OK Is stealing immoral? If 5 guys were on an island and a woman washed ashore and this small community of 6 voted to make rape legal - is rape now moral? Is the initiation of force immoral? Does income tax involve the initiation of force?
Interesting questions. My answers would be: Yes, but property rights are defined by the law and by social convention. If the law and social norms say that you have only a limited or conditional interest in property, then other people depriving you of property based on those limits or conditions cannot be considered "stealing" in the first place. In hunter-gatherer societies, for example, the best evidence is that they mostly lived without the property right we consider the norm today. Food caught by one individual was mostly not that one individual's, nor did he have any preferential right in it. So was it "stealing" when, say, a crippled member of the tribe, who never catches any food for the group, ate some of the meat? Clearly not. No, but rape and taxation are hardly comparable. Sometimes, but sometimes not. By itself? Not in any sense. If you refuse to pay your taxes, then down the road the state may initiate force against you. You can always avoid the State's use of force by either obeying the original law, or turning yourself in for punishment after the law is broken. The State ideally uses the minimum amount of force needed to ensure compliance, and that can be reduced to zero at any stage for those who cooperate with the legal system.
Of course stealing is immoral. But the people you are accusing of stealing, have not committed acts of theft at least not the ones you have accused them of. Of course not, but that is not the situation here. Is it? What is force in your view? As I have said before, it is the law that we file tax returns and if you don't or submit fraudulent returns, the government will send you to jail. Now let me ask you the question that you have repeatedly run away from, you think that if the government forces an individual to do anything, it is immoral. Using that logic, is it immoral for the government to incarcerate criminals? It forces them against their will. Is it immoral for government to prevent violent criminals from committing acts of violence? Is the Constitution of The United States immoral? It sets up the organs of government and law for this country. It forces a behavior on all individuals of the land. Is it the immoral too?
The Great Recession is a term some use to describe the global economic disorder of 2007 to the present: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2012_global_recession Some use the term to refer to the U.S. portion of that recession, and in the U.S. the recession itself ended back in 2009 (which is not to say the economy was "good" after 2009, but not all economic problems count as "recessions"). The term can be helpful as a shorthand for the varied economic issues and causes that brought about this period of turmoil. The term can certainly be unhelpful if it is used in a way that obscures those issues or causes...but that is to say that one can use words (*any* words) in ways that fail to elucidate the pertinent issues. It would be fair to argue that you feel Joe is missing some relevant point by stating that and then explaining the point in full, but that is somewhat different than arguing he should never use a blanket term to refer to an historical phenomenon. If the complaint is that the term is used to cover an ongoing event, that is also common. I sometimes refer to my current employment, which has lasted from 2002 to the present as "my job". That is a blanket term that covers a long period and certainly fails to disclose the many related, but still different, events that have occurred in connection with my employment. Similarly, people referred to WWI as "The Great War" before it was over, and "World War II" was coined in 1939. In fact, "World War" was first used in 1898, BEFORE we ever had one. If the term "The Great Recession" turns out not to be useful, I'm sure it will fall by the wayside, but so long as both you and Joe understand what he means, the term shouldn't be condemned. If you think he fails to comprehend some vital element of the Great Recession, however defined, you can always educate him on that point, and yet keep the term itself.
The Fed's job is to provide loans to banks...collateralized loans. They do it ever day. And the number you cited was over a prolonged period of time. Additionally, you are forgetting the other part of your claim. The part where you claimed the Fed was loaning the money without oversight of Congress. As has been pointed out to you on many occasions, including this thread, the Fed is under supervision/review of Congress. Congress audits the Fed annually and the Fed chairman reports to Congress two times a year. The Fed is acting with the power granted to it by the Congress.
No, using the normal lexicon, it was a recession. A big one, but a recession. Here is the problem there is nothing in your analogy that is even remotely similar to the issues we face. As has been pointed out to you, numerous times, no one is paying people to dig worthless holes. "Krugmaneconomics" otherwise known as Keynesian Economics has largely been proven. It works, it is more than a pain killer. You don't have to look far to see that in action. Our European friends tried austerity (Pauleconomics). Why don't you ask them how it worked out for them? It has not worked. You don't have to be a rocket science to see the difference. The best solution to debt is more income and responsible spending - not selling you lungs, kidneys and legs.
Indeed...largely been proven to be worthless nonsense. http://www.amazon.com/Where-Keynes-Went-Wrong-Governments/dp/1604190175 Hunter Lewis sets out to refute Keynesian economics and show that it's what has brought the world to the present crisis. Through paraphrasing and verbatim quotations, he presents Keynes's economic arguments from his The General Theory and other writings and then offers counterarguments. The timing for the book could not better. One year ago the US economy (and many economies around the world) began a terrible meltdown and responded with an approach very similar to what economist John Maynard Keynes promoted during the Great Depression. Lewis' compelling and powerful book eloquently argues that Keynes approach made that Depression far worse than it should have been and will have a similar impact on our economic situation today. In the press release for the book we see that "When the world financial system began to fall in 2008, the US government reacted decisively with a stimulus package, bailouts, and printing, borrowing, and spending trillions of dollars. All of these interventions were taken from a playbook devised by the last century's most influential economist, John Maynard Keynes. But is Keynes right? The implications of this question are large and timely. If Keynes is wrong, then so are the economic policies of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and virtually all governments today." Did Keynes have proof for his theories? Lewis argues that the answer is absolutely not. In fact, the author noted in an interview that "Overall, the most surprising thing is the lack of evidence, much less proof for anything he says. It is just a series of brilliant hunches. But there is really nothing to back up the hunches. In the whole of the General Theory, Keynes most important book, there are only two pages devoted to actual evidence...." [Keynes' book is] full of paradoxes that tend to only confuse and not bolster his arguments. The following are a few examples from Lewis...: * "If too much bad debt is the problem, for example during the Crash of 2008, the solution is to add more debt." * "An economy depends on the confidence of the players. If confidence has been shaken by too much bad debt, restore confidence by adding more." * "If low interest rates held down long have caused trouble, lower them further and hold them down longer." * "If the public seems to be opposing the idea of borrowing and spending more, their elected representatives in government can do it for them." Keynes himself is often obscure, even at first glance self-contradictory. In some cases, Keynes was not actually contradicting himself. Often he was simply being sloppy, although sometimes he seems to be intentionally opaque. Opacity has its uses in politics, especially when there is a logical difficulty to obscure or evade. In part 3, Lewis attacks Keynes from several directions: in some cases, showing that what Keynes said makes no sense or contradicts itself; in other cases, citing empirical studies that have produced results contrary to Keynes; and finally, developing alternative theories that make more sense. The alternative theories are thoroughly Austrian and Lewis clearly has a deep understanding of the Austrian teachings on production, money, banking, and the business cycle. I came away with an appreciation of the great mystery of Keynes: how did his ideas come to have the profound influence that they do now? The ideas in The General Theory form the foundation of modern macroeconomics, which itself guides the central banking and monetary policy in every country. Keynesianism, if not Keynes, is deeply embedded in academic economics, government, and the public consciousness. It is difficult not to think that there must be something really deep and profound there. Could several generations of professional economists have been so wrong as to adopt an intellectual pile of rubbish as the basis for making decisions having impacts of trillions of dollars? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Let me see if I have your positions: Stealing is always immoral. Rape is always immoral. Voting does not change an immoral act to a moral act. Is that correct? Initiation of force is sometimes moral and sometimes immoral. Is that correct? Let me be clear: By initiation of force against another person it is implicit this other person has not initiated force against you. You are not 'defending' yourself from an attack. Is your answer still that initiation of force is sometimes immoral and sometimes moral? Lastly, how did you come to conclusion that rape and stealing was immoral?
How did you logically come to that conclusion? WHY is stealing immoral? WHY is rape immoral? WHY is Slavery immoral? By 'force' I mean: compel. When I said: initiation of force it is implicit YOU are the one initiating force, the other person has not attacked you. You could think of it as YOU attacking THEM. Give me an example of when you think the initiation of force against another person is moral. The US Constitution is not the philosophical ideal and aspects of it are immoral. That's why SOME of the amendments have occurred. Obviously Slavery was legal under it. Beating children was legal under it. Not allowing women or blacks or native Americans the vote was legal under it. Stealing other people's land was legal under it. Regulating behavior is immoral is legal under the US Constitution (see Drug War). ALL sorts of stuff happens under the guise of 'legality' to mask as moral. Which is why these two concepts need to be delineated from one another.
The ECB issued Trillions in debt to bail out their own Banks. That's NOT Paulonomics. That's Krugmanomics! Central Banks is NOT Paulonomic! You did read his book: End The Fed? The ECB has appointed all sorts of Bankers ... to run Italy, to run Greece... soon Spain will give up their sovereignty to a banker. Paul says the DEBT MUST BE ELIMINATED. The Banks and the people who invested in their bullshit products must go bust. Austerity for the rich NOT the people. See the difference? This has not happened. It wouldn't have happened under the auspices of a free market with competing currencies. But, we haven't had one of those in 100 years. The Euro was probably the WORST thing that could have ever happened to the Greeks and Italians and Spanish... ICELAND was the model to follow.
Proven, by who, certianly not by your man. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed there has been a plethora of data post Keynes that supports Keynes ideas that government should be creator of demand in periods of excess capacity. Just because a guy writes a book to make money, it does not make his writting truthful. Dan Brown wrote a book called Angels and Demons. Does that make it true. A lot of folks seem to think so. Most recently, just look at the paths taken by China and the US and Europe. China and the US stimulated their economies with Keynesian stimulus. Those are the economies that are growing. Those are the economies that have relatively low unemployment when compared to Europe which took the anti Keynesian approach. Spain has 25% unemployment. Their debt continues to grow and their economy continues to shrink. You could not have better proof that Keynesian economics works.
One is is a little over a trillion. They did that only within the last few months after pursing "Pauleconomics" for years after the onset of the Great Recession. Paul has more than just end the Fed in his platform. Where have you been? They did that years ago with the creation of the Euro. No debt would mean austerity for far more than just the wealthy. Actually the wealthy would do quite well. It is the average Joe and Jane who would be living in poverty without debt. No I suppose that is why they want to say in the EU so much. We have a free market with respect to currency Michael. What we do have with the Fed is a lender of last resort to banks. That keeps our banks sound. That keeps our economy running. If you go back and look at the data. If just does not support your contentions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#Great_Depression_onwards The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months.[5] This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe.[7] Factors that may have contributed to this moderation include the creation of a central bank and lender of last resort, like the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the establishment of deposit insurance in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, increased regulation of the banking sector, the adoption of interventionist Keynesian economics, and the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid). See Post-World War II economic expansion for further discussion.
Krugman to Obama: You’re gonna lose unless you demand a huge stimulus package May 2,2012 Oh, looky, aLiEn-BoY Krugman is peddeling his new book. In it he argues we should give the Banks another $2 f*cking Trillion dollars. Can you believe this guy? First he's saying an Alien invasion would "turn this economy around in 8 months" now he's saying we fork over another $2 TRILLION!?!? What happened Joe? I thought you said it was all Black Caviar and Champagne Kisses? This depression is going to last another 4 more years. AND get this, the Chinese are probably going to get sick of paying for baby-boomers to sit around watch Netflicks on their happy pills while their 40 year old kids (still living at home) play PS3. And University grads are probably going to join other unemployed youth and start burning shit. Centrally planned economies do not work. Central Banking fraud is not only immoral - it's a complete a failure. Instead of bailing out WallStreet we should have let the Banks go bust and let Mainstreet get back to work. It's called Structural reform and it's never going to happen as long as over paid babyboomer douche bags who played the University system for all it's worth, people like Paul Krugman... you know "the Experts" keep bailing out these idiots on WallStreet and giving them unlimited credit to make all sorts of bullshit investments. WASTING our nations resources and destroying our economy. These Keynesian idiots have climbed so far up their own anuses they say Fukushima was "good for the Japanese economy". You know, because the government can start borrowing and spending - putting people to work. Yeah, don't just toss a rock in a window, burn the whole god damn shop down. Watch, WallStreet idiots will probably have Facebook at $90 BILLION in a month. And why not? It's not like it's their money! They're Too Big Too Fail.... they get near interest free loans from their buddies at the Fed. Why not invest in moon colonies while their at it.
Actually, I would say that this is a moot point. As I indicated, "stealing" itself is defined by legal and social constructs that vary across cultures. Imagine, for example, that I was raised in a hunter gatherer society, and transported here. I see that you have an iPod and it fascinates me so I pick it up and proceed to walk away. I am from a culture that would not recognize your property interest in the iPod, but you are from a culture that does. Was my act immoral? My intent certainly was not. OTOH, if you and I both understood that you had an exclusive right to particular property in the first place, and I then tried to take the property, then I would be engaged in an immoral act. That immorality arises not from the taking of [property, though, but from the violation of what I perceive to be our mutual understanding. Here I am inclined to say "yes", but there are of course hypothetically possible quibbles. Suppose a gunman comes along and takes an office full of people hostage. The gunman separates a man and a woman from the group and tells the man that unless he has sex with the woman then and there, he'll shoot the man dead. I am not sure if I would say that the subsequent rape was immoral, even though the man in question could heroically choose to be killed rather than do it. I feel that refraining from the act would be supererogatory, rather than morally necessary. Another hypothetical, suppose the human race were on the verge of extinction, and more children were needed to maintain adequate populations. In that world an otherwise reproductively healthy woman is in a persistent coma. Would it be immoral to beget children with her, even though she cannot consent? I am not sure. I would agree that I find bodily integrity more important than the importance of one's material goods. At the same time, I do not consider a draft to be immoral, and that is a government using the body of another in situations of great peril. That leads me to conclude that at least to some extent my own aversion to rape, much like my aversion to slavery, is in fact strongly culturally influenced, rather than an actual objective feature of morality itself. Evidence for this abounds, as rape is far more acceptable in a variety of other cultures (in fact, in some cultures, it is part of a marriage ritual). That is true so long as the vote is not indicative of the moral beliefs of the voters. I can believe that taxation is a good thing, and yet selfishly vote against a tax on myself. That is just me being either a hypocrite or attempting to be a free rider, both of which would be immoral because I would be voting in a manner that I would oppose if others were doing the same thing for similar motives. Again, though, if five hunter-gatherers on an island vote that there is no such thing as "property" and one guy with lots of goods who recently was shipwrecked there votes "Oh yes there is," the hunter gatherers are not acting immorally when they refuse to recognize the rights of the sixth to exclusivity over the goods he brought with him. If, deep down, those five "really" believed that the sixth should have exclusivity (or equivalently, if they would demand exclusivity if they had possession of all those goods), then it would be immoral for them to vote in a manner contrary to their true feelings, simply based on the selfish desire to make use of those goods. But if they genuinely believe that goods should be shared communally without preference, I see no immorality in that vote. Got it, but again hypothetically there other moral uses of force. If I see you psychologically abusing a child, and I use force to intervene, that's not immoral so long as the level of force is reasonable. Similarly, say you and I agree to build a wall to protect our village from floods. We start building the wall near your home. Once your home is protected, but the rest of the village is not, you stop working. Because you both manipulated me into working and now are violating that agreement, if the use of force (to, say, destroy that part of the wall protecting your house) is needed to prevent future treachery, I have no issue with that. In general when you are making choices that are themselves immoral, allow you to take advantage of others, or to free ride off their efforts, I have no issue with a reasonably calibrated use of force to prevent that, even if your actions do not amount to a use of force against anyone or anything. That would mean, of course, that if you are partaking of all the national defense my country provides you, but not paying your taxes, I see no moral issue with using force to make you pay those taxes, at least as one possible option (among others, as force is not the only sanction one can use, we could also ostracise you from the society without the use of force, or we could refuse to sell you goods and services, forcing you to make do without the benefits of local trade). Yes. See above, as both have some contextual elements. In general, I would say that it's based on cultural norms I have learned combined with my trying to mentally "put myself in the shoes" of the various parties. "Property" is a creature of expectations. If I think I have an exclusive right to property, and others deny that too me, it is the violation of my subjective expectation that makes me angry. But say I am raised in a hunter-gatherer culture, and I send six weeks carefully making a new axe. Once I am done, another hunter picks it up and goes hunting with it. My western mind wants to be outraged and say that as the maker of the axe, I should at least get first dibs on its use (if not exclusive control over the axe forever), yet I also know that is not the way hunter gatherers actually behave, and that a typical hunter-gatherer would not have strong feelings, positive or negative, in that situation. Rape is an easier case, as we are all averse to pain, and rape is generally physically painful. Again, you cannot seriously compare taxation to rape, hoowever. I don't even think it can be compared to theft.
I think Cavalier has done a very good job of answering the questions you posed in post #89. So you do think the Constitution is immoral. Any government, using your notions, is immoral. Because government by it's very nature is to "compel" behaviors for the common interest. Using your definitions, a rapist could claim that his victims initiated an "attack" against his senses, by the way they dressed or the way they acted thereby justifying his actions. The father who kills his daughter in an "honor killing" would be perfectly moral, according to your logic, in killing his daughter. Because is was she who initiated an attack on his family's honor with her behavior.
OK, I see your point here. Do we agree that "stealing" involves understanding the concept of "private property"? Once we establish private property exists then the concept of stealing may also exist. Agreed? I'd argue even hunter gathering societies understood that concept. Maybe not to the degree of synthetic collateralized debt obligations, but nonetheless they did have a concept of property. Example: Suppose you had spent all day starving chipping a rock into an arrow head. Someone uses force and took it from you. The fact that they had to use force, suggests you understand it was YOURS. YOU invested YOUR labor in making that arrow head. Your labor is therefor intimately connected with your property. It's YOUR labor. Your body is intimately understood as YOURS. Your private property. Do we agree that your body (and thus your labor) is yours? Your property? Do we also agree that if something is taken with force, it is understood that this object was TAKEN FORCEFULLY and therefor "stolen"? The initiation of force is inherently immoral as it involves force. Stealing by definition must be immoral. While you may sneak into someone's home and take what is their's; that you had to sneak, means you inherently know you're doing something immoral. If you happen to stumble across an iPod in the sand, I'd argue you know it must belong to someone. However, if no one claims it, it's usually yours. Even money, when not claimed, is usually given to the person who non-forcefully found it. Sometimes, it's even split with the person who found it and the person who initially had it. As an aside: I would argue that one of the founding principles of civilization are these inherent concepts. When you read the US Constitution, you can not help but see the glaring obvious contradiction. That said, the US Constitution limited immorality more than any preceding document by limiting government. This resulted in an explosion of wealth and prosperity. Which in turn caused growth of government. We now have the largest government in history with the deepest debt in all of history. IMO this is a key aspect of the rise and fall of civilizations. We'll continue to go through this until we recognize the inherent immorality. I'd say: 120 years from now. That said, for now, I be happy going back to that limited government, local competing currencies - including a central bank not unfairly and immorally propped up by income tax. End of the World If raping a woman was the only way to continue to human species is a rather ridiculous set of circumstances in the sense that it's not connected to the world we live in. It may be possible to create a hypothetical where I'm just not sure what the answer is. Can two men in a room together rape one another at the same time? I've been asked this before. I say no. That said, yes, raping the woman to save the species is force and would therefor be immoral. It would though, save the species. RE: Rapist had their senses attacked I disagree. The rapist doesn't have to stare at the woman. The woman is not forcing the man to look at her and "violate his senses". He can freely close his eyes or look the other way. She is in no way forcing him to do anything. He must WANT to look at her actually. If I were to look at someone eating shit (Two Girls and a Cup), or smell a raunchy fart, I immediately remove myself from that situation as quickly as possible. I certainly don't continue "violating my senses"!
Aside from the fact that there is no evidence in your link that supports the headline, I see you have gone back to this post to enhance it. But that won't help you cause. Oh, where is the proof? Oh, when did I say that or is that you embellishing again? It has been pointed out and proven numerous times, we are not in a depression. And what do the Chinese have to do with anything? That is probably why with the exception of Cuba, they don't exist. Well then you should be able to prove that central banks are a complete failure. But here is the rub, you can't. Because that is not what history show us. Repeating Republican/conservative talking points is not evidence. Like I have told you many times before, if you have a better system, now is the time to prove it. But to date, you have not come up with a cogent argument for a system to replace the Fed. Two, just how much as the Fed "bailout" cost the US government? I will give you a hint, the Fed operates at a profit. It puts money into the Treasury. It doesn't cost the tax payer a dime.
Joe, it's not like North Koreans awoke one day and were poor. They slowly continued to get poorer (but relatively more equitable) over time and continue to do so to this day. But if you ask them, they think their life is much better than other people in the world. The 'evidence' that the Federal Reserve is a failure has been posted to you time and time again. The purchasing power of the USD has decreased over 80% in the last 3 decades. Part of the Feds role is 'price' stability. Not price inflation. See the difference? Meanwhile our debt olibgations nears $61.6 TRILLION ($534,000 per household), unfunded liabilities is $118,765,923,999,999.99 (yea, those last numbers role over so quickly it's pointless trying to read them). Students are in debt up to their eyeballs - over $1 Trillion dollars worth of it. Don't worry Joe, we're going to break through $20 Trillion in the next couple of years. Maybe 2014, definitely 2016. It'd take a few hundred companies the size of Apple Inc created every year taxed to the hilt to pay back government "services". Which means we won't be paying it back. Which means inflation. Which means more retired people eating cat-food (as cat food is human consumable whereas dog food isn't). You can thank your Gods at the Federal Reserve and their buddies living in your bubble for that Joe. Next time you step over a homeless or toss some shrapnel (or paper USD you're not using as toilet paper) into a homeless family of 5's street-bucket; try and remember your Fed put that family there. I find it f*cking sick that government employees are getting MORE than the private business owners who are FORCED to pay for them. Can you imagine that bullshit? It's now better to work in the government than in the sector that pays FOR the government! As a matter of fact, things are so bass-arse backwards the Steve Jobs' of the world, the ones that actually work themselves into an early grave creating the prosperity we enjoy, are Vilified while the lying politicians are Praised!?!? Yeah, praising your Master when he sells your labor to the Chinese. Bizarro-World. Up is Up AND DOWN. Where Fukushima is "great" because of all the "economic activity and borrowing that will occur". Don't throw a stone through a window - burn the Whole City Down! That'll really make us prosperous!!! Keynesians literally live in La La land. Here's one calling for a fake alien invasion of the United States to spur a World War II-style defense buildup. You know, because blowing shit up is "good" for the economy. The World is limitless and there's no need of a "free-market" to distribute it's limited resources fairly. Hell, not only that - shit needs to be blown the f*ck up! Because destroying stuff creates "prosperity". :bugeye: Yeah, LA LA LAND and back to the North Korean analogy. We are like North Koreans trapped in North Korea only we're trapped in a world run by Keynesian Central Bankers - therefor it's impossible to even know what life would be like without them. In all likelihood, much MUCH better. Just as life in NK would be better in a Free Market. Oh, and the reason WHY Politicians LOVE Keynesian Economics has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the real world or the economy. It's because it allows them to promise all sorts of bullshit to get reelected through the issuing of DEBT. They TAX us out of our wealth and give it to their friends and use it to buy votes. They sell BONDS on our future labor to other countries. And finally they INFLATE whatever was left they couldn't outright steal. Of course they LOVE Central Banks and support Keynesian ideology. It's as corrupt and immoral as they are! If we were under an Austrian School of thought most of them would be out of a job and have to work for a living as the government would be limited to honest money. Something Politicians abhor like garlic to a Vampire! One generation has been flushed over the last 5 years, how many more before enough blood and dreams and families have to be destroyed before you can say enough is enough Joe? My guess is many many many - infinetly many. You'll never be able to see that a society where both parents work 40 hours a week to barely make ends meet, where children are raised by the State in their schools or day'care' factories, where University graduates work at McDonalds is a society in decline. Maybe you should hang a picture of Obama next to Bernanke in your livingroom. So you can pray to the Dear Farmers at night. Pretend they give two shits about you. A nice pat on the head and back in your stall.
