Critical thinking called into question

Feb 04, 2011 By Lauren Nisbet

A post-secondary education won’t necessarily guarantee students the critical thinking skills employers have come to expect from university grads, says a recent study.

Richard Arum of New York University conducted a study of more than 2,300 between fall 2005 and spring 2009 examining test data and student surveys at 24 U.S. colleges and universities. Results, published in the book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, revealed 45 per cent of students made no significant improvement in , reasoning or writing skills during the first two years, and 36 per cent showed no improvement after four years of schooling.

With such negative results, academic professionals are left to consider whether student apathy is to blame or if the study reflects a fundamental failing in the post-secondary education system.

“For most things in life, you get out of something what you put into it,” says John Doerksen, Western’s vice provost for academic programs and students. “It’s possible for students to find the easiest route to a diploma at the end of the day, but on the whole universities are serving populations well.”

Doerksen emphasizes the importance of motivation among students, pointing out that “opportunities are there for students who are willing to learn and develop academically. The environment is very rich on university campuses.”

According to Mark Blagrave, Huron College dean of arts and social science, students have the right level of motivation, but the story doesn’t end there. Blagrave places more responsibility on educators to encourage comprehensive learning in the university community. “Students are as intellectually curious as they ever were,” he says. “It’s up to us to make sure we spark that intellectual curiosity and are able to meet today’s students on today’s terms.”

Blagrave sees an opportunity for improvement in the way professors communicate the intention behind the work they assign. “We’ve gone a long while knowing that (critical thinking) is part of what we teach, but we’re not necessarily articulating or reminding students that it’s happening.”

In terms of the academic atmosphere at Western, the university offers challenging and stimulating programs. “University is a place for students who are keen in committing themselves to expanding their knowledge and skills,” Doerksen says.

At the same time, Blagrave highlights the need for an academic approach involving going back to basics. “We need to look at what we’re trying to achieve, define critical and creative skills and look at the tools that we have to encourage them, as well as the constraints we face.”

Arum’s study also found students spent an average of 85 hours a week socializing or involved in extracurricular activities, but devoted less than a fifth of their time to academics. “This surprises me,” Doerksen says. “From my own experience I would say that students are spending very significant amounts of time on their academic pursuits.”

When asked how the balance of social activity and academics should work, he emphasizes the importance of both aspects of the university experience. “There’s no question that to be successful and to move forward it is necessary to learn critical, analytical and creative skills, and that takes time,” he says, “but this is also an important time for most students’ emotional and personal development … much of that occurs outside the classroom.”

When asked if he thought Arum’s study would have similar results if conducted in Canada, Doerksen says he would be extremely surprised. “If a student wants to learn, there is an appropriate environment for that here.”

Explore further: New research shows sportswomen still second best to sportsmen... in the press

Provided by University of Western Ontario

4.7 /5 (9 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

YouTube PSAs: Comments more persuasive than videos

Nov 19, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Michigan State University researchers, studying public service announcements placed on YouTube about marijuana use, have found that the comments accompanying the PSAs are more influential ...

Modern society made up of all types

Nov 04, 2010

Modern society has an intense interest in classifying people into ‘types’, according to a University of Melbourne Cultural Historian, leading to potentially catastrophic life-changing outcomes for those typed – ...

Recommended for you

Beyond human: Exploring transhumanism

Nov 25, 2014

What do pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, Iron Man and flu vaccines all have in common? They are examples of an old idea that's been gaining in significance in the last several decades: transhumanism. The word ...

User comments : 279

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wiyosaya
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2011
My take on this: It reflects a fundamental failing of the post-secondary education system.

I live near a top 20 US school and attended it briefly in the late 1970's. I also know recent graduates. This school grades on a curve. For those unfamiliar with this model, it essentially amounts to taking the test results and normalizing the awarded grade to how well the class as a whole did on the test. If the top score on the test is 50/100, that is an A or 4.0 for the class, if the median is 25/100, that is a C or 2.0. If everyone gets a 0, everyone passes that exam. This school calls this learning. I think it is more likely that it is to defray parents paying in excess of $20K / yr tuition from asking why their kids are failing.

I do not believe this school is unique in the education industry; rather, I think this is common place in post-secondary institutions. I have to wonder how this can be even remotely called "learning" since it makes degrees from such institutions of little value.
Shootist
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2011
My take on this: It reflects a fundamental failing of the post-secondary education system.


The explanation is far simpler. Too many people with sub-normal I.Q.s attend University. University should be for the top 10% of students, not every swinging dick that "graduates" high scrool.

We need a resurgence of Trade Schools at the post HS level, and wood and metal shop classes in grades 7-12.

Everyone should NOT go to University. The future auto mechanic, carpenter and plumber, don't need Sociology degrees to practice their trades.
Thrasymachus
3.2 / 5 (20) Feb 04, 2011
The failure is not in post-secondary education, it's in primary and secondary education. By the time a person is 18 years old, it's too late teach them to think critically. Sure, you can teach 'em the fallacies, introduce 'em to a bit of symbolic logic, but critical thinking is fundamentally about a kind of charitable skepticism. That's an attitude that has to be practiced from early on, if it's going to be preferred to more tribal predispositions.
dtxx
3 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2011
At Cornell I had a criticial thinking course taught that happenend to also be taught by an active professor westpoint professor. That course, and the skills, attitudes, and thought metholodologies it taught me have literallly changed my life on a daily basis.

But HEH, JESUS doesn't like criticial thinking, right? I LOVE the USA, but I'm not even slightly sure this is the country I want to end up in. What would it be? I still don't know, and I'm open to suggestions.

As long as we have j.w.bush insinuating that a non-xtian can't be a cizitien or patriot, you will have a hard time finding me making a serious commitment to this nation of uneducated scumbags.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2011
The problem starts in K-12 AND in the schools that teach the teachers.
Teacher unions perpetuate the problem by protecting bad teachers.
JESUS doesn't like criticial thinking,

Yes, it is encouraged. Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas and the Enlightenment?
http:/www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html
feralbeagle
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2011
Critical thinking skills are not improved in college unless the degree directly involves improving critical thinking.

At the simplest level, Colleges provide diplomas for money. In college I learned new skills and new tools for solving problems. I passed all the challenges and tests and they gave me a diploma saying that I did well at that. There were not many places for directly improving critical thinking inside or outside of class.

If improving critical thinking were required, then skills would improve because it would be taught. Otherwise, the typical student is on their own to improve themselves without guidance. Which is not a bad thing but spending time on activities not directly related to improving grades is not encouraged. Secondary education can be grueling and soul crushing experience.

OK, but even with this dark dystopian view of college, I think everyone needs to go to college and more importantly everyone should have the opportunity to go to college.
Doug_Huffman
3 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2011
So does 'B'arbara 'S'treisand as credentialism is advanced. Higher education may be grueling and soul crushing when it is done from bathetic principles. Learning, study, critical thinking for an already enlightened senior is a sustaining joy.

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as learnedness.
mysticshakra
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2011
It should also be.noted that critical thinking is not admired in American society nor in school. You are taught to memorize and recite, but never question....otherwise you're a terrorist, a radical or a nut. You will accept the accepted lie or else.

Not exactly the kind of environment that fosters creativity or useful thinking. Today we put our.geniuses in jail and salute half wits like Al Gore.
DamienS
5 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2011
The failure is not in post-secondary education, it's in primary and secondary education. By the time a person is 18 years old, it's too late teach them to think critically.

Very true. We give students problems to solve through thinking, but we don't teach them how to think about thinking.
ubavontuba
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2011
But HEH, JESUS doesn't like criticial thinking, right?
Surprisingly, your flippancy is misplaced. Jesus was renown for challenging the status quo. Maybe you should practice some critical thinking skills of your own and learn a little bit about a subject before you denigrate it ...or, at least learn how to spell "critical."
Mandan
4 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2011
Jesus was renown for challenging the status quo. Maybe you should... learn how to spell "critical."


Maybe you should learn that you should have used the past tense of the verb "renowned" instead of using the noun form "renown" yourself. "Jesus was renown for..." is meaningless.

dtxx's could have easily been a mere typo, the inadvertent tap of an extra key. You completely left off the most important two letters and therefore have no room for ticky tack criticism of anyone's spelling/grammar skills after pulling an ignorant boner like that.

Glass houses and stones, you know.
antialias
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2011
But HEH, JESUS doesn't like criticial thinking, right?

I'm saying this as an atheist: Jesus (if he existed and the biblical account even remotely reflects his persona) did like lateral/critical thinking.

It's institutionalized belief systems (churches, religions) that don't like critical thinking. This is not a problem confined to belief systems but rather to any kind of dogmatic power structure (e.g. ideology driven governments, dictatorships where only one opinion counts, ... )
kuntur2k
5 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2011
Multiple choice testing is to critical thinking what fast-food is to our diets. Eliminate or limit multiple choice testing while expanding short response questions. Grading short response tests is more expensive, but the benefits to students are like exercising to keep our bodies healthy.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2011
It's institutionalized belief systems

Yes, like the current regime in the USA and the AGWites.

Recently a story appeared about Tiger moms. Chinese parents who push their children to be the best in school.
I appreciate the discipline, but I question the result. How innovative will they be? Of course the Chinese have a long history of promoting education and test taking in order to become a bureaucrat in the emperor's court.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011
Since when have people ever been encouraged to think for themselves in the U.S. education system?

In elementary and high school, that's called "Acting out" and you got a detention.

In college, you pretty much show up and do what the professor says, or fail.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2011
In college, you pretty much show up and do what the professor says, or fail.

This is particularly true in PC classes like 'women's studies'.
In many cases, the professor cannot be fired for indoctrination.
ProfAnn
5 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2011
As a college professor, I can report that 25-50% or higher of my students are academically unprepared, emotionally unprepared and/or intellectually unprepared. Many just do not care about learning. You can lead a horse to water... So I agree, these students should be pursuing vocational training rather than an academic degree. By the way, I do not grade by the curve, and as far as I know, that's not the standard for higher education institutions.
ProfAnn
5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011
By the time a person is 18 years old, it's too late teach them to think critically.


I disagree. Critical thinking is a skill. Skills are learnable and do not become immobile at a certain age. One of the issues (assuming students are receptive to learning) is the "teaching." Often, assignments which measure critical thinking are masked as essays. The student is not given direction on how to think critically; they are given direction on how to complete an essay. The educator needs to teach critical thinking skills in addition to teaching essay writing.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2011
Maybe you should learn that you should have used the past tense of the verb "renowned" instead of using the noun form "renown" yourself. "Jesus was renown for..." is meaningless.
My apologies. You are correct. I should have used renowned in my sentence. However, renowned is an adjective, not a verb.

re-nowned (r-nound)
adj.
Having renown; famous.

http:/www.thefreedictionary.com/renowned
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2011
The failure is not in post-secondary education, it's in primary and secondary education. By the time a person is 18 years old, it's too late teach them to think critically. Sure, you can teach 'em the fallacies, introduce 'em to a bit of symbolic logic, but critical thinking is fundamentally about a kind of charitable skepticism. That's an attitude that has to be practiced from early on, if it's going to be preferred to more tribal predispositions.

I agree with this. The whole "defend the childhood" movement, coupled with the "self-esteem" movement has perverted how we treat our children and how we educate them.
How innovative will they be? Of course the Chinese have a long history of promoting education and test taking in order to become a bureaucrat in the emperor's court.
The far east is more innovative than the west, and that's historical fact.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2011
(Thrasymachus) The failure is not in post-secondary education, it's in primary and secondary education. By the time a person is 18 years old, it's too late teach them to think critically.
(ProfAnn) I disagree. Critical thinking is a skill. Skills are learnable and do not become immobile...
(SH) I agree with this. The whole "defend the childhood" movement, coupled with the "self-esteem" movement has perverted how we treat our children and how we educate them.
I think what you are all missing, is brain development.

"Brain development
...development is not complete until the mid-20s. The frontal lobe of the brain, which is involved in higher thought-critical thinking, math, philosophy-also develops at this age. Teen brains are less efficient at cause-and-effect thinking;..."

http:/www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/parent_teenager/parent_teenager_a.cfm

Nik_2213
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2011
'What gets measured, gets done...'
How do you measure critical thinking ? How do you encourage kids to 'think outside the box' without turning them into disillusioned drop-outs ??
Softly, softly...
soulman
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2011
How do you measure critical thinking?

Easy - get them to evaluate any post from dogbert, QC, Marjon, Zephyr, kevintrs, Oliver K Manuel! :)
looseyarn
1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2011
Sounds like the US is becoming stupider or more stupid, however you like. Do you still use lead in your gasoline? The neurotoxin might be one reason for this.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2011
I think what you are all missing, is brain development.
Brain development
...development is not complete until the mid-20s.
...
Or take this PhysOrg article:
2010-12-brain-fully-mature-30s-40s.html
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
How do you measure critical thinking?

Easy - get them to evaluate any post from dogbert, QC, Marjon, Zephyr, kevintrs, Oliver K Manuel! :)

It would be quite a change if our critics actually applied critical thought instead of dismissive ridicule. Maybe they would learn something.
frajo
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
How do you measure critical thinking?
Easy - get them to evaluate any post from dogbert, QC, Marjon, Zephyr, kevintrs, Oliver K Manuel! :)

It would be quite a change if our critics actually applied critical thought instead of dismissive ridicule.
How would you deal with somebody who is constantly avoiding to answer critical questions while permanently repeating his questioned statements?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 06, 2011
How do you measure critical thinking?
Easy - get them to evaluate any post from dogbert, QC, Marjon, Zephyr, kevintrs, Oliver K Manuel! :)

It would be quite a change if our critics actually applied critical thought instead of dismissive ridicule.
How would you deal with somebody who is constantly avoiding to answer critical questions while permanently repeating his questioned statements?

Clarify the question.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2011
How would you deal with somebody who is constantly avoiding to answer critical questions while permanently repeating his questioned statements?
Learn to let it go.

I mean is it really any smarter to be "permanently repeating" critical questions to the unreceptive?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2011
How would you deal with somebody who is constantly avoiding to answer critical questions while permanently repeating his questioned statements?
Learn to let it go.

I mean is it really any smarter to be "permanently repeating" critical questions to the unreceptive?

What 'critical' questions are being asked?
frajo
4.7 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2011
How would you deal with somebody who is constantly avoiding to answer critical questions while permanently repeating his questioned statements?
Learn to let it go.

I mean is it really any smarter to be "permanently repeating" critical questions to the unreceptive?
Are you in twisting mode? Nobody promoted what you are insinuating.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2011
Are you in twisting mode? Nobody promoted what you are insinuating.
It's implied in the question you asked. By asking, "How would you deal with somebody who is constantly avoiding to answer critical questions...?" it's implied the critical questions are a constant occurrence.

I simply related this practice to the idiom: "Beat one's head against the wall."

"beat one's head against the wall
Fig.

to waste one's time trying hard to accomplish something that is completely hopeless."

http:/idioms.thefreedictionary.com/beat+head+against+the+wall
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2011
Learn to let it go.

I mean is it really any smarter to be "permanently repeating" critical questions to the unreceptive?

You realized you've just opened the door to a meta-thread about the ethics of trolling and feeding trolls, right? Well, we are commenting on an article about critical thinking, so why not?

I don't think anybody except the uninitiated expects to convince marjon, dogbert, or the others. Instead, we respond to them for a variety of other reasons, from wishing to present and defend the mainstream point of view, to simply defending science itself when they attack or disparage it, which seems appropriate for a science news site. As for disparaging insult, it's funny how it's always these conservative nut jobs (yes, that's a disparaging insult) that have such thin skin, when they engage in exactly the same nastiness. Moralist, thy name is hypocrite.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2011
I don't think anybody except the uninitiated expects to convince marjon, dogbert, or the others. Instead, we respond to them for a variety of other reasons, from wishing to present and defend the mainstream point of view, to simply defending science itself when they attack or disparage it...
Well I, for one, simply post here because it's fun. And, generally speaking, I've grown to like most of the posters here.

So I don't think it's wise to take positions against individuals, but rather ideas and concepts - as even a lunkhead might say something insightful from time to time - and the most brilliant scientist might say something equally as dumb.

As the subject matter is wide and varied, and as many intelligent and skilled people post here; if we could all agree to hold ourselves to higher standards of civility (especially those with strong science backgrounds), this site could be a shining example of intellectual discourse - for everyone.
nuge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2011
Teaching critical thinking is a contradiction in terms. You can't have people rock up to a class expecting to be given information on how to "think critically". If those people had any hope of being true critical thinkers, they'd have been thinking about it themselves, not waiting to be given instructions on how to think.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2011
(yes, that's a disparaging insult) that have such thin skin, when they engage in exactly the same nastiness.

Once again, instead of actually engaging in anything constructive or positive, I observe these 'tolerant' 'liberals' engaging in anything but being liberal or tolerant. Is that too critical?
Nik_2213
not rated yet Feb 06, 2011
Nuge, first they must learn that they *can* think critically, rather than just having a downer on something because a different group holds the notion in question...

Then comes 'Occam's Razor' and attempting to falsify a hypothesis experimentally...
soulman
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2011
Teaching critical thinking is a contradiction in terms. You can't have people rock up to a class expecting to be given information on how to "think critically". If those people had any hope of being true critical thinkers, they'd have been thinking about it themselves, not waiting to be given instructions on how to think.

You couldn't be more wrong about that. It's not a matter of throwing axioms at pupils to be learned mechanically. It's a holistic approach to thought which should ideally be started early with age appropriate material and continued from there.

Get students into the habit of examining what others say on contentious issues. Are the statements reasonable? Is there supporting evidence and where does it come from (is it anecdotal, does it come from a source of vested interest - like a lobby group, or a peer reviewed journal, a person in authority?).

Get them to take the opposite stand on a divisive issue and defend it to the best of their ability.

And much more
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
t's a holistic approach to thought which should ideally be started early with age appropriate material and continued from there.
Get students into the habit of examining what others say on contentious issues

One way to enable such thinking is to end the k-12 education monopoly with the idea that students should stay with their 'peers' in large classes. Not long ago, children had regular interaction with adults on the farm or in their families shop. One room schools with multiple classes allowed students to learn more, faster and interact with older students. Today home schooled children benefit from more interaction with the real world and not being forced into rigid classes.
Of course questioning students are quite annoying to too many teachers.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2011
I mean is it really any smarter to be "permanently repeating" critical questions to the unreceptive?
They keep posting so I keep asking. I don't expect an answer. The evasion of the question is often the INTENT of my posts. However should any of them actually stop evading THEN a worthwhile discussion may ensue. So I get what I want either way.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2011
I observe these 'tolerant' 'liberals' engaging in anything but being liberal or tolerant. Is that too critical?
No its just false. You DO evade questions just as you did on this thread. By ignoring the questions or pretending it was something else.
Yes, it is encouraged. Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas and the Enlightenment?
Did you ever notice that Thomas wanted people like me to murdered by the Church.Some source of enlistment he was. Don't agree with Thomas. You get should be tortured and if that doesn't work you should be murdered. He approved of that.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
Not long ago, children had regular interaction with adults on the farm or in their families shop.
It is time to leave the 1800's. In any case they weren't exposed to critical thinking on farms or in family shops. They were being taught how to farm or work in a family shop.
One room schools with multiple classes allowed students to learn more,
No. It was the only way deal with small populations. If you only have a few students of each age then you can't teach them efficiently by age group. What you do get out of it is older students learning by helping younger students. You still don't get critical thinking but no one expects you of all people to understand as you simply are incapable or unwilling to engage in critical thinking.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2011
. In any case they weren't exposed to critical thinking on farms or in family shops.

You have never farmed have you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2011
A good first critical thinking step is to agree to a definition of 'critical thinking'.
These folks suggest systems thinking is critical thinking. Maybe, maybe not. If true, I don't see much systems thinking from many who post here.

"Strategic Thinking is also called Systems Thinking, critical thinking, solutions thinking, future and forward thinking, longer term thinking, and high level thinking."

http:/www.hainescentre.com/systems-thinking/systems-strategic-critical-thinking.html
This is a part of critical thinking?
"Fair-mindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group. "
http:/www.criticalthinking.org/print-page.cfm?pageID=406
This requires 'critical thinkers' to equate liberty with tyranny to be fair.
soulman
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2011
A good first critical thinking step is to agree to a definition of 'critical thinking'.

Well sure, but there is no dispute in the meaning of 'critical thinking', so why bother bringing it up?
These folks suggest systems thinking is critical thinking.

Oh, I see, so that you can shoehorn some unrelated definition into a false argument. Systems Thinking is not Critical Thinking (though it is required there too). Typical creationist misdirection tactics.
frajo
4 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2011
Are you in twisting mode? Nobody promoted what you are insinuating.
It's implied in the question you asked. By asking, "How would you deal with somebody who is constantly avoiding to answer critical questions...?" it's implied the critical questions are a constant occurrence.
No. It's not implied.
(The universal quantifier over all occurences for bad behavior does not imply an universal quantifier over all time for occurences to happen.)
I'm surprised you don't know marjon's behavior.
frajo
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
A good first critical thinking step is to agree to a definition of 'critical thinking'.
Thanks, I do like this one.
Now tell us why you never try to agree to a definition of "socialism".
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2011
No. It's not implied.
(The universal quantifier over all occurences for bad behavior does not imply an universal quantifier over all time for occurences to happen.)
I disagree. It's rather hard to "constantly" be avoiding something which is a rare occurence. That is, I feel the frequency of the avoiding is likely relative to the frequency of the questions.
I'm surprised you don't know marjon's behavior.
I've been around long enough to know most of the regulars.

Why are you letting anonymous posters, whom you don't agree with, trouble you so?

Life's too short to make such a fuss. Relax. Set a better example.

frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2011
No. It's not implied.
(The universal quantifier over all occurences for bad behavior does not imply an universal quantifier over all time for occurences to happen.)
I disagree. It's rather hard to "constantly" be avoiding something which is a rare occurence.
We are on a science site. Thus I prefer mathematical to colloquial meaning.
That is, I feel the frequency of the avoiding is likely relative to the frequency of the questions.
Yes. If every question is followed by an avoidance then avoidance is constant. Even if there is one question only.
Why are you letting anonymous posters, whom you don't agree with, trouble you so?
They don't trouble me. But I like to trouble those who spread BS.
Life's too short to make such a fuss.
Life's too short to be wasted with watching TV. It's better to lend a hand fighting BS.
Relax. Set a better example.
I do. Exercising mental fitness once a day is very relaxing.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2011
We are on a science site. Thus I prefer mathematical to colloquial meaning.

Yes. If every question is followed by an avoidance then avoidance is constant. Even if there is one question only.
It's not a science site, per se, but rather a self-described "science, research and technology news service." And, I think you may be expecting too much of the readers, as not all science is based in math. Therefore, the colloquial meaning is more apt.
They don't trouble me. But I like to trouble those who spread BS.

Life's too short to be wasted with watching TV. It's better to lend a hand fighting BS.
Fighting BS with an apparently arrogant attitude, seems contrary to your stated purpose. Wouldn't your purpose be better served by skillfully piquing their curiosity?
I do. Exercising mental fitness once a day is very relaxing.
It is, isn't it? Now how about working on the better example part?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2011
You have never farmed have you.
No. Have you and what did it have to do with critical thinking. How did you manage to avoid learning it if it had anything to do with farming? Since you clearly don't have a clue about critical thought how would you know if farming taught critical thinking in any case?

And since evasion came up and you, Marjon, are clearly the person in question and you pretended that you didn't do that how come you evaded this one that I am repeating? I am repeating it so I, and everyone else, can be amused by watching you evade it again.
Did you ever notice that Thomas wanted people like me to murdered by the Church?
Now this is your second opportunity to NOT evade a question. Lets see if you can give an honest answer and see if you tell us how murdering people that think differently can be construed as being the source of the Enlightenment.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2011
"There’s no question that to be successful and to move forward it is necessary to learn critical, analytical and creative skills, and that takes time, he says, “but this is also an important time for most students’ emotional and personal development … much of that occurs outside the classroom. "

This is the crux of the issue. What is purpose of a school/university? Is it to obtain an academic education and learn how to think or is it for learning how to socialize (drink, party, sex) with your peers?
Most K-12 schools won't fail a student. He is 'socially' promoted. K-12 schools fight over uniforms yet uniforms have been proven to support discipline.
And that is the key for a successful academic program, discipline.
Another way to improve critical thinking is to scrap the US math education system and find a system that is effective. Sound math problem solving skills support critical thinking. The US is abysmal at teaching math.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2011
Now tell us why you never try to agree to a definition of "socialism".

I agree to von Mises definition, state control of property. Do you agree to that definition?
von Mises explains it quite well in his book Socialism and demonstrates how fascism, socialism and communism are essentially the same.
if you tell us how murdering people that think differently can be construed as being the source of the Enlightenment.

What are you talking about?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
What are you talking about?
Thank you for proving my point that evade questions a regular part of you behavior.

You made a claim about Thomas Auinas and I pointed out that it was false because his idea of reason is torture and murder. That is twice you evaded it. Going to go for three?

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2011
I agree to von Mises definition, state control of property. Do you agree to that definition?
No, it's overly simplistic, which is probably why you say such stupid things as
fascism=statism=socialism=dictatorship
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2011
I pointed out that it was false because his idea of reason is torture and murder.

Just because YOU say it doesn't make it so.
No, it's overly simplistic,

No, it is the FUNDAMENTAL basis of it all, state vs the individual. SH and other statists don't like the 'simplistic' definition as it interferes with their support of the state over the individual.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2011
Just because YOU say it doesn't make it so.


True. THOMAS said it. Not me. I just pointed it out. I count that as another evasion since you didn't say anything that has any meaning.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2011
Just because YOU say it doesn't make it so.


True. THOMAS said it. Not me. I just pointed it out. I count that as another evasion since you didn't say anything that has any meaning.

Ethelred

So YOU say.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2011
Evasion.

httpDELETEME://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
However, without mentioning the word, he does justify the contemporary Inquisition’s use of torture (recently introduced in 1252 by Pope Innocent IV – cf. B4 below).
"On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received


httpDELETEME://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.


So how does that fit with the Enlightenment? Going to answer this time?

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Feb 07, 2011
Ethel, since socialists have murdered millions of people in the past century, please defend your support of socialism.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2011
SH and other statists don't like the 'simplistic' definition as it interferes with their support of the state over the individual.

Simple definitions are for simple people. you're merely looking for boogeymen in a blind rage against your own inability to comprehend the changes in society around you. It must be very sad being so rigid in your mind set and so unable to adapt.

You're a dying breed, naturally selected against within our society.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2011
What changes in society?
Looking at past societies, I don't see much change.
What I do see is the common thread of tyrants trying to control individuals. SH seems to desire to be a part of the mob that is in control of individuals.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2011
since socialists have murdered millions of people in the past century, please defend your support of socialism.
As you are the only one around who agrees with your/v. Mise's definition of "socialism" nobody can talk with you about any aspects of socialism.
Let's talk instead about dictators you like. We seem to have compatibel definitions of dictatorship.
Do you think a dictator would be better for your country?
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2011
45 per cent of students made no significant improvement in critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years, and 36 per cent showed no improvement after four years


Relax people. This is nearly meaningless. Where is the control group? How do these numbers compare to other groups of people? Do non-college people of the same age range have numbers this good, or worse? Do other age groups show a similar level of critical thinking improvement over the same number of years? Without some meaningfull comparisons to other populations, this doesn't mean much, if anything.

I can't believe none of you asked those questions when you read the story above.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2011
As you are the only one around

So?
If all you socialists here say the sky is pink I should bow down and agree?
If you don't like being called socialists stop supporting socialism.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2011
von Mises definition of socialism doesn't work, because it assumes two things are already well defined. First, the State. Please define for me what is meant by "the State." Make sure you give your principles underlying the distinctions. Gotta make sure you don't inadvertently include your book club as an arm of "The State," or the ranking features on Physorg's comments.

The second thing you gotta define is property. I've asked you for this definition many times before, and you've yet to be able to provide any satisfactory definition of it. Here's another chance.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2011
von Mises defines 'property' and 'the state' quite well in 'Socialism'. Look it up.
http:/mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx
Thrasymachus
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2011
I'm not the one who's been called to task here, marjon. Either put up or shut up. Our arguments are not against a dead Austrian, they are against you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2011
I'm not the one who's been called to task here, marjon. Either put up or shut up. Our arguments are not against a dead Austrian, they are against you.

I'll refer you to the source. That's why I use reference material.
I agree with von Mises. You don't? Then critique his work.
What does being dead have to do with anything? That's why writing was invented to document and preserve ideas.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2011
What changes in society?
Looking at past societies, I don't see much change.
What I do see is the common thread of tyrants trying to control individuals. SH seems to desire to be a part of the mob that is in control of individuals.
LOL. Weren't you the one talking about how "liberal progressives" use slander to defame their opponenets because they don't have any arguments?

More pot kettle black.

Just an FYI: If you're going to cite someone's work on a topic, it helps if you have actually read it rather than received talking points from the Ron Paul forum.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2011
If you agree with von Mises, then you shouldn't have any problem rearticulating his ideas here. I suspect you refuse to do so because you don't really understand his ideas, including the fact that von Mises never articulates a theory of just original acquisition.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2011

Mises states there never was a 'just' original acquisition.
"All ownership derives from occupation and violence. When we consider the natural components of goods, apart from the labour components they contain, and when we follow the legal title back, we must necessarily arrive at a point where this title originated in the appropriation of goods accessible to all. Before that we may encounter a forcible expropriation from a predecessor whose ownership we can in its turn trace to earlier appropriation or robbery. That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law. But this offers not the slightest proof that the abolition of ownership is necessary, advisable, or morally justified."
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2011
And you seriously see no problem with that? Your passages as much as states that "might makes right." Basically, that says that you own whatever you can back up with the threat of violence, and you complain about the government claiming stuff and backing it up with the threat of violence? And you don't see any contradiction there?

Moreover, there's a false dichotomy insofar as it takes the position that either property rights are entirely private in origin or there are no such thing as property rights at all. In fact, property rights are always circumscribed by social concerns. You own your house, but you can't just burn it to the ground if you feel like it.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2011
Moreover, there's a false dichotomy insofar as it takes the position that either property rights are entirely private in origin or there are no such thing as property rights at all. In fact, property rights are always circumscribed by social concerns. You own your house, but you can't just burn it to the ground if you feel like it.
You'll have to forgive Marjon, he's old. He's from an era that didn't believe in commons, or non-ownership. Basically, Marjon's thinking is stuck in the rut of property rights sans public benefit. I really should use the latin term, but I don't want him to confuse me for a non-citizen and attempt to have me deported.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2011
And you seriously see no problem with that?

Can't you read?
"when we follow the legal title back, we must necessarily arrive at a point where this title originated in the appropriation of goods accessible to all. Before that we may encounter a forcible expropriation from a predecessor whose ownership we can in its turn trace to earlier appropriation or robbery."
"That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law. But this offers not the slightest proof that the abolition of ownership is necessary, advisable, or morally justified.""
You own your house, but you can't just burn it to the ground if you feel like it.

Then you don't truly own it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2011
Why should anyone 'believe' in commons? The concept fails to deliver wherever it is attempted.
Forests are mismanaged, range land is overgrazed, oceans are over fished.
"Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. "
http:/dieoff.org/page95.htm
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2011
Why should anyone believe in property? "That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit..." You own whatever you can take or steal from others. So you don't really own anything, because there's always someone bigger and badder than you are that might decide he wants your crap, for any reason at all. And once he takes it, he owns it. Under your definition of ownership, no one owns or should own anything at all. Everything has legal limits on how it can be disposed of, as there should be.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2011
Then you don't truly own it.
Was that a glimmer of insight? Or the glint of an immaculately washed brain?
Why should anyone 'believe' in commons?
Because some things manifestly can't be owned. Like air, groundwater, biodiversity, near-earth space.
Forests are mismanaged
Better mismanaged, than converted into suburban subdivisions.
range land is overgrazed
Better overgrazed, than reserved for ATV racing.
oceans are over fished
How do you fence off a plot of ocean, or corral the fish there?
Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit
Then change the incentives. False dichotomies do not a critical analysis comprise.

Native Americans had no concept of land ownership, until the Europeans arrived. It went against their entire worldview. They must have all been Communist Nazis. Too bad they didn't realize it: they could have conquered the world ages ago...
frajo
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2011
"when we follow the legal title back, we must necessarily arrive at a point where this title originated in the appropriation of goods accessible to all. Before that we may encounter a forcible expropriation from a predecessor whose ownership we can in its turn trace to earlier appropriation or robbery."
"That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law. But this offers not the slightest proof that the abolition of ownership is necessary, advisable, or morally justified."
How can a sound human being be impressed by such BS? All ownership derives from robbery etc but its abolition is not morally justified? Is/was robbery morally justified? No, but it happened and happens. Why should anyone heed what an reactionary Austrian aristocrat deems morally justified or not? When ownership will be abolished it will happen and it will be morally justified post factum.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2011
Ethel, since socialists have murdered millions of people in the past century, please defend your support of socialism.
Ah the expected EVASION. Instead of answering you bring up an irrelevant and false question and that has nothing do with what I asked about your clearly bogus claim. So lets see how many times you have evaded answering. Let me count.

1
2
3
4
and now with that one it is
5

And that is not a record for you.

Now I will ask a SIXTH time.

So how does that murder and torture fit with the Enlightenment? Going to answer this time?

No I am NOT going to answer your 'when did you stop beating your wife' non-question as YOU DID NOT answer mine, with five tries at it. Now you have a SIXTH. Don't bother asking irrelevant questions just tell us How the Hell Thomas could possibly have lead to the Enlightenment when he advocated the murder and torture of people that thought different from him?

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2011
Marxists were the product of the 'Enlightenment' and millions were murdered by its followers.
How can a sound human being be impressed by such BS? All ownership derives from robbery etc but its abolition is not morally justified?

Frajo can't read either?
If Frajo lives in UK, and if he is not of Celtic origin, he must return to Normandy or Rome or Saxony and give his property back to the natives if he wants to feel better.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2011
Native Americans had no concept of land ownership

The Aztecs and Mayans seemed to appreciate owning land as did the natives who farmed.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 08, 2011
You have no idea of the way those farms were managed, marjon. For all you know, those cultivated and irrigated fields belonged to a deity, and they tended those fields as a form of worship.

And I really like how you claim a theologian ushered in the Enlightenment, then when challenged as to how he would have done that when he was pushing for the torture and murder of non-believers, and in order to continue to evade the questions put to you, you trash
(in your own mind) the Enlightenment itself.

So here's the basic conservative worldview according to marjon so far: Murder, slavery, theft and terrorism are bad if you do them to me or to people I like, but not bad if you do them to people I don't know, and good if you do them to people I don't like.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2011
You have no idea of the way those farms were managed,

You obviously do not know either so your statement about land ownership in the Americas cannot be supported. Do some research on the Montagne Indians.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2011
So how does that murder and torture fit with the Enlightenment? Going to answer this time?
And here we go for a SEVENTH TIME.

That is SIX TIMES that Marjon has evaded a simple question.

We are GO for SEVEN.

Ethelred
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2011
My statement is that you don't know anything about concepts of ownership among Native Americans, and your attempts to insinuate that they support some Natural Law theory of property, when Natural Law doesn't even explain Western ownership practices, is a joke.

In fact, in those Native American cultures we know anything about, all forms of property ownership were communal and use-based. That teepee? It's yours as long as you're using it, but if you're not and someone else needs it, they can take it. Same thing with horses and other items of "personal property." Farming was done the same way hunting and gathering were done, communally. The concept of land ownership was as alien to them as thinking you could own a piece of the sky.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2011
Here is another question that Marjon evaded. Even after he asked me the same question AND I ANSWERED IT. But he didn't.

You have never farmed have you.

No. Have you and what did it have to do with critical thinking.


So did you ever farm and why didn't you answer the first time?

And to match non-sequitors.

Queen Ranavalona killed 2 million out of 4 million people on the Island of Madagascar, a FIFTY percent kill ratio beating both Stalin and Hitler both products of religion, and she was also a product of religion. How do you continue to support religion?

Stalin and Hitler where both white and they killed millions. Why haven't you killed yourself to help even the score?

The tobacco companies have killed MILLIONS of Americans all for Capitalism. How can you continue to support capitalism?

And my original question still stands unanswered.

Watch Marjon ask what the question was rather than answer.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2011
My statement is that you don't know anything about concepts of ownership among Native Americans, and your attempts to insinuate that they support some Natural Law theory of property, when Natural Law doesn't even explain Western ownership practices, is a joke.

In fact, in those Native American cultures we know anything about, all forms of property ownership were communal and use-based. That teepee? It's yours as long as you're using it, but if you're not and someone else needs it, they can take it. Same thing with horses and other items of "personal property." Farming was done the same way hunting and gathering were done, communally. The concept of land ownership was as alien to them as thinking you could own a piece of the sky.
The Mayans and Aztecs had built very large empires and I don't think the land was communal. Not all Indians lived in tee pees and were nomadic hunters like the Sioux.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2011
Yes, I was raised on a farm. Critical thinking skills are required to stay in business.
What is the bug up your butt about Aquinas?
"To understand why this movement became so influential in the 18th century, it is important to go back in time. We could choose almost any starting point, but let us begin with the recovery of Aristotelian logic by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. In his hands the logical procedures so carefully laid out by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle were used to defend the dogmas of Christianity;"
http:/www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html
If you don't like this fact, tough.
wiyosaya
4 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2011
Sounds like the US is becoming stupider or more stupid, however you like. Do you still use lead in your gasoline? The neurotoxin might be one reason for this.

No, we don't use lead in our gasoline. We outsource all manufacturing to other countries because it makes the elite more money. That leaves a lack of skilled, well-paying jobs in the US. All our citizens work at McDonalds or Wall-Mart, and the execs of companies that outsource manufacturing expect everyone in the country to buy their products even though it is contributing to our downfall. Some want more for less while being completely ignorant of the conditions it encourages.

Or, as the Sioux used to say, we seek the fat...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2011
The Mayans and Aztecs had built very large empires and I don't think the land was communal. Not all Indians lived in tee pees and were nomadic hunters like the Sioux.
You don't think much, do you? All lands were communally owned and the resources yielded were split amongst the people. There were property laws, but those were in regards to non-essential supplies or material possessions which were not owned by an individual, but by a household and then only to shepphard the item for the gods. Being semi-theocratic in structure and caste, the more ornate decorations and objects were held by the nobles, as well as all the land, but the resources were owned by the entire city and merely kept by those capable of keeping them safe in times of conflict.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2011
All lands were communally owned and the resources yielded were split amongst the people. T

Of course they were.
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 08, 2011
Sure, marjon, can't let a little thing like facts, history and reality get in the way of a perfectly good dogma. Natural law property theory is neither scientifically accurate, nor is it morally preferable to other theories of property and property rights.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2011
"If you did the work to acquire a thing and used it productively, it belonged to you."
"Horses were considered personal property."
Indigenous Peoples and Real Estate Valuation
By Robert A. Simons, Rachel Malmgren, Garrick Small
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2011
Do you even know what you're quoting from? That entire book is a series of essays about the difficulties of translating indigenous people's concepts of land ownership into Western concepts. Make sure you take note of the fact that land ownership in these cultures is repeatedly stressed to be communal, and that indigenous people had a deeper relationship to the land they lived on than asset/price. You have a lot of troll talents marjon. You can make other's disagreements all about you, you avoid answering a question better than any politician, and you have a knack for quoting from sources which entirely undermine your position, either by being wacky themselves, or by taking the entirely opposite position from what you claim.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2011
"If you did the work to acquire a thing and used it productively, it belonged to you."
"Horses were considered personal property."
Indigenous Peoples and Real Estate Valuation
By Robert A. Simons, Rachel Malmgren, Garrick Small

You do realize that horses had to be reintroduced to the Americas by Europeans, right?

By the way, that first passage you cite refers to native Africans, not Americans. Next time try a less obvious quotemine.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2011
In 1775, 500 militia from Chelmsford, MA fought the British from Concord back to Boston.
If only 2% of Chelmsford, MA supported the revolution, then the populaiton of Chelmford, MA in 1775 was 25,000. In 1850, the population of Chelmsford was 2000. I guess all those Loyalists in Chelmsford went to Canada or back to Britain.

"Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights."
"Because agricultural land required investments and because boundaries could be easily marked, crop land was often privately owned, usually by families or clans rather than individuals. For example, families among the Mahican Indians in the Northeast possessed hereditary rights to use well-defined tracts of garden land along the rivers. "
http:/www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/prope
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2011
"In the Southeast, where Indians engaged in settled agriculture, private ownership of land was common. The Creek town is typical of the economic and social life of the populous tribes of the Southeast, writes historian Angie Debo. Each family gathered the produce of its own plot and placed it in its own storehouse. Each also contributed voluntarily to a public store which was kept in a large building in the field and was used under the direction of the town chief for public needs.["
"the Algonkian Indians from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes carried on their hunting in restricted, family hunting territories descending from generation to generation in the male line, "
"Indians, like people everywhere, often relied on property rights to encourage the efficient and careful use of resources. An environmental ethic, however strong, was not enough."
http:/www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/property-rights-among-native-americans/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2011
By the way, that first passage you cite refers to native Africans, not Americans. Next time try a less obvious quotemine.

p.66, Says Native Americans in my book.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2011
Natural law property theory is neither scientifically accurate, nor is it morally preferable to other theories of property and property rights.

Of course it is because it has been proven to create individual liberty and prosperity.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2011
On the contrary, it has been proven to create insecure oligarchies. That is, a small group of very wealthy people, and a large group of people who's welfare is utterly dependent on the fortunes of those very wealthy, and at the same time making those fortunes vulnerable to huge swings in valuation. The simple fact of the matter is that it is impossible to completely command all the services of any asset, and it is impossible for them to be the sole bearer of any risk or harm associated with the asset. Without that possibility, the Natural Law theory of property can't get off the ground.

The best that can be said of ownership is that it consists of the ability to command some set of the services of an asset, and be liable for some set of its risks, and what services and liabilities are included in that set and to whom that set applies is a matter of social concern.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2011
Yes, I was raised on a farm. Critical thinking skills are required to stay in business.
That is BUSINESS thinking not critical thinking.
What is the bug up your butt about Aquinas?
I am not the that has been evading the question AFTER your addiction to evasion was mentioned on the thread.
We could choose almost any starting point, but let us begin with the recovery of Aristotelian logic by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.
That is not critical thinking. Aristotelian thinking was already popular in the Church. It is the tendency to use Aristotle as a god of knowledge that lead the church down so many blind alleys.
In his hands the logical procedures so carefully laid out by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle were used to defend the dogmas of Christianity
With the aid of the Inquisition and the murder of innocents. To SUPPRESS critical thinking, not to use it himself.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2011
If you don't like this fact, tough.
It is an OPINION not a fact. It IS an answer no matter how stupid it is. After you evaded giving any answer six times. And it a LOUSY reason for pretending he was responsible for the Enlightenment. By that standard ARISTOTLE not Thomas was responsible.

The enlightenment was in no way about defending religious dogma with bad logic. And that wasn't actually what you were originally claiming. You were attempting to claim the Church encouraged critical thinking and you used Thomas as an example of that. He was pretty much the opposite of a person that used critical thought. He encouraged torture and murder to SUPPRESS critical thought. Just one more sign that you don't understand what the term means.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2011
That is BUSINESS thinking not critical thinking.

Never been in business either.
a large group of people who's welfare is utterly dependent on the fortunes of those very wealthy,

That is what we now have and it is because of 'progressivism' or its more accurate name, socialism.

The best that can be said of ownership is that it consists of the ability to command some set of the services of an asset, and be liable for some set of its risks,

YA! And this results in higher productivity for all and enables the law to hold an INDIVIDUAL responsible for the violation of other's rights.
The people responsible for building houses and schools on Love Canal was he city of Niagra. NOT Hooker Chemical. But who is held to account? The govt? No. I guess that's why so many like socialism some benefits with no risk.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2011
By the way, that first passage you cite refers to native Africans, not Americans. Next time try a less obvious quotemine.

p.66, Says Native Americans in my book.

So you can't read either.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2011
Ethel, the French Revolution is said to be a product and contributor to the Enlightenment. How many were murdered and tortured during that revolution and how many more from the socialist govts that followed?

SH, so you say. p 66 states clearly, Native Americans. http:/books.google.com/books?id=Of0-O60NIPUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=indigenous+Peoples+and+Real+Estate+Valuation&source=bl&ots=-h9bmxtWge&sig=wHt15Q_lDTCQthmIOxVxvs35304&hl=en&ei=Z8RSTdmsHIudgQfp0YiECA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
frajo
5 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2011
the French Revolution is said to be a product and contributor to the Enlightenment. How many were murdered and tortured during that revolution and how many more from the socialist govts that followed?
The socialist governments that followed the French revolution? Which "socialist government" do you mean, the Napoleonic era 1804 through 1815, the ensuing monarchy under Louis XVIII, the monarchies in Prussia, Austria, Russia, or Britain?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2011
"The French Revolution made the modern revolutionary. It gave the revolutionary a focal point through which energies could be concentrated in the interests of social reform. In France, these energies tended more toward a communist-inspired collectivist state where the individual was considered as part of the collective body. "

http:/www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture20a.html
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2011
We had that previously too, it was during the period of about 1880-1929. The cause then was the same as the cause now: an unwillingness of the government to do their job and mediate ongoing discussions of property rights. Natural Law property theory doesn't work is because it is impossible for an individual to be the sole bearer of the set of benefits and risks that derive from an asset. The members of that set cannot be determined by market dynamics because a market can only exist once that set is determined. It is impossible for any market participant to price any good when he will not be the sole bearer of benefit or risk derived from a good and doesn't know what set he will be the bearer of, which means he will consistently under or over-price that good. That makes the market unreliable, which makes the fortunes of those who's welfare is tied to the market volatile. The closer a society gets to adopting Natural Law property theory, the less reliable its markets become.
frajo
5 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2011
"The French Revolution made the modern revolutionary. It gave the revolutionary a focal point through which energies could be concentrated in the interests of social reform. In France, these energies tended more toward a communist-inspired collectivist state where the individual was considered as part of the collective body. "

http:/www.historyguide.org/...

This quote doesn't answer my question. Either you don't understand the difference or you are a coward by evading to answer my question.

Your comments are the worst example of faked discourse by a discourse-blind person I've ever seen in the net. Quote mining without understanding doesn't make you a mature netizen. Your are an embarrassment for educated conservatives.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2011
This quote doesn't answer my question.

"The history of socialism has its origins in the French Revolution of 1789 and the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, "
http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism
The fundamental flaw of the French Revolution that leads to socialism is the Rights of Man (collective), not the Rights of Men (individual).
That France and other countries had various govts in the next few decades doesn't change the end result of the socialism spreading through out Europe.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2011
the Rights of Man (collective), not the Rights of Men (individual)
Yet another false dichotomy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2011
the Rights of Man (collective), not the Rights of Men (individual)
Yet another false dichotomy.

"The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation. "
Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
Declaration of Independence, 1776.
A significant difference.
The French say the state is sovereign and the US said the individual is sovereign.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2011
The French say the state is sovereign and the US said the individual is sovereign.
And the truth is somewhere in between.

Which is where the US and France have wound up, approaching asymptotically from opposite directions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2011
The French say the state is sovereign and the US said the individual is sovereign.
And the truth is somewhere in between.

Which is where the US and France have wound up, approaching asymptotically from opposite directions.

What's in between?
The socialists here state that rights are granted by the state instead of being inherent. I don't understand why anyone would accept that a majority of their fellows would decide their right to exist.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2011
What's in between?
The state is sovereign in its ways, and the individual is sovereign in his/her ways. There's also something in between the individual and the state: the family unit, and above that the community. And those have their own levels and spheres of sovereignty.

And then there are all the things that can't be owned or governed by anyone or any organization, and can only be construed as belonging equally to the collective total of all humanity.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2011
What's in between?
The state is sovereign in its ways, and the individual is sovereign in his/her ways. There's also something in between the individual and the state: the family unit, and above that the community. And those have their own levels and spheres of sovereignty.

And then there are all the things that can't be owned or governed by anyone or any organization, and can only be construed as belonging equally to the collective total of all humanity.

That sounds so warm and fuzzy. Hope that makes you feel better.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2011
That sounds so warm and fuzzy. Hope that makes you feel better.
You have a better suggestion?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2011
He probably would have preferred it if I quote-mined the answer, instead of thinking and speaking on my own.
Mandan
not rated yet Feb 10, 2011
Maybe you should learn that you should have used the past tense of the verb "renowned" instead of using the noun form "renown" yourself. "Jesus was renown for..." is meaningless.
My apologies. You are correct. I should have used renowned in my sentence. However, renowned is an adjective, not a verb.

re-nowned (r-nound)
adj.
Having renown; famous.

http:/www.thefreedictionary.com/renowned


Renown is a noun. The words "was renowned" function as a past participle-- which is a verb form. Participles are verb forms that do indeed act as adjectives-- but this does not mean they are not verb forms. So I was not wrong in what I said, I just didn't feel it was necessary to give an entire grammar lesson. But you are implying that because "renowned" functions as an adjective it is not a verb. This is not correct. Sorry.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2011
He probably would have preferred it if I quote-mined the answer, instead of thinking and speaking on my own.

Some logic and rational based upon some sort of standard could be a start.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 10, 2011
There is a standard. It's called inter-subjective agreement. The nature of property has to be decided before it can be traded, and that needs to be under review because new forms of property, new ways of trading it to others, and new discoveries about property change our awareness of the sets of benefits and risks that attach to a particular material asset and to whom those sets accrue. It is up to the individual to decide when and at what price to sell or buy property. It is up to society to decide upon the set of benefits and risks that make up ownership. If you own a house, there are things you can do with it, and things you are liable for with regard to it. But there's also a bunch of things you can't do with it, and risks associated with it you are not required to be liable for. The individual is responsible for what he does with the sets of benefits and liabilities of the things that he owns. The society (i.e. government) is responsible for defining the sets.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2011
Ethel, the French Revolution is said to be a product and contributor to the Enlightenment.
Said by which blithering idiot? The Froggy Revolution was the end of the Age of Enlightenment.
How many were murdered and tortured during that revolution and how many more from the socialist govts that followed?
Lots were murdered and YOU are the one claiming the Age Of Enlightenment was founded by a man that advocated murder to support his religion. And the government that followed was a dictatorship. Followed by a new king.

I can't help it if you see socialists under your bed and in your closet. Did mommy try to stop you from playing with yourself by telling you the Big Bad Socialist would take away your copy of Atlas Jerked? Is that your problem?

he principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation.
A NATION is defined by its PEOPLE. So the sovereignty of a State is based on its people IF the State is a Nation-State which is what France was and is.

Etheled
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2011
I can't help it if you see socialists under your bed and in your closet. Did mommy try to stop you from playing with yourself by telling you the Big Bad Socialist would take away your copy of Atlas Jerked? Is that your problem?
I'm going to shamelessly steal this retort as it's one of the funniest I've seen in a while.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2011
A NATION is defined by its PEOPLE. So the sovereignty of a State is based on its people IF the State is a Nation-State which is what France was and is.

Ok. Then there should be no argument about dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities. Total war against the population is justified if the nation is defined by its people.
This is what the Islamic radicals believe as they continue to attack civilians.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2011
I can't help it if you see socialists under your bed and in your closet. Did mommy try to stop you from playing with yourself by telling you the Big Bad Socialist would take away your copy of Atlas Jerked? Is that your problem?
I'm going to shamelessly steal this retort as it's one of the funniest I've seen in a while.

Why do you 'progressives' think this is funny? It reminds me of 8th grade.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2011
One significant aspect of critical thinking is self-critique. Maybe Ethel and SH are being called socialists because they support socialist ideas but refuse to acknowledge them.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 10, 2011
And maybe they call you a moron because you support moronic ideas but refuse to acknowledge their idiocy?
PinkElephant
4.8 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2011
Total war against the population is justified if the nation is defined by its people.
A democratic nation governed by elected representatives is defined by the majority of its people (assuming roughly proportional representation.) Thus, total war against the majority of the population is justified. Trouble is, how do you tell who's in the majority vs. the minority? If you can't, then you can't justify total war.

That's even before considering the nonvoting contingent, such as children and the disenfranchised.

Basically, the theory of just war relies on a key postulate of not targeting innocents. Terrorists indiscriminately target everyone including innocents, which is what makes them terrorists. Guerrilla fighters who selectively target enemy combatants (but otherwise employ asymmetric tactics indistinguishable from "terrorists") can't be called terrorists.
It reminds me of 8th grade.
It's funny because you think everybody grew up and lives on a farm.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2011
One significant aspect of critical thinking is self-critique. Maybe Ethel and SH are being called socialists because they support socialist ideas but refuse to acknowledge them.

The only people who call us socialists are the people who, when challenged, cannot properly define socialism. Perhaps you need to turn that introspective mirror in another direction, Webster.
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2011
Trouble is, how do you tell who's in the majority vs. the minority? If you can't, then you can't justify total war


Unless you believe that the end justifies the means. I guess it depends on your morality. There's a scene in the movie "the thin red line" where they are arguing about how many men's lives it is worth to capture the island, and Nick Nolte's character asks something like "are you prepared to sacrifice ANY of your men?". It is always a value judgement of cost versus how important the goal is, and it's always a 'shades of gray' rather than 'black and white' situation, unless your morality insists that no sacrifice at all is tollerable.

Killing a thousand people is bad, right? What about killing a thousand adults in order to save a thousand children? What if you have a rifle and there's a guy in a crowd with a bomb. You can save the crowd by shooting the guy, but you know that your shot will go through the guy and kill somebody behind him. Do you shoot?
Skultch
5 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2011
This is nice and concise example of Marjon's misology.

Scientists should study our Mongo / Mangy / Marjon. I'm thinking fMRI during attempts at critical thinking. (notice the word attempt)

Is there anyone well versed on brain regions that could suggest an area(s) they should be comparing to the control?

Ooooh!! Mongo!! Do you happen to have an identical twin? Now THAT could lead to an interesting case study.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2011
One significant aspect of critical thinking is self-critique. Maybe Ethel and SH are being called socialists because they support socialist ideas but refuse to acknowledge them.

The only people who call us socialists are the people who, when challenged, cannot properly define socialism. Perhaps you need to turn that introspective mirror in another direction, Webster.

Socialism has been defined quite properly, many times.

Ethel assets the people define the nation. The USA nation is defined by an idea.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2011
Trouble is, how do you tell who's in the majority vs. the minority? If you can't, then you can't justify total war.

That's not what Ethel implies. The people make the nation. What do majorities have to do with it?
If a powerful minority, like radical Islamists are creating war, don't let them hide in mosques or in neighborhoods. Destroy the neighborhoods. Destroy the Mosques. Follow the lessons of Sherman. Before long, the majority will have to take a side.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2011
Ethel assets the people define the nation. The USA nation is defined by an idea.
Can you show us a nation that exists sans people? Do you not understand how absolutely ridiculous your assertion is?

There's a lot of name calling and ridiculous asserting that originates with you in these threads. It appears a new theory of physorg is necessary.

The loger a commentary thread is actively followed, the more likely Marjon will call someone a socialist without ever defining what he means through usage of the term. Beyond that Marjon will always assert that someone is a "name calling liberal socialist".
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2011
Beyond that Marjon will always assert that someone is a "name calling liberal socialist".


Yeah, that's not fair. I wouldn't call you socialist in a million years. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2011
I have defined 'socialism' many, many, many times.
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 10, 2011
And your definitions are always ridiculous. Often, what you define as socialism is simply reality itself, implying that the only people who are not socialists are people who are completely divorced from reality.

Moreover, you fling the term socialist around like it's an insult (as if it could be an insult to believe true things about the world), when you offer no reliable evidence that even self-described socialist governments are worse than others. You are the epitome of anti-critical thought.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2011
The longer the thread of comments to an article, the more the article itself becomes insignificant.

I find that 'critical'. Not sure if there's thinking involved with saying that. I 'just' read.

I feel all human language has agenda.
I'm 'damned' if I don't. I'm 'damned' if I do:
To reply or not to reply. To 'agenda'.

I have the capacity. To die.
What a senseless remark!
For those never born.

That, I feel, 'approaches' 'socialism'
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2011
Destroy the neighborhoods. Destroy the Mosques. Follow the lessons of Sherman. Before long, the majority will have to take a side.
Such lovely, human sentiments. I hope the thought of turning women and children into hamburger meat warms your heart as much as it does mine. Finally, we have something in common!

[For those too dense to get it, that was sarcasm...]
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2011
Socialism: state control of property.

It is quite clear that the more control a government has over the economy (socialism) the less wealth is created by 'the people'.

Governmnets do NOT create wealth. Govts can only destroy wealth. That is quite real and can be observed daily around the world.

Socialist is not an insult to those who embrace socialism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2011
Destroy the neighborhoods. Destroy the Mosques. Follow the lessons of Sherman. Before long, the majority will have to take a side.
Such lovely, human sentiments. I hope the thought of turning women and children into hamburger meat warms your heart as much as it does mine. Finally, we have something in common!

[For those too dense to get it, that was sarcasm...]

I am just expanding upon Ethel's definition of a nation and taking it down the logical path.
"A teenage suicide bomber wearing a school uniform killed at least 27 soldiers at a military training center in northwest Pakistan on Thursday, police and intelligence officials said. "
http:/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021000674.html
Apparently Ethel is correct. Women and children are combatants.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 10, 2011
"State control of property" is a truism. States can and do control property all the time, at every level, and always have. Governments create wealth all the time, and are responsible for creating the conditions under which any private wealth creation is possible. And if "socialist" is not intended as an insult, then why do you use it like one?
frajo
5 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2011
If a powerful minority, like radical Islamists are creating war, don't let them hide in mosques or in neighborhoods. Destroy the neighborhoods. Destroy the Mosques.
That's promoting mass murder.
And that's an invitation to become victim of mass murder.
frajo
5 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2011
Socialist is not an insult to those who embrace socialism.
It is an insult when the insulting person is insinuating an anti-socialist definition of socialism.
Gawad
5 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2011
Governmnets do NOT create wealth. Govts can only destroy wealth. That is quite real and can be observed daily around the world.
This statement is empirically wrong. Governments *can* create wealth, just as businesses and individuals can. Whether they actually do or not is circumstantial. Crown corporations such as Hydro Quebec create wealth. Period. Now, whether they do so better than non-government entities or not is certainly debatable, but your flat out statement implying that it is not even possible is simply ideological BS.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2011
Gawad: HQ is a govt owned corporation. (Why did the govt choose a corporate model? Why not a govt agency?) The only shareholder is the govt. How did the govt obtain the money to start HQ? The money had to first be TAKEN from those individuals who created that wealth.
HQ is probably a monopoly and therefore operates in a protected market.
Freddie and Fannie are 'govt sponsored enterprises' in the USA and are supported by taxes to keep them from going bankrupt.
Gawad
5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2011
Marjon, you're making my point. The initial 1943 takeover of Mtl Light Heat & Power was hostile and used money from the government's coffers. But that's *irrelevant* to your point: that governments can only destroy wealth.

HQ is a perfect example of a government owned and run utility that CREATES WEALTH and has since it's inception. Hell, a lot of Quebecers would even say it was TOO GOOD at creating wealth and put pressure on it not to damn and turbine everything that flowed in the province! Christ man, you're from northern New England so there's a fair chance YOU'RE getting some of your power from HQ! Not only does it bleedingly obviously create wealth, but it does so BETTER than most private US power companies while keeping local rates below the NA average AND turning consistent profits. Enron anyone?

You're just plain flat out idiotically WRONG about this. And in no small part because of your ideological blinders. Seriously Marj, I'm a conservative, but you're an embarrassment.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2011
Beyond that Marjon will always assert that someone is a "name calling liberal socialist".


Yeah, that's not fair. I wouldn't call you socialist in a million years. :)

Wellone sir:)n well done,.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2011
Marjon, you're making my point. The initial 1943 takeover of Mtl Light Heat & Power was hostile and used money from the government's coffers. But that's *irrelevant* to your point: that governments can only destroy wealth.

How much profit is being made by the govt? What is the return to the shareholders (citizens)? Do you get lower taxes? A dividend check?
Was the tax money taken repaid?
If the Canadian govt is so good at creating wealth, you shouldn't have to pay any taxes.
"In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, held steady at 39.7 percent of GDP. Privatization is widespread, and the government encourages competition even in sectors formerly operated by government or in privately owned monopolies."
http:/www.heritage.org/index/country/Canada
Why is Canada privatizing if the govt creates so much wealth?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2011
Marjon, do you have a point in contrast or are you just being a douche as usual?
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2011
How much profit is being made by the govt?
HQ generated 3 billion in profits last year.
What is the return to the shareholders (citizens)? Do you get lower taxes? A dividend check?
Was the tax money taken repaid?
Well, for one we get lower rates than average in NA, and yes, HQ profits go into the government coffers, which serves to offset taxes
If the Canadian govt is so good at creating wealth, you shouldn't have to pay any taxes.
ROTFLMAO! Well we're doing better than you guys by a mile right now, eh? I already know you're unable to destinguish between wealth and money, but rest assured, the *profits* offset taxes. BTW, e.g., Alberta, has enough wealth that it has no sales tax and personal income tax is only a flat 10%.

"...and the government encourages competition even in sectors formerly operated by government or in privately owned monopolies." Why is Canada privatizing if the govt creates so much wealth?
Same reasons a business might want to sell assets.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2011
Marjon, do you have a point in contrast or are you just being a douche as usual?
Well, at any rate it doesn't look like a point.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2011
Oh, and speaking of Alberta! That reminds me: Ralph Bucks!!!

In 2005 Alberta instituted a Prosperity Bonus program that saw every man, woman and child get $400 tax free from the provincial government as a way of spreading its financial surplus. In 2008, IIRC, they got them twice. In effect, this is very much like getting a dividend check.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2011
Well we're doing better than you guys by a mile right now,

And do you know why? Canada is limiting its govt control of the economy.
New Zealand ended ag subsidies and their ag businesses is booming.
The best role for a govt to support wealth creation is to protect property rights.
In the US, utility companies are essentially owned by the govt. TX and the the SW are loosing wealth because of rolling blackouts. The govt restricts the building of new plants destroying wealth creation.

$400 tax free. Wow. How many other taxes are paid to off set that? What is the TOTAL tax burden? That is what the govt IS doing to you.
Maybe you should all invest that into MRI machines. I hear they are in great demand in Canada.
Just one more point to to make, how do you ensure your state run business is operating at peak efficiency? It is a monopoly. So a govt monopoly is good, but a company that has 90% market share, NOT a monopoly, is bad?
Skultch
5 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2011
Am I the only one that gets enjoyment out of watching Marjon backtrack then argue with no one about nothing? :)

Marjon,

oh....I mean ryggesogn2,

Will you now admit that a govt CAN create wealth? Will you at least promise to never say that govts absolutely cannot create wealth? I mean, this isn't the first time you have been proven wrong about this. IIRC, WWII military buildup was pointed out to you as a US example.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2011
Will you now admit that a govt CAN create wealth?

No because the govt must first TAKE wealth that was created from others and the govt must monopolize that industry. Innovation and wealth creation by the free market is lost to the govt monopoly. The govt destroys that wealth potential.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 11, 2011
What is a government, marjon? How can a government which is of, by and for the people be divorced from those people in such a way as to take things from them?

What is wealth, and how is it created? What's the difference between wealth and value?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2011
Will you now admit that a govt CAN create wealth?

No because the govt must first TAKE wealth that was created from others and the govt must monopolize that industry.
You mean just like a corporation?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2011
What is a government, marjon?

Force, coercion, power.
How can a government which is of, by and for the people be divorced from those people in such a way as to take things from them?

Force, coercion, power.

What is wealth,

Goods and services people need and want.
and how is it created?
By the actions of people.
What's the difference between wealth and value?

Wealth are the goods and services people value.
I like to use a entropy as a measure of wealth creation. Creating order from disorder most efficiently, turning sand into glass for example. Its value depends upon what measure of wealth the customer is willing to trade for that product. In such a trade the customer values the glass more than the wealth he trades for the glass. Wealth increased with that trade as both parties have a product they value more.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2011
Will you now admit that a govt CAN create wealth?

No because the govt must first TAKE wealth that was created from others and the govt must monopolize that industry.
You mean just like a corporation?

The only corporations that can use force are those that are given sanction to do so by the state. Unions can force people to pay them because they have govt sanction in many states.
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2011
I can use force, I can coerce people, and I can wield power, and if I'm smart about it, nobody else can stop me. I must be a government!

Services are wealth? Goods are wealth? How so? They're only wealth if people want and need them? What if they want them now but not later? Only people create wealth? Wealth can't be found just lying around in some places? And value is just a ratio between two wealths? I don't even know how any of that makes sense.

Here's the truth: Government is the sovereign authority of the people. A democratic government cannot be divided from the people. Wealth is an objective measure of ability to influence value, in itself, wealth is only valuable instrumentally. Value is a subjective measure of the desirability of a good or service. Wealth can be created (or discovered) and destroyed (or lost). Value can only be increased or decreased through appropriate application of wealth.
Gawad
5 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2011
What is a government, marjon?

Force, coercion, power.
Wow, that's pretty hard core equivocation, Marj. Way to start an argument!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2011
The only corporations that can use force are those that are given sanction to do so by the state.
But who is the state? Ah yes, that's right, it's the representative of the people in the US. So it's the people vs Corporations.
Unions can force people to pay them because they have govt sanction in many states.
No, Unions can force businesses and the people to pay them. They can force businesses to do so through working for a business, like Shaws. They can force the people by working for the state. Now I don't support federal unions. I don't really support Unions. I think Unions, in most cases, are mini corporations that exist only to make the Union heads rich. Like the AFL-CIO and the IBEW, etc.

I think organizations like those, where the Union administration doesn't even have employment in the field any longer should be treated as a corporation, and it's employees should be paid by the Union. That would control unions from becomming too large and corrupt.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2011
HEY! This gives me an idea for a drinking game! O.k. everybody, let's try this: every time Marjon commits a logical fallacy, we swing one back. Last one typing wins!
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2011
The right of federal employees to unionize is enshrined in the rights to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances. And since I am of the opinion that rights recognized by the government (i.e. the people) ought to be protected from encroachment from both public and private infringement, I don't have a problem with private employee unions either. Indeed, the problem with unions appears to be administrative in nature. Whereas, the very existence of corporations appears to involve the private abrogation of rights.

@Gawad, alternatively, the first one who thinks he makes sense wins.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2011
Government is the sovereign authority of the people.

How many of 'the people'? 50.000001%? Then there are no limits upon what the majority can do to a minority?

How does a right to join a union devolve to being forced, by law, to join a union in order to work?

This is just another example of how the govt destroys wealth. States that have right to work laws attract companies increasing the wealth in that state and empower the employees to improve the quality of their products and their own personal lives with opportunities to advance unrestricted by union rules.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2011
Example of govt power:
"In direct contradiction to the very idea of a limited government, every single American is required each year to open, under penalty of law, his entire financial life to the prying eyes of government bureaucrats and pay up, on demand, whatever the Internal Revenue Service claims he owes, with little meaningful recourse to the law. The IRS enjoys powers that would make the KGB blush, including the “right” to extract information from “suspects” without a warrant and to seize property without due process "
"In 1984, IRS agents actually kept parents from taking their children out of the Engleworld Learning Center in Allen Park, Michigan, until they agreed to pay to the IRS their outstanding debt to the day-care center — to cover taxes owed, not by the parents (that would have been bad enough), but by the center. "
http:/www.fff.org/comment/com0404b.asp
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2011
Everybody's in somebody's minority, marjon. That's why the majority always has an interest in not being too heavy-handed with how they use public resources to interfere without warrant in the affairs of others.

The law enforces contracts. The employees of a business get together and write a contract with the owner of that business that the owner agrees to only hire employees who will contribute to the employee's organization. The owner could have just fired 'em all, but if the employees are skilled and rare, and dedicated to advocating against that business if they do fire 'em, he might sign the contract. Nobody used force, and everything that is done or threatened is within everybody's respective rights. What are you complaining about precisely?
(cont)
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2011
Federal and state employee unions are a matter of Constitutional protection of recognized rights. State employees, because they are also citizens, have a proprietary interest (the same one we all have) in the performance of that branch of government they serve. Because they are also employees of the State, they are in a unique position requiring independent representation in government.

States with right to work laws have the biggest problems with illegal immigration, and every single one of their state governments are running deficits. Right to work states impoverish the people of that state and enrichen the people who own those businesses, who live wherever the hell they want, if not the middle of nowhere like the Waltons, then New York, LA, London, Paris, etc. Who do you want made more wealthy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2011
The employees of a business get together and write a contract with the owner of that business that the owner agrees to only hire employees who will contribute to the employee's organization.

Business are forced by the state to hire union employees. There is no contract.
A casino in LV, NV tried to follow the law and have their employees have a secret vote whether to have a union. The union did not like the secret vote especially since they have public card check system in place now.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2011
In which states, marjon? If you want to do business with the government, then the government can make whatever rules it wants for those contractors to follow, and that usually just involves paying prevailing wage rates, % minority hires, and occasionally benefits requirements, which is what a union does anyway. And employee organizations face significant pressure from employers, which is why they might not want their proceedings to be secret. It's up to that organization whether it wants its participants to be secret, not the employers. In fact, a signed petition ought to be enough to start a union.

But no private business that does business solely with private entities is forced by any law in any state to hire only union employees.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2011
1 of 5
Well we're doing better than you guys
And do you know why? Canada is limiting its govt control of the economy.
In CANADA? like vs. whom? Denmark? Oh well, yeah, o.k.! What? No? Oh, you meant the States! Peuhleeeze! That's completely contradictory to this little inconvenient thing we call...reality. The fundamental reason is that Canada has traditionally imposed much tighter controls on its banking sector (mainly made up of just seven big banks) than the US does on its own, thereby allowing our banking sector to weather the crisis brought on by YOUR foolish out of control lending practices much better than you did. The reports have been in for a while Marj, try to work up some critical thinking and make use of it!
The best role for a govt to support wealth creation is to protect property rights.
Meh. That's an interesting opinion, and I agree it's VERY important. Is it no. 1, 2, or 3? Whatever, take your pick.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2011
2 of 5
In the US, utility companies are essentially owned by the govt.
Let me guess Marj, because govt imposes regulations? Listen...can you hear that? It's the world's smallest violin.
TX and the SW are loosing wealth because of rolling blackouts.
Well, obviously you have problems we don't. How can that be? HQ is entirely own and operated by the Quebec government. Go figure. Oh, wait a minute. YOU were the one who pointed that out, you know, that the SOLE shareholder is the provincial govt. Well then, maybe tighter regulations and closer oversight might solve your problems, hummm?
The govt restricts the building of new plants destroying wealth creation.
Meh. O.k., maybe. Government may restrict this for several reasons, some rational (e.g., offshore arctic drilling being very risky) some not so much (e.g. MAPLE I & II reactors in Canada-even if they're not for power generation). It's all very subjective; care to provide a specific example?
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2011
3 of 5
$400 tax free. Wow. How many other taxes are paid to off set that? What is the TOTAL tax burden?
I told you (*sigh*), Alberta's tax rates are the lowest in Canada. Flat 10% rate after the fist $16 000 or so.
That is what the govt IS doing to you.
I know! I feel so, you know..."violated". Goodness, is that how you feel too? Violated? Is that..is that how you became such a Marjon? I'm so sorry! Well, except for when I use roads, turn on the lights or have to go to the hospital or CLSC. Not, of course that any of that stuff constitutes WEALTH in any shape form or manner. That's why I otherwise feel thoroughly violate. Just like you.
Maybe you should all invest that into MRI machines.
They actually DID bring that up! Good on you Marj! However, meeting specific health care needs being a provincial matter in Canada, since the Alberta government determined that overall demand for medical imagery was being met in their province they decided to stick with Ralph Bucks.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2011
4 of 5
Just one more point to make, how do you ensure your state run business is operating at peak efficiency? It is a monopoly. So a govt monopoly is good, but a company that has 90% market share, NOT a monopoly, is bad?
I actually think this is a good and an important point. Er, well, question at any rate. Actually the only good and important point you've made this whole discussion. Aw hell, it's the only point you've made that isn't bat sh*t crazy.
Personally, I don't think the fact a company commands 90% or even 100% of a market is bad in and of itself. There are legitimate reasons why a company may develop into a natural monopoly. If a company has engaged in competitive but not predatory or parasitic behaviour to achieve this, and if it is not engaging in practices that are *designed* to maintain the status quo *by preventing future competition*, then great. They must therefore be fulfilling their customers' expectations.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2011
5 of 5

This could be a problem for state monopolies, as they can legislate out competition (and usually do), even if because economies of scale are an important factor in that market segment. This can lead to serious inefficiencies as the company is not a natural monopoly and it is legally protected from competitors.

The safeguard has two broad parts.

1st, a state monopoly's mandate can be very different from that of a private company. With crown corps, their 1st order of business is typically to *serve the public* rather than turn a profit. The latter may also be considered important, but will usually take 2nd place. Indeed, in the case of HQ their mandate explicitly states they are to provide the Quebec public with THE LOWEST RATES CONSISTANT WITH SOUND MANAGEMENT.

The 2nd is that while the crown corporation is accountable directly to politicos, in a democracy these politicos are answerable to the public. This is what that keeps crown corps honest and in line with their mandate.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2011
THE LOWEST RATES CONSISTANT WITH SOUND MANAGEMENT.
What does that mean?
My guess there is no restriction on being able to take taxpayers money to bail them out if needed.
...in a democracy these politicos are answerable to the public.This is what that keeps crown corps honest and in line with their mandate.

Voters keep politicians honest? Really?
There are legitimate reasons why a company may develop into a natural monopoly. If a company has engaged in competitive but not predatory or parasitic behaviour to achieve this, and if it is not engaging in practices that are *designed* to maintain the status quo *by preventing future competition*, then great.

Not according to most here and USA and EU laws.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2011
Alberta government determined that overall demand for medical imagery was being met in their province

What a nice govt to make that decision for you! Shouldn't that be a decision best made by doctors and patients?
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2011
THE LOWEST RATES CONSISTANT WITH SOUND MANAGEMENT.
What does that mean?
Apparently whatever Marjon wants it to.
My guess there is no restriction on being able to take taxpayers money to bail them out if needed.
Hey, fine. Put up or shut up: demonstrate how Hydro Quebec has been managed any worse that a private utility. DO IT!
Gawad
not rated yet Feb 11, 2011
Alberta government determined that overall demand for medical imagery was being met in their province
What a nice govt to make that decision for you! Shouldn't that be a decision best made by doctors and patients?
Well who the hell do you think they consulted? Mamma Mia the Mystic Fourtune Teller? Please, stop! I'm getting abdominal cramps!
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2011
In USA, the original construct of "corporation" was indeed that of a temporarily chartered nonprofit accountable to the government and formed to fulfill a specific public service not addressed by the private sector. We still have a few surviving to this day, like CPBS and the American Red Cross.

Of course, in more recent times the concept of "corporation" was broadened and perverted to such a degree, that corporations are now legal and for all intents immortal shell entities endowed with personhood and inalienable rights and granted freedoms and preferred status not available to even full-blooded human beings. And most of them are chartered to psychotically maximize profits to shareholders at any and all costs (the so-called "fiduciary duty"), rather than provide any public good per se.

We resurrected the Robber Barons, enthroned them in Washington, and clad them in shiny new impenetrable armor. Then we started wondering what's wrong with the world, and blaming the "socialists"...
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2011
Voters keep politicians honest? Really?
My, my, we are a thoroughly paranoid little Marjon, are we? You know, this has actually been known to happen from time to time.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2011
Will you now admit that a govt CAN create wealth?
Forget it, that'll never happen. It can't. Doing so would so completely and utterly annihilate his would view that there would nothing left for him to do but to pack up and head to Catatonia.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2011
Put up or shut up: demonstrate how Hydro Quebec has been managed any worse that a private utility.

There is no private utility in the USA. They are ALL controlled by govt agencies. In addition to a state board to set prices, federal govt agencies control the industry. Obama stated the govt will keep more coal fired plants from opening by using regulations to raise their costs so they can't make profit.
If HQ is well managed, good for them, but at what opportunity costs?
A more decentralized power grid is being promoted for efficiency, lower costs and reliability. Toshiba makes a sealed nuclear reactor that can power a small city or an apartment building. If the govt has a monopoly like HQ, what incentive do they have to support or approve alternatives? Seems like a conflict of interest.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2011
"Barack Obama, Coal and Electricity:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”"
http:/deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/11/obama-and-coal-obama-policies-would-bankrupt-coal-industry-and-skyrocketing-electricity/

This govt certainly want to destroy wealth.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2011
For those who don't believe govt is force, look at the photo of a tank on the streets of Cairo.
I can use a .30-06 to get food, defend my property or violate someone's rights.
Socialists are like Borimar in Lord of the Rings. They want to use the power to do 'good'. But to accomplish this 'good' they must commit evil by violating the rights of others.
Govt power must be well defined and limited to keep it from committing evil acts.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2011
using regulations to raise their costs so they can't make profit.
Or alternatively, making them actually pay for the costs they were already incurring but surreptitiously foisting upon the rest of the world.
A more decentralized power grid is being promoted for efficiency, lower costs and reliability.
Smaller generators are less efficient. More interconnections and load-balancers means higher complexity and thus higher deployment and maintenance costs. The only up-front benefit is reliability. The long-term benefit is localized small-scale renewable power generation.
what incentive do they have to support or approve alternatives?
The demands from their electorate.

By the same token, what incentive does the established coal/gas industry have in allowing those theoretical Japanese sealed small reactors to be deployed? Being established gives you the upper hand, and allows you to smother through price wars.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2011
I can use a .30-06 to get food, defend my property or violate someone's rights.
Same thing with government.
Socialists are like Borimar in Lord of the Rings.
That's "Boromir".
But to accomplish this 'good' they must commit evil by violating the rights of others.
But more often than not, those others are the ones who would like to do evil.
Govt power must be well defined and limited to keep it from committing evil acts.
Also, the sky is blue and sugar is sweet.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2011
I like to use a entropy as a measure of wealth creation. Creating order from disorder most efficiently, turning sand into glass for example
"A entropy"? "An entropy"? How about "two entropies"?
Ever heard of closed systems? How do you create order in a closed system without creating more disorder?
And why should glass be more ordered than sand? Don't you know that you need a lot of energy, most of which is dissipated, to produce glass from sand?

Every accumulation of wealth is creating disorder in the remainder of the universe. As long as this disorder doesn't negatively affect human beings the accumulation of wealth is ethically justifiable.
Otherwise not.
If seeking your advantage is detrimental to a majority of mankind then mankind will expel you (on a historical time scale).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2011
Every accumulation of wealth is creating disorder in the remainder of the universe.

Life is creating order from disorder. Do you plan to commit suicide to save the universe frajo?
If seeking your advantage is detrimental to a majority of mankind then mankind will expel you

That's the power of free markets. Wealth is created that benefits all. We are seeing this around the world and what is being expelled is socialism, anti-wealth.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2011
Wealth is created that benefits all.
According to your chosen mentor wealth is a product of robbery.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2011
Wealth is created that benefits all.
According to your chosen mentor wealth is a product of robbery.

Then you will be first in line to return your stolen property? Where do you plan to move to? How many times was your home property stolen by some king or empire from the previous occupants?
My ancestors were the first to occupy Scandinavia after the last ice age.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2011
Even with a monopoly, the USPS can't make ends meet:
"The USPS, a self-supporting government agency that receives no tax dollars, said it suffered a loss of $329 million in the first quarter of federal fiscal year 2011. That compared with a loss of $297 million a year earlier."
http:/money.cnn.com/2011/02/09/news/economy/postal_service/index.htm
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2011
More govt destroying wealth:

"In the last two years, NuVasive estimates that FDA approval times have led to revenue losses of $70 million, increased operating expenses, and the loss of hundreds of new jobs."
"venture capitalists have stated that they are far more likely to put money into European medical device companies than into American ones.

Read more: http:/dailycaller.com/2011/02/11/the-fda-is-driving-jobs-offshore/#ixzz1DlNf9CRh
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2011
I think the best part of this thread is the utter lack of critical thinking that Marjon shows in regards to his sources and statements. It's an excellent example of Dunning-Krueger, amongst other things.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2011
I note that the socialists here still defend their statism while the economies of such statist govts are collapsing.

And this:
"If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community," he said. "They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value." {sounds like AGWites, too}

http:/www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&ref=johntierney
Note the article was about the liberal bias of social 'scientists' and this is article is under the Social Science tab of this site.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2011
I think the best part of this thread is the utter lack of critical thinking that Marjon shows in regards to his sources and statements. It's an excellent example of Dunning-Krueger, amongst other things.

SH, do you claim that regulatory agencies like FDA, EPA, FCC, etc. don't NOT limit economic prosperity in the USA? There is no cost to their regulations? That every regulation is cost effective?
You seem to get quite defensive when your regulatory state is questioned.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2011
Renown is a noun. The words "was renowned" function as a past participle-- which is a verb form. Participles are verb forms that do indeed act as adjectives-- but this does not mean they are not verb forms. So I was not wrong in what I said, I just didn't feel it was necessary to give an entire grammar lesson. But you are implying that because "renowned" functions as an adjective it is not a verb. This is not correct. Sorry.
According to the following site (amongst several), in usage similar to mine, I am correct in stating it's an adjective:

http:/www.grammarglitchcentral.com/2011/02/was-the-giant-renown-or-renowned/

And (as I've already shown) by definition, it's an adjective.

So, I'm inclined to disagree on the verb vs. adjective argument. However, I'm okay with agreeing to disagree.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2011
I think the best part of this thread is the utter lack of critical thinking that Marjon shows in regards to his sources and statements. It's an excellent example of Dunning-Krueger, amongst other things.
SH, do you claim that regulatory agencies like FDA, EPA, FCC, etc. don't NOT limit economic prosperity in the USA?
Strawman.
There is no cost to their regulations?
Another strawman
That every regulation is cost effective?
Another one.

You seem to get quite defensive when your regulatory state is questioned.
Not my state, our Republic, or Rule of Law.
You seem to not understand my comment above.

Do you ever have an original thought? Your posts to seem to show otherwise as they're mainly a quote rip from someone else's opinion followed by "(Insert random government agency/Democrat/regulation/House or Senate Bill/random ethnic or political generalization here) is ruining America."
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2011
Wealth is created that benefits all.
According to your chosen mentor wealth is a product of robbery.
Then you will be first in line to return your stolen property?
You assume I have property; you assume I'm wealthy. Why?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2011
Wealth is created that benefits all.
According to your chosen mentor wealth is a product of robbery.
Then you will be first in line to return your stolen property?
You assume I have property; you assume I'm wealthy. Why?

You must stay someplace. Does the property you stay in have clear title to the first homo sapien to build a hut there?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2011
One reason I post sources is to demonstrate I don't make stuff up and given the 'liberal' nature of most on this site, I may provide sources they have never seen before.
soulman
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2011
One reason I post sources is to demonstrate I don't make stuff up and given the 'liberal' nature of most on this site, I may provide sources they have never seen before.

If you substitute 'liberal' in the above quote with 'logical', than I'd agree with you.

The joke is, your so-called quotes are almost always context free non-sequiturs and in an overwhelming number of cases, they actually prove the opposite of your dogmatic position du jour.

(waits for Marjon to ask 'when have I done so?' and other pointless attempts at misdirection and obfuscation).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2011
Soulman, you believe it is logical to be 'liberal'?
'Liberals' seem to be quite illogical from what I have observed.
In particular, one common comment regards socialism. 'Liberals' claim socialism will work IF the correct people are in power.
Popper, who many here seem to follow, was quite critical of Marxism.
'Liberals' also don't seem to understand emergent systems. Determinism seems to be their M.O.
soulman
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2011
(waits for Marjon to ask 'when have I done so?' and OTHER pointless attempts at misdirection and obfuscation).

...And there it is:
Soulman, you believe it is logical to be 'liberal'?
'Liberals' seem to be quite illogical from what I have observed.
In particular, one common comment regards socialism. 'Liberals' claim socialism will work IF the correct people are in power.
Popper, who many here seem to follow, was quite critical of Marxism.
'Liberals' also don't seem to understand emergent systems. Determinism seems to be their M.O.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2011
You must stay someplace. Does the property you stay in have clear title to the first homo sapien to build a hut there?
My topic was wealth and robbery. Not the question where I live.

Do you think a dictator would be better for your country?
You know, Mubarak and shah Reza Pahlevi who you deem to be better for their countries than democracy.
Seems you don't want to tell the truth.
But why? What are you afraid of?
Is it a crime in your country to fight democracy? The fight you obviously are engaged in?
Is "socialism" your code for democracy?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2011
One reason I post sources is to demonstrate I don't make stuff up and given the 'liberal' nature of most on this site, I may provide sources they have never seen before.

It'd be nice if you posted something other than someone else's opinion every time.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2011
One reason I post sources is to demonstrate I don't make stuff up
To be precise: You don't ever publish a thought of your own when quoting something. And that's infuriating people. One can discuss only with users who are present here, on PhysOrg, but not with authors of quotes who may long be dead.
Quoting and links make sense to supplement one's arguments but not to replace an argument.
In fact, you use your quotes and links to hide your own thinking as can be seen by your typical response to direct questions: evasion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2011
frajo, where is the democracy in Egypt? A small percentage of the population of Egypt riot in the street and frajo calls this democracy?
Using that logic, if the tea parties could fill the DC mall everyday with those opposed to Obama and frajo should demand Obama step down.
Will a theocracy in Egypt be better for the world?
"We might be about to see a grand democratic experiment in a country in which large numbers of people hold at least some views that westerners find utterly inconsistent with democracy. Such experiments have been rough rides in the past. As they say in Arabic -- and in English, too -- only God knows what is next." http:/washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/egypts-conflicting-views-democracy-and-religion?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d47f7a385a168f2,0
BTW, where is the democracy in Iran? They have had protests recently yet the world did nothing to support their democracy movement.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2011
Soulman asserted that 'liberalism' is logical yet provides no arguments of support.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2011
Soulman asserted that 'liberalism' is logical
No. You just don't understand what he was conveying:
If you substitute 'liberal' in the above quote with 'logical', than I'd agree with you.
Substituting a word in a statement does not equate the substituting word with the substituted word. Instead it preserves the form of the statement while changing its meaning. (Sorry, I can't write Norwegian.)
soulman
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2011
Soulman asserted that 'liberalism' is logical yet provides no arguments of support.

Because it's self-evident. How about a dictionary definition:

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."

You know, everything you're not?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2011
Soulman asserted that 'liberalism' is logical yet provides no arguments of support.

Because it's self-evident. How about a dictionary definition:

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."

You know, everything you're not?

How do you explain the 'liberal's' support of socialism, an authoritarian attitude?
Given your definition of 'liberal', how can science be practice without following the tradition of the scientific method or the 'authoritarian' peer review process? Elsewhere I noted how 'liberal' sociologists are dogmatic and 'liberals' are quite bigoted.
Breaking news on the democracy movement in Egypt: "Egypt's Military Rulers Reportedly Dissolve Parliament, Suspend Constitution "
http:/www.foxnews.com/
soulman
5 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2011
How do you explain the 'liberal's' support of socialism, an authoritarian attitude?

Ill defined terminology and a straw man.
Given your definition of 'liberal', how can science be practice without following the tradition of the scientific method or the 'authoritarian' peer review process?

How does a liberal outlook preclude practicing the scientific method??? In fact, it's required. Another straw man. Further, there is nothing 'authoritarian' about peer review. If something stands up to scrutiny (testability) it will be accepted. If not, it won't.
Elsewhere I noted...blah, blah

Elsewhere, you've been shown to have distorted and delusional views of the real world...
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2011
Put up or shut up: demonstrate how Hydro Quebec has been managed any worse that a private utility.
There is no private utility in the USA.
How handy for your argument. And yet even HQ allows private operators in local markets (the so call Petites Centrales or mini-centrals). How very odd
If HQ is well managed, good for them, but at what opportunity costs? A more decentralized power grid is being promoted for efficiency, lower costs and reliability. Toshiba makes a sealed nuclear reactor that can power a small city or an apartment building. If the govt has a monopoly like HQ, what incentive do they have to support or approve alternatives? Seems like a conflict of interest.
It isn't. HQ isn't a religion. Hydro dams are their favorite thing because water is so omnipresent in the province and once built they require virtually no maintenance, making them a bargan over the long term. But absolutely nothing stops HQ form investing in other techs if they are as much of one.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2011
How does a liberal outlook preclude practicing the scientific method

You just defined 'liberal' as being "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, ..."
The scientific method IS a traditional, established attitude.
As for scientific dogma, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck.

""If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community," he said. "They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value."
http:/www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&ref=johntierney
If you don't want to check the source, he was talking about 'liberal' sociologists.
soulman
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2011
The scientific method IS a traditional

It's an established system with an excellent track record that continues to work, but it isn't 'traditional' in the normal usage of the word.

And even if it were, you fail the reading comprehension test. The quoted definition is preceded with 'Not limited to or by", which does NOT mean 'absent of'.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck.

Utter nonsense. This quote was made in his youth as he espoused a nascent new theory - quantum theory amongst the prevailing consensus. The fact that QT prevailed is proof enough that evidence trumps establishment every time.

The standards of proof are more exacting when a revolutionary paradigm shift is being proposed.
soulman
5 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2011
Any more cherries to pick or obfuscations to make? Ah yes:

"If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community," he said. "They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value."

Yeah, exactly like the so-called 'group-think' of the previous Chaney [sic] administration? The key difference with science is that it's evidence based, not opinion based, and is therefore self correcting in nature. Scientists make names for them selves by challenging the status quo, not by towing the line.

I fail to see how this is connected to science and the scientific method that you brought up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2011
The key difference with science is that it's evidence based, not opinion based, and is therefore self correcting in nature. Scientists make names for them selves by challenging the status quo, not by towing the line.

Since when? That is not typical of the science community no matter how much you wish it to be.
"Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" (5)—scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.
To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (5)."
"New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community."
http:/des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
soulman
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2011
Since when?

Since always, or at least since the scientific method became widely embraced.
That is not typical of the science community no matter how much you wish it to be.

Yep, it is.
"Normal science" is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like"

First, there is no 'normal' science, just science. Second, bullshit. It's predicated on the scientific method which leads to an expanding knowledge base. The fruits of the knowledge base are available to anyone to consume (even though some prefer a diet of junk food).
scientists take great pains to defend that assumption

Of course they do, the knowledge was hard earned and proven to be true (within experimental constraints).
soulman
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2011
To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments"

Wacko ideological talk. Scientific ideas cannot be suppressed. There is no dictator of science that can suppress/censor ideas. If the ideas have merit, they will be promoted to our base of knowledge.
New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts.

Yes.
This is difficult and time consuming.

Indeed.
It is also strongly resisted by the established community.

Sure, why not? If someone was challenging general relativity, they will be made to jump through hoops to prove it's a better theory than GR, that it fully accounts for all known effects and measurements, that it has better predictive power, that it leads to a new understanding of reality. Certainly a tall order, which is why it should be put through the wringer.

Marjon, you're a lost cause.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2011
If the ideas have merit, they will be promoted to our base of knowledge.

How long it this process?
Socialism has failed to promote individual liberty and prosperity for decades yet it has apparently not been promoted to our base of knowledge?
Certainly a tall order, which is why it should be put through the wringer.

Except for 'science' that drives a political agenda, like 'global climate change'.
I do note that more papers questioning the 'faith' of AGW are finding their way into physorg. Maybe they are hedging their bets when the AGW religion collapses.
It is also interesting how any work on cold fusion is promptly ridiculed in spite of US Navy research that has promising results. The Navy had to change the terms so as not to mention 'cold fusion'. No censorship?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2011
Ok. Then there should be no argument about dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities. Total war against the population is justified if the nation is defined by its people.
I am not arguing. What is YOUR problem with that? However that was a case of MANY states fighting with one Nation that was NOT democratic and had gone seriously psycho.

James Clavell, author of King Rat and Shogun thought the Bomb was the only reason the Japanese prison guards at Changi Prison didn't murder him and all the other prisoners at the end of WWII. He and the rest of the prisoners expected to murdered if Japan was invaded.
This is what the Islamic radicals believe as they continue to attack civilians.
No. THEY don't believe in nations. Only Islamic states which are NOT nations. You really are totally ignorant on what a nation is and what Islam thinks about Nations. Islam is anti-nationalism.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2011
Why do you 'progressives' think this is funny? It reminds me of 8th grade.
Because we have a sense of humor and you don't. You DO see socialists under your bed. YOU do ACT as if you must have read Ann Rand for the sexual excitement. Can't see any other reason you could be so enamored of her fantasy land that only exists in one place. Yes, Somalia. Not my fault if her fantasy is everyone else's nightmare.

I can see Marjon in my mind now, yes its a horrible thing, going into the bathroom with Ann Rand hidden between the pages of Playboy. Piles of Penthouses hollowed out to keep his spare copies. A last final emergency copy hidden behind Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door. 'No mom I am not reading Atlas Jerked again. I am watching the Devil In Miss Jones' because it is a wonderful morality tale. Our Fearless Camp Leader at Camp Granada told us we should watch it after we finish reading Ulysses'.

Now we will find out just how old the audience is.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2011
Ethel and SH are being called socialists because they support socialist ideas but refuse to acknowledge them
Nice lie there. I have done no such thing. The main problem in dealing with YOU is the way you make up stuff about socialism and pretend that Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union is somehow the epitome of socialism when it is clear that they were TYRANNIES and not democracies. Nazi Germany started out as the Capitalists OWNING Hitler. Which was a fantasy on the part of the Capitalists but that is why the BUSINESSES backed the monster
That's not what Ethel implies. The people make the nation. What do majorities have to do with it?
A nation is NOT a state though a state can be made FROM a nation. I implied NOTHING. I SAID a NATION, not a state, IS made up of its people. That is that standard definition. Rome was a STATE not a nation. It was made of many nations some of which were also states, such as Judea, and some nations that were not states such as Gaul.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2011
Ethel assets the people define the nation. The USA nation is defined by an idea.
The USA is defined by the ideas of its founders AND its people. It was a STATE before it was nation. It was a State long before it became a nation. There would have been no Civil War IF the US had been a Nation. The North became the nation of the the USA DURING the Civil War. The South in many areas was not part of the nation until WWII.
I am just expanding upon Ethel's definition of a nation and taking it down the logical path.
You mean your making shit up as usual.
Apparently Ethel is correct. Women and children are combatants.
Apparently Marjon really likes to lie a lot. I NEVER said people should do that. However YOU support the Pirate WonderLand that is the Ideal Anti-state of Somalia. So why haven't you moved?

More
soulman
5 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2011
How long it this process?

As long as it takes to verify the proposed idea.
Socialism has failed to promote individual liberty and prosperity for decades yet it has apparently not been promoted to our base of knowledge?

Non sequitur with respect to the discussion at hand, and a straw man.
Except for 'science' that drives a political agenda, like 'global climate change'.

As with most things, you've got it ass-backwards. It's the politicization of science from the outside that's the problem. Bush & co were masters at this type of subterfuge.
I do note that more papers questioning the 'faith' of AGW are finding their way into physorg

There is no 'faith', only evidence. Science welcomes questions, it's the bedrock on which it's built.
Maybe they are hedging their bets when the AGW religion collapses.

Science doesn't care which way the cards fall, only politicians and other vested interests do, which always tends to boil down to profits and money.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2011
How many of 'the people'? 50.000001%? Then there are no limits upon what the majority can do to a minority?
Depends on the state. Not the case in most democratic states as they have constitutions. As opposed to the Ann Rand Anti-State of Somalia where the its the most bullets that do evil to those with the least bullets. The one place in the world that follows YOUR principals and you won't move there. Instead you want to make the US like Somalia.
The only corporations that can use force are those that are given sanction to do so by the state.
Or have a few million rounds of ammunition. Kind of like the businesses in Somalia.
. Do you plan to commit suicide to save the universe frajo?
When are you moving to the Holy Land of Rand the non-state of Somalia?

More
soulman
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2011
It is also interesting how any work on cold fusion is promptly ridiculed in spite of US Navy research that has promising results.

It has BECOME funny, but only because it's been shown to be bunk, over and over, and cranks like you keep banging on about it.

When someone can document an experiment that is repeatable by others and which produces an excess of energy, I can assure you, it will make the big time.

The Navy had to change the terms so as not to mention 'cold fusion'. No censorship?

I don't know the details, but I'd bet it was out of embarrassment!
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2011
I note that the socialists here still defend their statism while the economies of such statist govts are collapsing
While the economies improve after the disaster caused by the free market thieves tried to steal from everyone with bad unregulated financial instruments AND we watch SOMALIA the ideal anti-state continue to depend on THEFT for a living.

Now I understand why you hate regulation. You want to steal a load of money the new fashioned way of white collar crime BEFORE you move to the Holy Land Of Somalia and steal the old fashioned way of Red Handed Piracy
One reason I post sources is to demonstrate I don't make stuff up
Fantasy. YOU make up all kinds of nonsense and SOMETIMES you use other people's fantasies in an effort to bolster your own nonsense by using the old there is no guilt or incompetence if you have enough flies eating horse manure so you must be right fallacy. It doesn't matter how many idiots or self serving wackoes you quote. Crap is crap.

Ethelred
frajo
5 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2011
If the ideas have merit, they will be promoted to our base of knowledge.
How long it this process?
Depends. In science, months to years. In Roman Catholics, 500 years. Creationists and enemies of democracy (aka socialism). never.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2011
and enemies of democracy (aka socialism). never.
Have you been reading WAY too much Marjon? Or was that just a case ambiguous wording?

Ethelred
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2011
and enemies of democracy (aka socialism). never.
Have you been reading WAY too much Marjon? Or was that just a case ambiguous wording?
Ethelred
As you know, I'm still learning the English language. Not every meaning of every word is listed in my indispensable Oxford AL Dictionary. That's why I learn additionally from the living language here in this forum. And yes, it was marjon who reminded me of that semantic aspect of the word "socialism".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2011
While the economies improve after the disaster caused by the free market thieve

What free market thieves? A 'free' market created by 'govt sponsored enterprises'? I have referred to the '97 Wachovia press release which is a smoking gun showing the lack of a free market. Freddie and Fannie (the US govt) guaranteed bad mortgages in order to sell them around the world.

Somalia is doing as well as or better than their neighbors without a govt to rob the people.

I can assure you, it will make the big time.

Why? All those working on hot fusion will loose their funding and such a disruptive technology will wreck havoc on world economies. The Navy is interested as they would have a very reliable fuel supply.
Scientists have demonstrated their reluctance to change. Even when proof stares them in the face.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2011
Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union is somehow the epitome of socialism when it is clear that they were TYRANNIES and not democracies.

Tyranny is the inevitable result of socialism and of pure democracy (mob rule).
A nation is NOT a state though a state can be made FROM a nation.

Then a nation does not require a state. Why do you support states?

For Soulman:
"Despite a backdrop of meager funding and career-killing derision from mainstream scientists and engineers, cold fusion is anything but a dead field of research. Presenters at the MIT event estimated that 3,000 published studies from scientists around the world have contributed to the growing canon of evidence suggesting that small but promising amounts of energy can be generated using the infamous tabletop apparatus. "

I suspect one reason many 'scientists' are afraid of such research is they can't develop the theory. It violates too many dogmas.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2011
Tyranny is the inevitable result of socialism and of pure democracy (mob rule).
The French aristocracy was the result of socialism? The Russian Romanovs were the result of socialism? Why do you permanently want to present your lack of education?

What is "mob rule" supposed to mean? The tyranny of the uneducated?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2011
Mob rule => pure democracy. >50% can force the minority to do what ever the mob desires.

Certainly tyrannies result from the rule of kings and emperors as well. This is more akin to 'mob'(mafia) type rule. It is a bit easier to displace this type of tyranny as there are many ways for the 'king' to be deposed. Saddam Husein feared for his life from his own govt that no one ever knew where he was. Every tyrant has his Brutus in the wings.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2011
Quoth myself:
HQ isn't a religion...absolutely nothing stops HQ form investing in other techs if they are as much of a bargain
Lest I forget, Marjon, HQ has been creating large wind farms in areas of high elevations and on the coasts. There is no hydro religion & conflict of interest with alternate techs. And all those dams, wind farms, power stations, transmission lines, distribution stations, all constitute government created WEALTH. Especially given the framework of a government utility that is profitable while maintaining rock bottom rates. You may not like governments because you feel victimized by it, but whether a government builds a power station or a private utility builds it, that power station still constitutes wealth. And that one example (HQ) destroys your absolute statement that govt. can't create wealth. Your statement is the result of a mistaken, incomplete ideology.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2011
Mob rule => pure democracy. >50% can force the minority to do what ever the mob desires.
As you preferred not to answer how you define "mob" I'm free to conclude that you disparage every majority as "mob" that happens to not follow the orders your minority decrees.
Democracy says "One person, one vote".
You say "one dollar, one vote".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2011
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Thomas Jefferson
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2011
You are in a 1 percent minority which wants to take away the rights of the remainder 99 percent.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2011
You are in a 1 percent minority which wants to take away the rights of the remainder 99 percent.

I have repeatedly stated my support for a limited govt that follows the US Constitution. A govt the protects the private property rights of all, equally.
What rights do I want to take away?
ubavontuba
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2011
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Thomas Jefferson
Which is why the United States was formulated as a Constitutional Democracy, with and checks and balances and a Bill of Rights, and not a simple democracy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2011
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Thomas Jefferson
Which is why the United States was formulated as a Constitutional Democracy, with and checks and balances and a Bill of Rights, and not a simple democracy.

Too bad the leaders don't want to follow the Constitution even though they swear to uphold and defend it.
Obama:
"...the CONSTITUTION IS A CHARTER OF NEGATIVE LIBERTIES SAYS WHAT THE STATE CAN’T DO TO YOU. WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN’T DO TO YOU. BUT DOESN’T SAY WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR STATE GOVERNMENT MUST DO ON YOUR BEHALF."
http:/digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/barack-obama-says-constitution-fundamentally-flawed-needs-redistribution-of-wealth-in-radio-interview/
Well, BHO, that WAS the idea. The Constitution was to LIMIT the power of the federal govt.
soulman
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2011
Why? All those working on hot fusion will loose their funding and such a disruptive technology will wreck havoc on world economies.

Yeah, like all those steam engineers and technicians that lost their funding because the internal combustion engine was such a disruptive technology which wrought havoc on world economies. Idiot.
The Navy is interested as they would have a very reliable fuel supply.

No shit. You don't think anyone else might be interested in such a thing?
Scientists have demonstrated their reluctance to change.

Yes, they require proof and verification to make changes. Cranks do not.
Even when proof stares them in the face.

Which it isn't in the case of cold fusion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2011
No shit. You don't think anyone else might be interested in such a thing?

There doesn't appear to be much interest.
Do you think Fleishmann and Pons faked their results or just imagined them?
Why would their 'peers' drive them out of the community?
It reminds me of Jodi Foster in Contact. She spoke to an alien but could not prove it and no one would respect her enough to believe her.
Why couldn't the peers of F&P trust they observed an unusual phenomena and work to explain it?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2011
Too bad the leaders don't want to follow the Constitution even though they swear to uphold and defend it.

Well, BHO, that WAS the idea. The Constitution was to LIMIT the power of the federal govt.
So take it to court. There's your check.

I don't think you'll get very far though, as The Constitution clearly gives the Federal Government the right to regulate commerce and taxes, and such.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2011

Tyranny is the inevitable result of socialism and of pure democracy (mob rule).
Yet you advocate free market pure democracy. Interesting how you mount these self defeating arguments.
soulman
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2011
There doesn't appear to be much interest.

For good reason.
Do you think Fleishmann and Pons faked their results or just imagined them?

It doesn't have to be either. It's now well accepted that not only did they have experimental errors but they had NOT actually detected any nuclear reaction byproducts.

Even DOE found no persuasive evidence in its first investigation of their claims. In fact, they even did a second investigation in 2004 which looked at new research, but reached exactly the same conclusion (ie no fusion).
Why would their 'peers' drive them out of the community?

They didn't. They left because due to their failure to demonstrate fusion and for many other labs to do likewise, they could not get further funding in the US. They went to France because they got a grant from Toyota & Japan's MITI. They simply followed the money.
soulman
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2011
It reminds me of Jodi Foster in Contact. She spoke to an alien but could not prove it and no one would respect her enough to believe her.

I wouldn't either, nor should anyone with any critical thinking skills, unless she could produce proof.
Why couldn't the peers of F&P trust they observed an unusual phenomena and work to explain it?

For the same reason I mentioned above. Science requires proof, not trust. Can't you get that through your thick skull?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2011

Tyranny is the inevitable result of socialism and of pure democracy (mob rule).
Yet you advocate free market pure democracy. Interesting how you mount these self defeating arguments.

When? I support free markets with limited govt.
How are free markets pure democracy?

I wouldn't either, nor should anyone with any critical thinking skills, unless she could produce proof.

Well then let's eliminate PhDs. If the degree doesn't signify some level of trust or competence, then why should they waste their time and money?
The AGWites should stop trying to sell their faith based upon consensus. They have no proof.

frajo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2011
Do you think Fleishmann and Pons faked their results or just imagined them?
Why would their 'peers' drive them out of the community?
It reminds me of Jodi Foster in Contact.
The confusion of entertainment ("contact") and reality (science; jodie foster) is typical for the non-critical generations whose ersatz-reality is the screen.

It is not necessary to accuse Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of being fakers. Scientists may err in best faith.

But of someone who
declares the definition of "socialism" by Ludwig von Mises to be the one and only valid one without being able to explain why he deems the remainder 999 definitions of socialism (see wordiq.com/definition/Socialism ) to not be valid,
the same cannot be said.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2011
A govt the protects the private property rights of all, equally.
You mean the government should protect the wealthy from being robbed by the poor by letting the poor starve to death.
Unfortunately the government is not owned by the wealthy but by the superwealthy who want to rob the wealthy.
What rights do I want to take away?
All rights which money can buy.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2011
Tyranny is the inevitable result of socialism and of pure democracy (mob rule).
Yet you advocate free market pure democracy. Interesting how you mount these self defeating arguments.
When? I support free markets with limited govt
But you wrote:
Somalia is doing as well as or better than their neighbors without a govt to rob the people.
Seems you are fond of the rule of the mob in Somalia.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2011
Seems you are fond of the rule of the mob in Somalia.

If you take a serious look at Somalia, it is not mob rule.
And they are doing as well, or better, then their neighbors with cleptocratic govts.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2011
Seems you are fond of the rule of the mob in Somalia.
If you take a serious look at Somalia, it is not mob rule.
Wealthy pirates are noble, not mob?
And they are doing as well, or better, then their neighbors with cleptocratic govts.
Wikipedia:
Life expectany: rank 181 out of 194 countries
one of the poorest and most violent states in the world
Somalia's long, remote shoreline was used as a dump site for the disposal of toxic waste.
They accepted
10 million tonnes of toxic waste in exchange for $80 million
...
the waste has resulted in far higher than normal cases of respiratory infections, mouth ulcers and bleeding, abdominal haemorrhages and unusual skin infections among many inhabitants
Your dream of "creating wealth" come true.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2011
"Infant mortality went from 152/1000 under the socialist state to 114/1000 under statelessness. The absolute poverty rate went from 60% to 43%. The population with access to sanitation went from 18% to 26%. Life expectancy increased. Starvation rates decreased. Immunization rates of children increased. Maternal mortality decreased. Health care availability increased. The percentage of people with radios, telephones, and TVs increased dramatically. Millions of Somali refugees returned to Somalia."
http:/www.fr33agents.com/2837/2837/

"The data suggest that while the state of this
development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless
welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government."
http:/namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
http:/fee.org/media/video/stateless-in-somalia/
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2011
Somalia is doing as well as or better than their neighbors without a govt to rob the people.
Life expectancy rank of Somalia: 181
Life expectancy ranks of of neighbor countries:
Ethiopia - 168,
Kenya - 167,
Djibouti - 165,
Yemen - 147.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2011
Somalia is doing as well as or better than their neighbors without a govt to rob the people.
Life expectancy rank of Somalia: 181
Life expectancy ranks of of neighbor countries:
Ethiopia - 168,
Kenya - 167,
Djibouti - 165,
Yemen - 147.

What is the source of your data? What are the actual numbers? What is the variance?
The fact Somalia is doing better WITHOUT socialism must make the socialists quite concerned.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
What is the source of your data?
Looks like cia factbook to me.
What are the actual numbers? What is the variance?
Actual numbers for what? Variance of what, an average?
The fact Somalia is doing better WITHOUT socialism must make the socialists quite concerned.
Why? Somalia, in recent memory has only had two forms of government. Anarchy and Feudalism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2011
There are 13 countries with a life expectancy lower than Somalia, which is 48.2.
South Africa is 49.3.
Zimbabwe is 43.5
"Although Somalis were, to some extent, politically influenced in the post-war period by the British and the Italians, the socialist parties rejected the European's advice whole cloth, and preferred association with the like-minded Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. By the middle of the 1960s, the Somalis had initiated a formal military relationship with the Soviet Union whereby the Soviets provided extensive material and training to the Somali armed forces in exchange for use of the Somali naval bases. They also had an exchange program in which several hundred soldiers from one country went to the others to train or be trained. As a result of their contact with the Soviet military, many Somali officers gained a distinctly Marxist worldview."
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2011
What is the source of your data?
Wikipedia's entry on "List of countries by life expectancy". Not von Mises.
What are the actual numbers?
What is your definition of "actual"?
What is the variance?
Why didn't you do the homework in your introduction to statistics book?
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2011
There are 13 countries with a life expectancy lower than Somalia, which is 48.2.
South Africa is 49.3.
Zimbabwe is 43.5
Did you confuse rank with alphabetical order?

US life expectancy: rank=36;
Greek life expectancy: rank=18.

According to ryggesogn2's inference method this proves the superiority of socialism.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2011
Any one else notice that Marjon has yet to acknowledge that Somalia is funded by Red Handed Piracy?

Evading again. It never fails. If he can't make it go away with a mindless quote from a RightWingNut or an irrelevant quote from someone competent he just hopes no one notices that he ignored it.

Well we noticed.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2011
Any one else notice that Marjon has yet to acknowledge that Somalia is funded by Red Handed Piracy?

It' not. But the pirates used to be fishermen. Chinese have over-fished Somalia's territorial waters.
The pirates are charging tolls for ships to cross their waters.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2011
Did you confuse rank with alphabetical order?

I looked at actual numbers. Rank has little meaning, but the statistic of life expectancy in years does have meaning.

'Happy' Denmark: 78.3 YEARS
USA: 78.3 YEARS
Greece: 79.5 YEARS

Your assertion that the life expectancy statistic of Somalia of 49.6 years somehow demonstrates the failure of its statelessness is unfounded as numerous other organized states have equivalent and lower life expectancies.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2011
Did you confuse rank with alphabetical order?
I looked at actual numbers.
So a rank is not an actual number?
Rank has little meaning,
Have a look at Wikipedia on "Rank_(mathematics)".
but the statistic of life expectancy in years does have meaning.
Now look at this:
USA: 78.3 YEARS
Greece: 79.5 YEARS
Which meaning does it have?
Your assertion
I made no assertion except the assertion that your following assertion is wrong:
Somalia is doing as well as or better than their neighbors without a govt to rob the people.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2011
Any one else notice that Marjon has yet to acknowledge that Somalia is funded by Red Handed Piracy?

Evading again. It never fails. If he can't make it go away with a mindless quote from a RightWingNut or an irrelevant quote from someone competent he just hopes no one notices that he ignored it.

Well we noticed.

Ethelred

There are cranks in physical theory, and there are cranks in political theory. Thank goodness Marjon doesn't have a physical theory to push on top of that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2011
Somali piracy is the EUs fault:
"Clover claims that when EU nations buy millions of dollars worth of fishing rights in foreign waters each year they prefer to target troubled and unstable nations who, lacking advanced fishing and security fleets, are not in a position to charge what their fisheries are actually worth.

Clover discusses the aggressive nature of countries with advanced fishing fleets, particularly the EU nations, in areas all over the world. Drastically depleted European fishing stocks are the reason EU members pay other countries for the right to harvest in foreign waters. "
http:/apps.carleton.edu/campus/sustainability/shrinkingfootprints/?story_id=504543
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2011
"We don't consider ourselves sea bandits," said the pirates' spokesperson. "We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas."
http:/www.grist.org/article/ArrrFishin/
Somali fisherman are protecting their property.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2011
"We don't consider ourselves sea bandits," said the pirates' spokesperson. "We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas."
http:/www.grist.org/article/ArrrFishin/
Like the Maersk Alabama merchant ship?
Somali fisherman are protecting their property.
450 km off the coast of Somalia?
bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12486129
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2011
'She said the piracy was no longer an amateur operation but rather a "seriously networked international enterprise".

Of the roughly $60m (£37.4m) in ransoms the pirates took in the past year, only 15% went to the pirates themselves, with the rest going to a transnational criminal network, not all of whom were Somalis, she said."
http:/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12486129

Again, the piracy started after the EU stole their fish.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2011
Any one else notice that Marjon has yet to acknowledge that Somalia is funded by Red Handed Piracy?
You mean Free Market Capitalism,. don't you Ethel?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2011
Piracy is enabled by all nation states. Merchant ships are not allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves. Ships that have US flags rate US Navy protection. Panamanian ships are supposed to be protected by the Panamanian navy.
I support individual's right to self defense and I support the right of all ships to be able to defend themselves from pirates any where.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2011
The pirates are charging tolls for ships to cross their waters.
Taking hostages, kidnapping and holding people for ransom is NOT tolls and YOU of all Randites should be against tolls.

That was about as big a lie as you have tried to pull off yet.

I do rather hope that your constituents see that some day. I am sure that they will be willing to accept that ridiculous lie and vote for you as a upstanding supporter of Freedom of the Seas.

You and Black Beard.

I suppose you will next be claiming that Bartholomew Roberts was a used ship salesmen till the horrid statists ripped out his throat with a splinter from cannonball strike on his ship of wonders where he was escorting the local natives up and down the coast to show them the nice new ships he got cheap.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2011
hank goodness Marjon doesn't have a physical theory to push on top of that.
He is a Creationist. Posts under another name and sometimes under this one as well.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2011
Ethel, I just said ships should be armed to protect themselves from all pirates.
I guess the way to get around this would be to have security forces and weapons brought on board after leaving port. They would have to be removed in the same fashion prior to the destination.
Sounds like a great business opportunity for retired Spec-Ops members.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2011
Ethel, I just said ships should be armed to protect themselves from all pirates.
No. You said:
The pirates are charging tolls for ships to cross their waters.
And they don't own the waters. Anything you said that lets that LIE stand just makes the lie stink more.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.