You think econ is useless because it can't predict the aggregate behavior of an entire nation (affected by the whole world) to within about three percent?!?!? You might as well ask an ornathologist where a particular bird will be a year from now, and after its yearly 1000-mile migration, a nearby volcanic eruption, and the random motion of escaping predators and finding food and a mate, you get mad at him because he turns out to be 30 miles off.
I mean, predicting the economic behavior of six billion people, taking into account unpredictable things like natural disasters and new technology, makes the whole protein-folding problem look like child's play.
You're deliberately confusing two definitions of 'aging'. One is "the increase of age as time goes by", the other is "the negative changes that occur in a living thing as they age". I don't think anyone is really confused about which definition is being used.
No, no one truely "owns" anything in any real sense. It's all just social convention.
And finally, he states his underlying assumption.
wealth redistribution is as old as dirt, and is inherent in any stable society. It's used to pacify powerful entities, and reduce the likelyhood they'll try to just grab it. Feudalism is essentially a trade of loyalty for resources.
If you're going to interpret 'redistribution' to include trade, then yes, it's a basic part of society. If, however, you use the usual definition, then it only refers to fairly direct government funding to a specific group, like subsudies and welfare.
If person Bob owns a toothbrush, and Bob is a member of a group, then that group owns a toothbrush.
No. Bob owns his toothbrush, his church does not. End of story.
If Bob won't respect the decision of the group, he isn't a member of it, by definition.
Now you aren't even pretending to make sense. When Bob (an American) kills someone, he's not respecting the decision of the group (American citizens) to not kill, but he still is a member of the group of American citizens. When Bob rcomits one of his church's toothbrush sins, he's still a member of the church (unless they kick him out). Membership is not "by definition" based on how well one follows the rules.
If people can own things individually, then they must be able to do so by aggregate.
Individuals -> group: a person can speak English, therefore it's possible that all members of a group of people can speak English. That's correct.
if society cannot own things, no one can.
Group -> individuals: if all members of a group can't speak English, no member of the group can. This is false, because the logic is backwards.
And on top of that, society isn't a well-defined group - do you mean the whole human race, the people that live in any particular area, or some aspect of culture? In any case, the closest it can come to owning something is by proxy, through a government.
all stable nations have wealth redistribution of some form.
Perhaps at the moment, but this is (historically) a fairly new concept, like fiat currency. That certainly doesn't prove that they have to have redistribution, or that redistribution is a basic property of modern nations.
Society does get first dibs on everything
So, according to you, individuals really don't own anything, they just act as temporary "caretakers" of property for society?
That makes no sense, because you have it backwards. Groups aquire properties from their members (and possibly their organization).
Besides, society can't own anything because it's abstraction, in this case a mental shortcut for dealing with something too big to understand in detail, while people are concrete. You might as well say that 'evil', the number '3' or 'redness' owns something.
Second, he did ask a very important question that you have still failed to answer. How do you justify the idea that society is giving to the heirs, rather than taking from them? When I give you something, isn't it yours, or does society get first dibs on other gifts as well?
No, I don't believe in private property for the dead. That's an absurd notion.
Of course the idea of a dead person owning property is absurd, just as the idea that 'society' can own property is absurd. That's why people leave things to others in their will - when they die other people (or groups) now own them.
That is what is known as an 'ad hominem' argument, and is considered a concession of defeat.
You already conceded with your "if you don't like it, leave" post, so I replied at the same grade-school level - but I also added in humor and the hope that you would try again, and actually reveal some of the reasons behind your belief.
To merely demonstrate that one has no arguments, rational or moral, to support ones position, one only need be a fool. Ignorance protects one from the threat of humiliation.
But to publicly flaunt ones shortcomings, knowing that if anyone dares to challege ones declarations that they will crumble to dust with the first touch, leaving one only childish insults to reply with, that is true bravery.
their posessions simply revert back to the society that produced them.
They why the pretence? Simply have society keep posessions from the start. Then there's no need for complex tax laws, and society gains the full benefit of everything the person would have gotten, rather than just whatever random things were left over when he died. I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this ideology of 'society-ism'.
Just be honest and forthright, and say that you don't believe in private property at all. Then we can have a real discussion.
That was just a murder. You might be able to pull 'assasination' out of it because it was politically motivated, but if every wingnut with a gun count as a 'terrorist', then the word no longer has any real meaning.
If you want to make a point try to be as inoffensive as possible while getting the point(s) across.
He was no more offencive in his mention of liberals than his mention of conservatives:
And since the subject is sex, which conservatives consider icky and horrible unless it's to your spouse (someone of a government-approved gender), you're guilty to them, too.
So a poster uses crude (obviously meant to be funny) stereotypes to show the logic of an argument, and two different people jump on him for the first one but while ignoring the second. At least I know which end of the political spectrum I can lampoon on slashdot without getting jumped on.
It's so nice that you can assume that "sex, which conservatives consider icky and horrible unless it's to your spouse" is tongue-in-cheek, but that the similar treatment of your end of the political spectrum is something awful.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, predicting the economic behavior of six billion people, taking into account unpredictable things like natural disasters and new technology, makes the whole protein-folding problem look like child's play.
And the only solution you can think of is to let people die?
And on top of that, society isn't a well-defined group - do you mean the whole human race, the people that live in any particular area, or some aspect of culture? In any case, the closest it can come to owning something is by proxy, through a government.
Besides, society can't own anything because it's abstraction, in this case a mental shortcut for dealing with something too big to understand in detail, while people are concrete. You might as well say that 'evil', the number '3' or 'redness' owns something.
Second, he did ask a very important question that you have still failed to answer. How do you justify the idea that society is giving to the heirs, rather than taking from them? When I give you something, isn't it yours, or does society get first dibs on other gifts as well?
To merely demonstrate that one has no arguments, rational or moral, to support ones position, one only need be a fool. Ignorance protects one from the threat of humiliation.
But to publicly flaunt ones shortcomings, knowing that if anyone dares to challege ones declarations that they will crumble to dust with the first touch, leaving one only childish insults to reply with, that is true bravery.
Just be honest and forthright, and say that you don't believe in private property at all. Then we can have a real discussion.
There is a world of difference between using a card the way you would cash and using it as a long term loan, but it's still debt.
You just did. :)
That was just a murder. You might be able to pull 'assasination' out of it because it was politically motivated, but if every wingnut with a gun count as a 'terrorist', then the word no longer has any real meaning.
And since the subject is sex, which conservatives consider icky and horrible unless it's to your spouse (someone of a government-approved gender), you're guilty to them, too.
I suggest thicker skin.
So a poster uses crude (obviously meant to be funny) stereotypes to show the logic of an argument, and two different people jump on him for the first one but while ignoring the second. At least I know which end of the political spectrum I can lampoon on slashdot without getting jumped on.
Cheers!