tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post500075816869537452..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: Piketty's Envy ProblemPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-25305899805096240862014-06-06T11:37:26.120+12:002014-06-06T11:37:26.120+12:00Amit - "That is why I began my statement with...Amit - "That is why I began my statement with "So"" - in other words, just to be clear for you, I was drawing a logical inference as to what his underlying premise is using the logic of the statement. As I have explained in my last comment, I now see it as having been a misstatement rather than an implicit confession of premise.Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-2387029084618304392014-06-06T11:11:05.820+12:002014-06-06T11:11:05.820+12:00Amit,
Your eagerness to score points against me ...Amit, <br /><br />Your eagerness to score points against me rather than reach a reasoned conclusion is disappointing and unfortunate. <br /><br />When I wrote "So, according to Mr. Schiff the moral is not necessarily the logical", that was not meant to imply that the inference I drew is what he was meaning. That is why I began my statement with "So". <br /><br />I admit poor logic in my last post. I was trying to express the inconsistency of and contradiction in your last sentence, but my choice of words did not achieve that aim, but it is side issue, so I will let it alone. What matters is that you again skirted the main points of this discussion, namely, the inference to be drawn from Schiff's statement, the *logic* of which implies a flawed premise, namely, that the moral can at the same time be the illogical, which means the unreasonable, since logic is the method of reason (or do you deny this?), and, my observation that the primary flaw in Pickett's argument is moral, not logical - the *fundamental* flaw being logical. Your only answer to these points has been, in effect, to argue for moral relativism and claim that Schiff tailors his economic arguments to a supposedly educated but morally relativistic audience. <br /><br />We have do a disservice to Mr. Schiff; I now realize after doing some more research that he has publicly voiced his contempt for those who argue for moral relativism (http://www.europac.net/commentaries/debate_debate) and that I was too hasty in assuming that he might subscribe to the flawed premise which the logic of his statement implies. I thus re-categorize what he wrote as being a mis-statement, but stand by my observation about the focus of his argument. <br /><br />So that we may reach a reasoned conclusion, I shall now quote Hazlitt in 'Foundations of Morality': "When the rightly understood interests of the individual are considered in the long run, they are found to be in harmony with and to coincide (almost if not quite to the point of identity) with the long-run interests of society. And to recognize this leads us to recognize conduciveness to social cooperation as the great criterion of the rightness of actions, because voluntary social cooperation is the great means for the attainment not only of our collective but of nearly all our individual ends." The key word here is "voluntary"; one either acknowledges that the moral necessitates the chosen, or, one subscribes to the idea that the moral can (or must) be achieved through compulsion (or, one may also hold that morality as such does not exist at all). Tell me, which of these premises do you subscribe to Amit? I'd like to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-76792056258358647292014-06-05T18:54:21.700+12:002014-06-05T18:54:21.700+12:00Terry
OK. So now it reads this, "you are thu...Terry<br /><br />OK. So now it reads this, "you are thus necessarily agreeing with my inference, at least by way of inference, while at the same time denying it."<br /><br />And so, as you would have it now, I supposedly necessarily accept inference by means of inference.<br /><br />Or am I denying it? Am I denying the inference or is it the inference of the inference I am denying, or is it just the inference (not that inference, the other inference)? <br /><br />Like the man said, "It's turtles all the way down."<br /><br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-31705426523117282962014-06-05T18:46:56.659+12:002014-06-05T18:46:56.659+12:00Terry
You've dug your hole already. It has be...Terry<br /><br />You've dug your hole already. It has become too large for you to escape! <br /><br />Remember you did claim this, "So, according to Mr. Schiff the moral is not necessarily the logical."<br /><br />It was false then and it is false now. He did not argue that one. You were wrong, as already pointed out to you. Game over. <br /><br /><br />An aside: <br />Your inference is yours. It would not be accepted, let alone recognised, by the audience Schiff directs his attention towards. Remember context please. <br /><br />I understand your subsequent argument and your critique of the Schiff piece. I am familiar with the Objectivist formulation upon which you rely. <br /><br />What you lable a concession on my part is an observation, nothing more. I do not state you are necessarily correct, merely that from the doctrinaire Objectivist view you may be argued to be correct. "May", as in "might", as in "possibly". Try to read a little less carelessly.<br /><br />As for your final paragraph, so now I supposedly necessarily accept inference by means of implication. Incredible! Do you often reason like this? Hardly a sterling example of the art of non-contradictory identification!<br /><br />Amit Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-40495181978534250492014-06-05T10:03:08.430+12:002014-06-05T10:03:08.430+12:00I meant "by way of inference".I meant "by way of inference". Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-61619727928869821872014-06-05T09:58:23.095+12:002014-06-05T09:58:23.095+12:00@ Amit, what I conceded was a typing error. My poi...@ Amit, what I conceded was a typing error. My point stands firm. There is a logical inference to be drawn from Schiff's statement and an observation to be made about the focus of his article - I did both. Your countering with ad hominem, psychologizing and argument by intimidation whilst avoiding addressing my actual point *is* to concede the point, and further, your concession is punctuated by your admission that "From the doctrinaire Objectivist view you may be arguably correct, "logic", analogy and all". <br /><br />You conclude that "He is dealing with an audience that is educated ... They do not see economics as relating to morality in the same sense that Objectivists do". Objectivists derive morality from reason and reason alone, and hold that logic (i.e., non-contradictory identification) is the sole method of reasoning, you are thus necessarily agreeing with my inference, at least by way of implication, while at the same time denying it. I submit that I am not the one "digging a bigger hole"...Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-32257819273902529642014-06-04T20:19:48.766+12:002014-06-04T20:19:48.766+12:00Terry
I forgot to mention, as an example of an im...Terry<br /><br />I forgot to mention, as an example of an important economist who did not evaluate economics in the way that Objectivists are prone to, review von Mises. <br /><br />Amit<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-28314393147249741662014-06-04T20:14:37.688+12:002014-06-04T20:14:37.688+12:00Terry.
You've conceded the point. Further ra...Terry. <br /><br />You've conceded the point. Further rationalisations unnecessary. That's just digging a bigger hole.<br /><br />While your "logic" might seem OK to someone arguing from the context of a doctrinaire Objectivist, that does not mean that anyone else (such as people who you might care to influence in the direction of Objectivism) will accept it, let alone the premise upon which it is based. It also does not mean that your "logic" is correct, self-consistent or true (faulty analogy and all) either. <br /><br />Schiff is a Libertarian. He does not argue from the ideology that economics and politics are derived from a hierarchy of absolutist thought beginning with the Objectivist Axioms, proceeding through Objectivist epistemology and onwards from there. Vanishingly few people accept that approach. They are not open to arguments from Objectivist morality because they understand morality to be quite different from that which Objectivists promote. Objectivism is, to most people, repugnant and malevolent- to be avoided, along with all the nasties it seems to attract. Schiff can't write from that position as his message would be instantly dismissed. He is writing for non-Objectivists (which is everyone other than Objectivists and that audience happens to be rather a lot larger than doctrinaire Objectivists alone). <br /><br />To recap: <br />From the doctrinaire Objectivist view you may be arguably correct, "logic", analogy and all. The vast majority of Libertarians (such as Schiff and practically everyone who reads him) are unlikely to concur or, at the least, would consider your point merely noise, trivial weirdness of little importance. Conservatives, neocons, small "l" liberals, socialists and the rest wouldn't worry about the distinction anyway. It's all just too minor to matter a whit. <br /><br />Schiff keeps in mind the audience he wants to reach and so writes directly for them- avoids emoting on and on about morality or evil or any of that. Remember the context. He is dealing with an audience that is educated, believes in an understanding of science and "logic" delivered to them from years in state controlled educational establishments and exposure to media. He also writes for a Libertarian audience of people who derive alternative philosophical structure to the Objectivist example. They do not see economics as relating to morality in the same sense that Objectivists do. <br /> <br />Amit Cim<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-69009626250110370862014-06-04T09:47:59.554+12:002014-06-04T09:47:59.554+12:00@ Amit – you are right, there is an uncorrected er...@ Amit – you are right, there is an uncorrected error in my third comment. Remove "he makes" and that should clarify things. The *inference* was certainly one that *I* drew, and my challenge to you to point out the flaw in *my* logic stands. I agree with you that Peter Schiff never meant to imply the inference I drew from his statement, but that does not change the validity of the inference nor the mistake in his choice of focus in the article. <br /><br />If someone proposed to you that the best way to eliminate a crippling debt you had would be killing the creditor, surely you would conclude that the *primarily* flaw in the plan was its immorality, and that if you dug deeper that it was *fundamentally* illogical? Or would you conclude that the primary flaw was one of logic, and entertain a debate on logic of why you should or should not kill your lender, whereby if the logic was justified then you would?Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-11205687005172686752014-06-03T17:42:27.868+12:002014-06-03T17:42:27.868+12:00Mr Lineberry
How is it possible for you to be a r...Mr Lineberry<br /><br />How is it possible for you to be a resident of Australia, own a house in Sydney (or an apartment), conduct business there, live and work there and not pay any tax to the ATO or to the State of NSW? You would have to be blatantly breaking Australian Tax Law (and it is doubtful you would be able to do that successfully for very long). There is no way you could operate under the ATO radar indefinitely without being detected and dealt with in a most severe manner. A competent tax inspector would love to have a piece of your lilly white bottom. You can be certain it'd be seen to that your lilly whiteness would be provided straight to a selected cellmate who you'd be put in with while you are in remand. Did you ever wonder why a certain well known Sydney day trader committed suicide right after he spent but two evenings in prison? Ask around.<br /><br />Look, even the Police are super rough in Australia. When they were concerned that not enough people were paying their traffic fines on time they contrived to put a nice middle class white boy into a remand cell with a known prison predator. He was shoved in there overnight over non-payment of a modest fine. When he was released he hung himself. The story was in all the major newspapers the next day and then suddenly people started paying their fines. They were and are fearful of the Police, let alone the ATO. The ATO is harsh. You can't go trying to put one over on them without accepting some pretty dire consequences are likely to be in train for you. <br /><br />Look, either you are telling porkies and exaggerating to compensate for some perceived character shortcoming you have (likely the case), or you are living life right on the edge of a titanic risk (unlikley). If you are indeed blissfully unaware of the risk and you are indeed not paying Aussie taxes, then you are incredibly ignorant and are in for a terrible surprise. If you know the risk and are taking it anyway, then you are foolish beyond belief, playing with funnel webs would be a safer pastime for you. In either case, sympathies go out to your next of kin.<br /><br />Amit Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-30111685041131902932014-06-03T17:13:18.796+12:002014-06-03T17:13:18.796+12:00Simon, Terry
Apologies, my comment ought to have...Simon, Terry <br /><br />Apologies, my comment ought to have been directed for Terry.<br /><br />Amit Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-10932712892353493152014-06-03T17:12:04.969+12:002014-06-03T17:12:04.969+12:00Simon
.
Mr Schiff did not argue the moral is not n...Simon<br />.<br />Mr Schiff did not argue the moral is not necessarily the logical. That "implication" you created was not Schiff's. It was yours. Having drawn the erroneous "implication" yourself, you compounded the error by attributing it to him. That is why you are wrong (twice over).<br /><br />Amit<br /><br /> <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-70331062191357702402014-06-03T14:01:41.052+12:002014-06-03T14:01:41.052+12:00@ Scott - yes, thanks, I already came to that conc...@ Scott - yes, thanks, I already came to that conclusion, a bit late in the piece admittedly. It took seeing him troll Chaz to realize he was doing the same to me. Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-84168017869739501742014-06-03T11:04:17.965+12:002014-06-03T11:04:17.965+12:00@Chaz & Terry
You can save your indignation, ...@Chaz & Terry<br /><br />You can save your indignation, because 'Mr Lineberry' is totally full of shit. His comments are hilarious; boastful nonsense often incongruent with his previous claims. Come on, he should have set off your bullshit radars well & truly by now.Scottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-74288993884022646012014-06-02T20:41:39.326+12:002014-06-02T20:41:39.326+12:00Chaz - nobody invents things, produces things or ...Chaz - nobody invents things, produces things or adds things anymore. <br /><br />No one.<br /><br />This is the 21st century (not the 19th) and a service economy; the days of industrial empires in the West are long gone and are not coming back - something of great comfort to working class people who don't have to do low paid, backbreaking manual labour like their granddad.<br /><br />There are no Thomas Edisons or Alexander Flemings or Henry Fords who invent products which structurally change day to day life - because it has all been invented.<br /><br />These days any so called 'inventions' are just another toy to play with and had it not been invented nobody would have missed it.<br /><br />The great thing about the modern age is the only way to make any money is financial markets - no need to do boring stuff like 'invent' or 'produce' - you just click a few buttons and then play golf or go sailing for the afternoon.<br /><br />Silly me! haha!Mr Lineberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-81194847631805558202014-06-02T17:31:35.864+12:002014-06-02T17:31:35.864+12:00You invent nothing, produce nothing, add nothing a...You invent nothing, produce nothing, add nothing and take your meagre profits from those who do (assuming you make any, and there are liars aplenty selling the snake oil you're peddling). Not sure how that makes you think you're in anyway useful. Go on strike and we'll see if we miss you, Atlas.Chaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-23819388027657702102014-06-02T16:44:37.734+12:002014-06-02T16:44:37.734+12:00Chaz - money and greed trumps all.
I spend a lot ...Chaz - money and greed trumps all.<br /><br />I spend a lot of time encouraging poor people to break out of their poverty ridden existence and start earning themselves a quid ....by copying what I do.<br /><br />Around two dozen of my 'in laws' in the Hokianga, and lots their friends - who had all spent years on benefits - are now earning $2000 or $3000 a week thanks to me "teaching them how to fish".<br /><br />Due to it being incredibly simple to purchase a block of shares at a certain price, and sell them for a higher price, thereby earning a profit - the universal reaction when someone actually sits beside me and sees how easy it is to line their pockets is "how do I do this too?".<br /><br />A quick phone call to my cute yummy share broker in Melbourne to open a dealing account later - (and me lending them a few thousand to get started) - and hitherto poor people are just loving their newfound, lucrative, immoral behaviour HAHAHAHA!!<br /><br />Not only are they no longer in poverty, and no longer on benefits, but their bulging bank accounts has meant a dramatic change in 'attitudes' which I have noticed over the last couple of years.<br /><br />They no longer find any enthusiasm for such things as demanding Treaty handouts, or thinking they are 'victims', or complaining about (imaginary) 'injustices'.<br /><br />In one stroke of altruistic benevolence (!) I have done more for the Maoris in the far north than Hone ever will, and done more about changing attitudes than 1Law4All is ever likely to.<br /><br />Fancy that!<br /><br />In the last 3 years I have done this with around 50 people; some clever dick smartypants folk would be very surprised if they knew what is <i>really</i> going on in the Hokianga haha!Mr Lineberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-33866623914856520932014-06-02T15:21:55.172+12:002014-06-02T15:21:55.172+12:00Mate, you're a parasitic day-trader. There ar...Mate, you're a parasitic day-trader. There are no leeches less productive. Please, go on "strike".Chaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-44024726233394816612014-06-02T14:43:03.669+12:002014-06-02T14:43:03.669+12:00@chaz - if only the engine of the world had stoppe...@chaz - if only the engine of the world had stopped in 1998; if only the Socialist Century had ended with lots of people like me telling the State to get knotted, and marched off into the sunshine of freedom.<br /><br />What those living as slaves fail to realise (for obvious reasons) is how easy it is to actually live in freedom, where you are, if you choose to - you simply ignore the nonsense going on around you.Mr Lineberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-60212038969795834652014-06-01T16:52:02.290+12:002014-06-01T16:52:02.290+12:00"I just did an Atlas Shrugged and stopped doi..."I just did an Atlas Shrugged and stopped doing what annoyed me."<br /><br />And the engine of the world stopped. I mean where are we without parasitic day-traders?Chaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-64211920847305798872014-06-01T15:44:47.993+12:002014-06-01T15:44:47.993+12:00@ Lineberry
I don't see the link between my p...@ Lineberry<br /><br />I don't see the link between my position and Obama's "you didn't build that" statement. I am not saying that you didn't build what you did build. Only that you are being irrational if you think that there will be any apparatus left to support what freedoms you do have if you are not voluntarily contributing towards at least some of it's upkeep, and being immoral if you lump the totality of that responsibility onto others. <br /><br />Identifying what is not right and not working and then advocating for what is right and what would work is not the same as complaining.<br /><br />And again, you did not answer my question. Why the evasion? Is it that perhaps you do realize your approach is not the moral one after all? <br /><br />You are either in denial or ignorant if you think that "the bad stuff the State does" has no effect on your life. With that mentality you are only choosing to see what is and not what could have been or what could be. It is the same flaw in thinking that statists engage in when they do their meddling. And no more sustainable.Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-91243464147918288752014-06-01T13:10:11.823+12:002014-06-01T13:10:11.823+12:00This is just what Peter highlighted a week or two ...This is just what Peter highlighted a week or two back - the "you didn't build that" nonsense which is trotted out by Obama and others (when even the Libz are doing it you know <i>they</i> have won! haha!).<br /><br />Of course I have used roads and electricity and other things - and so what?<br /><br />As I said at the beginning Terry - <i>you</i> are the one complaining about things, not me.<br /><br />None of the bad stuff the State does has any affect on me because I simply ignore it, or break the silly laws I disagree with.<br /><br />I spent 3 years in the 1990s 'enduring' busybody laws and rules and nonsense involved in conducting business in NZ before thinking 'stuff this' and focusing on the Australian market, where if you don't let the Government know certain things in the first place, they never know - (as Sir Robert Jones pointed out about the Aussie Government in one of his books, and he is correct haha!).<br /><br />I didn't complain - I just did an Atlas Shrugged and stopped doing what annoyed me. Simple!<br /><br />But if you are going to keeping doing whatever the State tells you to do, then why are you complaining about it?<br /><br />I have found time and again that as soon as I suggest someone 'takes a stand' (beyond talking about it), or does something out of their comfort zone, or may require living Atlas Shrugged themselves (rather than just telling everyone else to) not only do I get a lot of abuse, but they fall back on socialist arguments - such as your spouting the "you didn't build that" line.<br /><br />If you do not like the things you complain about Terry - then stop doing them. Now. <br /><br />On Tuesday morning close down your business because you don't intend to be a slave to the state any longer, and it's time to put your words into action.<br /><br />(I believe I read a book about people doing that sort of thing)<br />Mr Lineberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-36398465869863125262014-06-01T12:08:23.741+12:002014-06-01T12:08:23.741+12:00@ Lineberry,
That is all very well and good, but ...@ Lineberry,<br /><br />That is all very well and good, but I note that you did not after all that answer my main question: have you or have you not ever made a claim - any claim whatsoever - on the state during the last 30 years? If you can honestly reply that you haven't, then good for you, and I have no gripe with your set up and approach, although I would want to ask one well meaning question first, and that is whether or not you think it is necessary at all for Western countries to maintain a police and military for the protection of what freedoms *do* exist, and if you do, who do you think should be contributing towards the cost of providing said protections?<br /><br />Note that it is the *compulsion* involved in taxation that I object to, not that rights-valuing (i.e. rational) people are still required on moral (i.e. rational) grounds to contribute towards whatever cost is involved with upholding those rights they do happen to value and enjoy. Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-15073455557955775922014-06-01T11:16:56.093+12:002014-06-01T11:16:56.093+12:00Terry - did you just engage in a spot of Obama/War...Terry - did you just engage in a spot of Obama/Warren "you didn't build that"? haha! (a bit naughty)<br /><br />In answer to your questions, I have always, even as a boy, gone privately with my weekly medical treatment (for haemophilia), so, no, I am not a hypocrite; more than happy to pay the $600 myself.<br /><br />As for the Police, no never called them, although I have been arrested a few times for smuggling and some other larks in my 'wayward youth' haha!<br />My use of the Courts to chase up unpaid debts involved them charging me a whopping great filing fee so no problems there.<br /><br />I would not call Australia 'offshore' haha! - but you and every other businessman should certainly investigate doing business abroad; you would make more money in one day in Sydney than in a whole week in NZ (and it's just like flying to the South Island).<br /><br />There is a spot of well meaning advice for you Terry.<br />Mr Lineberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-54334242448991683022014-05-31T22:36:42.763+12:002014-05-31T22:36:42.763+12:00Consider the person I described above; consider wh...<i>Consider the person I described above; consider what is most likely to capture their hearts and minds -<br /></i><br /><br />Neither. Didn't Vietman teach you anything? Fighting for hearts and minds is useless against leftists - the only solution is strategic force, applied as massively and quickly as possible. In this case, fire the communists, throw them out of their houses, terminate their free healthcare, schools and super, and let the die quickly on the gutter, with armed police standing by to shoot anyone who is "moved" to "help". <br /><br /><br /><i> The whole problem (the only problem) with the libertarian faction of politics is an incredible naivety about this sort of thing - about public opinion, about the 24 hour news cycle, and 'government by soundbite</i><br /><br />Wrong. The problem is one of reality, not of presentation. 10% of Kiwis pay for everything for 90%. 1% of Kiwis pay for everything for about 80% of Kiwis. 0.1% of Kiwis pay for everything or about 70% of Kiwis. So let's return to morality and freedom as the basis of the state. 90-95% of Kiwis will thereby be thrown into penury, many of 'em (at least a couple of million, probably more) would starve in the gutter in the first month. Things would get "better" after that, but 90-95% of Kiwis would be materially far worse off a "libertarian" regime. The calculus isn't so bad in the US or Asia, but is worse everywhere else in the Welfare West. Dependent though they may be, the lumpen bludging mass isn't stupid enough to vote like a Turkey for Christmas.Angry Torynoreply@blogger.com