Raising the US debt ceiling

[Jack Weber]

Here are two concepts I would like you to consider.

1. The Public Interest

2. The Greater Good

Please explain to me your undertsanding of these concepts.

My guess is that he'll say something like individual rights and personal freedom trump both of those..

I could be wrong,however...

[maple_leafs182]

My guess is that he'll say something like individual rights and personal freedom trump both of those..

I could be wrong,however...

Please, tell me what they mean to you and what is the best way to achieve them.

[Pliny]

"Criminals"? What criminals? What crime? Crime doesn't exist in your world... No GOVERNMENT = no laws = no need for jails wasn't it?

I did not say there would be no laws. I said that there are various layers of government and the national government would have to have the most limited mandate that served a diverse population.

There will always be differences of opinion and individual preferences and in order to accomodate such diversity it can only make laws that all can agree to and that would mean it could only make a very limited mumber of laws.

FYI in MY world it's NOT against the law to be a "Hell's Angel" or belong to the Hell's Angels motorcycle club, in fact they do charity work...

Don't you know anything?

The crime was you trespassed into "THEIR SPACE"... They defended "THEIR SPACE"... You had no legal RIGHT to do that... According to YOU you'd eliminate all "Government" lawyers and judges anyway ergo no law to worry about in the first place...

Are you sure you haven't confused me with someone else? Maybe another senior's moment?

Here's what I said regarding your hypothetical scenario:

Post #192: Is the street gang that moves in criminal? Are the hell's angel's not respecting your sanctity of person and property? Are they engaged in criminal activity? If not then no problem. If so then it is a justice matter.

[GWiz]

I did not say there would be no laws. I said that there are various layers of government and the national government would have to have the most limited mandate that served a diverse population.

There will always be differences of opinion and individual preferences and in order to accomodate such diversity it can only make laws that all can agree to and that would mean it could only make a very limited mumber of laws.

Are you sure you haven't confused me with someone else? Maybe another senior's moment?

Here's what I said regarding your hypothetical scenario:

#192? Too late... You already LOST way back here (and several times after that) -

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17890&view=findpost&p=630075

BTW - Soon as you're reduced to having to answer questions with questions (because you have no answers) you become a loser every TIME...

[Pliny]

#192? Too late... You already LOST way back here (and several times after that) -

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17890&view=findpost&p=630075

BTW - Soon as you're reduced to having to answer questions with questions (because you have no answers) you become a loser every TIME...

Thank you for your time.

[GWiz]

Thank you for your time.

You're most welcome...

[Pliny]

You do not have to be conservative to be a libertarian, you can still be on the left and still be a libertarian.

I am a libertarian socialist.

It is true that there are left wing Libertarians, libertarian "socialists" as it were. Another one on this forum is Eyeball.

The thing I don't get about left-wing libertarianism is how they wish to achieve "social justice" and economic equality, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe these are a couple of it's foremost concepts.

Libertarianism is about liberty, freedom and an absence of the initiation of the use of force in society. Socialism is about an equitible distribution of wealth which I do not think will occur, especially in times of scarcity, without initiating the use of force and must include a bureaucracy to handle the equitible distribution of wealth and social justice.

I find it incongruous and see an incongruity in eyeballs posts when he wants government to do something particular, but on other issues he wants government to get out of the way.

[Pliny]

Here are two concepts I would like you to consider.

1. The Public Interest

2. The Greater Good

Please explain to me your undertsanding of these concepts.

1. The public interest

2. The greater good.

The public interest today is the government's justificaton to implement programs. It is entirely subjective and usually relates to a special interest that likes to consider and proclaim it is the interest of the majority. In any territory with a diverse population that has differing views, as they relate to medicine, religion, education, culture yet with a strong enough common agreement among them that will bind them together there can be a nation or country. One sector of the population does not generally determine what is in the public interest. Democracy allows for the majority to rule and combining sectors to form a majority on an issue is often accomplished but, obviously some will not consider it in their interest but it is overidden as being in the "public interest". Although an income tax is an oppressive form of taxation it is consdiered to be in the public interest mainly because it allows government a tool in wealth redistribution efforts.

The greater good is also an oft exploited term by government. Some may not recognize that a corporation exists for the greater good because it makes a profit. However, as villified as oil corporations are, today's society would not function without them.

The left uses these phrases and the only one that can determine the public interest or the greater good is conveniently - the government. The Euro was voted down in several countries but because it was in the pulbic interest and for the greater good another vote was held in some of those countires to create the Euro, Denmark took three votes. And we have the Euro. It is in the public interest and for the greater good that we have a single global currency and the idea is persisting so it isn't going away until some revolution or global collapse occurs that may reverse the monmentum.

Getting rid of useless eaters was for the greater good and in the public interest in the thirties in Germany. A lot of people accepted that and it was endorsed by the science of Eugenics.

In relation to one's family I would say that each member of the family should act in the interest of the family and for what they determine to be it's greater good, otherwise they wouldn't be a family. Today the government is making decisions for families for what they deem are the greater good or even in the public's interest.

Essentially, government should concern itself only with what can commonly be agreed upon that binds a nation together. If, as in a democracy, the majority determines what is in the public interest or is for the greater good, it will create disenfranchised minorities and continuing to do so will erode what common bonds and purposes may have existed among the public as a whole.

[pinko]

1. The public interest

2. The greater good.

The public interest today is the government's justificaton to implement programs. It is entirely subjective and usually relates to a special interest that likes to consider and proclaim it is the interest of the majority. In any territory with a diverse population that has differing views, as they relate to medicine, religion, education, culture yet with a strong enough common agreement among them that will bind them together there can be a nation or country. One sector of the population does not generally determine what is in the public interest. Democracy allows for the majority to rule and combining sectors to form a majority on an issue is often accomplished but, obviously some will not consider it in their interest but it is overidden as being in the "public interest". Although an income tax is an oppressive form of taxation it is consdiered to be in the public interest mainly because it allows government a tool in wealth redistribution efforts.

The greater good is also an oft exploited term by government. Some may not recognize that a corporation exists for the greater good because it makes a profit. However, as villified as oil corporations are, today's society would not function without them.

The left uses these phrases and the only one that can determine the public interest or the greater good is conveniently - the government. The Euro was voted down in several countries but because it was in the pulbic interest and for the greater good another vote was held in some of those countires to create the Euro, Denmark took three votes. And we have the Euro. It is in the public interest and for the greater good that we have a single global currency and the idea is persisting so it isn't going away until some revolution or global collapse occurs that may reverse the monmentum.

Getting rid of useless eaters was for the greater good and in the public interest in the thirties in Germany. A lot of people accepted that and it was endorsed by the science of Eugenics.

In relation to one's family I would say that each member of the family should act in the interest of the family and for what they determine to be it's greater good, otherwise they wouldn't be a family. Today the government is making decisions for families for what they deem are the greater good or even in the public's interest.

Essentially, government should concern itself only with what can commonly be agreed upon that binds a nation together. If, as in a democracy, the majority determines what is in the public interest or is for the greater good, it will create disenfranchised minorities and continuing to do so will erode what common bonds and purposes may have existed among the public as a whole.

Thank-you for taking the time to articulate your position. I take it from your response that you reject the premise of the public interest and the greater good.

By the way corporate status brings with it certain protections not available to most of us.

[Pliny]

Thank-you for taking the time to articulate your position. I take it from your response that you reject the premise of the public interest and the greater good.

By the way corporate status brings with it certain protections not available to most of us.

I don't reject the premise I only suggest that they are determined by national governments most often by special interests.

Corporate status should not have protections not available to most of us. It is one of the faults of government that has been around for a century now. It has obviously been determined to be in the public interest and for the greater good.

Bailouts and subsidies are things that should not occur out of the public purse. Don't you agree?

The bailout of Wall Street and GM in 2008 is an excellent example of special interests determining what is in the public interest. Would you be against the bailouts?

[GostHacked]

I don't reject the premise I only suggest that they are determined by national governments most often by special interests.

Corporate status should not have protections not available to most of us. It is one of the faults of government that has been around for a century now. It has obviously been determined to be in the public interest and for the greater good.

Bailouts and subsidies are things that should not occur out of the public purse. Don't you agree?

The bailout of Wall Street and GM in 2008 is an excellent example of special interests determining what is in the public interest. Would you be against the bailouts?

I am against the bailouts. It just condones the bad behaviour and resolves nothing. Let the companies that got themselves into trouble, fail. Billions were given to many banks, and it did not prevent many of those financial institutions from failing anyways.

Also, since these banks were bailed out, by the taxpayers, they return the favour by upping interest rates and bank fees. Double dipping. We got screwed.

[Pliny]

I am against the bailouts. It just condones the bad behaviour and resolves nothing. Let the companies that got themselves into trouble, fail. Billions were given to many banks, and it did not prevent many of those financial institutions from failing anyways.

Also, since these banks were bailed out, by the taxpayers, they return the favour by upping interest rates and bank fees. Double dipping. We got screwed.

All in the "public interest" and for the "greater good", it seems.

Believe in the power of government and not the "people", the individual, yourself, and it will eventually betray you as it's interests supercede yours.

[pinko]

I don't reject the premise I only suggest that they are determined by national governments most often by special interests.

Corporate status should not have protections not available to most of us. It is one of the faults of government that has been around for a century now. It has obviously been determined to be in the public interest and for the greater good.

Bailouts and subsidies are things that should not occur out of the public purse. Don't you agree?

The bailout of Wall Street and GM in 2008 is an excellent example of special interests determining what is in the public interest. Would you be against the bailouts?

In the case of General Motors I believe the loans extended by governments on both sides of the border were necessary. As I understand it GM has been able to do some restructuring and is in the process of reimbursing government ofor monies previously advanced.

I am less convinced that the concessions made to the banking and financial sector was a wise investment of public monies.

Edited February 24, 2011 by pinko

[GWiz]

In the case of General Motors I believe the loans extended by governments on both sides of the border were necessary. As I understand it GM has been able to do some restructuring and is in the process of reimbursing government ofor monies previously advanced.

I am less convinced that the concessions made to the banking and financial sector was a wise investment of public monies.

Are we talking Canada or the US here?

When it came to to the banking sector there was no Canadian "bailout", none was needed, thanks to the Liberals quashing the proposed mergers with US banks some years ago...

Our banks did lose some money via US investments but they also received some benefit from the Bush initiated TARP money...

[pinko]

Are we talking Canada or the US here?

When it came to to the banking sector there was no Canadian "bailout", none was needed, thanks to the Liberals quashing the proposed mergers with US banks some years ago...

Our banks did lose some money via US investments but they also received some benefit from the Bush initiated TARP money...

Sorry about that. I was only referring to the banking community in the USA.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are we talking Canada or the US here?

Always a fair question here at the ol' MLW!

Good on ya for mentioning Canadian banks and Yankee TARP money. You are an honorable man!

Edited February 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[maple_leafs182]

It is true that there are left wing Libertarians, libertarian "socialists" as it were. Another one on this forum is Eyeball.

The thing I don't get about left-wing libertarianism is how they wish to achieve "social justice" and economic equality, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe these are a couple of it's foremost concepts.

Libertarianism is about liberty, freedom and an absence of the initiation of the use of force in society. Socialism is about an equitible distribution of wealth which I do not think will occur, especially in times of scarcity, without initiating the use of force and must include a bureaucracy to handle the equitible distribution of wealth and social justice.

I find it incongruous and see an incongruity in eyeballs posts when he wants government to do something particular, but on other issues he wants government to get out of the way.

I perceive governments as being a form of public tyranny, this is why I advocate towards a small government. I also see corporations as being private tyrannies which I believe can be worse then the government because at least with the government the people have a voice even if it is a small one. I would rather see the workers or the people be in charge of production.

I have done some research into ecosocialism which advocates using technology to relieve humans of labour while taking into consideration the health of the environment and the natural carrying capacity of the earth. I also believe that with the technical knowledge we have now, we can eliminate things such as scarcity.

[GWiz]

Sorry about that. I was only referring to the banking community in the USA.

No problem, that's what I thought...

[GWiz]

Always a fair question here at the ol' MLW!

Good on ya for mentioning Canadian banks and Yankee TARP money. You are an honorable man!

Wouldn't want to be accused of being "anti-American" ya know...

I actually BELIEVE what I say in my sig, since I said it...

[Pliny]

I perceive governments as being a form of public tyranny, this is why I advocate towards a small government. I also see corporations as being private tyrannies which I believe can be worse then the government because at least with the government the people have a voice even if it is a small one. I would rather see the workers or the people be in charge of production.

I think that you are missing that corporations, in a competitive market, have little power over people. It is only when they exist as monopolies that they have any sort of "power" whatosever. As long as there is choice the people make or break any corporation. I am talking about a real competitive market not one of cartels, or huge conglomerates creating the illusion of competition.

I have done some research into ecosocialism which advocates using technology to relieve humans of labour while taking into consideration the health of the environment and the natural carrying capacity of the earth. I also believe that with the technical knowledge we have now, we can eliminate things such as scarcity.

Utopian nonsense.

[maple_leafs182]

I think that you are missing that corporations, in a competitive market, have little power over people. It is only when they exist as monopolies that they have any sort of "power" whatosever. As long as there is choice the people make or break any corporation. I am talking about a real competitive market not one of cartels, or huge conglomerates creating the illusion of competition.

Utopian nonsense.

I'll first say I disagree with the market economy and monetary system.

Corporations hold a ton of power over the people, they have a lot f influence over the production decisions we make as a society.

Corporations work based on the profit motive so they end up producing cheap and inferior goods. Imagine if GM had to maintain all the vehicles it produced. GM would end up producing a vehicle that is easy to maintain and efficient. The car would be built with some sort of release on the motor so that if the motor broke down, they would simply release it and replace it with a working one. There is no sense in having the whole car out of commission if there is simply a motor problem.

This is how I see it. There is no liberal, conservative or communist way to build a vehicle, there is only a scientific way. If we applied science with the most advanced technologies, we would produce a vehicle that would be far more efficient and long lasting then anything the market economy produces now.

To economize is to reduce waste, our economy doesn't economize.

[Bonam]

This is how I see it. There is no liberal, conservative or communist way to build a vehicle, there is only a scientific way. If we applied science with the most advanced technologies, we would produce a vehicle that would be far more efficient and long lasting then anything the market economy produces now.

To economize is to reduce waste, our economy doesn't economize.

Such a vehicle would also be more expensive. Parts that last longer must be manufactured to a higher standard of quality, must use more resilient materials, must have a higher engineering safety factor, must utilize geometry or materials that increases the number of dynamic cycles to failure, must be more resistant to corrosion, thermal gradients, and other environmental factors, etc. All this increases the costs of said part substantially. You want to use ultra-light, ultra-resilient titanium-lithium alloy to make your frame instead of cheap steel? Sure, go ahead, but that car will cost a few hundred thousand dollars. You want to use a frictionless maglev bearing that can operate flawlessly for decades instead of a cheap ball bearing? Again, go ahead, but you are paying a few thousand per bearing instead of a few tens of dollars.

As for using the "most advanced technologies", that would only make the vehicle even more expensive. Cutting edge materials, processes, and devices come at a very high premium until they become mainstream, by which time they are no longer "the most advanced".

There are many car companies in competition, and reliability and cost of maintenance are certainly important factors that people look at when purchasing a vehicle. Companies already try to do the best they can to produce the most reliable vehicles at a reasonable cost. Those that fail to do so lose market share to those that do (unless they offer other appeal/advantages instead). Reliability and reduced maintenance cost are a trade-off vs the upfront cost of the vehicle. Anyway, you can already buy more reliable vehicles at a cost premium: buy a Honda instead of a GM for example.

Those that have followed my posts on these forums know that I strongly believe that technological progress is the key driver of the improvement of quality of life, societal progress, and the resolution of a variety of problems that have affected humanity throughout its history. Technical progress will reshape our civilization even more in the 21st century than it did in the 20th. Despite this, it is important to realize that technology is not magic, it is not a miracle: it exists within a framework of limitations and physical laws. In retrospect, progress is quick and accelerating, but at any given moment, we await impatiently while technical problems are solved at an apparent snail's pace. It is not a matter of waving your arms in the air, chanting "technology", and achieving salvation.

If you truly believe as strongly as you claim that the solutions to all of society's problems are in technology, I would strongly recommend that you obtain a technical education and pursue a career in a technical field so you can contribute to this progress and the resolution of these problems.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Bonam

[Pliny]

I'll first say I disagree with the market economy and monetary system.

Corporations hold a ton of power over the people, they have a lot f influence over the production decisions we make as a society.

Corporations work based on the profit motive so they end up producing cheap and inferior goods. Imagine if GM had to maintain all the vehicles it produced. GM would end up producing a vehicle that is easy to maintain and efficient. The car would be built with some sort of release on the motor so that if the motor broke down, they would simply release it and replace it with a working one. There is no sense in having the whole car out of commission if there is simply a motor problem.

This is how I see it. There is no liberal, conservative or communist way to build a vehicle, there is only a scientific way. If we applied science with the most advanced technologies, we would produce a vehicle that would be far more efficient and long lasting then anything the market economy produces now.

To economize is to reduce waste, our economy doesn't economize.

Bonam is right on this one Maple Leafs.

How do you economically introduce technological advances into vehicles that are built to last? The introduction of things like power steering, ABS braking systems, and myriad other advances in safety and convenience would never become a reality because you built vehicles that lasted too long. I don't know how you expect to have scientific advances when you build things that limit the advancement of technology. I think the thing missing in your socio/economic/political model is time. It is a vision that contains no change. All things require balance, at times no change may be desirable, at other times things must change quickly.

The future does not contain fixed concepts of how it should be. It must contain many probabilities because who knows what technological advances are around the corner. You don't want to be stuck with the perfect igloo because tomorrow it won't be the perfect mode of shelter.

Building things to last is OK but as I said there has to be a balance because all things must pass. There has to be room for the future and it's endless possibilities.

[pinko]

Bonam is right on this one Maple Leafs.

How do you economically introduce technological advances into vehicles that are built to last? The introduction of things like power steering, ABS braking systems, and myriad other advances in safety and convenience would never become a reality because you built vehicles that lasted too long. I don't know how you expect to have scientific advances when you build things that limit the advancement of technology. I think the thing missing in your socio/economic/political model is time. It is a vision that contains no change. All things require balance, at times no change may be desirable, at other times things must change quickly.

The future does not contain fixed concepts of how it should be. It must contain many probabilities because who knows what technological advances are around the corner. You don't want to be stuck with the perfect igloo because tomorrow it won't be the perfect mode of shelter.

Building things to last is OK but as I said there has to be a balance because all things must pass. There has to be room for the future and it's endless possibilities.

Are you a proponent or opponent of planned obsolescence?

[maple_leafs182]

This is why I stated in my post earlier that I disagree with the current monetary system.

I don't know how you expect to have scientific advances when you build things that limit the advancement of technology.

This is where I disagree. I think money itself inhibits the advancements in technology. Like Bonam said, it would be too expensive to implement new technologies into cars that would then make cars more durable and efficient. It is money and the profit motive that is inhibiting technological advancement.

We now have car companies that implement planned obsolescence into the design of their vehicles to ensure that there will be further demand for their products in the future. My question is how do we expect to manage our scarce resources efficiently if we continue to produce cheap, inefficient products that end up in land fills or junk yards later.

Economics is suppose to be the study of how we manage our scarce resources. Instead of us learning how to better manage these scarce resources, the study of economics has simply become the study of money patterns. We have come to measure everything in terms of money. The Gross Domestic Product(GDP) of a nation is suppose to determine or be and indicator of the standard of living for the people in that nation, the problem with GDP is it does not incorporate leisure time or general happiness of the population. In the US last year health care costs amounted to 17% of their total GDP, using the logic that an increase in GDP improves the standard of living is to say if there were more sick and dieing people, economically, the people would be better off.

I think how we use money as a measure of success is a distortion of reality.