Obama To Venture Into The Private Sector In Unprecedented Fashion

[guerilla]

But answer me this:

If we agree that logically there can be no social contract without consent from both sides and thus no social contract from birth then how can any contract exist?

This is a non-sequitur.

There can be no contract of any sort without voluntary consent. And thus no contract from birth because infants are not capable of giving rational consent.

Once the capacity for rational thought evolves, then a person may make sovereign decisions and engage in contracts.

If contracts can exist then:
At some point in the childs life the ability to form a contract with someone else occurs. The only options are that:

The ability to form a contract is innate, that is to say the child is born with the ability to form contracts, though not born into a contract.

The ability to form a contract is developed at some arbitrary point, for example the age of 18.

The ability to form a contract is never developed.

It's #2 but not as you have phrased it. Age is abitrary. There are 40 year old children, and 14 year olds who have fought in wars and raised families. The measure of when a party can be considered a valid actor to undertake a contract, is when they are capable of rational thought. That might be at age 3 or at age 10 or in the cases of someone born with severe mental retardation, never.

We can say that the point at which a person can begin to enter in to contracts is in fact governed by a contract that they have not consented to.

This doesn't make any sense. You can't have a contract, which predates all capacity to make contracts. If you go back to the first person ever, and they did not have a contract until an abitrary age, then how did a contract they did not consent to exist? That's a logical error.

And even if it was true and logical (which I have shown it is not), you have just attempted to prove slave contracts as valid because they pre-exist the ability to contract.

Maybe I am making an error somewhere, but does this parse?

No, it doesn't parse. Are you trying to work off the arguments from that Huppi guy? I ask because it seems like you are arguing something you don't really understand.

 

[guerilla]

It sounds like conspiracy theory to me. If it's the global banking elite plotting a takeover then why have the elite of the elite gone in the shitter? Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns; they're all gone. They're all either bankrupt, acquired in firesales, or turned into holding companies.

The only way it makes sense is if you buy the Alex Jones style explanation that it is consolidation by design. And that's grade-a, wacko, they've implanted a chip in my brain type of stuff.

Taibbi is not AJ. Neither is Jim Rogers. Or Marc Faber. Or Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

The 200+ Economists that signed the Cato Institute letter to Obama that ran in the NYT, those guys aren't conspiracy nuts.

Jim Rogers was comparing Japan's problem of the 90s to this but this is a global problem. I don't see how the world's banking system being saturated with toxic assets and the threat of global depression is analogous to the Japanese problem?

How near zero percent interest, and keeping an economy going with dead man walking companies crowding out healthy firms, at the expense of healthy firms creates a zombie economy. And that is basically the Depression. The Jap stock market still hasn't recovered to 1980's levels.

Question: Do you think letting all the institutions fail will cause a global depression?

No. I think that is fear mongering. The Depression is caused by government intervention that prevents the market from adjusting pricing to a sustainable economic level.

Question2: If not, how exactly would it be averted?

Honestly, I think because we have a global economy, healthy institutions will crop up or relocate to markets that let them thrive without having to pay for losers. Business will just move, as it is already moving to Asia, where the savings and less restrictive regulations are. It's like a game of musical chairs, when the music stops, some countries and firms will no longer have a seat at the game. The recession is a contraction that squeezes out the unprofitable elements of an economy.

The Great Depression was made worse by tariffs, embargoes and protectionism, which reduced the total amount of trade. Our economy is too sophisticated for those sorts of byzantine economic policies to be put to any real effect. As long as trade continues, growth will occur, somewhere.

Question3: If yes to question1, is it worth it?

If the goal is to have any sort of viable, productive first rate economy, it has to happen. You can't keep subsidizing these near bottomless losses ($600+ trillion in derivatives) of these bums and expect to get your economy back on track. It's just not possible. They should have all gone under last year, so the derivatives that are bad (almost all of them) could be cleaned off the books, and everyone gets a fresh start.

The cost of bailing these guys out, it's like devoting the resources of an entire hospital to saving one braindead guy on life support, when hundreds of people are dying outside from the flu or common cold.

 

[LogicFlux]

The 200+ Economists that signed the Cato Institute letter to Obama that ran in the NYT, those guys aren't conspiracy nuts.

Good link and good rebuttal to my 'conspiracy nut' challenge. I doubt I could call them conspiracy nuts.

 

[Janaic]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXRibzKERpU]YouTube - John Rich - Shutting Detroit Down[/ame]

Very interesting song, even for those of you that don't like country music.

 

[Metcalfe]

This is a non-sequitur.

There can be no contract of any sort without voluntary consent. And thus no contract from birth because infants are not capable of giving rational consent.

Once the capacity for rational thought evolves, then a person may make sovereign decisions and engage in contracts.

It's #2 but not as you have phrased it. Age is abitrary. There are 40 year old children, and 14 year olds who have fought in wars and raised families. The measure of when a party can be considered a valid actor to undertake a contract, is when they are capable of rational thought. That might be at age 3 or at age 10 or in the cases of someone born with severe mental retardation, never.

Perhaps my wording was in error, but I don't believe the logic to be in error.

If we discard age as the measure of when someone can enter a contract and instead use "when they are capable of rational thought" you come across the same problem, someone else decides when they are capable of rational thought. Therefore that measure of when someone becomes able to enter contracts is something over which they cannot logically have consented to, but are bound by.

I suppose it can be summed up as:

All measures of readiness or ability to form contracts are arbitrary and not purely based on logic. There is no absolute way to determine when someone has developed mentally to a certain level.

Because there is no purely logical point at which a person becomes able to make contracts, they are under a pre-existing contract, that they did not consent to, that inhibits their ability to make other contracts until a certain point decided by other people.

This doesn't make any sense. You can't have a contract, which predates all capacity to make contracts. If you go back to the first person ever, and they did not have a contract until an abitrary age, then how did a contract they did not consent to exist? That's a logical error.

And even if it was true and logical (which I have shown it is not), you have just attempted to prove slave contracts as valid because they pre-exist the ability to contract.

No, it doesn't parse. Are you trying to work off the arguments from that Huppi guy? I ask because it seems like you are arguing something you don't really understand.

What I am trying to show is that if you take pre-existing contracts to be false, you by necessity invalidate all contracts.

I am attempting to develop an argument in purely logical terms, I apologise if the language is stilted as I don't usually have to communicate so exactly.

This has only to do with Lysander's assertion that pre-existing contracts are invalid. I am taking his point that consent must be given for a contract to exist and taking it a step futher:

If there is no social contract, that is to say no pre existing contract:
What is the logical basis upon which other contracts can exist?

 

[guerilla]

If we discard age as the measure of when someone can enter a contract and instead use "when they are capable of rational thought" you come across the same problem, someone else decides when they are capable of rational thought. Therefore that measure of when someone becomes able to enter contracts is something over which they cannot logically have consented to, but are bound by.

No. You're missing the point. You keep thinking the world has rules for everything and we're born into systems of rules that are naturally occuring.

What I am saying is, no one can actually engage in a contract, unless they are capable of rational thought. So you can make a contract with a baby, but the guardian of that baby will be able to nullify your contract because it was not made with a rational being, and is therefore invalid. No court or arbiter will uphold your contract or claim for damages if you claimed to contract with an irrational being. Anymore than if you claimed to have a contract with your pet hamster, or a rock in your front yard.

The burden of proof is on both parties to be sure they can prove the rationality of the opposite in a contract. Which is why most contracts ask for witness signatures, in advance of any arbitration circumstances, testimony has already been provided for.

Pity the fool who makes a contract with his pocket lint, and then expects to claim damages against his pants pocket for non-performance of contractual obligation...

All measures of readiness or ability to form contracts are arbitrary and not purely based on logic. There is no absolute way to determine when someone has developed mentally to a certain level.

To the former, that is incorrect. Rational argumentation is a logic based system for determining an ethic based on rights.

To the latter, it doesn't matter if you determine something. Only that the people undertaking the contract are able to satisfy to one another that it is done with rational intent. You're a 3rd party. Your opinion is not relevant unless you are asked to participate in arbitration.

Because there is no purely logical point at which a person becomes able to make contracts, they are under a pre-existing contract, that they did not consent to, that inhibits their ability to make other contracts until a certain point decided by other people.

You still haven't explained how any contract could pre-exist the ability to enter into contracts. It appears you are still working with the assumption that contracts can be applied without consent, even pre-existing the ability to consent.

There is no pre-existing contract. I am gaining the impression that you are trying to prove that there is some sort of social contract that can somehow be the default contract of humanity. This is not so. If one man is left on earth then he does not fall under some default social contract. He can exist without ANY social or economic contracts. They are not a requirement for rights or for life.

What I am trying to show is that if you take pre-existing contracts to be false, you by necessity invalidate all contracts.

Which is a non-sequitur.

This has only to do with Lysander's assertion that pre-existing contracts are invalid. I am taking his point that consent must be given for a contract to exist and taking it a step futher:

Into oblivion....

What is the logical basis upon which other contracts can exist?

I don't know any other ways to say it. There doesn't have to be a "base" contract to allow for voluntary contracts. Jim could be born alone on the African continent, and meet Jane who lives alone on the Asian continent, and they could contract to be husband and wife, or to just screw around on Saturdays, or for Jane to braid Jim's hair in return for some seashells. They never need to ask permission, they never need to write it down, they only need to agree to it freely, and that makes it legitimate. No pre-existing legal system or contract or moral code need be in place.

I can't fathom what your argument is. As I understand it, there is no argument at all. Just a false premise that something must pre-exist something, because...

 

[Metcalfe]

I think you have begun to dismiss my points without actually providing counter-arguments. Claiming something is a non-sequitur is insufficient to disprove it. Your responses are also no longer measured and are becoming increasingly dismissive.

Either way my uneducated responses are clearly gaining no purchase with you.

What is the basis of your views? Anarchism seems to be the word that appears when I Google the concepts your talking about.

 

[popeye]

Where were all the people speaking out against BO before he became king. All I heard was "YES WE CAN" 24 hours a fuckin day. I and the few others like me were called idiots for voicing out against him.

All of this shit should have been talked about before he invaded the White House. While it does make me chuckle to see post in this thread from certain members speaking out against BO now! those same members posted nakid fat men in my anti-BO post before the election and those same people called me stupid and ignorant.

While I will not name names, you sheeple know who you are and I hope you have realized not to recieve your political information from John Stewart.

 

[guerilla]

I think you have begun to dismiss my points without actually providing counter-arguments. Claiming something is a non-sequitur is insufficient to disprove it. Your responses are also no longer measured and are becoming increasingly dismissive.

I can't counter argue something which is illogical. You're making an A = B, therefor C = D arguments.

I thought I refuted your position quite clearly. You keep trying to prove that contracts can pre-exist consent. They cannot. And even if they could, you are arguing to validate involuntary slavery which because it is a coercive system, is also invalid.

Either way my uneducated responses are clearly gaining no purchase with you.

I think you're still trying to prove a flawed position by changing the argument around. Aristotle taught us, that A = A, reality is objective. If something is wrong, rephrasing it won't make it right.

What is the basis of your views? Anarchism seems to be the word that appears when I Google the concepts your talking about.

That depends on how deep your understanding of Anarchism is.

To be very precise, I am a liberal. I believe liberty, markets, and property are absolutes.

 

[guerilla]

and those same people called me stupid and ignorant.

popeye, you are kinda stupid although I don't think you are ignorant.

You don't have any political or moral principles. If Bush does something, you excuse it. If Obama does the same thing, you flip out.

You seem to be more concerned with who has "invaded the whitehouse" [sic] rather than what they are actually doing.

So far, Obama is just doing what Bush did. I don't really see any measurable difference. If there is a difference, then by all means point it out.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

this thread is filling the vb database up to capacity

 

[Nikko]

While I will not name names, you sheeple know who you are and I hope you have realized not to recieve your political information from John Stewart.

Jon Stewart? That tired hack? Pffft.

I get my news from Rachel Maddow.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

I get my news from Rachel Maddow.

Lulz, that's like getting news from the comic strip out of a cracker jack box.

 

[hellblazer]

I get my news from Rachel Maddow...

I think he's serious...

 

[Nikko]

I wanna have Rachel's baby.

 

[Metcalfe]

That depends on how deep your understanding of Anarchism is.

To be very precise, I am a liberal. I believe liberty, markets, and property are absolutes.

Not very, but I am reading. You don't seem to follow the "Inalienable tenets of Anarchism" Anarchism: Arguments for and against -- by Albert Meltzer But you take only the personal liberty part. How do you reconcile markets and property with personal liberty?

 

[popeye]

I wanna have Rachel's baby.

Sorry but Rachel doesn't "swing" that way....or at least she looks like she doesn't.

 

[guerilla]

Not very, but I am reading. You don't seem to follow the "Inalienable tenets of Anarchism" Anarchism: Arguments for and against -- by Albert Meltzer

No, I don't. Those are people who desire anarchism so they can live in voluntary socialism and a good many of them endorse violence. I don't identify with them, because I know that socialism is not an economically viable system, and aggressive violence (picking a fight) is immoral.

But you take only the personal liberty part. How do you reconcile markets and property with personal liberty?

You cannot have liberty if you do not have self-ownership. You cannot have freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, without a place to speak, or a place to worship.

Markets are necessary for everything we do. All human action is based on the market. Every time we make a decision, we use our own subjective valuations to decide between two or more options. A free market is a economic system where the transactions are voluntary, not coerced. Where multiple actors compete to buy, and multiple actors compete to sell, with price rewarding the most efficient producers and consumers.

You cannot be free without the right to own yourself, your food, your shelter, clothes. And you cannot obtain those goods, necessary for your survival, particularly in a complex society ordered by the division of labor, unless you have a free market, where you can seek the best price to sell your labor or goods, and to buy the labor and goods of others.

Socialism is anti-free market, because it removes the price mechanism through re-distribution or monopoly. If the government is the only employer, then it there is no competition amongst labor for wages. The lazy and stupid and dull are paid just as well as the brilliant, talented and motivated. Because there is no economic incentive to get ahead, people lose their motivation and hide their brilliance (as they will be forced to work more or be more accountable for the same pay, this is a large portion of the Atlas Shrugged sub plot). Which again, leads to economic and technological stagnation.

Personal liberty depends on economic liberty. Economic liberty demands the right to own property and access to free markets.

Make a little more sense now?

The Ethics of Liberty will really get you on your way if you are interested in expanding your horizons. I highly recommend it.

The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard
PDF: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf

Chapter 15 is very relevant to our discussion.

 

[guerilla]

Sorry but Rachel doesn't "swing" that way....or at least she looks like she doesn't.

Maddow is a lesbian.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Socialism is anti-free market, because it removes the price mechanism through re-distribution or monopoly. If the government is the only employer, then it there is no competition amongst labor for wages. The lazy and stupid and dull are paid just as well as the brilliant, talented and motivated. Because there is no economic incentive to get ahead, people lose their motivation and hide their brilliance (as they will be forced to work more or be more accountable for the same pay, this is a large portion of the Atlas Shrugged sub plot). Which again, leads to economic and technological stagnation.

This is the only question I have: is this belief based on something you have read in a book or your REAL LIFE experience traveling around the world and PERSONALLY witnessing how people in different economic systems live?