Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Commons Bar Mk V

Announcements Posted on
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    How are we all doing this evening?
    Glad that I've finally been able to make my coalition announcement.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Did any of those sentences have anything to do with one another? You start by criticising my writing style, then say I'm arrogant, then talk about how Libertarianism is coherent but lacks the ability to discern "between fantasy and science" - those two old dialectical foes.
    Yes they did. I went from criticising how to criticising why. Quite coherent, especially given it's past my bed time. And yes, science and fantasy are very different things.
    Which is odd, given the Libertarian party passed the largest number of bills last year.
    If you throw crap up a wall some of it's going to stick. Though the bills were very well written and that deserves a sticker. Also imaginative.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Yes they did. I went from criticising how to criticising why. Quite coherent, especially given it's past my bed time. And yes, science and fantasy are very different things.
    Yeah, I'm aware science and fantasy are different things, I'm just confused about how either come into the equation. There's no such thing as "good in theory but bad in practice." If it's bad in practice, it's bad in theory too, you've just missed someone out or rationalised it poorly. As a Libertarian - in fact, it's one of the key tenets of my belief - I recognise the existence of unintended consequences; But they aren't things you just shrug at, they're things that make you change the theory.

    If you support the government offering low interest loans to businesses that can't get support from banks, you might think "how jolly good of us. They're loans, so they don't cost us anything, and they help the economy!" Great in theory, right?!?! Except of course they aren't. There's a reason why commercial banks don't lend to these businesses - because they fear they're not going to make it, and they'll lose their money. That the government is willing to take this risk doesn't fill me with confidence, and it doesn't help the economy when money gets wasted when we're already in times of austerity. Also, it's basically exactly the same as what the banks were doing pre-crisis (lending to people who couldn't afford to pay it back - thanks to cheap credit from the bank of England), so they're just continuing a policy that lead to the collapse but cutting out the middle man.

    It has a lot of bad, unintended side effects. But that doesn't mean the policy was good in theory but bad in practice - there's no difference between theory and practice. If there is, you have messed up the theory. As a Libertarian, I feel that everything I say is practically as watertight as in theory. If you disagree, then let's discuss the issue. Don't just hide behind this mask of a faux-dichotomy between the two. The differences of opinions rarely come in the solutions, but first in defining the problem (ie differing views on the cause of the recession will lead to different solutions. )


    if you throw crap up a wall some of it's going to stick. Though the bills were very well written and that deserves a sticke
    Without meaning to troll at all, it actually sounds like there is something wrong with you when you simultaneously refer to something as 'crap' and 'well written' and 'imaginative'. Not only that, but none of our bills failed and more than half passed. I think you're clutching at straws if you try and argue that any party but the Libers did the best last term. I can't take any credit, I didn't write a single bill, but the team is fantastic.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Yes they did. I went from criticising how to criticising why. Quite coherent, especially given it's past my bed time. And yes, science and fantasy are very different things.


    If you throw crap up a wall some of it's going to stick. Though the bills were very well written and that deserves a sticker. Also imaginative.
    If you ever make a comment without insulting someone link me to it brah.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    Lol, I remember struggling to find ones without too many offensive words to put in there.
    that does sound like a challenge :P There can't be that many without them!
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Yeah, I'm aware science and fantasy are different things, I'm just confused about how either come into the equation. There's no such thing as "good in theory but bad in practice." If it's bad in practice, it's bad in theory too, you've just missed someone out or rationalised it poorly. As a Libertarian - in fact, it's one of the key tenets of my belief - I recognise the existence of unintended consequences; But they aren't things you just shrug at, they're things that make you change the theory.
    Wrong! Libertarianism (and socialism) are built on sand. They are grand cathedrals built on sand. Complicated and well-built, but built on sand nonetheless. So they can work in theory without being grounded in the dirty, less than accomodating, reality. And I'm not aware of libertarianism being tried in practice anywhere, and perhaps there's a reason for that - does it inherently contravene human nature? Are we individuals or are we people? Can we know what is rational?

    If you support the government offering low interest loans to businesses that can't get support from banks, you might think "how jolly good of us. They're loans, so they don't cost us anything, and they help the economy!" Great in theory, right?!?! Except of course they aren't. There's a reason why commercial banks don't lend to these businesses - because they fear they're not going to make it, and they'll lose their money. That the government is willing to take this risk doesn't fill me with confidence, and it doesn't help the economy when money gets wasted when we're already in times of austerity. Also, it's basically exactly the same as what the banks were doing pre-crisis (lending to people who couldn't afford to pay it back - thanks to cheap credit from the bank of England), so they're just continuing a policy that lead to the collapse but cutting out the middle man.
    Rational risk is good, irrational risk is bad. The banking crisis was caused by ill-thought out judgements in the juggernaut investment banks - they wanted a short-term profit on the loans they gave, thinking that even if it turned sour they'd be able to survive and pass the damage on to whatever other bank was willing to buy the debt/mortgages. This is not how capitalism should work, Rand knew that. The government needs to ensure that banks operate in the interests of themselves as a business rather than to simply enrich the individuals that dominate these banks. If they don't then everyone else gets hurt. Markets can't solve problems like this.

    It has a lot of bad, unintended side effects. But that doesn't mean the policy was good in theory but bad in practice - there's no difference between theory and practice. If there is, you have messed up the theory. As a Libertarian, I feel that everything I say is practically as watertight as in theory. If you disagree, then let's discuss the issue. Don't just hide behind this mask of a faux-dichotomy between the two. The differences of opinions rarely come in the solutions, but first in defining the problem (ie differing views on the cause of the recession will lead to different solutions.)
    That's exactly why it's difficult engaging with libertarian arguments - they are great responses to problems that you guys have identified but that aren't necessarily the way you guys think they are - also there's never room for compromise.

    Without meaning to troll at all, it actually sounds like there is something wrong with you when you simultaneously refer to something as 'crap' and 'well written' and 'imaginative'. Not only that, but none of our bills failed and more than half passed. I think you're clutching at straws if you try and argue that any party but the Libers did the best last term. I can't take any credit, I didn't write a single bill, but the team is fantastic.
    There is nothing "wrong" with people using oxymoronic statements. Oh, wait, that was another Daily Expressism on your part. Your bills passed here without any scrutiny, people indubitably mistook shiny eloquence for brilliant legislation. You made them look professional and so people assumed that they were.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Even i thought UKIP and the Tories were above working with that.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    QFA
    What exactly do you disagree with?
    • 24 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Woot, my Dad is almost definitely getting out of hospital today!
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Wrong! Libertarianism (and socialism) are built on sand. They are grand cathedrals built on sand. Complicated and well-built, but built on sand nonetheless. So they can work in theory without being grounded in the dirty, less than accomodating, reality. And I'm not aware of libertarianism being tried in practice anywhere, and perhaps there's a reason for that - does it inherently contravene human nature? Are we individuals or are we people? Can we know what is rational?
    Ok, great! I'd expect you - and anyone - that disagrees to think that, otherwise you wouldn't be disagreeing. That's not a controversial statement * - the meat is in why you think that, not merely stating that you do. You allude to your reasoning at the end of the paragraph - "Can we know what is rational?" - but I think this is the wrong question. Can we know what's rational? Not really, but rationality isn't the end, it's the means. If you meant "Can we rationalise so that we always get the right answer" then the answer is "no". Firstly, not everyone's powers of rationality are equal (some are much better problem solving than others, for example), not everyone has access to the same information, and of course not everyone's desires are the same so even with perfect logical deduction and omniscient information, people would come to different conclusions.

    (* I feel the same re: centrally planned economies, but I can tell you exactly why, and I do so below. They don't have the information needed, they have too many different interests to please and they will inevitably succumb to the human corruption via power. There, simple.)

    The question, really, is whether this is a problem. I don't think it is. The alternative to people rationalising themselves is someone else doing it for them. That person - or, more likely, that government - doing it on the behalf of the people is at least as likely to fall into the same traps of not having the right information, lacking in rational skills and what they want. In fact, I'd argue they're far more likely to fail on all of these issues. As an example, the reason governments would, in a fully nationalised economy, struggle to set prices of products is that they don't have nearly enough information to do so. Some companies succeeding and some failing are how the market determines the desires of people. You know that the people prefer VHS to Betamax when no one buys any Betamax's. Central body's don't have this capacity unless they, themselves, enter the market - in which case they're just like any other company, albeit with a significantly smaller profit motive (see: the BBC).

    I'd also argue that their ability to rationalise is limited by their limited experiences. They can't reasonably, even with the best intentions, be expected to rationalise all various situations and scenarios that can possibly exist and legislate accordingly - when left to the individual, they don't need to do that. They only need rationalise on their own behalfs (and possibly that of their dependents, like children). And then we get to the real issue - the final one, about desire. When a person is weighing up whether they'd prefer Phone X or Phone Y, they can look at the offers, the prices etc and make a choice based on what they want. The nature of central decision making is that there are winners and losers. There are always going to be those that get what they want and those that do not. Now, a paternal statist would argue that the government can give them what's best for them, whether they know it is or not (ie that, left to their own devices they'd make all the wrong choices and thus daddy is here to choose for them). I'm not inclined to go with that option.

    So yeah, there's my answer - will people always accurately rationalise? No. But they do, at least, know what they want, and all the alternatives to someone rationalising themselves are far more frought with danger and, ultimately, horribly abuseable to whoever has that power.

    Rational risk is good, irrational risk is bad. The banking crisis was caused by ill-thought out judgements in the juggernaut investment banks - they wanted a short-term profit on the loans they gave, thinking that even if it turned sour they'd be able to survive and pass the damage on to whatever other bank was willing to buy the debt/mortgages. This is not how capitalism should work, Rand knew that. The government needs to ensure that banks operate in the interests of themselves as a business rather than to simply enrich the individuals that dominate these banks. If they don't then everyone else gets hurt. Markets can't solve problems like this.
    Markets don't create problems like this, either. Please take a look at this post I wrote for your glorious ex-leader that he then roundly ignored. You can call the Investment banks (or their bankers specifically - I'm not sure why you make a distinction there in moral terms, as if the investment bankers getting rich is somehow less appealing to you than the shareholders. On a practical level I can see why, but you seem to be making a moral point about how evil they are for wanting to earn more money when really it should be the shareholders earning more money!!) greedy all you like, but the truth is that the government gave them the loaded gun and told them to shoot up Columbine. The truth is that it wasn't a failure of government regulating the banking sector that caused the problem. The government was actively giving them the means to give out cheap loans (and, in America, actually passed legislation that effectively forced banks to lend to the sub-prime market - which turned out well). It's the equivalent of me pushing you off a cliff and then blaming the lack of barriers for your horrible, painful dashing against the crimson-soaked rocks below. You died because I pushed you. This is especially pertinent if I were also the person responsible for ensuring the barrier were erected in the first place, as per government, but the point remains - without me pushing you, you wouldn't have died. If the government hadn't given given them so much cheap credit, they couldn't have done it.

    It was precisely government intervention in the money markets that caused the problem. That's not liberalism, nor is it a free market. Remember, we're the party that's against governments interfering in things they don't understand.

    PS Look up Fannie May and Freddie Mac - both government institutions - and tell me that's the free market acting re: buying up loans.

    That's exactly why it's difficult engaging with libertarian arguments - they are great responses to problems that you guys have identified but that aren't necessarily the way you guys think they are - also there's never room for compromise.
    Ok, well do your best to try anyway. Normally people typing properly and eloquently actually lubricates discussion as there's less confusion, leading to an actual discussion on the ideas rather than merely trying to understand each others positions. If you disagree with something, or think that something isn't "necessarily the way [we] think [it is]" then say so, rather than merely referring to it in generalities.

    There's no problem with a lack of compromise in debates. Compromise is for practice, when a solution needs to be made that has elements of both arguments. We aren't solving problems here, we're talking about our views - you change your mind when you're convinced of something new, not just so you can hold hands with the others and proudly beam that you've compromised.

    There is nothing "wrong" with people using oxymoronic statements. Oh, wait, that was another Daily Expressism on your part.
    I still don't know what this means. My interpretation of tabloid journalism is when you make assertions without any real justification, evidence or reasoning and just blandly sta-

    Your bills passed here without any scrutiny, people indubitably mistook shiny eloquence for brilliant legislation. You made them look professional and so people assumed that they were.
    -te your opinion without ever actually explaining why you think that.

    Oh.

    Wait.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Woot, my Dad is almost definitely getting out of hospital today!
    Isn't it nice to have some good news?
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Woot, my Dad is almost definitely getting out of hospital today!
    I'm glad to hear it
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Woot, my Dad is almost definitely getting out of hospital today!
    Great news
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Woot, my Dad is almost definitely getting out of hospital today!
    Best of wishes to him and your family as a whole!
    • 24 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    He's out now! Thanks guys.
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    He's out now! Thanks guys.
    That is good news and I hope your dad fully recovers
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    He's out now! Thanks guys.
    Glad to hear it
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm the Leader of the Pro Europe Society Social Group
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st_read_module

    Anyone hear about this?
    • 17 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    I'm the Leader of the Pro Europe Society Social Group
    Oh why?
Updated: April 29, 2012
New on TSR

SQA results day chat

Share your grade expectations for Tuesday 5 August

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.