Individualism

[InvisibleJim]

Is it worth actually reading this thread to discover the source of lungs's and invisijism's beef?

Not unless you have a viewpoint on the topic k0rpsy.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Not unless you have a viewpoint on the topic k0rpsy.

Ascertaining that necessitates reading the thread, herp derp.

[InvisibleJim]

Ascertaining that necessitates reading the thread, herp derp.

Not all of it, just the first post.

[ashlesha]

Well, the benefits themselves do contribute to unemployment. I remember some of the test questions in my Labor Economics course a few years ago had to do with modeling the effects of unemployment benefits on contracting the labor supply. Basically, a certain number of people will make the rational choice to not seek employment because the utility value of staying home + getting benefits exceeds the utility value of available job offerings.

Plus there's the thing I mentioned about firms being less willing to hire, as well as lowering salaries, in order to compensate for the risks imposed of potentially having to pay unemployment benefits to terminated employees.

okay, but:

1. i'm talking about things like welfare, food stamps, child care assistance, etc. i'm not even sure about the rules for unemployment.

2. if somebody is going to be unemployed anyway because of lack of opportunity then the options are A) welfare for a limited amount of time until they get kicked off for not working or they work their way up through school and get a job, or B) crime.

[Absurd]

Capitalists against capitalists. Interesting story.

[InvisibleJim]

Sure, but the incentive structures on those programs are all fucked up.

Take food stamps for instance: I know for a fact in my state that as a single person with no dependents you get $400/month for food assistance if you qualify—putting it into perspective, that's $100/week… which, basically means that with a little savvy price shopping one could easily eat filet mignon & lobster almost every night if they wanted to.

However, in order to qualify you must: 1) Be unemployed & 2) Not be in school. You're instantly disqualified if either of those conditions are true. In other words, you're effectively penalized for even trying to do anything to better your life condition.

Sure makes me feel like a sucker for having a job and going to school though. I wouldn't mind having $100/week (~$5,000/year) of disposable income to blow on food.

Money and coupons are also fungible.

[ashlesha]

Sure, but the incentive structures on those programs are all fucked up.

Take food stamps for instance: I know for a fact in my state that as a single person with no dependents you get $400/month for food assistance if you qualify—putting it into perspective, that's $100/week… which, basically means that with a little savvy price shopping one could easily eat filet mignon & lobster almost every night if they wanted to.

However, in order to qualify you must: 1) Be unemployed & 2) Not be in school. You're instantly disqualified if either of those conditions are true. In other words, you're effectively penalized for even trying to do anything to better your life condition.

Sure makes me feel like a sucker for having a job and going to school though. I wouldn't mind having $100/week (~$5,000/year) of disposable income to blow on food.

yeah, in that case they're subsidizing unemployment. and that's stupid.

i just hear the "i'm paying for people to sit around" thing alll the time, even where i live, and i know from my experience both using the system and working for the system that at least where i live its just untrue. and most people when confronted with that FACT will just stonewall like jim did. and i want to shake them because they just don't listen lol.

i think safety net programs should exist but yeah, common sense, don't penalize people for working.

see how easy this is with normal and respectful communication?

[InvisibleJim]

Calls people dicks; demands respectful communication.

Agrees that unemployment is subsidised; then turns around in the next paragraph and states it is a FACT that people arent paying for people to be unemployed.

Wow. This IS easy.

[ashlesha]

You don't get it. I'm done explaining, try reading the thread again.

And respectful communication doesn't mean being a doormat, I was respectful until you werent.

[ArchonAlarion]

Attachment 1410

It reads like this: The chart is like a wheel with 8 points, each point is an ideology. Ideologies next to one another are friendly. Ideologies 2 away from one another are non-conflicting. Ideologies 3 away from one another are unfriendly. Ideologies opposite one another are directly opposed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Patrick_Mitchell

Brian Patrick Mitchell uses two dimensions for categorizing political ideologies. The first is "archy" meaning rank/hierachy, and the second is "kratos" meaning force/coercion. "Archy" does not necessarily mean imposed hierachy, it simply means a division of labor in status or power of some sort. Forcible imposition or deposition of rank would lie in the realm of Kratos.

republican constitutionalism = pro archy, anti kratos
libertarian individualism = anti archy, anti kratos
democratic progressivism = anti archy, pro kratos
plutocratic nationalism = pro archy, pro kratos

In addition to the four main traditions, Mitchell identifies eight distinct political perspectives represented in contemporary American politics:

communitarian = ambivalent toward archy, pro kratos
progressive = anti archy, pro kratos (democratic progressivism)
radical = anti archy, ambivalent toward kratos
individualist = anti archy, anti kratos (libertarian individualism)
paleolibertarian = ambivalent toward archy, anti kratos
paleoconservative = pro archy, anti kratos (republican constitutionalism)
theoconservative = pro archy, ambivalent toward kratos
neoconservative = pro archy, pro kratos (plutocratic nationalism)

A potential ninth perspective, in the midst of the eight, is populism, which Mitchell says is vaguely defined and situation dependent, having no fixed character other than opposition to the prevailing power.

[Reuben]

Sounds like you're conflating malignant self-interest with individualism. And yes, it's obvious that government is a prime vehicle for the exercise of malignant self-interest.

Individualism in a nutshell is just a social outlook which holds the individual as being the fundamental unit of human society, and that human action examined within the context of economic-sociological phenomena can only be meaningfully understood when the foundation of analysis begins at an individual basis.

Collectivism by contrast founds its analysis at least a few tiers higher whereby society is conceived as animated in terms of various aggregate groups (or treated as a reified whole unto itself), and asserts that human action can only be meaningfully understood in the context of it being determined by broader social or historical forces.

I don't believe I'm conflating the two terms, rather I'm just proposing that malignant self-interests, as you aptly called it, could still occur well within the framework of individualism. The individual knows best and should be given the right to serve his own interest without the interference of public authority, but those representing public authority could still express the same individualistic drives that would subvert the rights of an individual for everyone else. This could be due to malignant self-interest, as I suggested, or ignorance disguised as good-will, as you suggested with the black box fallacy, but it still occurs due to the nature of the current socio-political paradigm.

I probably have misused the term collective in my second point. I'm simply proposing that it could be the case where violations against individual rights function as a social agitator to stir up action in various members, who despite the unfavourable circumstances, are able to gather enough leverage to either benefit from the situation, or invoke necessary changes on a large scale for the betterment of society. These people then function as catalysts that may be able to shift society out of old systems.

[Cyrano]

Unfortunately, many workers under collective bargaining arrangements—esp. public sector employees—acquired or were otherwise promised pensions and benefits that were simply unsustainable in the long-term. I'm not going to feel sorry for teachers and cops ultimately losing their jobs when they pull down $70k+ yearly salaries replete with plush benefit packages and retirement plans. The parasitism of labor unions is why many cities, states, and various firms are teetering on bankruptcy; they're killing their hosts. It's also a main driver in accelerating certain outsourcing trends—i.e., when labor costs exceed a firm's ability to remain competitive in a global marketplace, what else are they supposed to do?

If collective bargaining arrangements weren't government-protected and could independently survive as viable free-market entities, that'd be fine. Otherwise, collective bargaining necessarily defaults into coercive monopsonies over sectors of the labor supply, monopsonies which are abusive to everyone else forced to foot the bill for their undue existence.

Ashton, you always make a strong case, but I disagree with you this time. When management offers benefits in lieu of pay increases, they are kicking the can down the road. We are down the road now, and baby boomers are asking that Management honor their promises. 70K+ a year for teachers is top-end. They don't make much in the early years, despite years of higher education, and a mission that is the most important in society. And to suggest that labor unions are parasites is just unfair. What power do individuals have to protect themselves from employers? The pay and benefits earned by Government employees are usually lower than for private sector workers. In good times no one called for higher pay for Government workers. In bad times, don't begrudge Government workers their fair wage and hard-earned benefits.

[Absurd]

You think bunch of socionics people on an Internet forum are going to smash the government, Cyrano?

What's even funnier is, when you get into it deeper you'll find a myriad of people actually killing what you stand for, and they're still Delta. I mean, not only do they kill Ashton, they kill you.

[mikemex]

You think bunch of socionics people on an Internet forum are going to smash the government?

You think you know the nature of political power, Absurd?

[Absurd]

You think you know the nature of political power, Absurd?

Yes, after dealing with it on a local level, I think I do. Something else?

[mikemex]

Yes, after dealing with it on a local level, I think I do. Something else?

No, I want to go deeper on this. What is political power to you?

[InvisibleJim]

Political power is the ability to disenfranchise the rights of the few using the argument that 'many people is better and we deserve stuff'.

The rule of law is designed to enshrine the private rights of individuals against the aggression of people who want to steal their stuff.

[JWC3]

In an age where governments are ever redistributing wealth and devaluing currencies at an every increasing rate simply to try to prop up 80 years of failing global economic and social policy with bailouts for everyone - What is your viewpoint towards the philosophy and ethics of individualism?

I don't really care that the banks failed, or care that the government bailed them out. I'm an individualist and I have nachos, the rest of the world can do whatever the hell it wants.

The banks failed? Oh that's interesting...

Someone stole my nachos? Get me the internet, I have angry letters to write.

[Gilly]

Lack of government = biker gangs and corporations running the world...if you have dealt with either intimately, you know it would suck ass.

The people putting anarchy on a pedestal are, in my view, either malicious or naive. I think the malicious part would be obviously relevant, but those who are naive just don't understand the fact that humans will always try to coalesce power and that calling it government or whatever else doesn't really make a shit worth of difference. Someone will always be the strongest, and the strongest will always throw its weight around. The good thing about government is that it at least has to pretend to be accountable to its people to keep them working, there are actual real limits on its power.

FWIW I agree that the US government sucks and needs a complete overhaul.

[ashlesha]

Political power is the ability to disenfranchise the rights of the few using the argument that 'many people is better and we deserve stuff'.

The rule of law is designed to enshrine the private rights of individuals against the aggression of people who want to steal their stuff.

lol, this rhetoric. there are political issues that affect me emotionally, like the kids who are starving or homeless, but even though its obvious in my perspective that this matters, i've learned to avoid emotional appeals about it because rational arguments hold more weight in discussions. so in light of that, seeing somebody whine and throw out emotional arguments about the disenfranchised, tax paying few just makes me want to tell you to go buy some vagisil and suck it up. i don't feel bad for them. emotional appeals for the privileged, how absurd.

[Absurd]

No, I want to go deeper on this. What is political power to you?

Doesn't matter what it means to me, what matters is, what it is, actually. I didn't come up with its concept(s) or something. I'm not a theoretician - quite the contrary, I'm the pragmatist. Besides, I'm not much into into concepts that do not nor cannot stand the test of time, anyway, so I just focus on what works, as in, really works.

As for politics/political power, there's many theoreticians you can embrace, ditch, embrace and ditch again. Weber comes to mind, Machiavelli, Plato, etc. There's a lot. Depends whom you want to argue with.

[mikemex]

That's a nice way to say nothing in many words...

[InvisibleJim]

Lack of government = biker gangs and corporations running the world...if you have dealt with either intimately, you know it would suck ass.

The people putting anarchy on a pedestal are, in my view, either malicious or naive. I think the malicious part would be obviously relevant, but those who are naive just don't understand the fact that humans will always try to coalesce power and that calling it government or whatever else doesn't really make a shit worth of difference. Someone will always be the strongest, and the strongest will always throw its weight around. The good thing about government is that it at least has to pretend to be accountable to its people to keep them working, there are actual real limits on its power.

FWIW I agree that the US government sucks and needs a complete overhaul.

One needs to first disentangle the law and what it should be and government.

[ArchonAlarion]

I thought biker gangs and corporations already run the world?

Now all I'm waiting for is the biker gang corporation.

[Absurd]

That's a nice way to say nothing in many words...

Now you know how politics works. Congratulations. Just talk, no action.

[Scapegrace]

Any Rand was a flaming idiot. I want to beat her corpse with a canoe paddle.


/topic.

Edit to add: there needs to be a movement to rename the comma splice the Rand comma.

[ashlesha]

Starving kids shouldn't even be a political issue. Anyone who feels that strongly about it needs to go broker a charity and leave me out of it.

but they are a political issue. sux2bu

i don't give a shit about jim's sob story about taxes either but everybody has their interests.

[Scapegrace]

"Any Rand"

Thank you, iPad.

[InvisibleJim]

Starving kids shouldn't even be a political issue. Anyone who feels that strongly about it needs to go broker a charity and leave me out of it.

No, your wealth must to confiscated to pay for starving kids to buy mobile phones in 'the slums'.



Lungs is a true expert, with no idea of the simple concepts of wastage, fungibility, incentivisation or any other such economic theory; therefore she is a bona fide legit expert opinion on such issues!

Valid opinion ahoy! Paraphrased 'Rich people are bad, m'kay!'

[ashlesha]

WOW THAT MEME PICTURE IS TOTALLY CONVINCING

have you figured out the concept of workfare yet, genius?

rich people who's major political interest is whining about the kids whose parents get food stamps are bad.

[InvisibleJim]

WOW THAT MEME PICTURE IS TOTALLY CONVINCING

have you figured out the concept of workfare yet, genius?

rich people who's major political interest is whining about the kids whose parents get food stamps are bad.

You were told you were wrong by me and then called me a dick because I didnt agree with you then Ashton explained to you the basic concept of incentivisation. You were given an explanation I would expect an intelligent 10 year old to grasp and you are still behaving like you have a point.

What do you Still Not Understand?

Heres a better idea, find a thread better suited to your expertise and inate skills.

[ashlesha]

You were told you were wrong by me and then called me a dick because I didnt agree with you then Ashton explained to you the basic concept of incentivisation. You were given an explanation I would expect an intelligent 10 year old to grasp and you are still behaving like you have a point.

i agreed with ashton about incentivization.

what i was talking about was different.

i gave you an explanation i would expect a 10 year old to understand.

google "workfare." i don't know what else to tell you.

Heres a better idea, find a thread better suited to your expertise and inate skills.

this is why you are a dick. i did not call ashton a dick.

being a skinny pussy in a bubble who's read a few articles about economics does not make you qualified for anything except jerking yourself off with theory that suits your predisposition.

[Scapegrace]

Personal insults r a rilly effective argument.

[InvisibleJim]

i agreed with ashton about incentivization.

what i was talking about was different.

i gave you an explanation i would expect a 10 year old to understand.

google "workfare." i don't know what else to tell you.

this is why you are a dick. i did not call ashton a dick.

being a skinny pussy in a bubble who's read a few articles about economics does not make you qualified for anything except jerking yourself off with theory that suits your predisposition.

You have been discredited so stop embarrasing yourself and take your childish rage elsewhere.

The only point you are making is that you are incapable of forming any sort of well thought through position like an adult, but we already knew this by your very public dealings with Siuntal.

[Scapegrace]

I can tell that Jim feels like he has the upper hand here because he's not using his handy-dandy popcorn emoticon.

[InvisibleJim]

Personal insults r a rilly effective argument.

Arguing that incentivisation does not incentivise was equally sound.

Also demanding a Brit learns the ins and outs of the US social state was awe inspiring.

Lungs for president!

[InvisibleJim]

I can tell that Jim feels like he has the upper hand here because he's not using his handy-dandy popcorn emoticon.

The popcorn is intended to goad a participant into continuing.

I believe you were about to discuss the merits vs drawbacks of Objectivism.

[ashlesha]

you marked scapegrace's post constructive when you were the first to make an unconstructive attack.

you still do not understand the very simple concept of workfare after having it explained to you repeatedly for three pages.

you use stupid 4chan meme picture shit to make points and then tell me i am incapable of reason.

[Scapegrace]

Merits of objectivism? lolz

Sloth bombing this remarkably stupid thread.

[InvisibleJim]

you marked scapegrace's post constructive when you were the first to make an unconstructive attack.

you still do not understand the very simple concept of workfare after having it explained to you repeatedly for three pages.

you use stupid 4chan meme picture shit to make points and then tell me i am incapable of reason.

Ashton explained to you that this is still incentivisation and you agreed in post #100.

Did you fall and hit your head hard on your irrelevant point? If amnesia is a problem for you, see a doctor.