice you didn't bother to explain what you meant when you used the word "freedom" at the beginning of the discourse. This strange meaning of yours is only shared with people after you're pressed. Don't you think it would be much more clear to define your terms at the beginning?
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 11:57 AM   #347
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,656
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Right, I think I made that point some time ago.

It's amazing how this is always your fallback. I notice you didn't bother to explain what you meant when you used the word "freedom" at the beginning of the discourse. This strange meaning of yours is only shared with people after you're pressed. Don't you think it would be much more clear to define your terms at the beginning?
Good point. I know I'm really bad at this. But it gets us to what I think are interesting places like the X and Y argument with Lolmiller.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 12:15 PM   #348
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,673
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And usefulness in the arena of reality means nothing to me. It really is a stupid restriction on a discussion.
Yikes.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.