Page 2 of 3

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:03 am
by midwestphysics
negru wrote:
midwestphysics wrote: And now we get to the point of it all. You're pissed you were ever born, and mad that the world isn't what YOU thought it should be.
I am debating about various ways in which a society may function, trying to expose my opinion on what would be a consistent system which maximizes personal freedom. If you can't have a normal discussion, based on arguments, examples, analogies, hopefully as extreme as possible since that's the only place you can really check for consistency, that's a shame, but I don't really care if you think I'm pissed I was born. Yeah I am pissed that the constitution doesn't mean anything anymore, and that people never think about principles and the fairness of various actions, but limit themselves to the ol'time liberal college favorite "if it feels good, it must be right and thus accomplished"
Your argument isn't based in examples, you've yet to give ONE real, living, example. And the constitution as you view has never existed, not in that way. I don't even need to really answer you anymore, you've run off of this discussion into some rant. You're not discussing anything, and frankly HappyQuark is doing a fine job of picking your "discussion" apart without me.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:04 am
by negru
HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote: About people we elected...I didn't elect the people in charge, and no one asked if I want someone in power in the first place. Respecting the rules of a game is fine, as long you agreed to play the game. No asked me if I want to play this game. There is virtually no way out, and there shouldn't be any reason for me to leave or anything. As long as I'm on my private property, i shouldn't have to give a damn on whether Obama, Bush or anyone else is president. They may be president, but they don't OWN the land.
But a democracy isn't about asking you specifically what you want and then automatically giving it to you. It's about asking what the majority of the people and want and giving it to them, provided it doesn't infringe on fundamental rights. You live in a democracy, you utilize the services it provides and this is regarded by everyone as your implicit acceptance of the system.
Exactly, that's why I am arguing against democracy. There is absolutely no difference as far as I am concerned if the decision to take part of my money was reached 50%+1 of the population or a random criminal on the streets. How are the two different? What, there's just more of those guys than the others, so that gives them the right to do whatever they want?
negru wrote:About monopoly, so it doesn't seem fair to you for anyone to be able to set the price they want on their products? Say you want to sell that golden locket you have from your long deceased mother which you loved very much. You're saying it would be right for the government to step in if you charge too much for it? This is technically a case of monopoly. If you always have to identify monopolies with evil walmarts asking for organs and first born to give the only water left on earth, that's your problem.
HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote:As for why we should even ask people what they want to do with their money, it's simple, it's the principle I am suggesting, I'm not sure I can derive it from anywhere. It's the only principle which I found to lead to consistent societies. You can in fact it is the only fair principle, if you want a property of fairness to be consistency
You'd have to actually cite some evidence that shows that economies and societies flourish when only one law is created and that it is to let people have uncontrolled wealth because I don't buy it for a second. Additionally, it was your suggestion that justification for equality wasn't necessary, so by your own logic we shouldn't we feel obligated to treat everyone equal in terms of their earnings? Why should we let things "fall where they may" and give everyone equal opportunity to accumulate maximum wealth? Your own beliefs on the matter are in conflict.
By consistent I mean logically consistent. Ie without any laws or situations which contradict themselves or are clearly abnormal. Like in the case of copyright laws. The existence of copyright, trademark, or other such things can lead to situations such as someone copyrighting peeing before going to bed. Clearly absurd, so how do you avoid this?
Why should we let things "fall where they may" and give everyone equal opportunity to accumulate maximum wealth? Your own beliefs on the matter are in conflict.
Because there is a tremendous difference between doing an action, and not doing anything. This is the key. I'm always suggesting "do nothing". You suggest "why don't we do this to upset the natural order". This is where our starting points differ, and why they are not equivalent.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:07 am
by negru
HappyQuark wrote: Again, you are quite ignorant of how the system works. The amount of taxes you pay, if you have to pay any at all, is determined by your yearly earnings, dependencies, etc. Have you never filled your taxes before? How do you not realize that your taxes were directly determined by the amount of money you have? How could you possibly be this confused?
That wasn't my point. It was about tax distribution. I'm arguing that neither tax collection nor distribution is either fair or consistent, but completely arbitrarily chosen, thus without any merit whatsoever.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:08 am
by midwestphysics
By consistent I mean logically consistent. Ie without any laws or situations which contradict themselves or are clearly abnormal. Like in the case of copyright laws. The existence of copyright, trademark, or other such things can lead to situations such as someone copyrighting peeing before going to bed. Clearly absurd, so how do you avoid this?
That would be public domain, look up patent and copyright laws and you'll see it right in there. You can't patent or copyright something that is in public domain.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:10 am
by HappyQuark
negru wrote:If you can't have a normal discussion, based on arguments, examples, analogies, hopefully as extreme as possible since that's the only place you can really check for consistency, that's a shame, but I don't really care if you think I'm pissed I was born.
This is far from a normal conversation and your analogies thus far have all been completely useless and ridiculous. Comparing the taxing of well off individuals instead of the poor as even remotely similar to choosing which type of abductee should receive a prosthetic shows a painful lack of understanding with respect to this conversation. Specifically, we can exactly quantify the degree to which a person is capable of losing money by their total financial worth. The same can't be said of human legs vs human arms.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:11 am
by negru
midwestphysics wrote:
By consistent I mean logically consistent. Ie without any laws or situations which contradict themselves or are clearly abnormal. Like in the case of copyright laws. The existence of copyright, trademark, or other such things can lead to situations such as someone copyrighting peeing before going to bed. Clearly absurd, so how do you avoid this?
That would be public domain, look up patent and copyright laws and you'll see it right in there. You can't patent or copyright something that is in public domain.
why is that public domain?

how about the next example: can I copyright two notes of a song?

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:13 am
by midwestphysics
negru wrote:
midwestphysics wrote:
By consistent I mean logically consistent. Ie without any laws or situations which contradict themselves or are clearly abnormal. Like in the case of copyright laws. The existence of copyright, trademark, or other such things can lead to situations such as someone copyrighting peeing before going to bed. Clearly absurd, so how do you avoid this?
That would be public domain, look up patent and copyright laws and you'll see it right in there. You can't patent or copyright something that is in public domain.
why is that public domain?

how about the next example: can I copyright two notes of a song?
Man you need to educate yourself on the American system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:13 am
by negru
HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote:If you can't have a normal discussion, based on arguments, examples, analogies, hopefully as extreme as possible since that's the only place you can really check for consistency, that's a shame, but I don't really care if you think I'm pissed I was born.
This is far from a normal conversation and your analogies thus far have all been completely useless and ridiculous. Comparing the taxing of well off individuals instead of the poor as even remotely similar to choosing which type of abductee should receive a prosthetic shows a painful lack of understanding with respect to this conversation. Specifically, we can exactly quantify the degree to which a person is capable of losing money by their total financial worth. The same can't be said of human legs vs human arms.
What's a person's total financial wealth then? The value of an object is how much a buyer pays for it. If I don't want to sell an object of mine to the government, its cost is simply infinite.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:15 am
by HappyQuark
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote: Again, you are quite ignorant of how the system works. The amount of taxes you pay, if you have to pay any at all, is determined by your yearly earnings, dependencies, etc. Have you never filled your taxes before? How do you not realize that your taxes were directly determined by the amount of money you have? How could you possibly be this confused?
That wasn't my point. It was about tax distribution. I'm arguing that neither tax collection nor distribution is either fair or consistent, but completely arbitrarily chosen, thus without any merit whatsoever.
Again, you are confused and ridiculous. Whether or not money is being taken and given in fair amounts is a completely different thing from what we are discussing, which is whether taxing those with money and taxing those without money is an equivalent situation. You suggested that this was the case and you are demonstrably wrong and now you are backpedaling.

Additionally, it is in no conceivable way, arbitrary. I already pointed out to you that it is based on Annual income, financial dependencies, donations, eligible write-offs, etc. How is this arbitrary? Do you understand what that word means?

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:19 am
by negru
Yeah I know what public domain is but it always seemed like a very subjective, circular and completely non-exhaustive term. Therefore, worthless

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:22 am
by CarlBrannen
HappyQuark wrote:You live in a democracy, you utilize the services it provides and this is regarded by everyone as your implicit acceptance of the system.
There basically is barely a postage stamp sized chunk of land on this planet where you can live totally without government interference. But people do have the opportunity to switch countries and it happens a lot more than people realize. Stalin grew up in Georgia. Hitler grew up in Austria. Winston Churchill's mom grew up in the US.
negru wrote:As for why we should even ask people what they want to do with their money, it's simple, it's the principle I am suggesting, I'm not sure I can derive it from anywhere. It's the only principle which I found to lead to consistent societies. You can in fact it is the only fair principle, if you want a property of fairness to be consistency
I think that if you look around you'll find that there have been perhaps ten thousand of lifestyles on this planet, say $$\{L_j\}$$, and that if you pursued lifestyle $$L_j$$ in a place where $$L_k$$ is standard where $$j\neq k$$, then the result would be that you would be placed in jail or worse.


So by any reasonable definition of "freedom", it has never existed on this planet. The best you can hope for is the freedom to be an anonymous herd animal, to do the things that everyone else does (and have the law apply to you equally). But as far as I know, even this does not even come close to existing in any of those ten thousand life styles. But some are definitely better than others.
HappyQuark wrote:You'd have to actually cite some evidence that shows that economies and societies flourish when only one law is created and that it is to let people have uncontrolled wealth because I don't buy it for a second.
Having spent some time dealing with rich people I have learned that are some very practical justifications for having them around.

Before I go further I should mention that rich people are almost all quite stupid. They did not get their money by being smart, they were "lucky" in one way or another. Or maybe, if they did get something by being smart, after they got rich they became stupid.

Part of the problem with being rich is that people treat you like an alpha male. If you do something stupid they won't mention anything. They will treat you like the "king who wore no clothes". The reason for this is that the human race is a herd animal with the usual pack hierarchy. And money primarily determines the hierarchy (at least in most of the lifestyles that currently obtain over most of the developed world).

All that said, suppose you had a great idea and wanted to start a company. The only problem is that you need to get a lot of money. With rich people your problem is simple, just find a rich person, convince him that your idea is good, and have him fund it. With a society of only middle class people the problem is immensely greater. So even if rich people didn't exist, a properly operating society would have to invent them for practical reasons.

The second thing about rich people is that all their wealth is quite useless in the absence of less rich people. For money to be useful, they need to have someone to give it to. Money by itself means nothing. This concept is why there are limits to how steeply concentrated money can become. (And there are other reasons that have to do with economics and long term cycles that I cannot explain to you in a venue such as this, but if we end up in the same school, ask me about it, and over a couple of months I can explain the concepts over lunch and you might see it my way.)

Oh and I should a third thing about rich people. As a consequence of being quite stupid, it's pointless to try to get things from them. For example, suppose you want a TV. You will get it from a group of poor people who will be paid to design and assemble it, and to deliver it to you. If you try to get a rich person, say Bill Gates, to make you a TV you will find that it is quite hopeless.

The best you could do is to take some money from Bill Gates and use it to pay a group of poor people to make you a TV. But having done this, you still will not have gotten a single day's work out of Bill Gates. This is because it is not possible to make rich people work, except basically by making them no longer rich. The Nazis though carefully about this dilemma and took the money from the Jews and put them into concentration camps with the sign "Arbeit macht frei" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei on it, which means Work Makes You Free.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:22 am
by negru
HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote: Again, you are quite ignorant of how the system works. The amount of taxes you pay, if you have to pay any at all, is determined by your yearly earnings, dependencies, etc. Have you never filled your taxes before? How do you not realize that your taxes were directly determined by the amount of money you have? How could you possibly be this confused?
That wasn't my point. It was about tax distribution. I'm arguing that neither tax collection nor distribution is either fair or consistent, but completely arbitrarily chosen, thus without any merit whatsoever.
Again, you are confused and ridiculous. Whether or not money is being taken and given in fair amounts is a completely different thing from what we are discussing, which is whether taxing those with money and taxing those without money is an equivalent situation. You suggested that this was the case and you are demonstrably wrong and now you are backpedaling.

Additionally, it is in no conceivable way, arbitrary. I already pointed out to you that it is based on Annual income, financial dependencies, donations, eligible write-offs, etc. How is this arbitrary? Do you understand what that word means?
No why don't you answer my specific example. Helping which of the two would lead to the greater common good? My point being that there might exist situations where the answer is not very clear. Whether it's taxes, or sacrificing some other personal freedom to reach a greater good. I don't see how you got to the how taxes are computed thing.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:24 am
by HappyQuark
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote:If you can't have a normal discussion, based on arguments, examples, analogies, hopefully as extreme as possible since that's the only place you can really check for consistency, that's a shame, but I don't really care if you think I'm pissed I was born.
This is far from a normal conversation and your analogies thus far have all been completely useless and ridiculous. Comparing the taxing of well off individuals instead of the poor as even remotely similar to choosing which type of abductee should receive a prosthetic shows a painful lack of understanding with respect to this conversation. Specifically, we can exactly quantify the degree to which a person is capable of losing money by their total financial worth. The same can't be said of human legs vs human arms.
What's a person's total financial wealth then? The value of an object is how much a buyer pays for it. If I don't want to sell an object of mine to the government, its cost is simply infinite.
A person's total financial wealth is determined by the sum of their assets and their liabilities. (e.g. net worth = money+property-debt-loans....) your money is assigned a nationally accepted value, via the the US Department of treasury, and your property is assigned a relatively determined value based, at least primarily, on the supply and demand of the property. Objects don't become infinitely value just because you decide not to sell them and I have no idea where you would get such an idea. Educate yourself a bit on how the American financial system is structured.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:24 am
by negru
I particularly like this objective, specific and clear concept of patent laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_ ... bviousness
:lol:

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:27 am
by midwestphysics
negru wrote:
Yeah I know what public domain is but it always seemed like a very subjective, circular and completely non-exhaustive term. Therefore, worthless
:lol: , what are you talking about? This is like arguing with a wall. How is it subjective? Circular? Non-Exhaustive? I'm convinced you've been competely talking out of your ass this whole time, because you don't even seem to know what the things are that you do and don't believe in.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:28 am
by negru
HappyQuark wrote: A person's total financial wealth is determined by the sum of their assets and their liabilities. (e.g. net worth = money+property-debt-loans....) your money is assigned a nationally accepted value, via the the US Department of treasury, and your property is assigned a relatively determined value based, at least primarily, on the supply and demand of the property. Objects don't become infinitely value just because you decide not to sell them and I have no idea where you would get such an idea. Educate yourself a bit on how the American financial system is structured.
Dude I'm telling you that laws are inconsistent and don't make any sense, and you quote me the laws. For all I cared the law could've said "if it's a tuesday then multiply by 10, if you're wearing a brown shirt subtract two". Yeah that's how you'd compute financial wealth. Does it make any sense? No. Does your law make any? No, financial wealth by that definition might hardly be close to a person's REAL wealth, which is the only thing that matters. Reality matters, not some random definition

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:30 am
by HappyQuark
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote:
Again, you are confused and ridiculous. Whether or not money is being taken and given in fair amounts is a completely different thing from what we are discussing, which is whether taxing those with money and taxing those without money is an equivalent situation. You suggested that this was the case and you are demonstrably wrong and now you are backpedaling.

Additionally, it is in no conceivable way, arbitrary. I already pointed out to you that it is based on Annual income, financial dependencies, donations, eligible write-offs, etc. How is this arbitrary? Do you understand what that word means?
No why don't you answer my specific example. Helping which of the two would lead to the greater common good? My point being that there might exist situations where the answer is not very clear. Whether it's taxes, or sacrificing some other personal freedom to reach a greater good. I don't see how you got to the how taxes are computed thing.

I don't know and this precisely because, like I said previously, there is no simple way to determine which of the two scenarios is less problematic. However, like I said before, there is an exact, non-arbitrary, quantitative way of determining who can and can not pay taxes.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:31 am
by midwestphysics
negru wrote:I particularly like this objective, specific and clear concept of patent laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_ ... bviousness
:lol:
If I read it correctly those practices exist in Gemany and the UK, there's your promise land. But oh wait, they tax too, I guess you're **** out of luck.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:32 am
by negru
HappyQuark wrote: I don't know and this precisely because, like I said previously, there is no simple way to determine which of the two scenarios is less problematic. However, like I said before, there is an exact, non-arbitrary, quantitative way of determining who can and can not pay taxes.
Yeah, well why don't you make an exact, non-arbitrary, quantitative way of determining who deserves the arm/leg more. Here's one solution: leg= 5 points, arm=6. Arm wins, hurray. Arbitrary? You guessed it.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:32 am
by midwestphysics
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote: A person's total financial wealth is determined by the sum of their assets and their liabilities. (e.g. net worth = money+property-debt-loans....) your money is assigned a nationally accepted value, via the the US Department of treasury, and your property is assigned a relatively determined value based, at least primarily, on the supply and demand of the property. Objects don't become infinitely value just because you decide not to sell them and I have no idea where you would get such an idea. Educate yourself a bit on how the American financial system is structured.
Dude I'm telling you that laws are inconsistent and don't make any sense, and you quote me the laws. For all I cared the law could've said "if it's a tuesday then multiply by 10, if you're wearing a brown shirt subtract two". Yeah that's how you'd compute financial wealth. Does it make any sense? No. Does your law make any? No, financial wealth by that definition might hardly be close to a person's REAL wealth, which is the only thing that matters. Reality matters, not some random definition
Shirts and moneyare not comparable, that example is ridiculous.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:35 am
by HappyQuark
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote: I don't know and this precisely because, like I said previously, there is no simple way to determine which of the two scenarios is less problematic. However, like I said before, there is an exact, non-arbitrary, quantitative way of determining who can and can not pay taxes.
Yeah, well why don't you make an exact, non-arbitrary, quantitative way of determining who deserves the arm/leg more. Here's one solution: leg= 5 points, arm=6. Arm wins, hurray. Arbitrary? You guessed it.
EXACTLY! The arm/leg situation you proposed IS ARBITRARY. Tax laws are not. This is why you are confused! I'm glad you finally figured it out.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:35 am
by CarlBrannen
negru wrote:I particularly like this objective, specific and clear concept of patent laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_ ... bviousness
:lol:
Yes. The basic idea of the patent office is to provide income to lawyers. It's not about protecting inventors and likely never was. In fact, a lot of lawyers will admit that the primary purpose of the law is to give humans a method of settling disputes (in the case of patents, who has the right to sell something) without resorting to their natural inclination towards violence.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:36 am
by CarlBrannen
HappyQuark wrote:EXACTLY! The arm/leg situation you proposed IS ARBITRARY. Tax laws are not. This is why you are confused! I'm glad you finally figured it out.
LOL! Obviously you know nothing about the tax laws.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:38 am
by negru
Ok fine, for the sake of moving on, lets agree that there is a way to decide who pays how much. Tell me now about distribution. Think of this example:

A city can complete two projects. One is a heating system for a neighborhood of 6231 people, the other is extending electricity lines to a neighborhood of 3450 people. What does your greater common good instinct tell you now?

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:39 am
by midwestphysics
CarlBrannen wrote:
negru wrote:I particularly like this objective, specific and clear concept of patent laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_ ... bviousness
:lol:
Yes. The basic idea of the patent office is to provide income to lawyers. It's not about protecting inventors and likely never was.
Please Carl, tell me that was sarcastic, My compass is a bit off after all this.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:40 am
by HappyQuark
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote: A person's total financial wealth is determined by the sum of their assets and their liabilities. (e.g. net worth = money+property-debt-loans....) your money is assigned a nationally accepted value, via the the US Department of treasury, and your property is assigned a relatively determined value based, at least primarily, on the supply and demand of the property. Objects don't become infinitely value just because you decide not to sell them and I have no idea where you would get such an idea. Educate yourself a bit on how the American financial system is structured.
Dude I'm telling you that laws are inconsistent and don't make any sense, and you quote me the laws. For all I cared the law could've said "if it's a tuesday then multiply by 10, if you're wearing a brown shirt subtract two". Yeah that's how you'd compute financial wealth. Does it make any sense? No. Does your law make any? No, financial wealth by that definition might hardly be close to a person's REAL wealth, which is the only thing that matters. Reality matters, not some random definition
At first I thought you were being serious but now I'm convinced you are just trolling. There is no possible way that you could possibly think that the value assigned to property is arbitrary, especially after I specifically explained to you how assets received value based on the demand of the product and the availability of it. This is all Econ 101 so there is no way you could actually be this confused.

Here are some break dancing, rapping animals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkjTM4AfYdU

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:41 am
by HappyQuark
CarlBrannen wrote:
HappyQuark wrote:EXACTLY! The arm/leg situation you proposed IS ARBITRARY. Tax laws are not. This is why you are confused! I'm glad you finally figured it out.
LOL! Obviously you know nothing about the tax laws.
Give me one specific example of an arbitrarily determined tax law.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:42 am
by negru
HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote: I don't know and this precisely because, like I said previously, there is no simple way to determine which of the two scenarios is less problematic. However, like I said before, there is an exact, non-arbitrary, quantitative way of determining who can and can not pay taxes.
Yeah, well why don't you make an exact, non-arbitrary, quantitative way of determining who deserves the arm/leg more. Here's one solution: leg= 5 points, arm=6. Arm wins, hurray. Arbitrary? You guessed it.
EXACTLY! The arm/leg situation you proposed IS ARBITRARY. Tax laws are not. This is why you are confused! I'm glad you finally figured it out.
No, that's a situation you have to solve. You argued that sometimes it's better to make some decisions for everyone. Make a decision in this given case. And make sure that the principles on which you base your decision can be extended to similar examples, and you always get consistent results.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:43 am
by HappyQuark
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote: Yeah, well why don't you make an exact, non-arbitrary, quantitative way of determining who deserves the arm/leg more. Here's one solution: leg= 5 points, arm=6. Arm wins, hurray. Arbitrary? You guessed it.
EXACTLY! The arm/leg situation you proposed IS ARBITRARY. Tax laws are not. This is why you are confused! I'm glad you finally figured it out.
No, that's a situation you have to solve. You argued that sometimes it's better to make some decisions for everyone. Make a decision in this given case. And make sure that the principles on which you base your decision can be extended to similar examples, and you always get consistent results.
Image

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:44 am
by midwestphysics
negru wrote:Ok fine, for the sake of moving on, lets agree that there is a way to decide who pays how much. Tell me now about distribution. Think of this example:

A city can complete two projects. One is a heating system for a neighborhood of 6231 people, the other is extending electricity lines to a neighborhood of 3450 people. What does your greater common good instinct tell you now?
Once more we return to mutual agreements. We agree on which one to tackle first, which one requires the help soonest, etc. We do so through mutual agreements on priority. What gets done is all about our priorities, and my original question that started this thread was will the future generations bring back funding, in other words see science as a priority?

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:45 am
by negru
HappyQuark wrote:
CarlBrannen wrote:
HappyQuark wrote:EXACTLY! The arm/leg situation you proposed IS ARBITRARY. Tax laws are not. This is why you are confused! I'm glad you finally figured it out.
LOL! Obviously you know nothing about the tax laws.
Give me one specific example of an arbitrarily determined tax law.
The value of the income tax is arbitrary, for example.


I don't know what you mean by value "assigned" to property is. Assigned by who? The government? Are they buying it, how do they how much it's worth? Do they know that some guy is offering 100 times more than their estimate, because he likes the property very much?

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:46 am
by negru
midwestphysics wrote:
negru wrote:Ok fine, for the sake of moving on, lets agree that there is a way to decide who pays how much. Tell me now about distribution. Think of this example:

A city can complete two projects. One is a heating system for a neighborhood of 6231 people, the other is extending electricity lines to a neighborhood of 3450 people. What does your greater common good instinct tell you now?
Once more we return to mutual agreements. We agree on which one to tackle first, which one requires the help soonest, etc. We do so through mutual agreements on priority. What gets done is all about our priorities, and my original question that started this thread was will the future generations bring back funding, in other words see science as a priority?
Yeah and of the two, to which would you assign a higher priority? Clearly if you believe that such situations can be aptly solved by the state, there must exist on obvious and non-arbitrary solution, right?

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:46 am
by midwestphysics
HappyQuark wrote:
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote: A person's total financial wealth is determined by the sum of their assets and their liabilities. (e.g. net worth = money+property-debt-loans....) your money is assigned a nationally accepted value, via the the US Department of treasury, and your property is assigned a relatively determined value based, at least primarily, on the supply and demand of the property. Objects don't become infinitely value just because you decide not to sell them and I have no idea where you would get such an idea. Educate yourself a bit on how the American financial system is structured.
Dude I'm telling you that laws are inconsistent and don't make any sense, and you quote me the laws. For all I cared the law could've said "if it's a tuesday then multiply by 10, if you're wearing a brown shirt subtract two". Yeah that's how you'd compute financial wealth. Does it make any sense? No. Does your law make any? No, financial wealth by that definition might hardly be close to a person's REAL wealth, which is the only thing that matters. Reality matters, not some random definition
At first I thought you were being serious but now I'm convinced you are just trolling. There is no possible way that you could possibly think that the value assigned to property is arbitrary, especially after I specifically explained to you how assets received value based on the demand of the product and the availability of it. This is all Econ 101 so there is no way you could actually be this confused.

Here are some break dancing, rapping animals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkjTM4AfYdU
:lol: I'm convinced he's not even a physics student , he can't be.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:47 am
by midwestphysics
negru wrote:
midwestphysics wrote:
negru wrote:Ok fine, for the sake of moving on, lets agree that there is a way to decide who pays how much. Tell me now about distribution. Think of this example:

A city can complete two projects. One is a heating system for a neighborhood of 6231 people, the other is extending electricity lines to a neighborhood of 3450 people. What does your greater common good instinct tell you now?
Once more we return to mutual agreements. We agree on which one to tackle first, which one requires the help soonest, etc. We do so through mutual agreements on priority. What gets done is all about our priorities, and my original question that started this thread was will the future generations bring back funding, in other words see science as a priority?
Yeah and of the two, to which would you assign a higher priority? Clearly if you believe that such situations can be aptly solved by the state, there must exist on obvious and non-arbitrary solution, right?
You don't get it do you? It's not what I assign priority, but what the majority does and I might not be in that majority.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:49 am
by HappyQuark
negru wrote:
HappyQuark wrote:
CarlBrannen wrote:
LOL! Obviously you know nothing about the tax laws.
Give me one specific example of an arbitrarily determined tax law.
The value of the income tax is arbitrary, for example.


I don't know what you mean by value "assigned" to property is. Assigned by who? The government? Are they buying it, how do they how much it's worth? Do they know that some guy is offering 100 times more than their estimate, because he likes the property very much?
I think this describes my official position nicely,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdiz0k0Rudw

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:55 am
by midwestphysics
:lol: yeah, just about my position too.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:04 am
by negru
Happy, I'm really sorry to say it, but here you are being really stupid.
There is no possible way that you could possibly think that the value assigned to property is arbitrary, especially after I specifically explained to you how assets received value based on the demand of the product and the availability of it.

do you agree that someone with a more valuable property should be taxed more? (according to your doctrine, at least). why is that? basically, because the person with more valuable property can sell it, rent it, etc and thus have more money, right? maybe I'm wrong, illuminate me if i am.

now, to whom would such a person sell or rent this property? usually not to the government, but to some private party. now, how much money would that private party give him? will this deal not be reached by mutual agreement? So, if the guy simply decides to sell the property for 10000 times its value, and the private party agrees (i dunno, maybe they're laundering money), wouldn't that leave the tax collector very sad? because he's been grossly underestimating the property's worth? doesn't this make the "assigned" value completely worthless?

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:07 am
by midwestphysics
I'm sorry I can't continue this fine conversation any longer, but I've got to catch a plane.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:08 am
by negru
yeah and pls stop troling this topic, this is not a troll forum

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:08 am
by negru
midwestphysics wrote:I'm sorry I can't continue this fine conversation any longer, but I've got to catch a plane.
that's fine i didn't like you anyway

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:11 am
by sphy
What's brewing here? Gosh!
@midwestphysics: I really appreciate you have an awesome question to ponder over.
I think in this way--"That money may come to an extinction (I mean economic stringent conditions) but science will not and it will never be."




@Others
Scott Pilgrim Vs The World---Anyone seen it.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:19 am
by negru
definitely among my all time favorites. not sure why but it seemed like a combination between machete and napoleon dynamite

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:28 am
by HappyQuark
negru wrote:yeah and pls stop troling this topic, this is not a troll forum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:34 pm
by midwestphysics
sphy wrote:What's brewing here? Gosh!
@midwestphysics: I really appreciate you have an awesome question to ponder over.
I think in this way--"That money may come to an extinction (I mean economic stringent conditions) but science will not and it will never be."




@Others
Scott Pilgrim Vs The World---Anyone seen it.
Now there's the direction I was looking for in responses. Thanks Sphy!

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:56 pm
by negru
By the looks of this, it does look like the future of modern science will lead to extinction:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... te-change/

Can someone please just the pull the plug on NASA already....

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:48 pm
by negru
Oh btw if you agree with limiting personal freedom i really do hope you've never complained about things like the patriot act, gay marriage bans, drug bans, etc.


ps. i am not responsible for your liberal heads exploding after reading this post

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:04 pm
by midwestphysics
:lol: You're still on this political bender!? Let it go already, everything is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Besides, we were finally starting to get a response or two on topic.

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:56 pm
by Dreaded Anomaly
negru wrote:Well here is the problem. Why do economic inequalities have to be justified? I'm not saying this. I don't care about inequalities, and I don't think that the "goal" is to restrict or adjust these inequalities in any way.
The economy is a system that exists because people agree to participate in it. No person acting out of rational self-interest would agree to a system where the majority of wealth is concentrated in a tiny minority of the population, so such a system is unjust. (See Sean Carroll's recent blog post about the massive economic inequalities in the U.S. today.) No one gathers wealth in a vacuum; wealth only exists relative to the economic system in which it is gained and maintained. Therefore, it simply is not true that "your" money and property belongs to you and you alone. You depend on other people to get that money and property and to recognize its value in the future. Society provides the economic system, and therefore society has the right to modify that system. Property rights are less fundamental than civil rights, because property is fundamentally a matter of consensus rather than a matter of individual liberty.
negru wrote:Again, what do you mean by "just"? By "just" I'd understand that every man is responsible only for he does, and no one else. And what's wrong with monopolies or trusts? If you create some product that only you can make, is there something so evil in selling it? Yeah, you'll have a monopoly. So? Would you want the government to come along and say, yo man, how come only you can make that thing? tell these other guys how to make it too!
Justice is fairness, as determined by the rational self-interest of an arbitrary person. That is the only consistent principle in that it applies to everyone equally, regardless of random factors like inherited ability, wealth, location, etc. Monopolies and trusts unfairly concentrate power, and limit the freedom you claim to desire so greatly. The scenario you describe, in which the government demands you tell others how to make your product, simply does not correspond to any situation in reality.
negru wrote:Also, I never denied people the right to re-associate themselves in a state, with whatever form of government they wish. However, they should all associate by mutual consent, and without forcing anyone else to join. Currently, that's not how it works. The whole idea of a social contract is retarded, and these half ass philosophers, starting with that dimwit Rousseau, are retarded. Yeah, social, contract, very nice, very clever. Only one problem with it: I never signed this goddamn contract! And if I break it I go to jail or am shot.
If you break the social contract while existing in society, then yes, you will be punished. That's the point. You were born into this society, and as a child your agreement with the social contract is implicit. As an adult, you get to decide if you want to continue in society or not, but every decision has consequences. If you want to leave society, feel free. I'm sure we'll all miss you.
negru wrote:Also, I realize that the secular liberal man really misses god and tries to fill the gap with himself looking out for mankind and making decisions in its place, but personally I find that very presumptuous and demeaning of human value and "supposed"emergence from the dark ages. The Inquisition tried to forcefully save people, have we learned nothing? Principle-wise, I mean, not technologically or rhetorically. The problem with the Inquisition wasn't that it based its actions on faulty arguments and was too extreme. The problem was that it took in its hands a power it should never have had, no matter its goals or justifications. Even if it really did have the best of intents.
How can a person miss something that doesn't exist? Do you miss unicorns and leprechauns?

Your description of the purpose of the Inquisition is simply false. It was about securing church power and rooting out heretics. The problem was entirely that it based its actions on faulty, extreme premises. Only from such premises could that misuse of power occur.
negru wrote:As for why we should even ask people what they want to do with their money, it's simple, it's the principle I am suggesting, I'm not sure I can derive it from anywhere. It's the only principle which I found to lead to consistent societies. You can in fact it is the only fair principle, if you want a property of fairness to be consistency
How exactly did you "find" this? What societies operate on the principle you describe?
negru wrote:Here is that greater common good. How do you know who can and who can't stand to lose any amount of money? Say you have two people. One needs an arm, to work, masturbate, hold hands with his wife, the other needs a leg, to be able to go pee on his own, run in the park with his beautiful fiancee, and play football with his son. How do you decide who needs the transplant more? What would be the greater common good?
False dilemma. (This applies to most of the "examples" you propose, actually.)
negru wrote:I am debating about various ways in which a society may function, trying to expose my opinion on what would be a consistent system which maximizes personal freedom. If you can't have a normal discussion, based on arguments, examples, analogies, hopefully as extreme as possible since that's the only place you can really check for consistency, that's a shame, but I don't really care if you think I'm pissed I was born. Yeah I am pissed that the constitution doesn't mean anything anymore, and that people never think about principles and the fairness of various actions, but limit themselves to the ol'time liberal college favorite "if it feels good, it must be right and thus accomplished"
Rawls' philosophy is entirely about principles and fairness. The idea that anyone should be able accumulate unlimited wealth is the actual expression of "if it feels good, it must be right."
negru wrote:Exactly, that's why I am arguing against democracy. There is absolutely no difference as far as I am concerned if the decision to take part of my money was reached 50%+1 of the population or a random criminal on the streets. How are the two different? What, there's just more of those guys than the others, so that gives them the right to do whatever they want?
A self-proclaimed strict Constitutionalist arguing against democracy. How delightfully hypocritical. :lol:
negru wrote:Because there is a tremendous difference between doing an action, and not doing anything. This is the key. I'm always suggesting "do nothing". You suggest "why don't we do this to upset the natural order". This is where our starting points differ, and why they are not equivalent.
Naturalistic fallacy.
negru wrote:Ok fine, for the sake of moving on, lets agree that there is a way to decide who pays how much. Tell me now about distribution. Think of this example:

A city can complete two projects. One is a heating system for a neighborhood of 6231 people, the other is extending electricity lines to a neighborhood of 3450 people. What does your greater common good instinct tell you now?
This idea of a "greater common good instinct" seems to be something you've invented in order to mischaracterize opposing arguments, i.e. a straw man.
negru wrote:yeah and pls stop troling this topic, this is not a troll forum
Are you talking to yourself here?

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:29 pm
by kapil_ds
midwestphysics wrote:So I'm sitting down here in Florida, just watched Discovery take off with my own eyes which is always cool. Still, at the same time it's sad. That will be Discovery's last flight, outside of some freak chance, and leaves only two more flights left. So here's my question I guess. Granted the economy is bad so this may be a bad time to ask, but given the fact that we really have no viable next stage do any of you see this as a sign of the end of the age of modern science? It seems like the world is perfectly fine with killing the flow of money to our sector, do you ever see it coming back? I know we all hear them talk a big game about funding science and technology and then go in the opposite direction. I'm just a little worried about our generation and those beyond not picking the torch back up and moving it along. Granted we'll still have scientists, but unfortunately we don't write the budget and we don't make up very many votes.
Coming back to the original question which I believe is worth discussing, I don't think that science is ending any time soon. However, given that we live in an increasingly technological society, I am always amazed at how low science seems to be on the society's list of priorities. We, as a society, are all very happy to consume the fruits of technological advances but are not willing to support the scientific research which is the fount of all those advances. In fact, a significant segment of US population almost seems to be anti-science. I often wonder what the long term consequences of this attitude will be. From my reading of world history, scientific capability (especially in military science) is closely linked to the rise and fall of civilizations. So, this may not turn out well. On the whole, I think the scientists have done a poor job of selling/marketing the relevance of their work.

Specifically, regarding future of space exploration, I suspect that the chinese might get to the moon in another 10 years. A chinese moon landing might change some people's opinions here in US.

(Off course, I don't like space exploration being closely interlinked with military concerns, but I don't decide nation's research priorities.)

Kapil

Re: The future of modern science, extinction?

Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:40 pm
by midwestphysics
Great answer! Thanks for discussing the topic.