Taxes, The Economy, Cut The Bullshit

[SurahAhriman]

Originally Posted by FunkyZombie

No I do not.
Do you pressupose that the individual know the best methods of gaining utility from resources and that an individual actively desires to do so? That the decisions of the individual will not create a Repugnant Conclusion? Or failing that do you presuppose that an individual knows how to make decisions better than the government does? If so why even bother having a government in the first place?

This really isn't the place to discuss utilitarianism but I will answer your questions. I am not a coward. Yes I would walk into a blast furnace if utility called for it. Yes I support my being thrown into a blast furnace bound gagged and with a cork up my ass if utility calls for it. You bring up these nightmare scenarios as if they should cause me to balk and question my ethics. The problem though is precisely that they are nightmare scenarios and for such drastic actions to become practical they require equally drastic scenarios to justify their utility. If I carried an infectious disease that would wipe out humanity if I didn't walk into a blast furnace of course I would do so. If I refused to do so and out of weakness jeapordized all of humanity through my actions then I support my being thrown bound and gagged into infernal oblivion. Such drastic actions don't just occur based on a whim in a utilitarian ethics system.

Uh, I think I can assume that I know best how I would want to spend the money.

Do you even know what the Repugnant Conclusion is?

You should look it up. Part of it is the idea that utility could, in certain situations, best be served by burning you alive. Not because you have an infectious disease, or any such noble delusion, but because utility would be served if ten thousand individuals recieved an orgasm jerking off to your dying screams. If their happiness plus absense of pain beat out your pain and absense of happiness, in a purely additive manner, then according to utility, it is not only appropriate, but a duty. More generally, it's the idea that as a closed system, a billion people whose lives are just barely worth living is a superior situation to 100 deliriously happy individuals.

According to utility, you don't have the most basic right to life. Call me crazy, but I don't think any moral system with that as a clause can really be termed moral.

[SurahAhriman]

Oh, as to why bother having a government in the first place? There are certain basic things that I will whole-heartedly agree are necessary in any society. Police, and a judicial system. A defensive military. Roads.

The idea that the purpose of a government is to serve utility is Benthem's idiocy. I would say it's purpose is to make sure your rights are not violated while you pursue your own happiness.

[FunkyZombie]

Originally Posted by SurahAhriman

Uh, I think I can assume that I know best how I would want to spend the money.

Do you even know what the Repugnant Conclusion is?

You should look it up. Part of it is the idea that utility could, in certain situations, best be served by burning you alive. Not because you have an infectious disease, or any such noble delusion, but because utility would be served if ten thousand individuals recieved an orgasm jerking off to your dying screams. If their happiness plus absense of pain beat out your pain and absense of happiness, in a purely additive manner, then according to utility, it is not only appropriate, but a duty. More generally, it's the idea that as a closed system, a billion people whose lives are just barely worth living is a superior situation to 100 deliriously happy individuals.

According to utility, you don't have the most basic right to life. Call me crazy, but I don't think any moral system with that as a clause can really be termed moral.

Firstly I don't believe I asked you if an individual knows best how he want to spend his money. I asked you if we can assume that an individual knows the best way to spend his money. A crackhead knows best that he wants to spend his money on crack. That doesn't mean he knows the best use for his money.

Next your right I've never heard of this Repugant Conclusion before and until I've done more reading I can't answer it directly. However the scenario you propose still smacks of bullshit as I find it highly dubious that utility of humanity as a whole in it's perpetuity is best served by catering to the destructive whims of ten thousand perverts.

Such self-centered debauchery would cause widespread repercussions throughout society. People would live in fear of falling to this clique of degenerates. The degenerates would live in fear of falling as individuals to the whims of other bands of degenerates. This fear would inevitably culminate in violence and society would tear itself apart causing a decrease in happiness in humanity as a whole. So explain to me again how utility is served by catering to these destructive whims?

[FunkyZombie]

Originally Posted by SurahAhriman

Oh, as to why bother having a government in the first place? There are certain basic things that I will whole-heartedly agree are necessary in any society. Police, and a judicial system. A defensive military. Roads.

The idea that the purpose of a government is to serve utility is Benthem's idiocy. I would say it's purpose is to make sure your rights are not violated while you pursue your own happiness.

No you misunderstand me. I'm getting the impression from you that an individual is more likely to make the right decisions than a government is (I doubt you actually believe that but it's the only conclusion to be drawn from your argument). If that is the case then a government is unnecessary as individuals will spontanteously make the right decisions and pay for police, judicial systems, a military, and roads as these things are necessary for a functioning society.

[Zman]

Originally Posted by nshanin

This is why when the people confer their demands on the government, the government usually produces it. Why would government produce something that there's no demand for? You do know that there is a degree of oversight in government, right?

They would do something just to pander, just like they do now. The danger is, they would go crazy with it because it is no skin off their back, they're just stealing from people to pay for it.
If there was a demand for something, why couldn't that presumably large group of people get together and pay a company to research it?

I'd rather have waste than no social projects at all.

Wasting money on things that would never make a dime is a pretty good indicator that there isn't that great of a demand for them.

Efficiency is not the only way to judge an economy and the economy is not the only way to judge a society.--Think about that.

If an economy is not making money it is failing. If a society's economy is failing, that society won't last very long.

[Zman]

Originally Posted by Real.PUA

The money is in the economy because the government spends it. At many things the government may be less efficient, at others it may be more. Either way the money is still in the economy, it's just the way that it is circulated that changes. There is no "pumping" of new money.

The government doesn't spend money to make money. They don't do it in away that creates more wealth. There maybe should be some services, but taxation is taking money out of people's pockets that would have spent it better.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Zman

They would do something just to pander, just like they do now. The danger is, they would go crazy with it because it is no skin off their back, they're just stealing from people to pay for it.
If there was a demand for something, why couldn't that presumably large group of people get together and pay a company to research it?

Slippery slope fallacy much? People could get together and pay a company, but again, who will spend money on things that don't create profit (i.e. SS, infrastructure, initial research for large-scale technologies [for example, the LASER]).

Name something the government spends money on right now for which there's no demand.

Wasting money on things that would never make a dime is a pretty good indicator that there isn't that great of a demand for them.

Social Security? CHIP? Unemployment benefits? Prisons? Police? Roads?

If an economy is not making money it is failing. If a society's economy is failing, that society won't last very long.

What if this economy is losing money, but still fulfilling the needs of the people? Has it failed?

[Zman]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Slippery slope fallacy much? People could get together and pay a company, but again, who will spend money on things that don't create profit (i.e. SS, infrastructure, initial research for large-scale technologies [for example, the LASER]).

It isn't a slippery slope fallacy. If there is a technological need for something like a laser or nuclear power, and there isn't a defense reasons for it, then why spend money on in?

Name something the government spends money on right now for which there's no demand.

Most of NASA. Look at the Virgin group. They will be colonizing space in short order, and they will make a mass amount of money. NASA spends billions of dollars keeping up the human space program that is still using 1980's technology.

Social Security? CHIP? Unemployment benefits? Prisons? Police? Roads?

Besides Social Security, I don't have a problem with those things, but those things, if you notice are all designed to pick up some slack and help people, not piss away money on underwater research. Things that aren't necessities.

What if this economy is losing money, but still fulfilling the needs of the people? Has it failed?

A failing economy couldn't fulfill the needs of the people

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Zman

It isn't a slippery slope fallacy. If there is a technological need for something like a laser or nuclear power, and there isn't a defense reasons for it, then why spend money on in?

For future needs, and the embetterment of society. The rich don't have a need for things like CHIP, does that mean there's no demand? Somebody has to provide it.

Most of NASA. Look at the Virgin group. They will be colonizing space in short order, and they will make a mass amount of money. NASA spends billions of dollars keeping up the human space program that is still using 1980's technology.

No, they'll be sending people into orbit; NASA and ESA are colonizing. They're not using 1980s technology, they're just not investing in new projects because there's no funding.

Besides Social Security, I don't have a problem with those things, but those things, if you notice are all designed to pick up some slack and help people, not piss away money on underwater research. Things that aren't necessities.

Underwater research will be necessary



A failing economy couldn't fulfill the needs of the people[/quote]


g2g will edit later

[Zman]

Originally Posted by nshanin

For future needs, and the embetterment of society. The rich don't have a need for things like CHIP, does that mean there's no demand? Somebody has to provide it.

I don't have a problem with helping poor people. I have a problem with the federal government taking money to fund pet projects that aren't needed.

No, they'll be sending people into orbit; NASA and ESA are colonizing. They're not using 1980s technology, they're just not investing in new projects because there's no funding.

Richard Branson was on TV saying that they are working on putting people on the moon with the money that will be made on putting people into orbit. NASA has a 17 billion dollar budget and they do nothing with it. Virgin Galactic has 30 employees and will make money off it, and probably learn more about space than NASA ever has

Underwater research will be necessary

Then I'm sure there will be companies that rush to make a profit off of it.