A thought experiment prompted by recent threads on education and health care.

[LumbergTech]

Animal farrrrrm

 

[drebo]

So you don't think it's possible to be strond and aggressive while having manners and compassion? Why am I not surprised?

Who said anything about manners and compassion? Redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with either.

 

[Zebo]

Some wanted to make laws to keep people from eating fast, but they were called nanny state do goodies and folk of great arrogance, pretending to know what was best for others.

Yes that's where it starts, sounds innocent enough, then comes the Gulags to make people work and put food on table. Because if there is no significant reward, and you still eat, there is no reason to wake up at 5am and tend the farm. Unless you're in a commune where social stigma is very high against free loaders.

As with anything you need balance. Our, the Wests, and far Easts mixed economy provides such balance and has shown superior - only question to my mind is how far right or left we wish to be within that construct.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Start your own thought experiment somewhere else than in mine, please.

You appear to be making the claim that you put thought into your post.

 

[daishi5]

It is an interesting Thought Experiment. Unfortunately the usual Ideologically Blind, Knee-Jerk Over Reactors, and Thought Avoiders have filled the thread with nonsense in an attempt to completely avoid the obvious.

That is, the answer to the situation is Regulation. The same solution that's been in use since the first people gathered together to form Tribes, Nations, and Civilizations.

You're welcome.

Regulation is the answer to every problem of scarcity and production? I don't mean to be rude, but you said "Thought Avoiders have filled the thread with nonsense in an attempt to completely avoid the obvious" and then you said "regulation is the answer, because we have been using it since the first people gathered together to form Tribes, Nations, and Civilizations."

If we have been using regulation since the first people gathered to form tribes, why is it still a problem? You failed to lay out any reasoning at all as to why regulation is the answer. You made an appeal to tradition, and I would even argue that you invented the tradition you appealed to. Not only that, I believe I have made a few posts in this thread already that discuss economies that were extremely regulated that failed to solve the problem of scarcity. In addition, the relaxation of the regulations has actually increased their production and wealth, reducing the number of people starving.

Yes there are some people here spewing crap, but your post is a little hypocritical seeing as you didn't seem to anything thought provoking or that provided evidence you put thought into your post.

 

[sandorski]

Regulation is the answer to every problem of scarcity and production? I don't mean to be rude, but you said "Thought Avoiders have filled the thread with nonsense in an attempt to completely avoid the obvious" and then you said "regulation is the answer, because we have been using it since the first people gathered together to form Tribes, Nations, and Civilizations."

If we have been using regulation since the first people gathered to form tribes, why is it still a problem? You failed to lay out any reasoning at all as to why regulation is the answer. You made an appeal to tradition, and I would even argue that you invented the tradition you appealed to. Not only that, I believe I have made a few posts in this thread already that discuss economies that were extremely regulated that failed to solve the problem of scarcity. In addition, the relaxation of the regulations has actually increased their production and wealth, reducing the number of people starving.

Yes there are some people here spewing crap, but your post is a little hypocritical seeing as you didn't seem to anything thought provoking or that provided evidence you put thought into your post.

Sorry for being short and to the point. I made no nefarious appeals, I merely failed to "show my work". For that I'm truly sorry.

The problem with your arguments is basically because you are using Strawmen. Moonie layed out a scenario, you called it Communism, then attacked Communism. Unfortunately that's not what Moonie was suggesting.

 

[Moonbeam]

And competition. You're incredibly naive if you think otherwise.

Good grief, 6 million years if competative evolution successfully achieved by cooperation, better now?

 

[LunarRay]

It seems to me that regardless of how distasteful it may be the answer is BACON!

 

[Moonbeam]

I find it amusing that liberals always love to cite Darwin when it comes to evolution VS creation, but they conveniently completely (willfully?) ignore natural selection and survival of the fittest when it comes to economics, social policy, etc.

Competition is inherent in humans and pretty much every cognizant being. Striving to better one's self and one's family is inherent in all of nature. That is why socialism/communism/Marxism/whatever you want to call it are so wrong and such a failure throughout human history. They rob men of their natural desire to better themselves.

I find it amusing that idiots always love to cite shibboleths when it comes to thought experiments, but they conveniently completely (willfully?) ignore providing any evidence for their spewings.

Blah blah and blah blah blah is what we hear from them. That is why brainwashing and the repetition of learned memes are so wrong and such a failure throughout human history. They rob men of their natural desire to think for themselves.

 

[Moonbeam]

It seems to me that regardless of how distasteful it may be the answer is BACON!

Yes, the discussion we had the other day on your way or the highway is in good part what got me going with this thread. Bacon seems the obvious answer and while it seems so cruel, it also seems to be what every pig is asking for.

 

[Moonbeam]

The ideas of Thomas Malthus will never die I see.

Are you a name dropper or just like to put things in boxes with lables so you don't have to think about them?

 

[Moonbeam]

There's a big difference between fiction and real-life. In a fictional movie, anything can happen. In real life, we follow more pragmatic ideals.

The reality: hungry hunters don't catch as much, and thus the entire tribe suffers.

You mean the fictional version you were taught to regurgitate. Nobody alive today was there. It is all theoretical and just the latest theories are the ones I have been suggesting. That too could change.

 

[Moonbeam]

sandorski: It is an interesting Thought Experiment. Unfortunately the usual Ideologically Blind, Knee-Jerk Over Reactors, and Thought Avoiders have filled the thread with nonsense in an attempt to completely avoid the obvious.

M: Hard to believe these folk here are probably the intellectually elite. Just amazing!

s: That is, the answer to the situation is Regulation. The same solution that's been in use since the first people gathered together to form Tribes, Nations, and Civilizations.

You're welcome.

M: Seems to be the middle ground solution, all right, although bacon seems better to me, hehe.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let me bring your thought experiment to its logical conclusion. Another more aggressive tribe comes into the area and slaughters most of the members of Moonbeam's tribe and enslaves the rest. The new tribe tells the remaining members to STFU and puts them to work peeling potatoes for their new masters. Moonbeam's civilization comes to an end.

Thanks, that would have never occurred to me. I did not mention the White man and the Indians, did I.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes that's where it starts, sounds innocent enough, then comes the Gulags to make people work and put food on table. Because if there is no significant reward, and you still eat, there is no reason to wake up at 5am and tend the farm. Unless you're in a commune where social stigma is very high against free loaders.

As with anything you need balance. Our, the Wests, and far Easts mixed economy provides such balance and has shown superior - only question to my mind is how far right or left we wish to be within that construct.

Between the Gulags and Animal Farm, as another poster mentioned. Perhaps how far right or left depends on ones position at the moment.

Perhaps both are forms of pig. I think so.

 

[Moonbeam]

You appear to be making the claim that you put thought into your post.

You appear to imagine you would recognize thought when you see it yet post in a manner that proves that as an impossibility.

 

[LunarRay]

You appear to be making the claim that you put thought into your post.

You hold the glass and proclaim it is empty but yet consume its contents and belch.
Let me ask you a question... If a pig ate bacon would it be considered a cannibal?

 

[Moonbeam]

Regulation is the answer to every problem of scarcity and production? I don't mean to be rude, but you said "Thought Avoiders have filled the thread with nonsense in an attempt to completely avoid the obvious" and then you said "regulation is the answer, because we have been using it since the first people gathered together to form Tribes, Nations, and Civilizations."

If we have been using regulation since the first people gathered to form tribes, why is it still a problem? You failed to lay out any reasoning at all as to why regulation is the answer. You made an appeal to tradition, and I would even argue that you invented the tradition you appealed to. Not only that, I believe I have made a few posts in this thread already that discuss economies that were extremely regulated that failed to solve the problem of scarcity. In addition, the relaxation of the regulations has actually increased their production and wealth, reducing the number of people starving.

Yes there are some people here spewing crap, but your post is a little hypocritical seeing as you didn't seem to anything thought provoking or that provided evidence you put thought into your post.

This post seems to be thoughtful and while not addressed to me, I am curious how you think Sandorski thought regulation fixes scarcity? I would have thought that regulation might address monopoly but technology and innovation would have to deal with scarcity, no?

 

[sandorski]

You hold the glass and proclaim it is empty but yet consume its contents and belch.
Let me ask you a question... If a pig ate bacon would it be considered a cannibal?

It certainly would be a Cannibal, but how could it possibly not fall to that temptation?

 

[daishi5]

This post seems to be thoughtful and while not addressed to me, I am curious how you think Sandorski thought regulation fixes scarcity? I would have thought that regulation might address monopoly but technology and innovation would have to deal with scarcity, no?

The problem of scarcity is not increasing production until things are no longer scare. The problem of scarcity is taking a limited resources and assigning them for the best possible outcome, such as lowest number of people starving. The argument between all different forms of economic controls is what produces the best outcome. The "problem" of scarcity will be fixed when we reach a level of economic distribution that makes everyone in the world as well of as they can possibly be without harming another person to make their lives better. Honestly, if we actually get there, it won't be solved because everyone's version of "fixed" will be different, but when we get close we will hopefully be arguing over if we can give the poorest people another car, rather than struggling to save them from starvation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity
(basic synopsis, human desires are seemingly infinite, resources are not, we cannot meet all human desires, but there should be some allocation of resources that produces a maximum level of satisfied desires)

I also had a long response to sandorski, but apparently it was lost, and I don't have the time to rewrite it now. I will probably have time much later today.

 

[ebaycj]

I much prefer: If you don't realize by 30 that both sides are full of shit and operating on absolutes, you have no brain.

This.

 

[StageLeft]

Yes, I know what I am describing. What do you suggest in the way of making things prohibitive?

Not everyone agrees on what's important but the only way to get around this is by dictating behavior via laws and punishment. So instead of pleading with people's morality to not pollute, for example, you force them not to by motivating them away from the repercussions of their bad behavior.

But it's plainly clear that individuals frequently don't act in the best interest of everyone even when they know they're being naughty.

 

[cubeless]

you speak of 'cooperative evolution', but there's no such thing in reality, it was survival of the fittest... when there's 2 organisms and one unit of food one eats, the other dies...

now fast forward to 'thinking' beings...

your scenario is the strawman for a happy commune... as long as everyone is socially oriented all is well... once a non-socially oriented member arises you then band against them and start regulating (actually, you jump straight to killing them, but that just shows your political bent)... once you start regulating you get factions... once you get factions you get battles...

e.g. the members who work in the fields want more potatoes because they use more calories doing work than those sewing... who decides the validity of this claim? the fieldhands unionize and take possesion of the potatoes, becoming the benevolent arbiter of potatoage...

sadly, all systems systems fail once you add the evil homo-sapiens to the mix... they just aren't all genetically 'social'...

 

[drebo]

You mean the fictional version you were taught to regurgitate. Nobody alive today was there. It is all theoretical and just the latest theories are the ones I have been suggesting. That too could change.

My post, which you so lovingly took out of context, was in direct response to someone who was using the plot of the movie 1 Million BC to justify implementing your commune in real life. I was merely pointing out that in a fiction, anything can happen.

I'm not sure which is more stupid: the idiot who uses the plot of a movie to justify social policy or the idiot who doesn't realize the context of a comment.

 

[drebo]

I much prefer: If you don't realize by 30 that both sides are full of shit and operating on absolutes, you have no brain.

This doesn't make any sense. I'm not talking about political parties, I'm talking about social ideology. If I were talking about political parties, I would agree with you. However, you're distorting my meaning and making yourself look like a fool.