Jump to content

philpot123

Members
  • Content Count

    1,795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by philpot123

  1. Recognizing that farmers will not get paid as much as a doctor does not mean that we don't want farmers to exist. I have been a farmer. But each doctor's labor is worth more than each farmer's labor because of field entry barriers and educational requirements.
  2. "The analysis of our illustrations has taught us another incidental lesson. This is that, when we study the effects of various proposals, not merely on special groups in the short run, but on all groups in the long run, the conclusions we arrive at usually correspond with those of unsophisticated common sense. It would not occur to anyone unacquainted with the prevailing economic half literacy that it is good to have windows broken and cities destroyed; that it is anything but waste to create needless public projects; that it is dangerous to let idle hordes of men return to work; that ma
  3. So if I ought to do something, if I have a moral obligation to do something, that necessarily means the government should force me to do it? I think we'd better start by working out a foundation. By what standard do you say I have a moral obligation to help the poor? I believe I do, but that comes directly from a command of God to love my neighbor as myself. IIRC, you don't hold to my religious persuasion, so I wonder where your moral obligation comes from? Also, as a footnote... you seem generally pessimistic about the ability of humans to be altruistic. You don't trust most peopl
  4. True enough. I wholeheartedly agree. Now explain to me why the government should force me to do that. The problem is that businesses don't decide what a "livable" wage is. They decide what wage they can pay per worker according to their desire for workers and the productivity of each individual worker. Again, the government can't make someone's labor worth more than it already is by brute force. That's determined by the market. There is no way around the fact that a higher minimum wage can never be economically productive. If set below equilibrium, it will do nothing. If set above e
  5. Poor choices in a market economy will always resolve absent extenuating circumstances. A lack of regulation allowed bankers to invest poorly, yes. And poor investments lead to economic downturns, yes. But that does not necessitate a depression. That would not have happened if we had not been dependent on European debt payments, which were dependent on German industry, which was dependent on American investment. The lack of a coercive government saying "thou shalt not invest here, here, and here" certainly allowed certain people to make poor choices, but that on its own would not have caused a
  6. That's a value judgment that may or may not be true, but can you back that up economically? Can you explain to me why the market should be structured in such a way that each person only has to work one job, and how that will work practically? Perhaps it's ideal that no one should have to work multiple jobs, but just because X is ideal doesn't mean we can make the market become X through government intervention and brute force. Economics doesn't work that way. Caring for one's community does not equal socialism. Localism and community aid are conservative endeavors that are initiated
  7. New documentary about the Common Core standards. Although it's obviously against the standards, it provides a fair treatment with interviews of both proponents and opponents of the standards. Check it out. Building the Machine: The Common Core
  8. I would agree with you that it seems to be the only way. My question is, how do you know you are observing and reasoning correctly? How do you validate your senses and reasoning? It seems that the only way to validate your senses and reasoning is with your senses and reasoning. You can test your reasoning by means of observation, but what is your basis for trusting your observations? You can test your observations according to what you would logically expect to see, but what is your basis for trusting your own reasoning? I'm going in the direction of epistemological nihilism, which i
  9. It's neither good nor bad. It's just that since secular science almost univocally declared that the universe had a point of origin, it seems like most atheists/agnostics have had a cosmology centered around some sort of definite, bangy origin to the universe. Most don't like confessing the eternality of matter because then they realize that they're stuck believing in eternal somethings just like theists believe in eternal somethings. So based on observation and reason, we determine that logic exists?
  10. You're genuinely the first person I've ever interacted with who has confessed the eternal existence of matter so readily. I thought you guys were gone after secular origins theories developed. That's a nice syllogism, a little deviant from the typical aristotelian model but workable. I guess you didn't see my edit, so I'll ask again. How do you know that logic exists? For all I know your syllogism makes as much since as the sky is brown, monkeys wear hats, therefore egg. How am I to discern the existence of these eternal, immaterial things? Logic "began with" matter? You're saying
  11. "They have always existed." Wow. You're sounding almost like you believe in a deity, you're just calling it logic. Did the laws of logic preexist before the universe's beginning, or was there ever a point when they did not exist? How do you know these laws of logic exist?
  12. Not a problem! I'm usually going around making those types of assertions, so your assumption was reasonable
  13. I'm not the one making logic claims and value judgments at the moment, I'm just asking questions ^.^ but if you'd like to know what I consider the basis for all human reason, you're welcome to PM me and I can discuss it further. I'm aware of what the laws of logic are, I was trying to determine whether or not you believed they exist and are universal. Based on your response, I'll assume yes and work from there. It's lovely that you believe in logic, that makes conversation so much easier. If these laws of logic are universal and immutable, that is they apply to everyone and don't ch
  14. Are there universal laws of logic? How do you know your reasoning is valid?
  15. I didn't get it because you hadn't stated it clearly. You neatly dodged it multiple times, but it took you this long to put it in those terms. If morality aligns with rationality, how does one determine whether or not an action is rational?
  16. So you arrived at the conclusion that humans are not rational creatures by looking at historical facts and reasoning from there? You used your rational faculties to determine that humans aren't rational? Are you saying that actions are wrong when they are irrational? You're still not clearly stating a standard here.
  17. Humans are rational creatures. Some humans decide they prefer to kill themselves or kill others. Why is their preference worse than your preference?
  18. Some rational creatures decide it's best to kill themselves or others. What makes their preference any worse than yours? You're making value judgments, but I'm still not seeing a fixed, knowable standard that you can claim to explain those judgments. You and me both.
  19. I'm still not understanding why death or chaos should be avoided.
  20. If there is no right and wrong, then why is it "bad" for me to cause chaos? You prefer order, I prefer chaos. Which of us is right? I don't need "a book," I need a standard. Your standard seems to be feelings and preference, unless you want to provide another. Conservative Christians throw around the words infallible and inerrant almost interchangeably, but since the modernist/fundamentalist controversy in the early 1900s and the evangelical revivals of the late 1900s, the two have had slightly different meanings. Most conservative Christians confess the Bible to be infallib
  21. You did a really great job of not answering my question. I'll answer yours when you answer mine.
  22. I'm not talking about what I believe, I'm questioning YOUR basis for believing that hurting someone is wrong. Is hurting someone wrong because I think it's wrong? Is it wrong because I empathize with them? Or are you appealing to a transcendent standard? I want to know where this concept of "right and wrong" is coming from. Is it based on feeling? Reasoning? What? I don't see how this is "ridiculous" at all. It would be ridiculous to say that something was wrong without knowing why it was wrong.
  23. That doesn't answer the question adequately. You've said what you think is wrong, but you haven't said why it's wrong. By what standard do you claim that hurting someone is wrong?
  24. So you determine right from wrong based on feeling and intuition? Or if not those, then by what standard do you determine what is right and what is wrong?
  25. All men everywhere have knowledge of the existence of their creator through creation and by virtue of being made in his image, and they consciously reject and sin against him by willful disobedience. Denial of God's existence and nature is a suppression of the truth in unrighteousness. (47)