Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Woofers and Tweeters]

I'd like to learn

Good luck with that

To help you get started, you might stop claiming that you choose a moral path and everyone else's path is amoral.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

I'd like to learn

Good luck with that

To help you get started, you might stop claiming that you choose a moral path and everyone else's path is amoral.

 

 

That's his method.  You just have to be able to discern his tactics.

 

He pitches for a moral system.  Then, he construes everyone else as pitching for a chaotic, unregulated system.  Nobody pitched it, though.  This is what we call, "putting up a strawman."  It is purely a contrived, artificial dilemma created only by him.  Then, he calls it "amoral" and suggests that only an amoral person would want such a system.  Then, people get their panties in a wad for being called names through a strawman.  

 

Watch and study his play-book.  If you argue against further regulation, or if you argue for less regulation, he lambastes you for wanting no regulation.  He will often go down the slippery slope, too.  Watch for that one, as well.

 

Other than that, his ideas and expressions are well-taken and should be considered. He doesn't have the answers, either.  He is just digging and poking and prodding to test his own thought-process.

 

What would be cool is to see Jo take the other side and do his best at it.  To genuinely argue the validity of the other side is a good exercise.  It exposes weakness in the original position. It causes a person to examine his own thinking in a more critical way.  It is easy to be critical of others.  Harder to criticize one's self.

[Jim Naseum]

 

I'd like to learn

Good luck with that

To help you get started, you might stop claiming that you choose a moral path and everyone else's path is amoral.

 

 

You simply refuse to read with any care at all. I never said anyone's path was immoral. I said capitalism is AMORAL and anyone who supports it is choosing an AMORAL system to back. 

I also said my preference is to change the economy to a MORAL system, beginning with the most common Biblical moral truth: The Golden Rule. 

 

Are you incapable of understanding that? You've misread it at least 3 times now. 

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

I'd like to learn

Good luck with that

To help you get started, you might stop claiming that you choose a moral path and everyone else's path is amoral.

 

 

That's his method.  You just have to be able to discern his tactics.

 

He pitches for a moral system.  

Why shouldn't I? What do you pitch?

 

 

Then, he construes everyone else as pitching for a chaotic, unregulated system.

 

No, that's what J. Albright was pitching this morning. A free, chaotic and random choice of exchange. Didn't you read it? You put a LIKE on it. Why didn't you read it?

 

 

 

 Nobody pitched it, though.  This is what we call, "putting up a strawman."  It is purely a contrived, artificial dilemma created only by him.  

 

Nope. It was created by J. Albright just this morning. 

 

 

Then, he calls it "amoral" and suggests that only an amoral person would want such a system.  Then, people get their panties in a wad for being called names through a strawman.  

 

The capitalist system IS amoral. If you want to suggest otherwise, cite the moral code used in capitalism. None one was called an amoral person. I said they were promoting an amoral economy. 

 

Watch and study his play-book.  If you argue against further regulation, or if you argue for less regulation, he lambastes you for wanting no regulation.  He will often go down the slippery slope, too.  Watch for that one, as well.

 

Other than that, his ideas and expressions are well-taken and should be considered. He doesn't have the answers, either.  He is just digging and poking and prodding to test his own thought-process.

 

No, I've been saying the exact same thing for the entire discussion. To Wit: A moral economic system is preferable to me, and more beneficial to the population than an amoral one. 

 

What would be cool is to see Jo take the other side and do his best at it.  To genuinely argue the validity of the other side is a good exercise.  It exposes weakness in the original position. It causes a person to examine his own thinking in a more critical way.  It is easy to be critical of others.  Harder to criticize one's self.

 

Sure, right after you argue my side (since changing sides is your idea), I'll be happy to argue the other side. It's simple. And believe me, my argument would be far superior to anything you guys have tried. 

 

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

I'd like to learn

Good luck with that

To help you get started, you might stop claiming that you choose a moral path and everyone else's path is amoral.

 

 

You simply refuse to read with any care at all. I never said anyone's path was immoral. I said capitalism is AMORAL and anyone who supports it is choosing an AMORAL system to back. 

I also said my preference is to change the economy to a MORAL system, beginning with the most common Biblical moral truth: The Golden Rule. 

 

Are you incapable of understanding that? You've misread it at least 3 times now. 

 

 

The Golden Rule might be a little too simplified for such a complex network of a huge gamut of transactions and interpersonal dealings.  For example, if the law was "treat others as you would have them treat you," what ought the law be when the population consists of a mix of docile people and masochists, with all points in between?

 

As far as the definition of capitalism, you just have to go with the flow if you want to move the debate.  Many people equate our system with capitalism.  We are taught that way.  Is it technically incorrect? Yes.  However, I'd rather we didn't keep having to whip-out the same definitions from Websters over and over and over each time a new person comes along and wants to talk about our capitalist system.  Just accept it for what it is understood to be.  We can move on.  It is as if you get to bang on another head each time a person comes along with a loose and ill-defined notion of capitalism.  Big deal. If that makes you feel powerful and intellectual, then keep on beating on them.  As for me, I'd as soon we get over all that and move on to the real debate.  The definition of "capitalism" is not the real debate.

[Mallette]

"Amoral" itself is a strawman. 

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

Harder to criticize one's self.

 

Let me explain what has actually happened.

 

1. I made an argument about the faults of capitalism, and explained it in detail.

 

2. Others, who have never bothered to study the philosophy or economics of capitalism, were flustered by the reality they had never discovered, and began flailing wildly with mis-statements about my position. They offered not a single point that is common in the apologetics of capitalism.

 

3. You then try to divert the simple argument - amoral versus moral economic system - into a personally directed argument about ME as the subject. My tactics, my strategy and so on.

 

Why don't you just present the typical argument of the virtues of capitalism?

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

I'd like to learn

Good luck with that

To help you get started, you might stop claiming that you choose a moral path and everyone else's path is amoral.

 

 

That's his method.  You just have to be able to discern his tactics.

 

He pitches for a moral system.  

Why shouldn't I? What do you pitch?

 

 

Then, he construes everyone else as pitching for a chaotic, unregulated system.

 

No, that's what J. Albright was pitching this morning. A free, chaotic and random choice of exchange. Didn't you read it? You put a LIKE on it. Why didn't you read it?

 

 

 

 Nobody pitched it, though.  This is what we call, "putting up a strawman."  It is purely a contrived, artificial dilemma created only by him.  

 

Nope. It was created by J. Albright just this morning. 

 

 

Then, he calls it "amoral" and suggests that only an amoral person would want such a system.  Then, people get their panties in a wad for being called names through a strawman.  

 

The capitalist system IS amoral. If you want to suggest otherwise, cite the moral code used in capitalism. None one was called an amoral person. I said they were promoting an amoral economy. 

 

Watch and study his play-book.  If you argue against further regulation, or if you argue for less regulation, he lambastes you for wanting no regulation.  He will often go down the slippery slope, too.  Watch for that one, as well.

 

Other than that, his ideas and expressions are well-taken and should be considered. He doesn't have the answers, either.  He is just digging and poking and prodding to test his own thought-process.

 

No, I've been saying the exact same thing for the entire discussion. To Wit: A moral economic system is preferable to me, and more beneficial to the population than an amoral one. 

 

What would be cool is to see Jo take the other side and do his best at it.  To genuinely argue the validity of the other side is a good exercise.  It exposes weakness in the original position. It causes a person to examine his own thinking in a more critical way.  It is easy to be critical of others.  Harder to criticize one's self.

 

Sure, right after you argue my side (since changing sides is your idea), I'll be happy to argue the other side. It's simple. And believe me, my argument would be far superior to anything you guys have tried. 

 

 

 

This is a perfect example.  You say that I don't want a moral system.  Dude, we have a moral system.  I like a moral system. Is there anyone who doesn't like morals?  Give me a break!

 

Next, you say Albright pitched for a system that was totally chaotic.  You know, and I know, and you know I know that he is not really making such a pitch.  You are parsing his words to get to that point.  However, the only way you can do so is by parsing.  We all know that Albright is fully-aware that we have regulations.  Do you really think he claimed that our existing system is free of regulation?  That's a bit of a stretch.  I don't think this is a very productive approach to debate.

[Jeff Matthews]

2. Others, who have never bothered to study the philosophy or economics of capitalism, were flustered by the reality they had never discovered, and began flailing wildly with mis-statements about my position. They offered not a single point that is common in the apologetics of capitalism.

 

 

See there?  There it is again!

 

You are pointing out flaws in capitalism, while simultaneously arguing we don't have capitalism.  Basically, you are setting up a critique of a fictional system.  I can point out all the flaws in the tooth fairy, but what's the point of that?   To get people to rise to her defense?  Give me a break.  Let's get back into arguing over real conditions.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

I'd like to learn

Good luck with that

To help you get started, you might stop claiming that you choose a moral path and everyone else's path is amoral.

 

 

You simply refuse to read with any care at all. I never said anyone's path was immoral. I said capitalism is AMORAL and anyone who supports it is choosing an AMORAL system to back. 

I also said my preference is to change the economy to a MORAL system, beginning with the most common Biblical moral truth: The Golden Rule. 

 

Are you incapable of understanding that? You've misread it at least 3 times now. 

 

 

The Golden Rule might be a little too simplified for such a complex network of a huge gamut of transactions and interpersonal dealings.  For example, if the law was "treat others as you would have them treat you," what ought the law be when the population consists of a mix of docile people and masochists, with all points in between?

 

As far as the definition of capitalism, you just have to go with the flow if you want to move the debate.  Many people equate our system with capitalism.  We are taught that way.  Is it technically incorrect? Yes.  However, I'd rather we didn't keep having to whip-out the same definitions from Websters over and over and over each time a new person comes along and wants to talk about our capitalist system.  Just accept it for what it is understood to be.  We can move on.  It is as if you get to bang on another head each time a person comes along with a loose and ill-defined notion of capitalism.  Big deal. If that makes you feel powerful and intellectual, then keep on beating on them.  As for me, I'd as soon we get over all that and move on to the real debate.  The definition of "capitalism" is not the real debate.

 

 

Sure, just accept black as white, and up as down, and in as out, and chaos as order. What would be the point of such a discussion? Talk about pointless. Why is it important to know what it is? Because you can't possibly describe an alternative if you can't describe the object. I mean, that's just silly beyond belief. 

 

When I suggested the "Golden Rule" as a starting point for a moral economy, I did so because I assumed everyone over the age of 4 years old, understood the most universal of all moral dictums. And, that having an understanding of it, they could clearly see the benefit of how it would help guide the economy. That's a valid discussion. I even tried introducing the Preamble to the Constitution so that people could see how moral guidelines are used in a society to guide it's direct. 

 

I can only conclude, that the people responding to me have never spent even a moment thinking about these issues. And now, instead of getting to some clarity, you want all words to mean whatever anyone wants them to mean,.

[Jeff Matthews]

you can't possibly describe an alternative if you can't describe the object.

 

The object is fiction.  Next.

 

By the way, you did not answer how the Golden Rule works when people prefer to be treated differently. 

[Jeff Matthews]

I can only conclude, that the people responding to me have never spent even a moment thinking about these issues.

 

That's a great conclusion.  On top of that, it surely builds consensus and gets all of us closer to a common understanding. 

[Mallette]

Science is amoral. 

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

Science is amoral. 

 

Dave

... except for global warming.  

[Mallette]

Can't get anymore amoral than global warming.  It is neither bad nor good...just is.

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

Science is amoral. 

 

Dave

 

Obviously true. And capitalism is a theory within the science of economics. 

[DrWho]

Hey Jeff....I got lost amongst the sea of crazy back and forth between you guys. Could you summarize your view on this? I've always enjoyed your perspectives over the years, but I'm finding it hard to find your views amidst all the posts.

 

One question I've been thinking a lot about is the idea that scarcity demands a higher dollar amount. The age old supply and demand analogy. Is this just a fundamental concept, or is it only applicable to a capitalist economy (or other similar structures)? I understand the idea of supply and demand when it comes to goods and whatnot, but something just feels off when we're talking about people and their skillsets. I just haven't been able to put my finger on it - or is it really as simple as supply and demand and I shouldn't worry about it? I am completely comfortable with the idea that people will have different life styles, so the idea of different pay doesn't bother me at all. It just seems odd to me that scarcity of a skill itself is what demands the higher dollar amount.

 

Perhaps this is a shortcoming of our educational system? If there were more CEO's that were really good at their job, then would their salary stay the same? Supply and Demand tells us that their pay should go down, right?

 

 

Maybe we should be focusing on our efforts on training our workforce to have a more balanced set of skills? Is the capability of a CEO the product of nurture or nature?

Edited November 18, 2015 by DrWho

[Mallette]

Good.  Amoral systems are the best kind. 

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

 

2. Others, who have never bothered to study the philosophy or economics of capitalism, were flustered by the reality they had never discovered, and began flailing wildly with mis-statements about my position. They offered not a single point that is common in the apologetics of capitalism.

 

 

See there?  There it is again!

 

You are pointing out flaws in capitalism, while simultaneously arguing we don't have capitalism.  Basically, you are setting up a critique of a fictional system.  I can point out all the flaws in the tooth fairy, but what's the point of that?   To get people to rise to her defense?  Give me a break.  Let's get back into arguing over real conditions.

 

 

The common response I hear from you is "I can't be bothered to read "x". Or, It's not important to see, read or look at. And it shows. You actually don't bother reading a post for it's deeper content then picking up a word here or there and running off. 

 

I made plenty of reasoned arguments about our economy, about capitalism, about moral alternatives, and how it all comes together as important in the minimum wage argument. 

[Jim Naseum]

Good.  Amoral systems are the best kind. 

 

Dave

 

Would enjoy an amoral "health care system?" 

 

Would you enjoy an amoral military? Treasury? 

 

I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare?