Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By 1042 Trooper

Thread: George Price's findings on Altruism

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,249

    George Price's findings on Altruism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...tionary_theory

    Other work in evolutionary theory

    Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result. He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism. He also pioneered the application of game theory to evolutionary biology, in a co-authored 1973 paper with John Maynard Smith. Furthermore Price reasoned that in the same way as an organism may sacrifice itself and further its genes (altruism) an organism may sacrifice itself to eliminate others of the same species if it enabled closely related organisms to better propagate their related genes. This negative altruism was described in a paper published by W. D. Hamilton and is termed Hamiltonian spite.

    Price’s 'mathematical' theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. As such, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic make up contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling(each contain one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (contains one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then holds that the farther genetically removed two organisms are from each other the less likely they are to show altruism to each other. If true then altruistic (kind) behavior is not truly selfless and is instead an adaptation that organisms have in order to promote their own genetic heritage.


    Helping the homeless

    Unable to accept the selfish reasoning for kindness found in his own mathematical theory of altruism Price began showing an ever increasing amount (in both quality and quantity) of random kindness to complete strangers. As such Price dedicated the latter part of his life to helping the homeless, often inviting homeless people to live in his house. Sometimes, when the people in his house became a distraction, he slept in his office at the Galton Laboratory. He also gave up everything to help alcoholics, yet as he helped them they stole his belongings causing him to fall into depression.

    He was eventually thrown out of his rented house due to a construction project in the area, which made him unhappy because he could no longer provide housing for the homeless. He moved to various squats in the North London area, and became depressed over Christmas, 1974.


    Death

    Price committed suicide on January 6, 1975, using a pair of nail scissors to cut his own carotid artery. His body was identified by his close colleague Bill Hamilton. Friends said he committed suicide because of despondency over his inability to continue helping the homeless.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

  2. #2
    Bigfoot Country
    JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,700
    I'm not sure why you posted this, but it serves as a good example of what people mean when they criticize intellectualism. The intellectual visualizes the world that they want and operate accordingly. Assigning an over thinking over reaching philosophy is part of their skewed world view. These altruistic acts can be better explained by the fact that you are emotionally closer to immediate family than others. It really is that simple.

    That bums might screw you and land lords are in the business of making money are simple facts we face if we accept reality the way it is. He was a victim of his own stupidity. And unfortunately, not alone.

  3. #3
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Actually Jasper, I'd say you're an interesting study in why we should focus on intellectualism, instead of letting people be like you.

    One of the main reasons he became depressed and committed suicide is that he tried to reject his intellectualism for an emotional response.

    His theory on genetically derived altruism was too cold for him, so he rejected it on an emotional bias and began to help random homeless and alcoholics, who, (possibly because they weren't genetically similar to him) betrayed him and stole his stuff.

    He eventually killed himself because of the depression that ensued from that. His failing wasn't in intellectualism, but in not being able to handle the correctness of his altruism, in part because of his emotional bias and in part because of his religious issues with the theory.

    I can't get this board.

    How is it that almost all of you guys think it's valid to criticize intellectualism?

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    GangGreen712's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Between Boston and DC
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    Actually Jasper, I'd say you're an interesting study in why we should focus on intellectualism, instead of letting people be like you.

    One of the main reasons he became depressed and committed suicide is that he tried to reject his intellectualism for an emotional response.

    His theory on genetically derived altruism was too cold for him, so he rejected it on an emotional bias and began to help random homeless and alcoholics, who, (possibly because they weren't genetically similar to him) betrayed him and stole his stuff.

    He eventually killed himself because of the depression that ensued from that. His failing wasn't in intellectualism, but in not being able to handle the correctness of his altruism, in part because of his emotional bias and in part because of his religious issues with the theory.

    I can't get this board.

    How is it that almost all of you guys think it's valid to criticize intellectualism?
    Nothing wrong with intellectualism, but if it outweighs common sense, it can lead to a bloated sense of self-importance and a lack of usefulness. Being intellectual does not always go hand-in-hand with common sense and "street smarts." There are some very educated people I know who are also among the dumbest, bumbling people because they refuse to see the simplest solutions, refuse to listen to anyone, and can never admit when they need help or when they're wrong. They can tell you the "what" about everything, but never the "why". Intellectualism also, like Jasper said, adheres to idealism. Too many people look at what they think SHOULD be as opposed to what IS.

    Don't get me wrong. We need deep thinkers; but those deep thinkers don't do any good without some simple logical deduction and a healthy dose of reality.
    "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
    -Chris Rock

  5. #5
    This Can't Be!
    1042 Trooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A red house in a red county in a red state in a red country
    Posts
    10,407
    Duh, yeah. What he ^^^^^^ said. I need more Brondo. It's got electrolytes.
    Flatfooted likes this.
    The All New
    2013
    BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
    Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
    - M1Garand

    (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)




  6. #6
    Bigfoot Country
    JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,700
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    Actually Jasper, I'd say you're an interesting study in why we should focus on intellectualism, instead of letting people be like you.
    We should focus on intellectualism and not let people be what they want? I'm still alive and the dipstick in the story killed himself. Maybe you should focus on reality. Remember, the longest journey begins with a single step.
    One of the main reasons he became depressed and committed suicide is that he tried to reject his intellectualism for an emotional response.
    Intellectualism IS emotionalism. It's just wrapped in a "look at how much smarter I am" philosophy. Like someone logging into a LE forum and telling LEOs how to properly do their job, for example.
    His theory on genetically derived altruism was too cold for him, so he rejected it on an emotional bias and began to help random homeless and alcoholics, who, (possibly because they weren't genetically similar to him) betrayed him and stole his stuff.

    He eventually killed himself because of the depression that ensued from that. His failing wasn't in intellectualism, but in not being able to handle the correctness of his altruism, in part because of his emotional bias and in part because of his religious issues with the theory.

    I can't get this board.

    How is it that almost all of you guys think it's valid to criticize intellectualism?
    Because it leads to smugness and arrogance without realistic answers? But it's intersting that you believe one has to abandon their intellectualim to care for others. That pretty much proves the point.

  7. #7
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperST View Post
    We should focus on intellectualism and not let people be what they want? I'm still alive and the dipstick in the story killed himself. Maybe you should focus on reality. Remember, the longest journey begins with a single step.
    Intellectualism IS emotionalism. It's just wrapped in a "look at how much smarter I am" philosophy. Like someone logging into a LE forum and telling LEOs how to properly do their job, for example.
    Because it leads to smugness and arrogance without realistic answers? But it's intersting that you believe one has to abandon their intellectualim to care for others. That pretty much proves the point.

    This is my point exactly. Your lack of academic skills lead you to take individuals and use them to prove points that can only be proven by study of groups. You can't prove anything about academic groups by analysing one person like myself, any more than I can analyse the regular joe by analysing your emotionally ruled existence.


    Intellectualism doesn't lead to smugness and arrogance. Those are just words you use when you get told something by someone you don't want to listen to.

    Things in this world haven't been solved by being emotional and "street smart". We haven't figured out complex medical procedures, done thousands of years of work on philosophy, analysed the human mind, traveled into space and the depths of the oceans, and crafted the rule of law by "knowing what's right".

    We've done it as a race by analysing what we don't know, and then seeking the answers to that.

    I'll simply not accept this lowbrow mentality that academics are some failing of the human race.

    This guy was a broken individual. He did some good things, to be sure, but he also had individual emotional and perhaps mental problems. Those are what broke him, not his intellectualism. He became depressed and emotional because he couldn't handle the truth of what he KNEW to be, so he worked against it, and had his heart broken, probably by a real world application of what he had studied.

  8. #8
    Bigfoot Country
    JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,700
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    This is my point exactly. Your lack of academic skills lead you to take individuals and use them to prove points that can only be proven by study of groups. You can't prove anything about academic groups by analysing one person like myself, any more than I can analyse the regular joe by analysing your emotionally ruled existence.
    That wasn't your point. I didn't base my opinion on the one example. Neither did I consider you an intellectual so your defensive posture isn't necessary. I believe it's been firmly established here that you have no clue what you're taking about. IF you ever were an assisant prosecutor I'm reasonable certain that you were canned.
    Intellectualism doesn't lead to smugness and arrogance. Those are just words you use when you get told something by someone you don't want to listen to.
    The reactionary attitude is all yours. But you have the smugness without the intellect so you can just stand down.
    Things in this world haven't been solved by being emotional and "street smart". We haven't figured out complex medical procedures, done thousands of years of work on philosophy, analysed the human mind, traveled into space and the depths of the oceans, and crafted the rule of law by "knowing what's right".
    And who said otherwise? Earth to Kevin. Hello?
    We've done it as a race by analysing what we don't know, and then seeking the answers to that.

    I'll simply not accept this lowbrow mentality that academics are some failing of the human race.
    No one said they were. I made it clear what I was taking about. Intellectualism as in, excessive emphasis of the intellect at the expense of all else. Like in the OP's article. To quote George Orwell: “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
    This guy was a broken individual. He did some good things, to be sure, but he also had individual emotional and perhaps mental problems. Those are what broke him, not his intellectualism. He became depressed and emotional because he couldn't handle the truth of what he KNEW to be, so he worked against it, and had his heart broken, probably by a real world application of what he had studied.
    Wrong. He failed because he believed in things that don't work in the real world. He couldn't envision all the things that could go wrong wrong because of his utopian mindset. It's a classic example of why I oppose liberalism so much.

  9. #9
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperST View Post
    Wrong. He failed because he believed in things that don't work in the real world. He couldn't envision all the things that could go wrong wrong because of his utopian mindset. It's a classic example of why I oppose liberalism so much.
    I don't think you understand what his belief, and his studies were on.

    His studies were that altruism is extended along genetic lines, that kindness of that sort is something linked to your family, that you are more likely to help your progeny, etc.

    He then couldn't handle the "cold" truth of that, and started arbitrarily helping people he was not genetically linked to strongly, in order to avoid the truth of his studies.

    That is what didn't work in the real world. I'd submit to you that his study actually does work, that in fact, his studies that demonstrated altruism and a link to genetics are part of why the people he helped betrayed him anyway.

    Let's remember that. He was doing these acts for the homeless because he was trying to reject what he knew to be true, that we most strongly help those in our genetic lineage, that we're callous to other tribes, essentially.

    He ended up being right. He killed himself because of that truth.

    He never had utopian mindset mate. A utopian mindset would have been a study that said Altruism is NOT linked to genetic motivations.

  10. #10
    Bigfoot Country
    JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,700
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    I don't think you understand what his belief, and his studies were on.

    His studies were that altruism is extended along genetic lines, that kindness of that sort is something linked to your family, that you are more likely to help your progeny, etc.
    Yes and I ridiculed it as a "study". Go ahead and re-read the post. That's something cave men knew.
    He then couldn't handle the "cold" truth of that, and started arbitrarily helping people he was not genetically linked to strongly, in order to avoid the truth of his studies.

    That is what didn't work in the real world. I'd submit to you that his study actually does work, that in fact, his studies that demonstrated altruism and a link to genetics are part of why the people he helped betrayed him anyway.

    Let's remember that. He was doing these acts for the homeless because he was trying to reject what he knew to be true, that we most strongly help those in our genetic lineage, that we're callous to other tribes, essentially.

    He ended up being right. He killed himself because of that truth.

    He never had utopian mindset mate. A utopian mindset would have been a study that said Altruism is NOT linked to genetic motivations.
    All liberals have utopian mindsets, it's par for the course. That doesn't mean that all liberals believe the world is or could be perfect. Just that they lean that way. You lean even moreso if when you over intellectualize things, like basic humanity. Even moreso when when you get so wrapped up in it you consider it a moment of discovery and base your life on it. How did he "find" anything except the bottom of a liquor bottle?

  11. #11
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperST View Post
    Yes and I ridiculed it as a "study". Go ahead and re-read the post. That's something cave men knew.
    All liberals have utopian mindsets, it's par for the course. That doesn't mean that all liberals believe the world is or could be perfect. Just that they lean that way.

    That statement is so ludicrously blanketing as to not even really need disproving.

    When considering the population of liberals country wide and world wide, calling every one of them a utopian idealist is ludicrous.

    What do you think conservatives who insist all you need to do is reduce government and taxes and everything just magically solves itself through free market should be called? Realists?

  12. #12
    Bigfoot Country
    JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,700
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    That statement is so ludicrously blanketing as to not even really need disproving.

    When considering the population of liberals country wide and world wide, calling every one of them a utopian idealist is ludicrous.

    What do you think conservatives who insist all you need to do is reduce government and taxes and everything just magically solves itself through free market should be called? Realists?
    You know nothing about liberalism or conservativism then. Liberals, as in modern day progressives (not classic liberals) support big government. They do so because they want big brother to correct man's flaws, make them equal, redistribute wealth and pretty much micromanage our lives. That can only come from a utopian mindset, otherwise, why bother?

    Conservatives favor less government and more individual freedom. We recognize that some people are lazy, some more productive. It's wrong to take from the productive and give to the lazy. Lowering taxes and less spending works! It's been proven. Jesus, how do you libs not
    know any history? How is raising taxes and growing government goint to help the economy? Has it worked before? They don't give a rats azz that it won't work, they want big government come hell or high water and the lemmings just swim along sipping the Koolaid.

  13. #13
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperST View Post
    You know nothing about liberalism or conservativism then. Liberals, as in modern day progressives (not classic liberals) support big government. They do so because they want big brother to correct man's flaws, make them equal, redistribute wealth and pretty much micromanage our lives. That can only come from a utopian mindset, otherwise, why bother?

    Conservatives favor less government and more individual freedom. We recognize that some people are lazy, some more productive. It's wrong to take from the productive and give to the lazy. Lowering taxes and less spending works! It's been proven. Jesus, how do you libs not
    know any history? How is raising taxes and growing government goint to help the economy? Has it worked before? They don't give a rats azz that it won't work, they want big government come hell or high water and the lemmings just swim along sipping the Koolaid.

    How does the liberal mindset that government can assist in the functioning of day to day society become "utopian".

    Do you understand what utopia and utopian mindsets are?

    Most liberals I know are fairly practical people who acknowledge a mixing of personal responsibility with government regulation. That's not utopian.

    Understand that utopian thinking is a mindset that isn't attributable to a political spectrum.

    Your second half is just nuts. Our highest economic growth in this country in manufacturing and growth of the middle class came during the 50's and early 60's. Remember that taxation is often argued through over simplification. That's not a good way to handle it.

    I'd argue, and so would my old economics professor, that the higher income taxed encouraged business people to keep their money in the company, which grew the business. Once the government lowered the income tax rate below the corporate rates, people withdrew more money from their businesses, and that slowed growth.

    I'm so damned tired of this puerile argument that everyone who uses government aid is lazy, and that the conservatives aren't as ideological as the democrats.


    Do you really not get that utopian mindsets is NOT a politically dependent thing? That believing in a utopian free market world is the same as believing in a utopian socialist world?

    Liberals don't want "big brother" to correct man's flaws. Liberals, contrary to utopian beliefs, understand that man's flaws are unavoidable and want intelligent laws and regulations to help control the impact of those flaws on the economy, the legal structure, and individual ability.

    They also realise that multinational conglomerates break the free market concept, because they are too strong to be acted upon by the market forces theorized in an economic theory created in an era before they even existed. In that sort of situation, some regulation is required.

    I'd also love to know how you think Conservatives are small government oriented, when they're constantly involved in making laws that grow the prison industry, the defense industry, and the intelligence industry.

    Trust me, mate, utopian mindsets are two things. 1: They're a small subsection of both political parties. Most of us believe in a practical worldview, and 2: they exist across the political spectrum.

  14. #14
    This Can't Be!
    1042 Trooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A red house in a red county in a red state in a red country
    Posts
    10,407
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    How does the liberal mindset that government can assist in the functioning of day to day society become "utopian".

    Do you understand what utopia and utopian mindsets are?

    Most liberals I know are fairly practical people who acknowledge a mixing of personal responsibility with government regulation. That's not utopian.

    Understand that utopian thinking is a mindset that isn't attributable to a political spectrum.

    Your second half is just nuts. Our highest economic growth in this country in manufacturing and growth of the middle class came during the 50's and early 60's. Remember that taxation is often argued through over simplification. That's not a good way to handle it.

    I'd argue, and so would my old economics professor, that the higher income taxed encouraged business people to keep their money in the company, which grew the business. Once the government lowered the income tax rate below the corporate rates, people withdrew more money from their businesses, and that slowed growth.

    I'm so damned tired of this puerile argument that everyone who uses government aid is lazy, and that the conservatives aren't as ideological as the democrats.


    Do you really not get that utopian mindsets is NOT a politically dependent thing? That believing in a utopian free market world is the same as believing in a utopian socialist world?

    Liberals don't want "big brother" to correct man's flaws. Liberals, contrary to utopian beliefs, understand that man's flaws are unavoidable and want intelligent laws and regulations to help control the impact of those flaws on the economy, the legal structure, and individual ability.

    They also realise that multinational conglomerates break the free market concept, because they are too strong to be acted upon by the market forces theorized in an economic theory created in an era before they even existed. In that sort of situation, some regulation is required.

    I'd also love to know how you think Conservatives are small government oriented, when they're constantly involved in making laws that grow the prison industry, the defense industry, and the intelligence industry.

    Trust me, mate, utopian mindsets are two things. 1: They're a small subsection of both political parties. Most of us believe in a practical worldview, and 2: they exist across the political spectrum.
    My God. I think he actually believes this crap. He's lost.
    The All New
    2013
    BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
    Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
    - M1Garand

    (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)




  15. #15
    Bigfoot Country
    JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,700
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    How does the liberal mindset that government can assist in the functioning of day to day society become "utopian".

    Do you understand what utopia and utopian mindsets are?

    Most liberals I know are fairly practical people who acknowledge a mixing of personal responsibility with government regulation. That's not utopian.
    Everyone believes that government can assist us, that's why we have a government. If that's all they wanted they'd be conservatives.
    Understand that utopian thinking is a mindset that isn't attributable to a political spectrum.
    You are very naive.
    Your second half is just nuts. Our highest economic growth in this country in manufacturing and growth of the middle class came during the 50's and early 60's. Remember that taxation is often argued through over simplification. That's not a good way to handle it.
    No one made that argument but you. Lowering taxes is part of it, I just said so. Your simplification of the 50's ignore the fact that the US had little to no competition in the world marketplace since Europe and Asia was in shambles. When they got on their feet they caught us fat dumb and happy.
    I'd argue, and so would my old economics professor, that the higher income taxed encouraged business people to keep their money in the company, which grew the business. Once the government lowered the income tax rate below the corporate rates, people withdrew more money from their businesses, and that slowed growth.
    No wonder...your econ professor was inexperienced in real world economics. Did he so much as run an espresso stand? Any credentials besides accolades from more of the same? What do people do when they "withdraw" money from the company? They invest it elsewhere and buy things. Closing loopholes was/is important, that's how Reagan helped make it work. And it did work, I was there actually running a business, not teaching redistribution propaganda.
    I'm so damned tired of this puerile argument that everyone who uses government aid is lazy, and that the conservatives aren't as ideological as the democrats.
    No one said that either, you are tiring yourself out. Quit listening to the voices.
    Do you really not get that utopian mindsets is NOT a politically dependent thing? That believing in a utopian free market world is the same as believing in a utopian socialist world?
    There's no such thing as a utopian free market, like I said before, there are lazy and productives types out there. The market will decide the winners and losers, if it's allowed to.
    Liberals don't want "big brother" to correct man's flaws. Liberals, contrary to utopian beliefs, understand that man's flaws are unavoidable and want intelligent laws and regulations to help control the impact of those flaws on the economy, the legal structure, and individual ability.
    ...done by bureaucrats that have no clue. Works every time. How do you correct individual ability with handouts? How do you make businesses more efficient by piling on regulations they can't meet?
    They also realise that multinational conglomerates break the free market concept, because they are too strong to be acted upon by the market forces theorized in an economic theory created in an era before they even existed. In that sort of situation, some regulation is required.
    Uhhh....protectionism encourages the free market? How does that make more expensive goods more competitive?
    I'd also love to know how you think Conservatives are small government oriented, when they're constantly involved in making laws that grow the prison industry, the defense industry, and the intelligence industry.
    Because the cost of doing nothing often is more than preventative maintenance. smaller government doesn't mean no government.
    Trust me, mate, utopian mindsets are two things. 1: They're a small subsection of both political parties. Most of us believe in a practical worldview, and 2: they exist across the political spectrum.
    Why should I trust you? I have your opinion that liberals aren't big government utopians and I have my life's experiences. Hmmmm..I must weigh this carefully.

  16. #16
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperST View Post
    Everyone believes that government can assist us, that's why we have a government. If that's all they wanted they'd be conservatives.
    You are very naive.
    No one made that argument but you. Lowering taxes is part of it, I just said so. Your simplification of the 50's ignore the fact that the US had little to no competition in the world marketplace since Europe and Asia was in shambles. When they got on their feet they caught us fat dumb and happy.
    No wonder...your econ professor was inexperienced in real world economics. Did he so much as run an espresso stand? Any credentials besides accolades from more of the same? What do people do when they "withdraw" money from the company? They invest it elsewhere and buy things. Closing loopholes was/is important, that's how Reagan helped make it work. And it did work, I was there actually running a business, not teaching redistribution propaganda.
    No one said that either, you are tiring yourself out. Quit listening to the voices.
    There's no such thing as a utopian free market, like I said before, there are lazy and productives types out there. The market will decide the winners and losers, if it's allowed to.
    ...done by bureaucrats that have no clue. Works every time. How do you correct individual ability with handouts? How do you make businesses more efficient by piling on regulations they can't meet?
    Uhhh....protectionism encourages the free market? How does that make more expensive goods more competitive?
    Because the cost of doing nothing often is more than preventative maintenance. smaller government doesn't mean no government.
    Why should I trust you? I have your opinion that liberals aren't big government utopians and I have my life's experiences. Hmmmm..I must weigh this carefully.
    Few things.

    1: Check through my posts. You'll find that I've already commented on how America's growth after WWII was a result of the rest of the industrialized world having been bombed. So. I've covered that before you did.


    2nd. All the rest of what you said is ****.

    You are very naive.

  17. #17
    Bigfoot Country
    JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,700
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    Few things.

    1: Check through my posts. You'll find that I've already commented on how America's growth after WWII was a result of the rest of the industrialized world having been bombed. So. I've covered that before you did.


    2nd. All the rest of what you said is ****.

    You are very naive.
    1: That's about a transparent a dodge as possible.

    2: You were propagandizing and got called on it.

  18. #18
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperST View Post
    1: That's about a transparent a dodge as possible.

    2: You were propagandizing and got called on it.

    Mate, you say the same freaking garbage every time.

    First off, I did reference the WW II item earlier. If you feel like digging through my posts, go for it.

    You want some rebuttal? Fine.

    First off. Don't be a cock. You calling me naive is not a dodge, but my calling you naive is?

    Hypocrisy much?

    Second. The major argument we've been having is over utopian concepts.

    You seem to think that the concept that liberals believe government can aid people is what makes them "utopian".

    You also use a logical fallacy in your argument, claiming that liberals don't think government helps, but that they believe a social government can make everything "perfect". That's not true. If you want to make that claim, you have to actually prove that is the liberal position.

    So let's look at the definition of utopia.

    Utopia is defined, in short, as a ideal community with perfect or highly desirable qualities.

    I think, judging from your posts, that you're the sort of person that gets fed by people like Beck and Co. He probably taught you about a subgenre of utopian concepts called Utopian Socialism.

    Can I make the obvious point here, that isn't so obvious to you? If there is a SUBGENRE of utopian concept called Utopian Socialism, then by DEFINITION, it doesn't encompass the entire utopian genre

    For example, Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged lays out the concept for a utopian free market system, where the entrepreneurs will come back and create the perfect America.

    If you've ever read Atlas Shrugged, and I mean truly read it, you'd understand that. I've read it many times. I've worn out entire copies of that book. The point here is, however, that Ayn Rand's concept is a utopian concept, but not a liberal one.

    Another of my favorite books, Heinlein's Harsh Mistress is a classic example of a non liberal utopian concept.

    I'd strongly suggest reading that book. It's pretty great, especially when they're dropping rocks.

    I'd also point out that religious communities often envision utopian religious worlds. Now, I don't know about you, but you might be the only person in the world who thinks strongly religious christian Americans are left wing socialists. The rest of us know that most of the christian fundamentalists are right wingers.


    Is that better than my dodge?


    As to taxes. Analytics from towards the end of Reagan era, after decades of lowering personal taxes after the 50's, personal wealth increased and the wealth stratification increased.

    I'm sorry, but a business grows when the money is in the business. If you pull the money out and invest it, you'll likely invest it in things like Wall Street, etc. Those are very different things from keeping the money in your business, investing in YOUR infrastructure, growing YOUR business.

    There are good analytics for this, and it's also common sense. People will keep the money where it's taxed least. If personal tax is higher than corporate tax in the high brackets, people will keep their millions in the business. If not, they'll withdraw them.

    What I always go nuts about, is how people think multimillionaires consume in ratio to their money.

    A middle income middle class person consumes US goods comparatively to a multimillionaire. There is only so much food, gas, consumer goods that can be purchased. The rest of the items that millionaires buy are big ticket items, or things like luxury vacations, or simply investing it in financial instruments.

    Financial instruments don't MAKE anything.

    This country was at it's most stable when the middle class had a better and more proportionate section of the wealth.


    There's your dodge.

  19. #19
    Bigfoot Country
    JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,700
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    Mate, you say the same freaking garbage every time.
    Odd. Then why respond to me if there's nothing new to respond to?
    First off, I did reference the WW II item earlier. If you feel like digging through my posts, go for it.
    I didn't say you hadn't.
    You want some rebuttal? Fine.

    First off. Don't be a cock. You calling me naive is not a dodge, but my calling you naive is?

    Hypocrisy much?
    That isn't why I said so. it should have been obvious.
    Second. The major argument we've been having is over utopian concepts.

    You seem to think that the concept that liberals believe government can aid people is what makes them "utopian".
    no, that isn't what I said.
    You also use a logical fallacy in your argument, claiming that liberals don't think government helps, but that they believe a social government can make everything "perfect". That's not true. If you want to make that claim, you have to actually prove that is the liberal position.
    Nor did I say that they didn't think it helps.
    [quote]So let's look at the definition of utopia.

    Utopia is defined, in short, as a ideal community with perfect or highly desirable qualities.

    I think, judging from your posts, that you're the sort of person that gets fed by people like Beck and Co. He probably taught you about a subgenre of utopian concepts called Utopian Socialism./quote]Huh?
    Can I make the obvious point here, that isn't so obvious to you? If there is a SUBGENRE of utopian concept called Utopian Socialism, then by DEFINITION, it doesn't encompass the entire utopian genre
    You brought up subgenes, not me.
    For example, Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged lays out the concept for a utopian free market system, where the entrepreneurs will come back and create the perfect America.

    If you've ever read Atlas Shrugged, and I mean truly read it, you'd understand that. I've read it many times. I've worn out entire copies of that book. The point here is, however, that Ayn Rand's concept is a utopian concept, but not a liberal one.
    Who said anything about Ayn Rand?
    Another of my favorite books, Heinlein's Harsh Mistress is a classic example of a non liberal utopian concept.

    I'd strongly suggest reading that book. It's pretty great, especially when they're dropping rocks.
    Who said anything about Heinlein?
    I'd also point out that religious communities often envision utopian religious worlds.
    True, but they are typically talking about the next world and not coming by way of government.
    Now, I don't know about you, but you might be the only person in the world who thinks strongly religious christian Americans are left wing socialists. The rest of us know that most of the christian fundamentalists are right wingers.
    When did I say they were leftists?
    [quote]Is that better than my dodge?/quote]Yes. It proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
    As to taxes. Analytics from towards the end of Reagan era, after decades of lowering personal taxes after the 50's, personal wealth increased and the wealth stratification increased.
    Wealth increased overall with the economy, of course some will do better than others. Why does that seem odd to you?
    I'm sorry, but a business grows when the money is in the business. If you pull the money out and invest it, you'll likely invest it in things like Wall Street, etc. Those are very different things from keeping the money in your business, investing in YOUR infrastructure, growing YOUR business.
    Businesses didn't grow along with Wall Street?
    There are good analytics for this, and it's also common sense. People will keep the money where it's taxed least. If personal tax is higher than corporate tax in the high brackets, people will keep their millions in the business. If not, they'll withdraw them.
    Businessmen don't withdraw money and put it under their mattresses.
    What I always go nuts about, is how people think multimillionaires consume in ratio to their money.

    A middle income middle class person consumes US goods comparatively to a multimillionaire. There is only so much food, gas, consumer goods that can be purchased. The rest of the items that millionaires buy are big ticket items, or things like luxury vacations, or simply investing it in financial instruments.
    Well yes, rich people buy more expensive items. I don't know about US items or really what you're trying to say.
    Financial instruments don't MAKE anything.

    This country was at it's most stable when the middle class had a better and more proportionate section of the wealth.


    There's your dodge.
    The country was more stable when it didn't spend a trillion a year more than it took in. Any businessman knows that you can't continue to spend more than you take in. And taking more money from them won't help them employ or invest in anything.

  20. #20
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperST View Post
    All liberals have utopian mindsets, it's par for the course. That doesn't mean that all liberals believe the world is or could be perfect.
    It's this kind of thing that makes it hard to take you seriously.

    Those are two of your sentences. They're in contradiction of each other. A person with a utopian mindset MUST, by definition, believe the world can be made perfect or nearly perfect.

    Anything else, as you say in the next sentences, would not be utopian, but considered practical. That would be a normal mindset that said "we can't make this work for everyone, but it can be better."

    That's NOT utopian. You are misusing the word.





    [QUOTE=JasperST;3180610]Odd. Then why respond to me if there's nothing new to respond to?
    I didn't say you hadn't.
    That isn't why I said so. it should have been obvious.
    no, that isn't what I said.
    Nor did I say that they didn't think it helps.
    [quote]So let's look at the definition of utopia.

    Utopia is defined, in short, as a ideal community with perfect or highly desirable qualities.

    I think, judging from your posts, that you're the sort of person that gets fed by people like Beck and Co. He probably taught you about a subgenre of utopian concepts called Utopian Socialism./quote]Huh?
    You brought up subgenes, not me.
    Who said anything about Ayn Rand?
    Who said anything about Heinlein?
    True, but they are typically talking about the next world and not coming by way of government.
    When did I say they were leftists?
    Is that better than my dodge?/quote]Yes. It proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
    Wealth increased overall with the economy, of course some will do better than others. Why does that seem odd to you?
    Businesses didn't grow along with Wall Street?
    Businessmen don't withdraw money and put it under their mattresses.
    Well yes, rich people buy more expensive items. I don't know about US items or really what you're trying to say.
    The country was more stable when it didn't spend a trillion a year more than it took in. Any businessman knows that you can't continue to spend more than you take in. And taking more money from them won't help them employ or invest in anything.
    Let's look at a couple things here.

    You use some argument tricks to avoid issues in the beginning. I'M THE ONE who mentioned Heinlein, and Rand. I mentioned them as rebuttals to your claim that Utopians are liberals only.

    I'M THE ONE who mentioned subgenres, as proof that you are wrong in your claim that utopians are liberals only.

    You say that religious people are talking about the next world. Not only that mate. When they talk about religious countries, about religious communities, and say that "this system can work for everyone", they're talking about a religious utopia.

    And you didnt' say religious people were lefties. You did, however, say utopian people are lefties. So, if religious people can be utopian people, and we know that in America, if you are looking for the christian religious utopians, you're looking on the right wing spectrum, it breaks your claim. Not all utopians are right wing.

    Look at "blue dog" democrats. These guys traditionally vote pro gun, some vote pro life, they often vote for defense, against tax increases. Yet they often support social programs like early childhood education, social security, etc.

    That's called a MODERATE approach. Moderates, by definition are practical people who can see benefit from several mindsets. That's not a liberal utopian belief.

    Businessmen don't take money and put it in mattresses, to be sure. They also don't put it often into direct investment in business. They put them in modern times, into financial instruments that aren't producing anything, but merely essentially a betting game that plays in currencies, insurance, and other high level investment opportunities.

    It's not the same as investing 30 million dollars in that new company. This is a large part of why we had a financial crash. This money wasn't being spent on solid things. It was being invested in vapor.

    Wealth increased overall? What do you even MEAN by that. Wealth STRATIFIED. It increased for the millionaires, and has been decreasing for middle and lower class for a long time now, partially because it is easier to take your money out of your business now and spend it on yourself.

    When I say rich people buy expensive items, but not necessarily US items, I mean above and beyond sustenance items. They buy roughly the same amount of food, consumables, etc. When they do buy other things, it's Ferrari, Porsche, jets, yachts, Beemers, vacations, etc. These things aren't going into our manufacturing or other production economies.

    There's simple economic truth in the fact that if the millions of middle class people had a few thousand dollars more to spend each year, that would go into the economy much more than if a millionaire has a million more dollars.

    More people with more money is better for an economy than less people with LOTS of money.


    What I find amazing is that you will absolutely not break free of this concept that utopia is a liberal concept, that all of us have it, and that it isn't a concept shared by people across all spectrums.

    Utopian mindsets are essentially this. Anyone who has an ideology and is convinced that taking that ideology to it's "pure" end.... be it socialism, free market capitalism, anarchy, totalitarian, etc, is envisioning THEIR utopia.

    Get that into your head.

  21. #21
    Bigfoot Country
    JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,700
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    It's this kind of thing that makes it hard to take you seriously.

    Those are two of your sentences. They're in contradiction of each other. A person with a utopian mindset MUST, by definition, believe the world can be made perfect or nearly perfect.

    Anything else, as you say in the next sentences, would not be utopian, but considered practical. That would be a normal mindset that said "we can't make this work for everyone, but it can be better."

    That's NOT utopian. You are misusing the word.
    You don't understand words when they are used in a sentence. By your definition someone with a winning mindset believes that they will win all the time. What is it about liberalism that inhibits context?
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperST View Post
    Odd. Then why respond to me if there's nothing new to respond to?
    I didn't say you hadn't.
    Wrong.You said i said the same thing over and over. I'm going to cut out your childish bs, find a 10 year old to argue with.
    Let's look at a couple things here.

    You use some argument tricks to avoid issues in the beginning. I'M THE ONE who mentioned Heinlein, and Rand. I mentioned them as rebuttals to your claim that Utopians are liberals only.
    Argument tricks? LOL. Yes you brought them up, that's why I just mentioned it. Such depth. Nor did I say utopians are liberals. You can't read.
    I'M THE ONE who mentioned subgenres, as proof that you are wrong in your claim that utopians are liberals only.
    LOL.
    You say that religious people are talking about the next world. Not only that mate. When they talk about religious countries, about religious communities, and say that "this system can work for everyone", they're talking about a religious utopia.
    Says who? And how does that mean liberals can't have utopian mindsets? I'm trying hard not to point out the obvious here.
    And you didnt' say religious people were lefties. You did, however, say utopian people are lefties.
    Post it up, since this is apparently the basis for your current thesis. Anything but substance, I see.
    Not all utopians are right wing.
    Huh?
    Businessmen don't take money and put it in mattresses, to be sure. They also don't put it often into direct investment in business.
    GD, you are clueless.
    They put them in modern times, into financial instruments that aren't producing anything, but merely essentially a betting game that plays in currencies, insurance, and other high level investment opportunities.
    Pass that tidbit onto the brokers, I'm sure they will be stunning at your epiphany.
    Wealth increased overall? What do you even MEAN by that. Wealth STRATIFIED. It increased for the millionaires, and has been decreasing for middle and lower class for a long time now, partially because it is easier to take your money out of your business now and spend it on yourself.
    How do you spend it on yourself with buying goods or services? Look, it's obvious you are just regurgitating sound bites your college professors taught you. look around here next time you come to this country, assuming you aren't. Look at the cars and homes and lifestyles of the average American. We've redefined what poor is. The fact that rich people can get richer in a global marketplace doesn't prove that "statification" is a bad thing. You socialist training teaches you that the solution is taking from one and giving to another. My observation in the real world says it spells trouble.

    That doesn't mean that the middle class hasn't taken a big hit. But it's because of big government trying to run the show and make people like you happy, not some rich guy.
    When I say rich people buy expensive items, but not necessarily US items, I mean above and beyond sustenance items. They buy roughly the same amount of food, consumables, etc. When they do buy other things, it's Ferrari, Porsche, jets, yachts, Beemers, vacations, etc. These things aren't going into our manufacturing or other production economies.
    How so? No one here sells it to them? No one builds the buildings, makes the signs, prints the brochures, sweeps the lot, transports the goods, etc. etc. And they don't pay a taxes on those?
    There's simple economic truth in the fact that if the millions of middle class people had a few thousand dollars more to spend each year, that would go into the economy much more than if a millionaire has a million more dollars.

    More people with more money is better for an economy than less people with LOTS of money.
    You've just presented an excellent argument for tax reduction.
    What I find amazing is that you will absolutely not break free of this concept that utopia is a liberal concept, that all of us have it, and that it isn't a concept shared by people across all spectrums.

    Utopian mindsets are essentially this. Anyone who has an ideology and is convinced that taking that ideology to it's "pure" end.... be it socialism, free market capitalism, anarchy, totalitarian, etc, is envisioning THEIR utopia.

    Get that into your head.
    Wrong. For the reasons already mentioned. Capitalists believe some will do better and others won't, people being people. Liberals try to correct it with big government. It's as utopian a concept as a child believing we call all get along and live in gingerbread houses and live on candy canes with Santa coming for the big payoff.

    Freedom is what made us great and the libs have been steadily destroying the private sector. Where will the money come from when the cash cow dies? European social democracy won't work and we have proof today for anyone with eyes. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

  22. #22
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperST View Post
    You don't understand words when they are used in a sentence. By your definition someone with a winning mindset believes that they will win all the time. What is it about liberalism that inhibits context?
    Wrong.You said i said the same thing over and over. I'm going to cut out your childish bs, find a 10 year old to argue with.
    Argument tricks? LOL. Yes you brought them up, that's why I just mentioned it. Such depth. Nor did I say utopians are liberals. You can't read.
    LOL.
    Says who? And how does that mean liberals can't have utopian mindsets? I'm trying hard not to point out the obvious here.
    Post it up, since this is apparently the basis for your current thesis. Anything but substance, I see.
    Huh?
    GD, you are clueless.
    Pass that tidbit onto the brokers, I'm sure they will be stunning at your epiphany.
    How do you spend it on yourself with buying goods or services? Look, it's obvious you are just regurgitating sound bites your college professors taught you. look around here next time you come to this country, assuming you aren't. Look at the cars and homes and lifestyles of the average American. We've redefined what poor is. The fact that rich people can get richer in a global marketplace doesn't prove that "statification" is a bad thing. You socialist training teaches you that the solution is taking from one and giving to another. My observation in the real world says it spells trouble.

    That doesn't mean that the middle class hasn't taken a big hit. But it's because of big government trying to run the show and make people like you happy, not some rich guy.
    How so? No one here sells it to them? No one builds the buildings, makes the signs, prints the brochures, sweeps the lot, transports the goods, etc. etc. And they don't pay a taxes on those?
    You've just presented an excellent argument for tax reduction.
    Wrong. For the reasons already mentioned. Capitalists believe some will do better and others won't, people being people. Liberals try to correct it with big government. It's as utopian a concept as a child believing we call all get along and live in gingerbread houses and live on candy canes with Santa coming for the big payoff.

    Freedom is what made us great and the libs have been steadily destroying the private sector. Where will the money come from when the cash cow dies? European social democracy won't work and we have proof today for anyone with eyes. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

    Can one of the lurkers in here please explain to this guy what utopia really is?

    Please?

    He's obviously not willing to hear it from me.

  23. #23
    Bigfoot Country
    JasperST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    9,700
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinAndeys View Post
    Can one of the lurkers in here please explain to this guy what utopia really is?

    Please?

    He's obviously not willing to hear it from me.
    That's called a smokescren. Your problem is that you don't use your head. Repeating what you've been taught only proves that you can memorize things. When we get off of the talking points, you're lost.

  24. #24
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperST View Post
    That's called a smokescren. Your problem is that you don't use your head. Repeating what you've been taught only proves that you can memorize things. When we get off of the talking points, you're lost.

    Sure buddy.

    It actually amazes me how you're either trolling this thread or just totally incapable of accepting proof.

    I've demonstrated the various sorts of utopian concepts. I've demonstrated that there are all kinds of utopian spectrums from right wing to left wing.

    You still doggedly stick to your guns.

    I've realised it is impossible to argue with a person who doesn't accept actual definitions of words.

    It's like debating the color red. It can't be blue. It's red. It must be red. If you attempt to argue with someone who insists that red is blue, you can never go anywhere.

    But hey, you do live in Bigfoot country, so I guess that says something about your grasp on reality.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Click here to log in or register