User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 90

  1. #41
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The Western world does awful things that keep people in developing countries poor, and it's not exporting corporations to buy/sell things there.

    1) agricultural subsidies in rich nations absolutely, positively make poor countries worse off, as they should be able to compete in a globalized market

    and

    2) the "aid" that we send over is often intercepted and sold/used as bribery by thugs in charge of these countries, which helps keep the very worst people in power

    Our farm policy in North America, Western Europe, and Australia is, frankly, shameful.
    Just to throw into the mix.. if we share all of our wealth, we'll get poorer and they'll reach a decent standard of living. So far so good. However, there is a possibility that the hit to western wealth means that one of the first things to go is the r&d on solutions.... and r&d could potentially solve this if it gets a chance.. or dramatically reduce the impact, in any event.

    So we could end up better off to keep short term pain, for a longer term gain, than to average out the situation with more redisiribution.

    Yes, I know it's a tangential viewpoint.

  2. #42
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    Just to throw into the mix.. if we share all of our wealth, we'll get poorer and they'll reach a decent standard of living. So far so good. However, there is a possibility that the hit to western wealth means that one of the first things to go is the r&d on solutions.... and r&d could potentially solve this if it gets a chance.. or dramatically reduce the impact, in any event.

    So we could end up better off to keep short term pain, for a longer term gain, than to average out the situation with more redisiribution.

    Yes, I know it's a tangential viewpoint.
    Us getting poor = "so far, so good?" Why not "everyone get richer?"
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #43
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    The 'right to water' implies that everybody is denied their freedom until everyone else has had their right to water satisfied. That is, the right to water infringes upon the right to live your life free from coercion and violence. Therefore, the right to water is not a right (or perhaps the right to live your life free from coercion and violence is not a right, but I know which one I am inclined to prefer).

    The supply of water is a profitable or charitable act. I am confident that there will be fewer people desperately in need to water if governments stop trying to supply it to them (or pretending to). Besides, it doesn't matter how many times the UN does or doesn't call water a human right, or anything else a right, because its "official" status as a right does not one jot of difference to its actual availability to people who need it. In case nobody had noticed, to not be murdered, raped and pillaged is a right too, and even the UN says so, but a fat lot of good the UN has done about it recently.

    Calling something a 'right' will not solve the problem.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  4. #44
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Us getting poor = "so far, so good?" Why not "everyone get richer?"
    Sorry, think you missed what I was driving at.

    We can either throw water at the poorer world, or we can throw no water at them, and instead stay wealthy and use some of that wealth to develop solutions for the whole planet.

    Short term pain for the poorer world. It's cruel, but the planet has finite resources.

  5. #45
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    Sorry, think you missed what I was driving at.

    We can either throw water at the poorer world, or we can throw no water at them, and instead stay wealthy and use some of that wealth to develop solutions for the whole planet.

    Short term pain for the poorer world. It's cruel, but the planet has finite resources.
    Up to a point, Lord. We may have finite resources, but we can use them in ever more productive ways; that is one of the main engines of economic growth in the world. A natural resource such as water is slightly different, but could become part of the equation with future technological advances (hydrogen!). Moving vast quantities of water is exceedingly difficult, especially potable water. The best thing we can export is a commitment to open markets and democracy.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #46
    Senior Member Dark Razor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    The OP makes this sound really bad, but when you realize that with rights come regulations and inefficient beaurocracies, you realize that it's also very wise. The free market can better distribute goods and services than any government agency ever could - and DEFINITELY better than the UN could. Imposing laws, quotas or regulations on water would make the situation WORSE, not better, because the free market is a better distributor than governments are.
    Yes, it is better to have the water supply run by private corporations. So the water company can turn off the taps of the unnecessary slum folks, and thereby allow the People who Matter to more efficiently water their lawns and wash their SUVs.

    I also like how people claim
    and DEFINITELY better than the UN could. Imposing laws, quotas or regulations on water would make the situation WORSE, not better, because the free market is a better distributor than governments are.
    with no proof or reasoning behind it. Though, of course, if Ronald Reagan said so, who needs proof?

    And of course water can't be a right, because then it seizes to be a commodity, I wonder when they will start selling air to breath.

  7. #47
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Razor View Post
    Yes, it is better to have the water supply run by private corporations. So the water company can turn off the taps of the unnecessary slum folks, and thereby allow the People who Matter to more efficiently water their lawns and wash their SUVs.

    I also like how people claim
    with no proof or reasoning behind it. Though, of course, if Ronald Reagan said so, who needs proof?

    And of course water can't be a right, because then it seizes to be a commodity, I wonder when they will start selling air to breath.
    Wow, those straw men are burning up nicely.

    Air and sunlight can't be commodities, because one person's use of them has no effect on anyone else's. Water is definitely not in the same category. Christ, are you suggesting that it DOESN'T cost money to find, pipe, and recycle water?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #48
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Dark Razor, free market economic ideologies aren't based on reasoning because they are principles of how the market "should" or "would" work if there was little or no government involvement. They aren't realistic because government involvement is inseparable, to a degree, from the market. So when somebody argues that if the market was allowed to be "more free" they are showing their idealism, not logic, because they are ignoring the fact that "more free" in no way equates to "free" and by doing so they demonstrate that they don't understand that how a "more free market" works in no way equates to how a "free market" would work.

    As an analogy, imagine I make a perfectly reasonable argument for how in a "free" world, no man would ever kill another man. Obviously a truly "free" world is not possible, but I have established the principle. Now would it make sense then for me to argue that we should make our current world, that we all know can never be truly "free", "more free" because I believe in a "free" world that no man would kill another man. Would doing so reduce the number of murders in the real world, or would other factors inherent in a "non free" world actually increase the number of murders? That is why principles have to formed from the real world, not how the world "should" or "would" be if certain criteria were met, especially if those criteria are impossible.

    As you have probably noticed from discussing these issues with free market ideologists, they never say, "here is evidence of how a freer market lead to a better outcome," instead they make arguments like, "in a freer market, this is how things would turn out because that is how they would turn out in a free market." Obviously the latter is often borderline delusional and can be infuriating, but ideologies are often based on blind faith in the principles found in a utopic condition.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  9. #49
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Dark Razor, free market economic ideologies aren't based on reasoning because they are principles of how the market "should" or "would" work if there was little or no government involvement. They aren't realistic because government involvement is inseparable, to a degree, from the market. So when somebody argues that if the market was allowed to be "more free" they are showing their idealism, not logic, because they are ignoring the fact that "more free" in no way equates to "free" and by doing so they demonstrate that they don't understand that how a "more free market" works in no way equates to how a "free market" would work.

    As an analogy, imagine I make a perfectly reasonable argument for how in a "free" world, no man would ever kill another man. Obviously a truly "free" world is not possible, but I have established the principle. Now would it make sense then for me to argue that we should make our current world, that we all know can never be truly "free", "more free" because I believe in a "free" world that no man would kill another man. Would doing so reduce the number of murders in the real world, or would other factors inherent in a "non free" world actually increase the number of murders? That is why principles have to formed from the real world, not how the world "should" or "would" be if certain criteria were met, especially if those criteria are impossible.

    As you have probably noticed from discussing these issues with free market ideologists, they never say, "here is evidence of how a freer market lead to a better outcome," instead they make arguments like, "in a freer market, this is how things would turn out because that is how they would turn out in a free market." Obviously the latter is often borderline delusional and can be infuriating, but ideologies are often based on blind faith in the principles found in a utopic condition.

    Are you claiming that it's impossible to have freer markets because government is a reality, or that it's difficult-to-impossible to predict behavior in a free market (as has been posited by Austrian/anarcho-capitalist economists)? I happen to think that the first statement is ludicrous, but the second has some validity.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #50
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Are you claiming that it's impossible to have freer markets because government is a reality, or that it's difficult-to-impossible to predict behavior in a free market (as has been posited by Austrian/anarcho-capitalist economists)? I happen to think that the first statement is ludicrous, but the second has some validity.
    I'm saying it is ludicrous to make arguments about how markets would work if they were freer based on your beliefs of how a "free market" would or should work. A "freer" market is not the same thing as a "free market", and so even if all your beliefs about a "free market" are true they hold little weight in regard to how things actually work in the real market.

    In other words, we don't have a "free market," nor could anything close to a "free market" exist in the modern world, so making "free market" speculations about what outcomes would occur in the actual market if it were made "freer" are meaningless. Even if it were made "freer" it would still not be a "free market" and so it would not operate under the same principles of a "free market" and it could have completely different outcomes.

    When you make an argument about how such and such would be better if it were freer based on your principles of how a free market would work, you aren't using reason, you are applying an ideology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

Similar Threads

  1. Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck - Water Is Not A Human Right
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 03:14 PM
  2. As humans we are never satisfied
    By Mace in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-25-2013, 03:43 PM
  3. Is there such a thing as Human Nature?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 12:07 AM
  4. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    By Kalach in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 10:06 PM
  5. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 06:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO