62 replies to this topic

[dspdrew]

I never said that. I believe they are more popular than they are intelligent. Intelligence doesn't get you elected.

[Reacker]

First I would say that again you failed to address my criticisms of your analogy regarding parent-child relationships and government-governed relationships.

 

Secondly, there are far more government employees that are not elected but rather hired to fulfill various positions than there are elected politicians. These are the bulk of people that I am talking about. And even many of the elected politicians are very intelligent people. Obviously there are incredibly incompetent and unintelligent people in governments, but if even 10% of government employees are intelligent and competent (and I think the real percentage is much higher) then that adds up to tens of millions around the world. 

 

Thirdly, stop walking around the issue and address my criticism of your analogy, if you are capable. I will not be diverted from this since you have decided to strongly assert its validity.

[drtrmiller]

There are some on the far right who possess both the knowledge and verbal acuity to engage in serious debate on this issue.

So far here, those on the right have expressed only sentiment in the near absence of coherence, knowledge, or facts.

I'm not sure about governments around the world, but I know here in the US, one particular party that despises government enjoys appointing officials who similarly despise government to head government agencies. Then, when the appointee mismanages the agency, the party says "Government can't ever do anything right, so we should reduce it." A self-fulfilling prophecy, if ever there was one.

These individuals, however, don't truly want a truly smaller government, which could be a valid and arguable position. They simply want to outsource the business of government, and all the money it entails, to the private sector--and not just any competitor in the private sphere, but rather a specific entity, usually with whom they have a financial relationship. It's all about the money.

Edited by drtrmiller, June 27 2016 - 2:53 AM.

[Tspivey16]

Libertarian is the true party of smaller government.

 

I think the more interesting dynamics of this will be going forward. Will other countries that have pending votes follow, France, Italy, etc.

Edited by Tspivey16, June 27 2016 - 4:21 AM.

[drtrmiller]

With what little I know about him, Gary Johnson, current golden boy of the Libertarian Party in the US, expanded for-profit private prisons, and flip-flopped on advocacy for harsher penalties for non-violent drug users while Governor of New Mexico—not exactly social libertarian positions.

 

ISIS is cheering Brexit as the beginning of the destabilization of Europe and the West—that should say something.

[dspdrew]

Gary Johnson, current golden boy of the Libertarian Party in the US

 

Uh, no. Many Libertarians don't really like him.

[Reacker]

 

Gary Johnson, current golden boy of the Libertarian Party in the US

 

Uh, no. Many Libertarians don't really like him.

 

 

 

 

Still you are continuing to dodge my criticism of your analogy. 

[PTAntFan]

Good lord, where's the eject button!

 

Actually, some damn smart people on this thread, event arguing from positions I find completely untenable.

[dspdrew]

 

 

Gary Johnson, current golden boy of the Libertarian Party in the US

 

Uh, no. Many Libertarians don't really like him.

 

 

 

 

Still you are continuing to dodge my criticism of your analogy. 

 

 

I made a very basic point. To argue with you about every little insignificant detail or dreamed up situation is a complete waste of my very limited time.

[Reacker]

> I made a very basic point

 

The only point that you have made so far is that you think that parent-child relationships are exactly like government-governed relationships and that the points that you make about parent-child relationships apply directly to government-governed relationships.

 

I have explained the parent-child relationships and government-governed relationships are only superficially similar and that reasoning about parent-child relationships is completely worthless for making intelligent decisions about government-governed relationships.

 

Rather than address my criticism of your analogy, a logical tool that you are seriously proposing should be used to make decisions about governance, you have instead tried to redirect the conversation into an irrelevant tangent involving the false premise that there are not significant numbers of intelligent people in the governments of the entire world. 

 

> To argue with you about every little insignificant detail... 

 

What insignificant detail? The only detail I am talking about is that your analogy of parents-children vs governments-governed is completely worthless. I will not allow you to make such a blatantly ridiculous argument and let it go uncriticized. If you are going to have such a strong opinion on world affairs, then you should be prepared to justify them when they are found to be nonsensical after only a few minutes of logical thought. If you cannot do this, then you should renounce your opinions for the worthless drivel that they are.

 

> ...or dreamed up situation...

 

The only situation I am dreaming of is one in which you provide a coherent argument.

 

>...is a complete waste of my very limited time.

 

Funny how your time only becomes limited when your statements are criticized beyond your ability to defend them. 

Edited by Reacker, June 27 2016 - 11:34 AM.

[drtrmiller]

@Reacker

 

In the words of my European friends, "GOAAAAAAAAAAAL!"

 

Honestly though, I really could be making better points, too.  I just don't feel like spending half my day linking articles and statistics just to prove a point in a discussion that will have virtually no impact on anything.  In that sense, I understand where dspdrew is coming from, in that it is a waste of time to devote considerable resources to the debate here.  He gives about as much attention to his Facebook comments, which are usually no better than ambient noise.

Edited by drtrmiller, June 27 2016 - 11:56 AM.

[Subverted]

There are literally tens of millions of extremely intelligent people in the governments of the world doing their best to do what they genuinely think will help their country men in the best way they know how. I'm talking about scientists, policy makers, social workers, law enforcement, military leaders. All of these people working tirelessly in all the nations of the world for the last 100 years of the modern era and still we barely know how to keep an economy afloat for more than a few years at a time, we still don't know how to make a perfectly just judiciary system, we still haven't solved income inequality, we still don't know how to deal with diplomacy with other nations in ways that don't occasionally cause wars to break out. We're getting a better at these things all the time, but we are still not good enough at these things that we can say that we are good enough to settle with our current skill and be content.

 

I just don't understand how anyone can actually have this idealistic view of government. Have you ever met someone who works for the government? Ever been to the DMV? I don't think those people are working tirelessly or doing anything close to their best. You can extrapolate that out to every level of the government from the top to the bottom.

 

Most wars that break out have very little to do with diplomacy. It is one state taking unilateral action based upon their interests. You don't really think that WW2 could have been avoided with diplomacy do you?

[drtrmiller]

The discussion has really taken a turn from Brexit, to the efficiency or relevance of government, to now whether diplomacy could have avoided World War II...

 

Godwin's law in action!

[Reacker]

 

There are literally tens of millions of extremely intelligent people in the governments of the world doing their best to do what they genuinely think will help their country men in the best way they know how. I'm talking about scientists, policy makers, social workers, law enforcement, military leaders. All of these people working tirelessly in all the nations of the world for the last 100 years of the modern era and still we barely know how to keep an economy afloat for more than a few years at a time, we still don't know how to make a perfectly just judiciary system, we still haven't solved income inequality, we still don't know how to deal with diplomacy with other nations in ways that don't occasionally cause wars to break out. We're getting a better at these things all the time, but we are still not good enough at these things that we can say that we are good enough to settle with our current skill and be content.

 

I just don't understand how anyone can actually have this idealistic view of government. Have you ever met someone who works for the government? Ever been to the DMV? I don't think those people are working tirelessly or doing anything close to their best. You can extrapolate that out to every level of the government from the top to the bottom.

 

Most wars that break out have very little to do with diplomacy. It is one state taking unilateral action based upon their interests. You don't really think that WW2 could have been avoided with diplomacy do you?

 

 

 

Sub, I will not engage with you. Previous experience in the chat has shown that to do so is a futile waste of time because you are entirely incapable of having a discussion. Regardless of how well your arguments are addressed, you continue to say the exact same thing over and over again as though nothing had been said at all. You can't have a dialogue with a tape player set to loop. I'm only posting this comment so that you are not tempted to think that I was unable to answer your comment.

Edited by Reacker, June 27 2016 - 12:14 PM.

[drtrmiller]

The discussion has really taken a turn from Brexit, to the efficiency or relevance of government, to now whether diplomacy could have avoided World War II...

 

Godwin's law in action!

 

Actually, the EU is a direct product of people wanting to avoid another world war.  When there are fewer barriers to trade and human travel among equally developed, competitive countries that share similar geography and culture/history, then conflict usually only arises as a consequence of externalities outside the state.  At least, that is what we have seen in the modern era—lesser developed countries like Iran (and the Middle East), North Korea, India, and even China, exerting pressure on more highly developed ones that have consolidated power and capital at the expense of those countries.

Edited by drtrmiller, June 27 2016 - 12:26 PM.

[Reacker]

 

 

Honestly though, I really could be making better points, too.  I just don't feel like spending half my day linking articles and statistics just to prove a point in a discussion that will have virtually no impact on anything.  In that sense, I understand where dspdrew is coming from, in that it is a waste of time to devote considerable resources to the debate here.  He gives about as much attention to his Facebook comments, which are usually no better than ambient noise.

 

This is why I started with sarcasm. It is qualitatively better than any "serious" discussion that can be had here.

Edited by Reacker, June 27 2016 - 12:24 PM.

[Subverted]

The discussion has really taken a turn from Brexit, to the efficiency or relevance of government, to now whether diplomacy could have avoided World War II...

 

Godwin's law in action!

 

Some would argue that Brexit was about government efficiency and relevance, lol. As for the WW2 question...that's not what Godwin's law is and you know it.

 

Besides I was thinking more of the Pacific when I made my remarks. The events leading up to Pearl Harbor are interesting - ever increasing sanctions did not stop Japan's invasion of Manchuria. An embargo on oil because of their aggression was the final straw. Diplomacy was never going to be able to stop Japan from declaring war on the USA.

[Subverted]

Sub, I will not engage with you. Previous experience in the chat has shown that to do so is a futile waste of time because you are entirely incapable of having a discussion. Regardless of how well your arguments are addressed, you continue to say the exact same thing over and over again as though nothing had been said at all. You can't have a dialogue with a tape player set to loop. I'm only posting this comment so that you are not tempted to think that I was unable to answer your comment.

 

 

I repeated my points because you seemed to have some reading comprehension problems.

 

You got all offended when I suggested that maybe if you had more experience building things you would understand why your idea would probably not work. Theoretical knowledge is simply not the same as practical experience. I explained some of the obvious problems and repeated my original point. You complained some more. I explained more problems and again repeated my original point.

[Reacker]

I don't think that you are intentionally misrepresenting that particular conversation, I think that you genuinely see it that way. This is one of many examples as to why there is no point in talking to you about literally anything. 

 

It was easier to talk to antdude about his grammar correction posts than it is to talk to you about any subject.

Edited by Reacker, June 27 2016 - 4:45 PM.

[Subverted]

You were talking about casting hydrostone into vinyl tubing, cutting the tubing off, and then fitting that into holes drilled in stacking bead containers. I said it would probably break, that it would be nearly impossible to get it straight, vinyl tubing is not totally round, there are other problems related to the complexity, and that you were welcome to build it and prove me wrong. If you remember it differently you are welcome to correct the record.

 

Or you could just respond to the points I made in this thread.