|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
 Posted - 03/03/2009 : 16:17:30 [Permalink]
|
I love this argument. Can you please show me the social contract, and show me my signature on it?| Just look at your latest tax return and/or voter registration application. |
|
Is that the best you can do? I'm used to you being incredibly lame, but you're setting a record here.
I ask once again – show me the social contract, and show me my signature on it, or admit it's bullshit you can't support.
| Even if your collection of it will negatively impact others? Apparently, in this case, you feel that your right to swing your fist does not end at anyone else's nose. |
Collection of any government benefit negatively affects others. Since you're comparing it to physical violence, will you pledge to never accept a government benefit? Or is this just another one of your hypocrisies?
| Hittman, your smug defense here is no defense at all. |
It's hard not to be smug when dealing with someone as un skeptical and sanctimonious and hostile as you.
So, show me the social contract. No more lame copouts, please. No more dancing around it. I want to see the contract.
I'm waiting.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2009 : 17:20:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
| Well, considering anywhere from one to three million additional people would be unemployed or in the process of losing their jobs right now if the government hadn't loaned GM and Chrysler that money, yeah I think it was a pretty damn good investment. Consider also that tier 1 and 2 suppliers by the hundreds would be toppling like dominos right now and taking down Ford and shutting down the transplants too. And who the hell knows what other businesses out there depend on the auto companies and their suppliers - service industries, material suppliers, basically whatever all those auto-related workers spend money on. I wonder what the sudden implosion of so many companies would do for the recession? Yeah, I think it was a good investment. |
So where does it end? Is there any bottom to it? Or do we just keep "lending" them money, over and over and over again, while they presume the same losing business model? |
It ends when the economy turns around and they pay the loans back, with interest, just like Chrysler did the last time an auto company needed a loan, way back in the '80s.
| Here's a suggestion: The next loan comes with mandatory layoffs – for all the executives. They have to be replaced with executives from similar business who have shown they can run the company at a profit – like Honda and Toyota. That would increase the likelihood of the handouts ending eventually. |
A few thoughts...
First, while it sounds like no-nonsense fun, I seriously doubt it's possible drop in a whole suit of 'winning' executives on a dime and expect them to right a floundering company whose business culture they don't understand during the worst economic recession since the Great D and get a better result than a company running faster into the ground. Reality gets in the way.
Second, don't recruit Toyota execs since they seem to have gotten the 'bad business model' bug. Toyota lost 5 billion dollars last year and has just requested a 2 billion dollar bailout 'loan' from the Japanese government. I wonder if they'll get it? I mean, where will it stop? Do the Japanese just keep dumping money into a bad business model? Or do they recognize the real problem is the collapsing economy and that throwing an entire industry that employees several million people onto the trash heap might just make a really bad recession dramatically worse? Somehow I think the Japanese are smarter than your ideals.
Those loans to GM and Chrysler were absolultely the right move. You don't put a fire out by dumping gasoline on it and that's what letting those companies collapse would be tantamount to. Sorry you don't get to see all those incompetant, lazy, stupid auto industry workers lose their livlihood, but the government's more interested in helping people than making them suffer for a hair-brained ideal.
|
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 03/03/2009 17:24:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2009 : 17:54:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
Is that the best you can do? I'm used to you being incredibly lame, but you're setting a record here. |
I see you can't actually address my argument, so you just get personal.| I ask once again – show me the social contract, and show me my signature on it, or admit it's bullshit you can't support. |
And still: you fail to address the multiple arguments I put forth. You, Hittman, are a textbook example of a denialist.| Collection of any government benefit negatively affects others. |
So that's how you justify your own actions? You take unemployment, and it's necessary to harm others to do so, so that's that?| Since you're comparing it to physical violence, will you pledge to never accept a government benefit? Or is this just another one of your hypocrisies? |
Just more distraction from the fact that you, Hittman, cannot rationally justify your actions in light of the fact that they contradict your ideals, and so you must try to project your own failures onto me. You're the one who equates taxes with physical violence, Hittman, yet you gladly pay those from which you are benefiting, no matter the harm being done to others by your freely chosen actions. And how can I be hypocritical when I don't agree with your premise?
It is your hyperbole which is at the root of your problem here. By saying that some taxes are necessary, you are implicitly agreeing to some social contract (the right of society to trade without fraud, perhaps?), a contract which will never be signed by you, but you go over-the-top with emotional hot-button statements instead of actually addressing the fact that the discussion should be about how much government is "as little as possible." But you, childishly, would rather portray those who don't agree with you on every point as being diametrically opposed to you, a boring and ancient technique used by those without much of an understanding of what they say.| It's hard not to be smug when dealing with someone as un skeptical and sanctimonious and hostile as you. |
The "hostile" part you got right, due to the fact that you continually insult me.| So, show me the social contract. No more lame copouts, please. No more dancing around it. I want to see the contract. |
No, the idea that your demands are rational is your cop-out. Analogously, you're asking me to show you a trillion dollar bills, and when I cannot you refuse to believe that so much money exists. It's another transparent distraction on your part away from your failures to be reasonable. If you'd like to have a nice discussion about the social contract without your pathetic, grade-school attempts at smoke-and-mirrors, please start a new thread on it.So am I. I'm waiting for you to justify your actions in light of your ideals, without (wrongly) assuming that just because what I say is ridiculous (to you), that you have done so. I think if you could do it, you would have already done so, though. And that's your biggest failure (across many threads here), and perhaps why you are so bitter. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2009 : 17:59:44 [Permalink]
|
So, show me the social contract. No more lame copouts, please. No more dancing around it. I want to see the contract.
|
I don't know what a social contract is, but the thing that I wonder if you might be missing, and I'm not sure, as I'm not sure what your position is, is that there is no property without government. Government can't steal what it gives. You have no property without the state. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2009 : 20:01:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
I love this argument. Can you please show me the social contract, and show me my signature on it?| Just look at your latest tax return and/or voter registration application. |
|
Is that the best you can do? I'm used to you being incredibly lame, but you're setting a record here.
I ask once again – show me the social contract, and show me my signature on it, or admit it's bullshit you can't support.
|
Since both voter registrations and tax returns are social contracts in the common vernacular, perhaps you could expound on what you consider a "social contract"?
Voter registration is a way that you have signed on to the social contract concerning the form of government.
Driver's licenses (also signed) are a way you have signed onto the social contract that you will abide by the laws governing motorized vehicle piloting.
Tax returns are a social contract which you agree to give up money to the government to pay for a portion of their operation.
These are the ways that social contracts are defined by common usage.
Again, please provide your definition. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 08:41:50 [Permalink]
|
Isn't citizenship the social contract between us and the government? As a citizen you agree to do X (including pay taxes) and the government agrees in return to do Y. So to read the social contract, look up the Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html) and the Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html).
The nice thing about the US is if we don't like the terms of the social contract we can, theoretically, have them changed via politics. And while most of us are born into citizenship, we can renounce it at any time should we become frustrated with not being able to alter the social contract to our liking. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 03/04/2009 09:00:49 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 09:15:31 [Permalink]
|
| Most of us are born into it, and aren't going to have the wherewithal to change it or leave it, so I'm not sure we can say it's some kind of contract of equal partners. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 09:23:40 [Permalink]
|
There are, in fact, all sorts of social contracts, even among small groups of people. "When in Rome, do as the Romans" is advice to follow local conventions. Violations are exemplified by phrases like "party foul" or "whoa, dude, not cool." Continued violations result in ostracizing or worse. The idea that one must sign these things in order to be held to the standards of behavior that they encompass seems to me to require an ignorance of basic human psychology.
(Perhaps even basic primate psychology, as chimps are aware when they've been given a raw deal, and react accordingly.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 10:31:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
Originally posted by moakley
Common sense based on ignorance of economics would likely result in a debate of uninformed opinions. I'm no economist, relying on the analysis of experts in more than reasonable.
|
So you pick your experts and I'll pick mine and we'll get nowhere.
|
So your presumption is that I am as equally closed minded. That I am incapable of incorporating new ideas and facts that may be contrary to previously thinking on this topic.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 03/04/2009 11:24:50 |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 12:43:41 [Permalink]
|
| It ends when the economy turns around and they pay the loans back, with interest, just like Chrysler did the last time an auto company needed a loan, way back in the '80s. |
What if they never do? That is a distinct possibility. While it's certain that the economy will turn around sooner or later (later, probably) that's no guarantee people will start buying GM cars.
I wasn't aware that Toyota is now begging for money too, have to look into that some more.
And while I don't seriously think you could dump all the executives from one company to another, there should be some serious shakeups in the management, with key decision makers who have a horrible record of making decisions being forced to resign.
Voter registration is a way that you have signed on to the social contract concerning the form of government.
Driver's licenses (also signed) are a way you have signed onto the social contract that you will abide by the laws governing motorized vehicle piloting.
Tax returns are a social contract which you agree to give up money to the government to pay for a portion of their operation.
These are the ways that social contracts are defined by common usage. |
A license is not a contract, it is merely permission to do something. Nor is a voter registration. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. The constitution is a contract, although none of us ever signed it, and it is routinely ignored by politicians and bureaucrats on every level.
Tax returns are not something anyone agrees to, it's something we are all forced to do.
| Again, please provide your definition. |
I didn't bring the phrase into the conversation. Dave W. did. He claims there's some sort of contract that we're bound by. So far he's shown that it's invisible and imaginary.
| The nice thing about the US is if we don't like the terms of the social contract we can, theoretically, have them changed via politics |
Theoretically being the key word here. Getting a law passed is very difficult. Getting it changed is virtually impossible.
| There are, in fact, all sorts of social contracts, even among small groups of people. "When in Rome, do as the Romans" is advice to follow local conventions. |
Not a contract. Nice try, but not a contract.
| Violations are exemplified by phrases like "party foul" or "whoa, dude, not cool." Continued violations result in ostracizing or worse. |
But still not a contract.
| The idea that one must sign these things in order to be held to the standards of behavior that they encompass seems to me to require an ignorance of basic human psychology. |
The idea that these are contracts requires trying to cover your ignorance of basic definitions.
| (Perhaps even basic primate psychology, as chimps are aware when they've been given a raw deal, and react accordingly.) |
But some chimps are more advanced than others. Chimps like you, for instance, aren't smart enough to recognize that the stimulus bill is a raw deal, and so attacks chimps who are. |
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 13:00:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
Not a contract. Nice try, but not a contract. |
Per the definition you supplied, yes, a contract. Note also that the definition you supplied, "A contract is an agreement between two or more parties," does not require that anything be signed by anyone.| The idea that these are contracts requires trying to cover your ignorance of basic definitions. |
I'm not ignoring your definition, I embrace it.
And I see that you still refuse to address my other arguments. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 13:02:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
Chimps like you, for instance, aren't smart enough to recognize that the stimulus bill is a raw deal, and so attacks chimps who are. |
Wait a minute... when did I talk about the stimulus bill?  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 13:18:25 [Permalink]
|
| I don't know what a social contract is, but the thing that I wonder if you might be missing, and I'm not sure, as I'm not sure what your position is, is that there is no property without government. Government can't steal what it gives. You have no property without the state. |
The government doesn't give me property. I earn my property with sill, work, and luck. Your argument seems to be that government owns all property, and we only have it at their whim.
There was always property without government. One of the few things we need government for is to protect that property, which they do to varying degrees of efficiency. For instance, if they decide they want your property, you're screwed.
But it's perfectly possible to own stuff without any government around. It's just more difficult to hang on to it.
I can't find the exact Heinlein quote I'm looking for. It's along the lines of "you can never truly own any more than you can carry in both hands at a full run."
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 14:09:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Most of us are born into it, and aren't going to have the wherewithal to change it or leave it, so I'm not sure we can say it's some kind of contract of equal partners.
|
Of course it's not fair or equal - what is in life??? But it's still a contract. The government provides all manner of protections and services and maintains the framework of the economy (usually) whereby we all earn our livlihood. And we support that government with taxes and by participating in elections and other civic duties. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2009 : 14:27:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
| It ends when the economy turns around and they pay the loans back, with interest, just like Chrysler did the last time an auto company needed a loan, way back in the '80s. |
What if they never do? That is a distinct possibility. While it's certain that the economy will turn around sooner or later (later, probably) that's no guarantee people will start buying GM cars. |
What if they turn around and become more profitable than ever? It's a distinct possibility. GM's been the most profitable auto company before. And while it's certain that not helping GM and Chrysler will put 1-3 million people out of work and greatly worsen an already very bad recession, there's a good chance with help the company and the industry can weather the recession and those people will maintain their livlihood for decades to come.
| I wasn't aware that Toyota is now begging for money too, have to look into that some more. |
It's been all over the news. Do a web search for Toyota and you're bound to get a hit.
| And while I don't seriously think you could dump all the executives from one company to another, there should be some serious shakeups in the management, with key decision makers who have a horrible record of making decisions being forced to resign. |
I'm all for accountability on the one hand, but on the other, the reason GM's in such dire straits is 1) the sudden spike in gas last year, 2) the credit crunch and 3) the lower than ever before consumer sentiment keeping people from buying cars. All of this happening at the same time when the company's trying to downsize in the face of a fairly intractable union. Who are you going to fire at GM for those things happening?
| The nice thing about the US is if we don't like the terms of the social contract we can, theoretically, have them changed via politics |
Theoretically being the key word here. Getting a law passed is very difficult. Getting it changed is virtually impossible. |
Doesn't change the fact that you're in a social contract with the government. You may not have chosen it. You may not like the terms. You may not have any better options anywhere in the world. But it is what it is and if you default on it - say by cheating on your taxes - the contract stipulates the government can put you in jail. Be thankful you're not a serf in Feudal Europe, that social contract really sucked. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why do Republicans hate the poor?
