Political Compass

[joncha]

Wow like your so smart and stuff.

[MalevolentLight]

Wow like your so smart and stuff.

Try saying that next time with "you're" instead of "your" and you might pull it off.

[joncha]

Wow like your my hero your so smart.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Just because it's mathematically ideal doesn't mean it's the only way for a free market to function. Monopolies can and do form in a perfectly free market.

I wasn't denying this.

Originally posted by Kontiki
Believe me, you are off base here - however, if you really want to keep trying, find something that says monopolies are inconsistent with a free market.

Monopolies are of course inconsistent with a free market. How could a monopoly be consistent with a free market?

Originally posted by Kontiki
All your quote is saying is that ideally, everything is in a perfect state of balance and totally ignores any form of reality.

My quote supports my definition of a free market, that the law of supply and demand hold sway. Freedom from laws and ordinances is just a logical extension of this. However, even the neoclassicists realised that regulations were a small price to pay to keep a market free of monopoly (or a cartel).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You seem to be saying that you don't believe in his theory just because of this extreme case though.

Well I don't consider it that extreme to his philosophy, but an integral part. But yes, I don't agree with his theory because I don't agree with the maximin.

Either do I in every specific theoretical case, but the case that you are talking about, you don't even identify real policies that would be affected by the case of a very small cost to a very small number of individuals and benefit to a very large number of individuals. That's why I'm asking you about real world problems. If there are no real world problems regarding this special case than who cares about it. You would be stupid for rejecting the model.

I think the problem is that you think that there are some theoretical model that are perfect depictions of the real world. There aren't. Rawls' model is no different from any other.

So then he doesn't want his thoretical conclusions to apply to the real world? What then? Usually, even with theoretical exercises (like, say, the Social Contract), philosophers want to conclusions to apply to the actual world, even if they didn't start from the actual world. You just have to buy into the premise.

You aren't getting this. Drop this part.

What about the minorities? Are they just screwed?

Who says the minorities can't be the power brokers? After all, look at South Africa for the longest time.

But, realistically, minorities without power are screwed in terms of rights and have been since time immemorial. They are extended rights when the people in power feel moral guilt at the way those minorities are treated.

And this fits you prefered ethical model, and why? You seem more of a utilitarian too me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's why I'm asking you about real world problems. If there are no real world problems regarding this special case than who cares about it.

Well I think there would always be real world problems in where looking at the minimum isn't the best idea (at least IMO). Things that would be affected are taxes and welfare (if we look at the least advantaged member, we want them to make much more than they do right now on welfare, and we'd want those who make more than the mean pay for them). That, I guess, would be the beginning.

And this fits you prefered ethical model, and why?

Because all this talk about 'natural' rights, I find silly. I don't think they exist, and I think power is really the only basis for them. Though I do agree there needs to be rights, I think the basis are through humanity. And I think it is in people's interests to curtail individual political power through its right-making authority.

I wouldn't say I'm totally a utilitarian, though I do have some of those tendancies. For instance, I believe strongly in freedom of speech, even if it hurts more people than it helps (like when the Klan wants to march), because I believe that power severly curtails the political power of those who are on top in the government.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Monopolies are of course inconsistent with a free market. How could a monopoly be consistent with a free market?

Maybe because they can come about in a free market? It seems you have a rather poor understanding of economics. A market for all goods and services simply cannot always function in perfect equilibrium. There are frequently natural barriers to entry, first-mover advantages, changing elasticities of demand and supply, etc. all of which can lead to a monopoly. Monopolies can form and disappear quite apart from government regulation. Hell, it's even common sense - the first person who brings a new product to market has a monopoly. It doesn't mean it's going to stay that way.

My quote supports my definition of a free market, that the law of supply and demand hold sway. Freedom from laws and ordinances is just a logical extension of this. However, even the neoclassicists realised that regulations were a small price to pay to keep a market free of monopoly (or a cartel).

A) You're definition of a free market is wrong.
B) It supports no such thing. It mearly addresses the optimal point of perfect competition. And your last sentence supports my point exactly. You may see the benefit of regulating a market to prevent possible abuses (as do I), but once you start regulating it, it's no longer a genuine free market. It pretty much defies logic to even suggest that you could have government regulation in a perfectly free market.

[Natalinasmpf]

When you go visit the middle east and convert to Islam and live the way they do then you come talk to me and tell me they are not morally inferior.

I wonder if I should kill you, be shocked, be amazed, or laugh at the fact you think all Muslims live in the Middle East.

[MalevolentLight]

I'm well aware Muslims not only live in the Middle East but have infested other areas including Malaysia, Phillipines, US, Africa, and just about every single other country out there.

[Spiffor]

I didn't know Imran was an infestation. Question is: is he worse or better than a cockroach?

[Mercator]

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10

I remember having scores of around -7 last time.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Spif,

At present he is still better. That changes when he graduates & gets admitted to the BAR.

[MalevolentLight]

Take a look at all the problems in the world right now. Everything from Russia to Africa to Southeast Asia to the US, every problem can be attributed to Muslim extremism. The fact that there are so few groups to counter it is nothing more than compliance by the Muslim community. They've declared a Jihad on us, I say we take them up on that offer and help them understand the mistakes of their ways. We'll "rehabillitate" them. I know you liberals just love that word.

[Spiffor]

Why didn't I think about it. Imran and Ramo are obvious threats to our security of all, and they deserve a good "rehabilitation". Preferably in a Gullag of some sort, to make sure the message is well transmitted.

[Natalinasmpf]

I'm well aware Muslims not only live in the Middle East but have infested other areas including Malaysia, Phillipines, US, Africa, and just about every single other country out there.

Then why do you try to symbolise the life of a person devoted Islam by referring to Saudi Arabia? You would then be well aware that a Muslim living in Singapore (and why the heck did you mention Malaysia and not us?! We have more GDP then them) has a vastly different lifestyle from one living in Saudi Arabia?

Athiests has also infested the likes of everywhere.
Nietszche

Take a look at all the problems in the world right now. Everything from Russia to Africa to Southeast Asia to the US, every problem can be attributed to Muslim extremism. The fact that there are so few groups to counter it is nothing more than compliance by the Muslim community. They've declared a Jihad on us,

Not really. Even if the supposedly (Muslim-run? hardly) OPEC cartel got dissolved and oil was everywhere, it wouldn't solve pollution, or energy. Sure, it would make energy cheaper, but it wouldn't solve its deficit.

Don't forget, a lot of problems are also solved by Islam. Many Arab inventors invented because in order to explore their relationship with Allah: Algebra, Calculus, mathematical concepts....

I could say, all the world problems right now can be attributed to American Imperialism, blatant oppression, capitalism and plutocracy, and the creeping Orwellianism and denial of rights found in Guantanamo Bay. Hypocrisy. Human rights violations. Ruthless suppression of dissent. Massacres. Unnecessary civilian casualties. Dropping depleted Uranium shells in civilian water supplies.

Its not that Islam is at fault....the evil US Imperialists are at cause. Islam is only provided a justification REACTION against the oppressive US Imperialism. Worldwide revolutionary Jihad against decadence and imperialism.