- Thread starter
- #101
In the same way Utilitarianism can be interpreted to preclude the Nazi perversion of eugenics.Wrong. The free rider problem can be eliminated simply by changing your business model.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In the same way Utilitarianism can be interpreted to preclude the Nazi perversion of eugenics.Wrong. The free rider problem can be eliminated simply by changing your business model.
They would have thought both of us were idiots if we tried to explain USMB to them as well. If global warming poses a physical threat to the commons, does government have an obligation to intercede?Again to call it "defense" is pure word gaming, they meant physical protection. If you said that was defense they would have thought you were an idiot.
At the risk of OP drift, if a meteor the size of Yankee Stadium splashes down in the deepest part of the Puerto Rico Trench, would the business of the US government include defending its citizens from the meteor's consequences?Calling it "defense" is idiotic and a pure game. With that preposterous reasoning you can justify anything. Anything government wants to do could be justified as defending someone from something. Cut the games if you want to have a discussion about an actual topic. Defense was the Army and Navy, not the EPA.
At the risk of OP drift, if a meteor the size of Yankee Stadium splashes down in the deepest part of the Puerto Rico Trench, would the business of the US government include defending its citizens from the meteor's consequences?Calling it "defense" is idiotic and a pure game. With that preposterous reasoning you can justify anything. Anything government wants to do could be justified as defending someone from something. Cut the games if you want to have a discussion about an actual topic. Defense was the Army and Navy, not the EPA.
Maybe we should limit the discussion to "modern" markets?Those markets were no more "primitive" than the markets that existed after the state came into being. Markets develop over time, whether they are state controlled and manipulated or not.
The Pentagon currently argues climate change represents a "threat multiplier" possessing the power to "exacerbate" many defense challenges faced by the US today. Unless you are claiming the founders knew better two hundred years ago, how else would empirical phenomena like changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather events be viewed if not as threats to national defense?ot under "defense." Katrina wasn't "defense." The California earthquake wasn't "defense." Hurricanes are not "defense." Grow up.
Maybe so, but it's also possible I lack the knowledge/imagination to produce a logical response:By your use of the term "defense," give me an example of something that the Federal government would not be able to do under that rationale. Obviously there is nothing.
Capital should serve the people, people shouldn't serve capital, just increasing GDP should not be the goal in of itself. Obviously sound economic policy should be a concern of the government, and policy should be centered on serving the national interest. .
In the same way Utilitarianism can be interpreted to preclude the Nazi perversion of eugenics.Wrong. The free rider problem can be eliminated simply by changing your business model.
The Pentagon currently argues climate change represents a "threat multiplier" possessing the power to "exacerbate" many defense challenges faced by the US today. Unless you are claiming the founders knew better two hundred years ago, how else would empirical phenomena like changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather events be viewed if not as threats to national defense?ot under "defense." Katrina wasn't "defense." The California earthquake wasn't "defense." Hurricanes are not "defense." Grow up.
Pentagon Climate change a national security threat TheHill
Maybe we should limit the discussion to "modern" markets?Those markets were no more "primitive" than the markets that existed after the state came into being. Markets develop over time, whether they are state controlled and manipulated or not.
"The origins of the market are obscure, but substantial documentary evidence survives from the eleventh century onward, when chartered markets and new towns were established across Western Europe.
"The expansion of the market system is important for business history because it created new opportunities for business growth. There has been no systematic literature review on market evolution since Henri Pirenne and Raymond de Roover, and this article attempts to fi ll the gap.
"It shows that successful markets were regulated— often by civic authorities—to maintain a reputation for reasonable prices and quality control. Markets were located at both transport hubs and centers of consumption, even when the latter were quite remote. However, as transport and communication costs declined, shakeouts occurred and only the larger markets survived.
"According to Adam Smith, 'The division of labour is limited by...'"
http://www.hbs.edu/businesshistory/documents/origin-and-development-of-markets.pdf
At the risk of OP drift, if a meteor the size of Yankee Stadium splashes down in the deepest part of the Puerto Rico Trench, would the business of the US government include defending its citizens from the meteor's consequences?Calling it "defense" is idiotic and a pure game. With that preposterous reasoning you can justify anything. Anything government wants to do could be justified as defending someone from something. Cut the games if you want to have a discussion about an actual topic. Defense was the Army and Navy, not the EPA.
NeitherFor Jeremy Bentham the answer was happiness which he defined as the overall happiness created for everyone affected by an action.
"I. The business of government is to promote the happiness of the society, by punishing and rewarding. That part of its business which consists in punishing, is more particularly the subject of penal law. In proportion as an act tends to disturb that happiness, in proportion as the tendency of it is pernicious, will be the demand it creates for punishment. What happiness consists of we have already seen: enjoyment of pleasures, security from pains."
Jeremy Bentham An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation Chapter VII Library of Economics and Liberty
The role of government is to allow the PURSUIT of happiness, not to guarantee that everyone will find it.
The role of government is to get out of the way of business and let the free market, supply and demand, and individual hard work drive success (or failure).
"just get the hell out of my way" John Galt to the government in Atlas Shrugged.
Prior to FDR the presumption of government was to produce the conditions for the "pursuit of happiness." FDR said, "why stop there, the federal government can produce happiness" ( understood as material well-being ) thus the New Deal, road to socialism and ruination of the principles the Founders spent much time on, in their famous U.S. Constitution, that is now almost up in flames. Obammy is fast closing it out, completely. We poor hard-working sucking taxpayers.
The Pentagon currently argues climate change represents a "threat multiplier" possessing the power to "exacerbate" many defense challenges faced by the US today. Unless you are claiming the founders knew better two hundred years ago, how else would empirical phenomena like changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather events be viewed if not as threats to national defense?ot under "defense." Katrina wasn't "defense." The California earthquake wasn't "defense." Hurricanes are not "defense." Grow up.
Pentagon Climate change a national security threat TheHill
Maybe so, but it's also possible I lack the knowledge/imagination to produce a logical response:By your use of the term "defense," give me an example of something that the Federal government would not be able to do under that rationale. Obviously there is nothing.
"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
"The general form of the argument is as follows.
Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki
- Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
- Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
- Conclusion: Not-P."
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."The Business of Government is to Promote Happiness or Business?"
Neither.
liberals believe that "promote the general welfare" means take care of everyone from birth to death, except unborn children that is.
No they don't
They believe in helping people who need help
Government debt has already enslaved many future generations of Americans. $18Trillion is a big number, and it's growing as we speak.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."The Business of Government is to Promote Happiness or Business?"
Neither.
liberals believe that "promote the general welfare" means take care of everyone from birth to death, except unborn children that is.
No they don't
They believe in helping people who need help
By enslaving them in generational poverty...
Defense from threats foreign and domestic, actually. The epidemic of mortgage fraud that nearly crashed the global economy six years ago is a greater threat to this country than radical Islam ever will be. The current gap between the richest Americans and the majority also qualifies as a crisis for all those not lost like naive trolls in the 18th century.No, defense means to defend our borders and Americans from foreign threats.