Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not at all. The bozos and unforgiving creeps like Galen don't have a clue. As Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge.

Einstein has been known to be wrong, his opinion of quantum mechanics comes to mind. There are a number of people who know me quite well that would disagree with you about me. The only reason you think of unforgiving is that you want to keep on doing the same stupid shit that has been failing for decades. I do not suffer fools gladly and you are the biggest fool I have encountered in many years. The reason why so many Xers treat you with such contempt is because you truly are the embodiment of the self-righteous ignorance of the Boomers that has created so many problems for us.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Those who get my siggie, get it; those who don't, knock it. The real "liberals" are those who can see a better day, and work toward it as well as pray for it. JB does. "Some people look at things as they are and say why, others see things that never were and say why not," said RFK. I am an N type; so I agree with Robert Kennedy, and not with you and Galen and Kepi, et al.

You signature is nothing more than a declaration of willful ignorance that marks you as a complete and utter fool.

I took a course covering the history of modern science and the professor had to explain the different versions of Social Darwinism. The classical liberal version could be summed up as: everyone finds their niche. The version that you quote came from Rockefeller who curiously took to supporting the Progressive agenda, an odd thing to do if you think about it. The professor had a bit of a problem because it was necessary first to explain the Classical Liberalism emphasis on the rights of the individual, then he went on to explain that the modern liberal was the complete opposite. The liberals in the class were quite upset when it was further explained that the modern Libertarians are in fact the intellectual descendants of the classical liberal. The modern liberal is nothing more than a socialist with a particularly ironic label.

Originally Posted by Galen

The liberals in the class were quite upset when it was further explained that the modern Libertarians are in fact the intellectual descendants of the classical liberal. The modern liberal is nothing more than a socialist with a particularly ironic label.

This is not correct, since most Americans who call themselves Liberals are NOT anti-Capitalist (I have gotten sucked into flame wars on Democratic Underground involving pro-capitalist Liberal posters and anti-capitalist Socialist posters). I'm not surprised that a RWer like yourself would confuse a social safety net and regulation with Socialism.

Originally Posted by Galen

Einstein has been known to be wrong, his opinion of quantum mechanics comes to mind. There are a number of people who know me quite well that would disagree with you about me. The only reason you think of unforgiving is that you want to keep on doing the same stupid shit that has been failing for decades. I do not suffer fools gladly and you are the biggest fool I have encountered in many years. The reason why so many Xers treat you with such contempt is because you truly are the embodiment of the self-righteous ignorance of the Boomers that has created so many problems for us.

I would also note that Einstein anchored what he did in reality, creating theories that explained observations and making predictions about things which had not yet been observed. I do not want to diminish the importance of imagination and the willingness to step outside of preconceived perspectives. Einstein exemplified the open mind, a willingness to look for problems in the established world view. If observation conflicted with theory, he'd create a new theory. We need to do more of this. Einstein is in many ways the personification of unlocked values.

The perspective followed by some spiritualists that one can learn about reality without anchoring that learning in observation is something quite different.

Originally Posted by Galen

You signature is nothing more than a declaration of willful ignorance that marks you as a complete and utter fool.

I would not go this far. There is a difference between foolishness and strong values. As with JPT, I see Eric as having gone through considerable thought and research to create his world view. If one is willing to accept his core premises, one might find a well thought out and non-contradictory model of how his universe operates. Neither Eric nor JPT are stupid or unable to collect what they perceive of as 'facts'.

But those with reality based world views are apt to perceive 'willful ignorance.' It takes considerable flexibility and suspension of disbelief to attempt to comprehend strange values systems. I wish I could say it is worth the effort. I wish I could say that 'willful ignorance' is an inappropriate way to describe values lock. I might only suggest that people invest a good part of their souls in buying into a world view. It is really difficult to consider losing much of one's soul. Looking at one's values with attempted objectivity and an intent at self improvement is really hard at Eric's age.

Originally Posted by Galen

I took a course covering the history of modern science and the professor had to explain the different versions of Social Darwinism. The classical liberal version could be summed up as: everyone finds their niche. The version that you quote came from Rockefeller who curiously took to supporting the Progressive agenda, an odd thing to do if you think about it. The professor had a bit of a problem because it was necessary first to explain the Classical Liberalism emphasis on the rights of the individual, then he went on to explain that the modern liberal was the complete opposite. The liberals in the class were quite upset when it was further explained that the modern Libertarians are in fact the intellectual descendants of the classical liberal. The modern liberal is nothing more than a socialist with a particularly ironic label.

The Enlightenment's emphasis on human rights and equality provided a good tool for resisting the old assumption of class privilege. Enlightenment thought was appropriate for the Age of Revolution, when the enemy was class hierarchy, when the primary problem was serfdom, when agriculture was the dominant occupation and class was a primary tool of oppression.

The Industrial Revolution created a different set of problems. Communism and New Deal modern liberalism attacked these problems from different perspectives. (Note, while Marx created appropriate criticism of laissez faire capitalism, his theories on solutions were naive, and his followers attempted autocratic implementations that failed utterly.)

From my perspective, the series of boom and bust depressions that cumulated in the Great Depression and New Deal reflect that laissez faire capitalism was highly imperfect, that there is a role for government to stabilize the economy and provide social safety nets.

I would agree that the problems of the hereditary aristocracy and the Industrial Age robber barons were quite different. The theories and propaganda used to fight them were quite different. The notions of equality, rights and democracy remain sound, should provide good tools in moving forward. The notion of laissez faire, that an unregulated economy is self stabilizing in an industrial environment, is obviously bogus. There is a roll for government in creating a stable mature society.

I for one approve of the old classical liberalism in its time, but times change. Once one set of problems is solved, other problems will come to the fore, and new tools might be required.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

The lulz just keep coming today!

A few days ago some folks created a little petition on the White House website requesting that Piers Morgan be deported back to England for his vicious attacks on the second amendment.

Unfortunately for Piers it seems that his country-men and women don't want him back and have started a counter-petition to stop his deportation because, "We got rid of him once and why should we have to suffer again". I wonder what it is like to be hated in every country you land on.

And here I thought the right to attack the 2nd Amendment verbally would be protected by the 1st Amendment.

I know many in the gun culture see it working the other way. If one is going to try to take away their free speech, one must first pry their guns from their cold dead fingers.

Does one not have free speech rights if one hasn't a gun?

Originally Posted by B Butler

And here I thought the right to attack the 2nd Amendment verbally would be protected by the 1st Amendment.

I know many in the gun culture see it working the other way. If one is going to try to take away their free speech, one must first pry their guns from their cold dead fingers.

Does one not have free speech rights if one hasn't a gun?

No one has infringed on Piers Morgan's right to free speech. Quite the contrary, he has a prime time TV show.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is not correct, since most Americans who call themselves Liberals are NOT anti-Capitalist (I have gotten sucked into flame wars on Democratic Underground involving pro-capitalist Liberal posters and anti-capitalist Socialist posters). I'm not surprised that a RWer like yourself would confuse a social safety net and regulation with Socialism.

It is not a confusion since both of them are forms of central planning and no matter how much government spends or regulates it is never enough for liberals. The ultimate destination of this progression should be obvious even to you.

Originally Posted by Galen

It is not a confusion since both of them are forms of central planning and no matter how much government spends or regulates it is never enough for liberals.

This is factually incorrect. Plenty of liberals criticize unnecessary and inane rules and regulations. I used to work in a daycare/preschool kitchen and I was constantly frustrated by health regulations about how much from each food group we could serve in each meal and what foods counted or did not, it led to a lot of good, healthy food going bad and getting tossed. And this was in North Dakota, not exactly a blue state.

Your definition of "economic planning" is so broad that anything besides complete economic anarchy is "economic planning". Markets are simply a tool used by society to ration goods and services based on ability to pay prices set via supply and demand. There is nothing wrong with using regulations and tax incentives to channel markets to fulfill social policy, to think otherwise is to fetishize the market mechanism into something akin to a religious idol.

More on the vicious plague, assault hands which needlessly kill more people each year than all rifles and shotguns combined!

It now appears that these assault hands were designed for killing! I must urge our political class to take action and ban all civilian possession of assault hands, making exceptions of course for those who protect the political class from those same civilians. I beg you all, please think of the children.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The Industrial Revolution created a different set of problems. Communism and New Deal modern liberalism attacked these problems from different perspectives. (Note, while Marx created appropriate criticism of laissez faire capitalism, his theories on solutions were naive, and his followers attempted autocratic implementations that failed utterly.)

The theories of Marx are completely screwed up from the beginning. You might want to consider this article by Hazlitt which sums up what really underlies Marxism. The economics of Marxism are nothing new.

Originally Posted by B Butler

From my perspective, the series of boom and bust depressions that cumulated in the Great Depression and New Deal reflect that laissez faire capitalism was highly imperfect, that there is a role for government to stabilize the economy and provide social safety nets.

This assumes that government actually knows enough to understand that the bust is coming. All of the statements coming from the Fed and Federal government were stating that the economy was just fine, up until the time the bubble burst. The inability of Fed to eliminate the business cycle which has always been considered the primary reason for central banking. One of the reasons I like this article is because it is using an economic measure created by Obama's former economic advisor.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I would agree that the problems of the hereditary aristocracy and the Industrial Age robber barons were quite different. The theories and propaganda used to fight them were quite different. The notions of equality, rights and democracy remain sound, should provide good tools in moving forward. The notion of laissez faire, that an unregulated economy is self stabilizing in an industrial environment, is obviously bogus. There is a roll for government in creating a stable mature society.

No, it is not obviously bogus because your idea of stability is a static situation where nothing ever changes. As DiLorenzo notes, economists are starting to come around to the realization that the New Deal did not improve the situation. I recommend that you follow up the sources that DiLorenzo points out. You might want to read what Rothbard had to say about the modern liberal view of equality, you might find this a bit more accessible.

No matter how you slice it Eric the Obtuse is the still a complete and utter delusional fool.

And here's where you run into problems with Libertarian economics, their analysis is great, but their reliance on comfortable, clearcut solutions leads them to a comfortable, but nonworking solution.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

No one has infringed on Piers Morgan's right to free speech. Quite the contrary, he has a prime time TV show.

But do not some want to deport him due to his expressing a political opinion?

Originally Posted by Galen

The theories of Marx are completely screwed up from the beginning. You might want to consider this article by Hazlitt which sums up what really underlies Marxism.

Originally Posted by By Henry Hazlitt

The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are.

Well, the first article you quoted is a clear strawman attack, which does not tempt me to follow up with the subsequent articles. I have grown tired of strawman arguments that begin with an explanation of 'how all liberals think'. I have no desire to defend Marxism when someone tries to tell me 'how all Marxists think' and that person is clearly wrong.

Originally Posted by Galen

No matter how you slice it Eric the Obtuse is the still a complete and utter delusional fool.

I feel much the same about those who feel laissez faire works. Reading a little history and tales handed down through family, one knows the workers were miserable before the New Deal and have been much less so since. Those who wish to return to the ugliness of the Robber Baron era seem to me divorced from reality, immersed in values lock.

Given a basic understanding of the life of workers during the Gilded Age through Great Depression, it is easy for me to understand an intense meme that capitalistic democracy was rigged against the workers, that violent total overthrow of the system was necessary. I can easily see from a Marxist perspective that things were ugly, that any mean necessary including violence would be justified, including the overthrow of the Enlightenment feedback mechanisms of rights and democracy. Rights and democracy did not protect the general public then, even less so than today.

With 20 20 hindsight, Marxist revolution would have been a mistake. The Cold War era pretty well illustrated which was the superior system of economics and government. Still, I have no trouble understanding why people fell into the Marxist trap given that they saw rights, democracy and laissez faire weren't providing a meaningful answer.

I do have trouble understanding those who wish to return to the Gilded Age through Great Depression system. When I try to project my thought into libertarian values I get severe suspension of disbelief problems. Libertarian economics have been discussed on these forums often enough that I am not tempted to reprise the discussion further, especially not at the strawman level. This isn't the thread for it, anyway.

Still, again, with yourself as an example, those who are values locked into a counter-factual world view are not necessarily stupid. They can do research, find people with similar values, achieve some degree of intellectual consistency, invent 'facts,' and argue stubbornly and endlessly. There is a big difference between stupidity and values lock. Eric isn't stupid. "Willfully ignorant," maybe, but not stupid. He has invested a good part of his soul into a set of beliefs and fears a loss of his soul. He cannot admit that the principles he has based his life on are erroneous. In this, I don't see him as an outlier, but as a fairly typical human. We have all invested a good deal of ourselves into fixed ways of perceiving the world, and will not, can not and perhaps should not release said views.

This would include you.

I would propose that the impression of stupidity is a defense mechanism for protecting the world view of the one who sees the other as stupid. The use of strawman attacks, the creation and attribution of bogus world views and attribution of these world views on those who disagree with one would be another defense mechanism used to divert the mind from the flaws in one's own world view. If one can't prove the other guy's world view wrong, if one cannot convert him to one's own values system using logic and debate, it would seem to follow that he must be stupid, insane, evil, dishonest or otherwise mentally deficient.

I think it self evident that neither JPT, Eric or yourself are stupid. You have all intellectually and / or spiritually invested much in your various world views. Your world views, however, conflict with observed reality as I perceive it. Eric, at least, will oft times acknowledge that his world view puts alternate sources of Truth above observation of reality. Others cannot perceive the source or invalidity of their counter factual 'facts'.

At times, when comparing Eric with others, his admission seems an honest relief. At other times there is an urge to impact his fine mind with objective reality, not to the point of cracking the skull, but raising a few minor bruises. No, this isn't a threat of violence, merely an expression of frustration.

Still, it isn't just Eric, but many who have embraced counter factual world views.

Originally Posted by Kepi

And here's where you run into problems with Libertarian economics, their analysis is great, but their reliance on comfortable, clearcut solutions leads them to a comfortable, but nonworking solution.

Where did you get the idea that Keynesian economics is working all that well? Bernake just doubled down on QE 3, or rather QE infinity, yet after four years of the largest money printing effort I have seen in my life, the best the Fed can manage so far is a stagnation similar to the two lost decades and continuing Japan has suffered. To my mind the Keynesian idea that you can print your way to prosperity without any consequences is overly simplistic. I suggest that you read Hazlitt's analysis of Keynes' General Theory which even now is useful to read because later revisions of the theory depend on the same premises. You will also find his Economics in One Lesson helpful.

Keysianism is rather simplistic because the only answer they have is to print and then spend as a solution to every economic problem.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I would think that trained dogs would be more reliable and less likely to attack innocent people, or be swayed by food. They use them in the military and bomb detection often, so why not other places? Besides, I doubt if any body would use a dog for mass murder like what's happening with the over the top amount of weapons in this country.

Any dog would be a deterrent to a burglar. The man testing the dogs exuded none of the usual menace of a burglar, ordinarily a sociopath who damages a house to get to valuables if not a rapist, and showed little fear. He had a bite suit, something available at high cost:

http://www.thefind.com/pets/info-dog-bite-suits

I do not know whether a bite suit classifies as armor that a felon could never purchase without violating federal law -- but it is expensive. The on-line catalog seems directed toward law-enforcement agencies and legitimate animal trainers. Someone capable of buying one of these almost certainly has honorable or at least lucrative means of making an income. Police units use them for training dogs, but they are certainly not part of the attire of some of the people most vulnerable to dog attack -- letter carriers.

In any event, a trained attack dog is an animal as suitable for provocation as any man-eating carnivore. Were I a crook I would fear the tiger -- excuse me, K-9 unit -- more than any other part of the police force. Domestication of any animal is in part an adjustment to the wild traits of its ancestors while greatly reducing the unpredictability of the creature. A dog remains a cunning, intelligent, aggressive, voracious, swift, strong, powerful, organized...killer with keen senses, sharp teeth, and sharp claws, just like a wolf.

The human family has a structure much like a wolf pack, and the dog fits in well. Dogs include the smallest animals capable of man-eating, but we are generally safe around dogs because we are more reliable food sources alive than dead. Any threat to the human food sources of a medium-to-large dog foolishly puts himself in mortal danger.

It is telling that

"ln 1940, a discussion was started within the administration about prohibiting pets, in order to conserve foodstuffs for human consumption. But personal interference by Hitler stopped this proposal. Ultimately a decree was published by the administration against pets, but it referred only to the pets in the possession of non-Aryan citizens. On February 15, 1942, a decree was published prohibiting Jews from keeping pets."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_...n_Nazi_Germany

That of course included dogs. Such coincides with the acceleration of the Holocaust. Dogs would have figured out that Nazis were up to no good to their Jewish owners.

An offer of $100 gift cards, no-questions-asked, by the Los Angeles Police Department in a gun buy-back brought in some bad-boy merchandise to be destroyed:

Yesterday's LAPD gun buyback was so successful that two-hour waits and gift-card shortages were reported.

The department says it picked up 75 assault weapons as part of its no-questions-asked effort that saw $100 dollar cards handed out for handguns and long guns and $200 for the kind of rifle used in the Newtown tragedy. The LAPD says 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns will also be destroyed.

Good stats. But this is the one that gut us saying WTF:


Cops picked up two -- count 'em two -- rocket launchers (!) (and not one, as other outlets are reporting), an LAPD official with close knowledge of the program told us. Holy hell why do people on our streets have military grade rocket launchers?

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2...un_buyback.php

Originally Posted by Galen

Where did you get the idea that Keynesian economics is working all that well? Bernake just doubled down on QE 3, or rather QE infinity, yet after four years of the largest money printing effort I have seen in my life, the best the Fed can manage so far is a stagnation similar to the two lost decades and continuing Japan has suffered. To my mind the Keynesian idea that you can print your way to prosperity without any consequences is overly simplistic.

I think you are getting your economics confused. Printing money is monetary stimulus, Keynesians recommended a fiscal approach.

Keysian economics isn't what I'm getting at. There are many problems to be had with libertariansim because it believes that all economic transactions are viable under a capitalist structure, ignoring that things such as infrastructure cannot allow for competition because it requires geospecific operations which eliminate possible competition.

That's why I say great analysis, but inadequate solutions. There's plenty of room for free markets, but there's certain things that free market structures can't work in.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I think you are getting your economics confused. Printing money is monetary stimulus, Keynesians recommended a fiscal approach.

No, I am not. If the Fed was simply printing money to lower interest rates then I might agree with you. At this point the Fed is buying mortgage backed securities which seems more like fiscal policy than monetary policy. Monetary policy consists of forcing interest rates lower which means the Fed is simply making the money available to whomever wishes to borrow, where the money goes is not an issue. Forcing interest rates lower still has negative consequences that are often overlooked, remember Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, since the result of printing money is either a bubble that will eventually burst or economic stagnation because malinvestments are not liquidated. In extreme cases a hyper-inflation like Zimbabwe will be the eventual consequence.

Originally Posted by B Butler

But do not some want to deport him due to his expressing a political opinion?

Deportation -- at least in the current political order -- is no more than showing an unwelcome guest the door. He can talk all he wants at his place or wherever else he's wanted.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Any dog would be a deterrent to a burglar...

...In any event, a trained attack dog is an animal as suitable for provocation as any man-eating carnivore. Were I a crook I would fear the tiger -- excuse me, K-9 unit -- more than any other part of the police force. Domestication of any animal is in part an adjustment to the wild traits of its ancestors while greatly reducing the unpredictability of the creature. A dog remains a cunning, intelligent, aggressive, voracious, swift, strong, powerful, organized...killer with keen senses, sharp teeth, and sharp claws, just like a wolf.

The human family has a structure much like a wolf pack, and the dog fits in well. Dogs include the smallest animals capable of man-eating, but we are generally safe around dogs because we are more reliable food sources alive than dead. Any threat to the human food sources of a medium-to-large dog foolishly puts himself in mortal danger...

You've clearly never had a dog, pbrower. That's not a criticism of you, mind -- not everyone is inclined to or capable of what it takes. Just keep in mind that you're speaking from ignorance here. While what you seem to be saying is a little thin even on paper, it is barely even a slight reflection of the real world.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

An offer of $100 gift cards, no-questions-asked, by the Los Angeles Police Department in a gun buy-back brought in some bad-boy merchandise to be destroyed...

Those are flat-out awesome! Selling to a street-fence is so risky... how nice of the cops to offer a state-sanctioned buyer of stolen goods!

Not a one of those weapons shown is worth less than ten times the $100 gift card. No legitimate owner is going to trade them in for a 90% discount.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Not a one of those weapons shown is worth less than ten times the $100 gift card. No legitimate owner is going to trade them in for a 90% discount.

This is also a good way to get rid of something that doesn't function and would cost more that its worth to repair. It makes those who back the program feel good but accomplishes little else.

Originally Posted by Kepi

And here's where you run into problems with Libertarian economics, their analysis is great, but their reliance on comfortable, clearcut solutions leads them to a comfortable, but nonworking solution.

Even their analyses is flawed by being philosophically constrained, but then aren't all analyses? If you believe in something fervently, you tend to see everything tinted in RED, BLUE, GREEN or what have you. It's the human condition.

The best guide to use is past perfromance, If Cognate A postulates Position B on Topic C and predicts future Result D, then both A, B and C can be evaulated on the success or failure of the prediction. Assuming longevity, 'A' will produce many preditions, possibly on many subjects. So will many others - some who share A's positions and some who don't. It may be that Position B fails to address Topic C, but Cognate A may be very good offering other positons on other topics ... or he may be full of it in general. It's useful to know. There aren't many analysts who are consistently good, so when you find one, following her.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You've clearly never had a dog, pbrower. That's not a criticism of you, mind -- not everyone is inclined to or capable of what it takes. Just keep in mind that you're speaking from ignorance here. While what you seem to be saying is a little thin even on paper, it is barely even a slight reflection of the real world.

I have a dog, basically a cocker spaniel. I have no illusion about the small dogs that I have being capable of killing a burglar. Inflicting a nasty bite? Of course. Anyone on the lam who goes to the emergency room is going to be asked some questions about a bite that a Yorkshire terrier inflicts. He will never bite me, but I know enough to keep him away from some guests.

As noise-makers alone dogs are deterrents. Dogs leave plenty of questions of whether they can hurt someone badly, and in a nighttime burglary a crook might find it hard to distinguish between a Golden Retriever that poses little menace and a potentially-lethal Doberman or German Shepherd. Worse yet for a burglar is multiple dogs. These horrible crimes probably do not happen in the presence of a pair of Dobermans, Rottweilers, or German Shepherds.

You are right in that I do not know what my dog would do to an intruder. I do not want to find out the hard way. I would also keep him a safe distance from an infant.

Originally Posted by Galen

This is also a good way to get rid of something that doesn't function and would cost more that its worth to repair. It makes those who back the program feel good but accomplishes little else.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Those are flat-out awesome! Selling to a street-fence is so risky... how nice of the cops to offer a state-sanctioned buyer of stolen goods!

Not a one of those weapons shown is worth less than ten times the $100 gift card. No legitimate owner is going to trade them in for a 90% discount.

Yes, but the damage that one of those firearms can do in the event of criminal use is much more than $100. $100 is not going to buy a new firearm to replace that one even if the gift card comes from the largest dealer in firearms in America (Wal*Mart). Maybe a full change of clothes, five Blu-Ray videos, about half a TV set, a few days of groceries, five steak dinners out... The weapons on display will never be used in a drive-by shooting. They might never be used to intimidate an abused spouse, either. They will never be used in armed robberies.

Stolen firearms are of course the most dangerous ones. If someone gets a nominal reward of $100 for turning one in even if one is the thief... well, that person is never going to use it in a crime. That gun buy-back may have encouraged someone to turn in a gun that is no longer usable or (one hopes) no longer a part of someone's ordinary life. It's largely a win-win. I don't know who sponsored the buyback -- could it be a health insurance company? If Blue Cross wants guns off the street, then more power to it. Gunshot wounds are expensive injuries.