Political Compass

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Kidicious
laws aren't general. The're suppose to always hold true. But the're really just theories that don't hold true at the extremes. That's what we're talking about, right?

The "law of demand and supply", as a precise mathematical rule, is only true in the limit as time goes to infinity. That's because it's a crude mathematical approximation of a chaotic system.

The law of supply and demand (and the theory behind laissez-faire capitalism) is true in the same way it is true that evolution through natural selection produces the most fit organisms.

No. It applies to an instant in time only.

[Al B. Sure!]

kidicious... there's a difference between demand and quantity demanded...

[Imran Siddiqui]

when you actually think that people always make fair judgements without bias to their personal situation.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth (btw, you do this quite often and then claim that it is definitive - sounds like you trying to convince yourself almost), but no. I think that people eventually make fair judgments, and that their biases help define the debate on that. After all, like I said, Rawls' rights are the rights that the 'biased' framers of the US Constitution came up with. They didn't need a veil of ignorance to make these fair rights, even though they had biases to their position.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
kidicious... there's a difference between demand and quantity demanded...

Sure. But what's your point?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

when you actually think that people always make fair judgements without bias to their personal situation.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth (btw, you do this quite often and then claim that it is definitive - sounds like you trying to convince yourself almost), but no. I think that people eventually make fair judgments, and that their biases help define the debate on that. After all, like I said, Rawls' rights are the rights that the 'biased' framers of the US Constitution came up with. They didn't need a veil of ignorance to make these fair rights, even though they had biases to their position.

You call slavery fair?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You call slavery fair?

Slavery was a 'right' in the Constitution? I didn't see that in my Bill of Rights!

Is your knowledge of US civics just that poor?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You call slavery fair?

Slavery was a 'right' in the Constitution? I didn't see that in my Bill of Rights!

Is your knowledge of US civics just that poor?

You need to play fair on this Imran. Certainly no protection for slavery was ever written into the US constitution but there was a time when SCOTUS rulings made protection of slave ownership a part of the constitution in much the same way that a right to privacy has been enshrined in our constitution entirely as a consequence of such rulings.

[Natalinasmpf]

When robotics became self-aware, do we have to declare another form of emanicipation?

After all, it will start to have some very severe ethical questioning: why would conscious humans be superior to conscious [insert species here?]

[Imran Siddiqui]

there was a time when SCOTUS rulings made protection of slave ownership a part of the constitution in much the same way that a right to privacy has been enshrined in our constitution entirely as a consequence of such rulings.

You NEED to be fair now. The right to privacy is considered a right which arises from the 1th, 4th, and 9th Amendments (penumbra of rights) and is actually considered a right. The SCOTUS decisions on slavery (Dred Scott being primary) never considered it a 'right'. Never said it arose from any of the Bill of Rights. They said the Constitution accepted slavery. Acceptance of slavery and there being a right to slavery are two vastly different things.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yeah, because we all know how poorly the American people perceives wealth and free market... how strongly they believe in communal property... how socially excluded are tax-evading billionaires....

How, precisely, do individuals evade the income tax?

Back up your bald assertions, please.

And you know, companies are pressured to donate to charity and such

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No. It applies to an instant in time only.

Uh, no...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No. People will not buy an unlimited amount of candy bars at any price.

You'll also notice on a supply and demand graph, that where price=0, quantity demanded is a finite amount. That is part of the laws of supply and demand.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue

You'll also notice on a supply and demand graph, that where price=0, quantity demanded is a finite amount. That is part of the laws of supply and demand.

How can you have zero price? That in itself is a violation of the laws.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Uh, no...

Ingnorance is one thing, but insisting that your not when you are is called something else.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo
You need to play fair on this Imran.

That's too much to expect unfortunately. I've seen this too many times.