a system that accepts a basic standard of living that all should be privy to, one that believes that resources are consumed in a sustainable way, where the interests of the few do not supercede the interests of the many ...
it is not far from what we have now - except the corportacracy that engulfs our culture now is turned upside down ...
a system that accepts a basic standard of living that all should be privy to, one that believes that resources are consumed in a sustainable way
What "basic standard of living" is that? What do you mean by "sustainable"? And what happens when the methods to achieve that "sustainability" prevent "all" from achieving the "basic standard of living that all should be privy to"?
where the interests of the few do not supercede the interests of the many ...
This directly contradicts the above. If everyone deserves a "basic standard of living", that means the interests of just one person below that standard of living would supercede the interests of everyone else.
Or did you just mean to say "where the interests of those I agree with supercedes the interests of those I do not"
it is not far from what we have now - except the corportacracy that engulfs our culture now is turned upside down ...
It certainly doesn't sound far from what we have now.
What "basic standard of living" is that? What do you mean by "sustainable"? And what happens when the methods to achieve that "sustainability" prevent "all" from achieving the "basic standard of living that all should be privy to"?
clean water, affordable housing/transportation, access to health care, education, etc ...
This directly contradicts the above. If everyone deserves a "basic standard of living", that means the interests of just one person below that standard of living would supercede the interests of everyone else.
Or did you just mean to say "where the interests of those I agree with supercedes the interests of those I do not"
well - that is always going to be the pinch no matter what system in place you put forth - not everyone is going to agree with it ... in any case - i don't see the contradiction ...
What does "affordable" mean? Affordable to someone in society, affordable to many in society, or affordable to everyone in society? What qualifies as "housing"? What "transportation" am I entitled to and what are its limits?
access to health care
What happens when 500 people need heart transplants tomorrow and you only have enough heart surgeons to perform 200?
education
How much education? On what topics?
etc...
"Etc"??? What does that mean?
well - that is always going to be the pinch no matter what system in place you put forth - not everyone is going to agree with it ... in any case - i don't see the contradiction ...
You don't see the contradiction between saying that "the interests of the many will not supersede the interests of the few" and also saying that "all will have access to a basic standard of living"?
Given your limited definition above of "basic standard", let's say that I need a heart transplant. Your state structure demands that I receive it, regardless of what it takes. Let's say you don't have enough medical personel to give me that heart transplant. The only way to get enough is to sell enough clean water to another country such that everyone falls below the basic standard you've defined here. If you sell that water, you'll have a situation where my interest supercede everyone else's interest. If you don't sell that water, you'll have a situation wherein my basic rights have been violated. So, do you see the contradiction now?
on the surface - but the reality is we are far from it ...
It's exactly where we are now. The people who define "basic standard" and "sustainability" are simply not you.
What does "affordable" mean? Affordable to someone in society, affordable to many in society, or affordable to everyone in society? What qualifies as "housing"? What "transportation" am I entitled to and what are its limits?
What happens when 500 people need heart transplants tomorrow and you only have enough heart surgeons to perform 200?
How much education? On what topics?
"Etc"??? What does that mean?
You don't see the contradiction between saying that "the interests of the many will not supersede the interests of the few" and also saying that "all will have access to a basic standard of living"?
Given your limited definition above of "basic standard", let's say that I need a heart transplant. Your state structure demands that I receive it, regardless of what it takes. Let's say you don't have enough medical personel to give me that heart transplant. The only way to get enough is to sell enough clean water to another country such that everyone falls below the basic standard you've defined here. If you sell that water, you'll have a situation where my interest supercede everyone else's interest. If you don't sell that water, you'll have a situation wherein my basic rights have been violated. So, do you see the contradiction now?
It's exactly where we are now. The people who define "basic standard" and "sustainability" are simply not you.
do you see your example being anywhere reasonable?? ... right now - heart transplants are more concerned with the amount of suitable donors ... where do you envision your scenario being remotely plausible?
the contradiction only exists when you manipulate it to - the reality is that as a basic concept - it is not very contradictory unless the majority don't believe in the things i mentioned in which case you would be right ...
as for who's defining that "standard" and "sustainability" - yes, that isn't me right now - nor is it the people ... that's the problem ... and in no way are we even remotely close to being sustainable right now ...
as for your earlier questions - they can't be answered until there is an understanding of what are the conditions by which we live ...
do you see your example being anywhere reasonable?? ...
Absolutely. It's what happens in every socialistic society -- the list of rights grows as production shrinks. I realize we're talking about "modern socialism" here, so I thought maybe you had figured out a way to fix that.
right now - heart transplants are more concerned with the amount of suitable donors ... where do you envision your scenario being remotely plausible?
It's completely plausible. Many states currently suffer from severe shortages of heart surgeons. Current projections show that the United States will suffer from a shortage of 5,000 heart surgeons within the next decade. At many points in history and in many places, the number of health care providers has been far outstripped by the demand.
the contradiction only exists when you manipulate it to - the reality is that as a basic concept - it is not very contradictory unless the majority don't believe in the things i mentioned in which case you would be right ...
What you're not even thinking of is that simply agreeing on or believing in the things that comprise the "basic standard of living" does not magically make them exist, nor does it make them non-contradictory. You've gauranteed everyone transportation. Does that mean cars? Who's going to make them? How does that fit in with your "sustainability"?
as for who's defining that "standard" and "sustainability" - yes, that isn't me right now - nor is it the people ... that's the problem ... and in no way are we even remotely close to being sustainable right now ...
Nor are you helping matters by promising everyone a house. The basic challenges to sustainability are consumption levels and appropriate technology. You're going to dramatically increase consumption levels while removing incentives to develop new technologies.
There's nothing "sustainable" about arbitrary guarantees.
as for your earlier questions - they can't be answered until there is an understanding of what are the conditions by which we live ...
I have no idea what this means. Can you please expand?
Absolutely. It's what happens in every socialistic society -- the list of rights grows as production shrinks. I realize we're talking about "modern socialism" here, so I thought maybe you had figured out a way to fix that.
It's completely plausible. Many states currently suffer from severe shortages of heart surgeons. Current projections show that the United States will suffer from a shortage of 5,000 heart surgeons within the next decade. At many points in history and in many places, the number of health care providers has been far outstripped by the demand.
What you're not even thinking of is that simply agreeing on or believing in the things that comprise the "basic standard of living" does not magically make them exist, nor does it make them non-contradictory. You've gauranteed everyone transportation. Does that mean cars? Who's going to make them? How does that fit in with your "sustainability"?
Nor are you helping matters by promising everyone a house. The basic challenges to sustainability are consumption levels and appropriate technology. You're going to dramatically increase consumption levels while removing incentives to develop new technologies.
There's nothing "sustainable" about arbitrary guarantees.
I have no idea what this means. Can you please expand?
i don't know of any shortages here ... nor any other country that has public health care ... also, i don't see how you stifle incentives for new technology - part of access to health care is to also investing in prevention through various programs ...
i said affordable housing/transportation ... that doesn't mean giving everyone a house and car ... it means access to public transportation or a home that is affordable ...
yes ... consumption levels do indeed need to drop - through collective planning - consumption can be dropped below what it is now ... also, we would need to have a shift in terms of our understanding of the indicators by which we judge our progress ... we can't operate under a model that seeks to only promote economic growth without consequence ...
as for the last bit - i can't answer how much water because it would be dependent on what is available, nor tell you what affordable is unless we know what people are earning, etc ...
"You can't be a good president in the 21st century when your chief concerns are the sovereignty of the American taxpayer and his right to bear arms. It’s too insular. Isolationism is no longer an option, and hasn't been for years. The world is too small and you can thank, or blame, technology for that reality. The stakes are far too high, as we've learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to act like we can do anything we damned well please anytime we damned well feel like it."
Like it or not, this is the 21st century, folks. We are part of an increasingly interdependent global community. Time to take your heads out of the sand.
Or out of your asses, wherever they may be at the present moment.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"You can't be a good president in the 21st century when your chief concerns are the sovereignty of the American taxpayer and his right to bear arms. It’s too insular. Isolationism is no longer an option, and hasn't been for years. The world is too small and you can thank, or blame, technology for that reality. The stakes are far too high, as we've learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to act like we can do anything we damned well please anytime we damned well feel like it."
Like it or not, this is the 21st century, folks. We are part of an increasingly interdependent global community. Time to take your heads out of the sand.
Or out of your asses, wherever they may be at the present moment.
The irony of this is Libertarians might be the only ones out there who aren't isolationist when it comes to a global economy.
Everyone else wants tarriffs and price supports to keep thier jobs in thier respective countries.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
when it comes to making money, i have no doubt that they're all for globalizing. i mean, these ARE republicans we're talking about, right?
it's their social and foreign policy that seem to be outdated and insular.
no they aren't republicans. No Republican in office currently wants anything close to free trade no matter what it says on their agreements or in thier speeches. Anytime you see money from the government going out to artifically keep the price of a good like Tobacco or Corn or Cotton someone somewhere else in the world is suffering because of it...but it keeps the consituant voter in the particular job that they like.
The social policy could be one of indifference depending on your viewpoint or one of Freedom if you're one who just wants to be left alone by your government.
Perspective is really all we are dealing with when it comes to politics anyway.
Most of the arguments about politics and religion are semantics.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
also, i don't see how you stifle incentives for new technology
By further limiting the reasons people invent new technologies. Namely, you'll end up centralizing the health care system, fixing prices, and limiting profits, yes?
part of access to health care is to also investing in prevention through various programs ...
Well, that's wonderful, but obviously you won't prevent all heart attacks through your "various programs", particularly given the fact that you'll end up guaranteeing everyone food which will likely end up equating to fatty, cheap products (i.e. our food stamp programs) that will further increase heart problems. Furthermore, you'll be reducing people's incentives to stay healthy by giving them free health care.
i said affordable housing/transportation ... that doesn't mean giving everyone a house and car ... it means access to public transportation or a home that is affordable ...
Ok, public transportation from where and to where? If you put a train station 20 miles from my house, you certainly haven't delivered on the promise of transportation, have you? And you still haven't defined "affordable" or even "housing"? What does those mean? How are you going to sustainably build those houses?
yes ... consumption levels do indeed need to drop - through collective planning - consumption can be dropped below what it is now ...
But you're entire theory is that people need to consume more. You might drop some people's level of consumption, but that won't outweigh all the new houses, trains, and hospitals you're building.
also, we would need to have a shift in terms of our understanding of the indicators by which we judge our progress ... we can't operate under a model that seeks to only promote economic growth without consequence ...
Completely agreed. However, that seems to be your only standard, aside from something you haven't defined called "sustainability". You are the one demanding increased consumption for society.
as for the last bit - i can't answer how much water because it would be dependent on what is available, nor tell you what affordable is unless we know what people are earning, etc ...
The amount of water that is available constantly changes. What formula will you use to determine the amount you'll give to each?
You certainly know what people are earning these days. However, your promise of affordability will be completely moot since your efforts will then dramatically increase housing prices through increased demand. You're going to have to forcibly set housing prices, which will in turn affect salaries to the point you'll have to set those too. So you can just tell me what you'll set both housing prices and salaries to.
By further limiting the reasons people invent new technologies. Namely, you'll end up centralizing the health care system, fixing prices, and limiting profits, yes?
Well, that's wonderful, but obviously you won't prevent all heart attacks through your "various programs", particularly given the fact that you'll end up guaranteeing everyone food which will likely end up equating to fatty, cheap products (i.e. our food stamp programs) that will further increase heart problems. Furthermore, you'll be reducing people's incentives to stay healthy by giving them free health care.
Ok, public transportation from where and to where? If you put a train station 20 miles from my house, you certainly haven't delivered on the promise of transportation, have you? And you still haven't defined "affordable" or even "housing"? What does those mean? How are you going to sustainably build those houses?
But you're entire theory is that people need to consume more. You might drop some people's level of consumption, but that won't outweigh all the new houses, trains, and hospitals you're building.
Completely agreed. However, that seems to be your only standard, aside from something you haven't defined called "sustainability". You are the one demanding increased consumption for society.
The amount of water that is available constantly changes. What formula will you use to determine the amount you'll give to each?
You certainly know what people are earning these days. However, your promise of affordability will be completely moot since your efforts will then dramatically increase housing prices through increased demand. You're going to have to forcibly set housing prices, which will in turn affect salaries to the point you'll have to set those too. So you can just tell me what you'll set both housing prices and salaries to.
where do i say consumption needs to increase?
as for the shortages - yes, they have occured because of funding shortages ... a ploy used by the conservative agenda to promote a privatization of services ...
if the gov't provides health care - then there is no need for profit but there is an incentive to reduce costs that will drive innovation ... the same thing can be applied across the board whether it be addressing shortages, waste or whatever ...
there is a stat somewhere that we used to spend 16% of our money on food and 9% on our health care now, the figures are essentially reversed - do you see the trend? ... putting poor people on a diet of twinkies and coke is not helping anyone ...
you take a far too literal approach to this discussion with your goal of being to render it faulty ... your example of the train is a prime example ... everything doesn't work in isolation ...
you are basically asking me to delineate how each and every program will work in this hypothetical situation ... you need to look just at the whole picture - i can't answer every question - i can only answer on what my motivations would be ...
take the US - most communities are designed to require everyone have a car, therefore everyone needs gas and big roads ... then you take some places in europe where public transportation takes a precedent and the attitudes are different there ... these are some of the basic concepts i am talking about ...
i'm talking about a generalized approach and you're asking me what formula i would put in place to allot water?? ... do you think that is a reasonable question in the context of this discussion?
You said it twice. First, you said that everyone needs to be gauranteed a basic level of consumption, ostensibly because many people do not meet that basic level currently. Second, and more deeply, you said that a political structure should exist wherein consumption should be determined not by a concomittant production (as in capitalism), but rather by simple political mandate.
as for the shortages - yes, they have occured because of funding shortages ... a ploy used by the conservative agenda to promote a privatization of services ...
Hehe...so the shortage of heart surgeons is a "conservative ploy"? Wow, the requisite paranoia in your socialistic utopia has started early.
if the gov't provides health care - then there is no need for profit but there is an incentive to reduce costs that will drive innovation ...
Huh? "No need for profit"? Your entire system is based on profit. You're giving everyone services that have a value in exchange for doing nothing. So there's nothing but profit except for those who have to deliver those services. They're working for a value that you would have given them even if they didn't work, which means eventually they're going to stop working.
Reducing costs is not necessarily the thing you want to use to "drive innovation". Surgery sans anesthetic would be a lot cheaper, but I don't think you really want that, do you? You might want to read a little history:
the same thing can be applied across the board whether it be addressing shortages, waste or whatever ...
How is it applied "across the board"? If I have a water shortage, for instance, what incentive exists to decrease consumption when I'm getting my water for free? Secondly, what incentive exist to increase the supply when the only thing my labor is getting me is accountability and responsibility?
there is a stat somewhere that we used to spend 16% of our money on food and 9% on our health care now, the figures are essentially reversed - do you see the trend? ... putting poor people on a diet of twinkies and coke is not helping anyone ...
No, it's not helping anyone. Don't you find it interesting those numbers have switched since you nationalize or hmo'ed health care?
you take a far too literal approach to this discussion with your goal of being to render it faulty ... your example of the train is a prime example ... everything doesn't work in isolation ...
So in other words I shouldn't use your words but rather your immagination?
you are basically asking me to delineate how each and every program will work in this hypothetical situation ... you need to look just at the whole picture - i can't answer every question - i can only answer on what my motivations would be ...
Your motivations are meaningless to me, frankly. I'm interested in how your system is going to work, not why you want to have it.
take the US - most communities are designed to require everyone have a car, therefore everyone needs gas and big roads ...
Why don't you ask who built those roads, and for what reason? The government built them for "the common good", using much the same logic you are here.
then you take some places in europe where public transportation takes a precedent and the attitudes are different there ... these are some of the basic concepts i am talking about ...
That's all fine and good, but there are some differences you're missing. Public transportation in Europe took a precedent because most European cities were built before cars. Furthermore, cars a less affordable to operate in Europe. Our stupid government, in all its infinite wisdom, decided that it would be in the "common good" to make gas and cars and roads as cheap as possible, using much the same logic you are here.
i'm talking about a generalized approach and you're asking me what formula i would put in place to allot water?? ...
Absolutely I'm asking that. Your "generalized approach" is meaningless without the specifics of implementation.
do you think that is a reasonable question in the context of this discussion?
Most certainly. You're going to be giving orders and I'm going to be receiving them, so I'd like to be prepared.
See, here's where you lose me. This vague "ever changing social and economic society" language is frankly BS. What it practically means is "ever changing selective justifications". Society most certainly changes, but it doesn't often change in such fundamental ways as to require constant reinterpretation. Effectively wiping away any objective measures through this logic of "practical realtities" only invites the legislative and judicial chaos we see.
BS, huh? Many experts disagree with you. Here's a quote for you.....
'Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.'
Fifty years ago, "practical realities" led the Supreme Court to determine that a woman has a Constitutionally protected right to private medical decisions. Ironically, many of the same people who will adamately defend that right will then turn around and lament the "practical realities" of today's society and its need for a government run healthcare system in which privacy of one's medical decisions and history would be impossible. Do you see the hypocrisy and doublespeak I'm getting at here?
But don't pick and choose statutes that support you, ignore statutes that don't, or ignore the entire document altogether in just some cases. It's dishonest.
Just because someone interprets something differently than you, it does not make them dishonest. Your statement is dishonest. Funny how it is always the 'other person' who misinterprets, twists, & distorts the meaning :rolleyes:
There is a reason the founders did not make the constitution specific. We do not limit ourselves 18th century medicine, science, & technology. The founders did not want to limit us to 18th century political science & economics.
I'll address you other points later.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
BS, huh? Many experts disagree with you. Here's a quote for you.....
'Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.'
Know who said this?
The same guy who said, regarding slaves:
"Actual property has been lawfully vested in that form, and who can lawfully take it from the possessors?"
This doesn't address the point at all. PHI may prevent certain information from being made public, but it certainly does not prevent the government from using personal information where it requires.
The constitutional contradiction between preventing governmental control to make your health decisions vis a vis abortion and using government to limit the health decisions of other vis a vis mandated single-payer healthcare is unavoidable.
Just because someone interprets something differently than you, it does not make them dishonest.
I didn't say that. What makes someone dishonest is pretending to believe in a Constitutional protection when it justifies one's preferred behavior but then ignoring it when it would limit another. That is dishonest.
Your statement is dishonest. Funny how it is always the 'other person' who misinterprets, twists, & distorts the meaning :rolleyes:
There are plenty of people who interpet things differently than I do. I don't mind that, so long as there is a consistent, logical basis to their interpretation.
There is a reason the founders did not make the constitution specific.
Absolutely. They didn't agree on very much.
We do not limit ourselves 18th century medicine, science, & technology. The founders did not want to limit us to 18th century political science & economics.
I completely agree! However, this is a blanket excuse too often used to justify anything. A Constitution, by its very nature, is a limiting document. I rarely here people who advocate for a loose interpretation of the Constitution ever mention what it limits, but only what it permits.
You said it twice. First, you said that everyone needs to be gauranteed a basic level of consumption, ostensibly because many people do not meet that basic level currently. Second, and more deeply, you said that a political structure should exist wherein consumption should be determined not by a concomittant production (as in capitalism), but rather by simple political mandate.
Hehe...so the shortage of heart surgeons is a "conservative ploy"? Wow, the requisite paranoia in your socialistic utopia has started early.
Huh? "No need for profit"? Your entire system is based on profit. You're giving everyone services that have a value in exchange for doing nothing. So there's nothing but profit except for those who have to deliver those services. They're working for a value that you would have given them even if they didn't work, which means eventually they're going to stop working.
Reducing costs is not necessarily the thing you want to use to "drive innovation". Surgery sans anesthetic would be a lot cheaper, but I don't think you really want that, do you? You might want to read a little history:
How is it applied "across the board"? If I have a water shortage, for instance, what incentive exists to decrease consumption when I'm getting my water for free? Secondly, what incentive exist to increase the supply when the only thing my labor is getting me is accountability and responsibility?
No, it's not helping anyone. Don't you find it interesting those numbers have switched since you nationalize or hmo'ed health care?
So in other words I shouldn't use your words but rather your immagination?
Your motivations are meaningless to me, frankly. I'm interested in how your system is going to work, not why you want to have it.
Why don't you ask who built those roads, and for what reason? The government built them for "the common good", using much the same logic you are here.
That's all fine and good, but there are some differences you're missing. Public transportation in Europe took a precedent because most European cities were built before cars. Furthermore, cars a less affordable to operate in Europe. Our stupid government, in all its infinite wisdom, decided that it would be in the "common good" to make gas and cars and roads as cheap as possible, using much the same logic you are here.
Absolutely I'm asking that. Your "generalized approach" is meaningless without the specifics of implementation.
Most certainly. You're going to be giving orders and I'm going to be receiving them, so I'd like to be prepared.
ok ... it seems our motivations for this discussion vary ...
so, i'll excuse myself ... i will just say that your views of "gov't" should be tempered with the understanding that it is run by corporations not the people ...
ok ... it seems our motivations for this discussion vary ...
What a strange response.
so, i'll excuse myself ... i will just say that your views of "gov't" should be tempered with the understanding that it is run by corporations not the people ...
That makes for a wonderful bumper sticker. The fact of the matter is that the "gov't" is run by a whole lot of corporations and people all seeking to extract from each other whatever they wish based on whatever standards happen to be convenient. That's the problem. That's what needs to be understood.
"Actual property has been lawfully vested in that form, and who can lawfully take it from the possessors?"
Ah, and you make my point as to why the founders should not be held up as secular saints and used to further your agenda (with terms like 'plain meaning, etc')
This doesn't address the point at all. PHI may prevent certain information from being made public, but it certainly does not prevent the government from using personal information where it requires.
Do you mean like insurance companies currently do?
The constitutional contradiction between preventing governmental control to make your health decisions vis a vis abortion and using government to limit the health decisions of other vis a vis mandated single-payer healthcare is unavoidable.
Are you talking about everyone having to use the gov't health care system without alternatives? Having one system to choose from? What do you think about two-tiered systems?
I didn't say that. What makes someone dishonest is pretending to believe in a Constitutional protection when it justifies one's preferred behavior but then ignoring it when it would limit another. That is dishonest.
I think this is a weak argument and I have pointed out where this would be true in your society as well. Libertarian methods 'limit' behavior as well. Look at the private property argument. It might protect my property, but it limits another from accessing it. Not saying that is right or wrong, it just is.
There are plenty of people who interpet things differently than I do. I don't mind that, so long as there is a consistent, logical basis to their interpretation.
I completely agree! However, this is a blanket excuse too often used to justify anything. A Constitution, by its very nature, is a limiting document. I rarely here people who advocate for a loose interpretation of the Constitution ever mention what it limits, but only what it permits.
You have got to understand how the Constitution is supposed to work. The whole purpose of Congress is to enact laws to apply the Constitution to specific circumstances. The courts determine whether laws are constitutional. You stated earlier that you didn't like the 'subjective' nature. But that is why we turn to the experts of the courts, to interpret the law.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ah, and you make my point as to why the founders should not be held up as secular saints and used to further your agenda (with terms like 'plain meaning, etc')
That's fine. But, regardless, it seems odd to use quotes from a strict constructionist to justify loose interpretation of the constitution.
Do you mean like insurance companies currently do?
Absolutely! But at least, in most states, I'm not required to have an insurance policy.
Are you talking about everyone having to use the gov't health care system without alternatives?
Yes.
Having one system to choose from? What do you think about two-tiered systems?
I think a two-tiered system is fine, in terms of privacy, as long as a third tier exists wherein I'm not required by law to have insurance.
I think this is a weak argument and I have pointed out where this would be true in your society as well. Libertarian methods 'limit' behavior as well. Look at the private property argument. It might protect my property, but it limits another from accessing it. Not saying that is right or wrong, it just is.
I completely agree! Property rights are certainly a restriction on natural freedoms.
You have got to understand how the Constitution is supposed to work. The whole purpose of Congress is to enact laws to apply the Constitution to specific circumstances. The courts determine whether laws are constitutional. You stated earlier that you didn't like the 'subjective' nature. But that is why we turn to the experts of the courts, to interpret the law.
There's a difference between interpreting subjective law and objective law. For example, mathematicians "interpret" mathematical structures. But one cannot apply subjective meaning to fundamental mathematics -- it is a universal. A math teacher may "judge" your proof, but he or she does it based on the rules of math, not subjective preferences. A judge who is subjectively interpreting law based on his or her own interpretations is making law, not interpreting it.
There's a difference between interpreting subjective law and objective law. For example, mathematicians "interpret" mathematical structures. But one cannot apply subjective meaning to fundamental mathematics -- it is a universal. A math teacher may "judge" your proof, but he or she does it based on the rules of math, not subjective preferences. A judge who is subjectively interpreting law based on his or her own interpretations is making law, not interpreting it.
Uh, not sure you want to use mathematics as your analogy, but I kind of like it myself. He he....... Are there 'undefined terms' in your political argument? Did you know that Calculus was originally developed to solve problems in physics (specifically the orbits of planets) and it can be used effectively for problems in economics, biology, etc.? All of calculus, like any mathematics, is based on theorems proved from axioms and definitions, both of those containing undefined terms. To apply it to any field, you give meaning to those 'undefined terms' using terms of your application. If, then, you can show that the axioms are 'true' in terms of your application, then you know that all theorems, and all methods of solving problems based on those theorems, still work! Undefined terms are fundamental to mathematics and Mathematical structures are 'templates' and the undefined words are the 'blanks' that have to be filled to apply the template to a specific purpose.
Not a good argument for you.........ha ha
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Uh, not sure you want to use mathematics as your analogy, but I kind of like it myself. He he....... Are there 'undefined terms' in your political argument? Did you know that Calculus was originally developed to solve problems in physics (specifically the orbits of planets) and it can be used effectively for problems in economics, biology, etc.? All of calculus, like any mathematics, is based on theorems proved from axioms and definitions, both of those containing undefined terms. To apply it to any field, you give meaning to those 'undefined terms' using terms of your application. If, then, you can show that the axioms are 'true' in terms of your application, then you know that all theorems, and all methods of solving problems based on those theorems, still work! Undefined terms are fundamental to mathematics and Mathematical structures are 'templates' and the undefined words are the 'blanks' that have to be filled to apply the template to a specific purpose.
Not a good argument for you.........ha ha
I don't think you understand the argument. Everything you say is above is absolutely fine, but you recognize the difference between the above and what you're advocating, yes? Do you see a ruling body of mathematics that determines when and where math may be applied and how it is applied? Or is there a standard of proof greater than a subjective determination by a select group of individuals? In mathematics, can I pretend based on my own whims that "undefined terms" are in fact defined, or vise versa? My I choose which math to employ and which to ignore to arrive at my chosen answer, or does the problem itself demand the appropriate methods to determine the correct answer? If you believe a Supreme Court's subjective interpretation of vague laws handed to the by Congress maps to mathematics, I'm not sure where to go from here.
There are plenty of potential axioms on which human society can lay its foundation, ranging from the supremecy of the individual to the supremecy of social measures. However, there are no contradictory ones on which human society can lay its foundation.
No, it is you that doesn't understand how humorous your mathematics analogy was. I understand what you are arguing, it is just you can't use mathematics as an analogy. A mathematician would laugh considering the scope of mathematics.
How does the "scope" of mathematics change the issue?
No, what I see is a non-mathematician or someone without a math background trying to use it as an analogy when the fact of the matter is that the subject is far complicated. Ever take category theory? One basic theorem of category theory is that a category is completely defined by its relations, you don't have to mention the objects at all! Pretty cool stuff. I remember one of my textbook, in the preface, said category theory is often called 'abstract nonsense' with no sense of that being derogatory at all!
I am somewhat familiar with category theory, but I fail to see how it changes the issue. Despite its dealing with abstracts, it has a fundamental basis from which all operate. Furthermore, it cannot violate other functions of mathematics or logic as it is based upon them.
Nothing you're saying here invalidates what I said or even addresses it. Mathematics, in all forms, attempts to define or employ universal laws based on a natural order, not a subjective choice. It is the role of mathemeticians to determine the objective reality that exists, not to create a new one that does not exist.
How does the "scope" of mathematics change the issue?
I am somewhat familiar with category theory, but I fail to see how it changes the issue. Despite its dealing with abstracts, it has a fundamental basis from which all operate. Furthermore, it cannot violate other functions of mathematics or logic as it is based upon them.
Nothing you're saying here invalidates what I said or even addresses it. Mathematics, in all forms, attempts to define or employ universal laws based on a natural order, not a subjective choice. It is the role of mathemeticians to determine the objective reality that exists, not to create a new one that does not exist.
OMG, you saw this post? After I posted it I saw a double post, so I deleted the double post, then I didn't see either post. I am only able see my double now???
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
OMG, you saw this post? After I posted it I saw a double post, so I deleted the double post, then I didn't see either post. I am only able see my double now???
I am somewhat familiar with category theory, but I fail to see how it changes the issue. Despite its dealing with abstracts, it has a fundamental basis from which all operate. Furthermore, it cannot violate other functions of mathematics or logic as it is based upon them.
Nothing you're saying here invalidates what I said or even addresses it. Mathematics, in all forms, attempts to define or employ universal laws based on a natural order, not a subjective choice. It is the role of mathemeticians to determine the objective reality that exists, not to create a new one that does not exist.
Define 'exists'. Unless you have a suitable vague notion of what 'exists' is and its 'measure' your statement is vacuous.
I've no idea what you even mean by 'determine the objective reality that exists' as it pertains to mathematics. If you think mathematics is purely limited to modelling things that do exist then, I would say you do not have a good understanding of the field. Mathematics has gone way beyond that. There are examples of theoretical physics that have no basis in the observed data of the real world. Non-euclidean geometry was developed without recourse to the real world.
What I'm saying to you is can't choose your definition of mathematics to fit your opinion. There are many mathematicians that feel what they do has no basis in reality and are perfectly happy with that position. You might care to take into account their views before telling them what they do.
Ha ha........this thread has been completely hijacked by me trying to debunk your one analogy.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Unless you have a suitable vague notion of what 'exists' is and its 'measure' your statement is vacuous.
I think we have a very specific notion of what exists and how to measure it. That is the whole purpose of logic and science. Certainly that notion is far from complete, and as such scientific and logical pursuits remain. Politics is not immune from this process, particularly when one invokes logical concepts such as "law" and "right".
I've no idea what you even mean by 'determine the objective reality that exists' as it pertains to mathematics.
Mathematics is little different than a map. Rather than mapping land and water that exists around us, mathematics maps the rules for identity and operation that exist around us.
If you think mathematics is purely limited to modelling things that do exist then, I would say you do not have a good understanding of the field. Mathematics has gone way beyond that. There are examples of theoretical physics that have no basis in the observed data of the real world.
Certainly! But they have basis in the real world. No mathematics exist outside the "real world", meaning a world defined by constants and structure.
Non-euclidean geometry was developed without recourse to the real world.
Yet each and every one of its principles corresponds to something in the real world.
What I'm saying to you is can't choose your definition of mathematics to fit your opinion. There are many mathematicians that feel what they do has no basis in reality and are perfectly happy with that position. You might care to take into account their views before telling them what they do.
This is silly. It's absolutely fine to suggest that much of mathematics exists in theory and is absent direct observation. This is very true. Yet each and every mathematician will tell you that the proof of the validity of their efforts is not human choice or opinion, but consistency with the structure of the given environment of identity. Please, find me a mathematician that will tell you that truly correct mathematics are simply a matter of opinion. Find me one mathematician who will tell you that a = !a, if only someone decides it does.
I think we have a very specific notion of what exists and how to measure it. That is the whole purpose of logic and science. Certainly that notion is far from complete, and as such scientific and logical pursuits remain. Politics is not immune from this process, particularly when one invokes logical concepts such as "law" and "right".
Again you can't 'prove' you political beliefs by misrepresenting mathematics! Your statement above is false and I will get into your 'real world' argument in a minute.
Mathematics is little different than a map. Rather than mapping land and water that exists around us, mathematics maps the rules for identity and operation that exist around us.
Ha ha......I don't know what would make you think this unless you know nothing about mathematics.
Certainly! But they have basis in the real world. No mathematics exist outside the "real world", meaning a world defined by constants and structure.
Consider Pythagoras's theorem.......Pythagoras's theorem actually fails spectacularly in spherical geometry as is easy to see. Consider a right angled triangle, the base lying on the equator and the apex at the north pole. The two sides from the apex to the base always meet the base at right angles, and they always have the same length irrespective of the length of the base, hence the Pythagorean theorem fails to hold 'in the real world.'
Here is an example of theoretical physics that has no basis in the observed data of the real world that is interesting to me, topological quantum field theory. Firstly, there is no observational data to imply that string theory is correct, and secondly a 2-d TQFT is a functor from a category whose objects are (finite) collections of circles and whose morphisms (think of this as evolution in time) are given by riemann surfaces with certain openings. None of those objects were invented to describe physical phenomena directly, and arguably they still aren't being used to describe physical phenomena.
As for other things: category theory was not developed with the intent of doing anything for the real world.
Here's another one: is there anything in the real world that is actually a continuum? We pass to the continuous because that makes our life easier.
What about groups? Groups were invented to study the roots of polynomials. Does that make them motivated by the real world? They also describe the symmetries of objects (not necessarily realizable in 3-d real space) so are they based in 'the real world?'
What about schemes? Can you clarify what is necessary for something to be considered applicable to the real world? Would you dismiss the above as math according to your definition?
Yet each and every one of its principles corresponds to something in the real world.
And yet it was an attempt to see if the parallel postulate was independent of the other axioms, and its models were a long time in being invented. My point was no one could find a geometry in which the parallel postulate failed and there was no natural model for hyperbolic geometry until after it was given some abstract ones, thus despite being the most naturally occurring geometry, it was purely invented before it was found in physical form. The invention of hyperbolic geometry was a purely theoretical exercise, founded from a desire to see if the parallel postulate was intrinsic to geometry.
This is silly. It's absolutely fine to suggest that much of mathematics exists in theory and is absent direct observation. This is very true. Yet each and every mathematician will tell you that the proof of the validity of their efforts is not human choice or opinion, but consistency with the structure of the given environment of identity. Please, find me a mathematician that will tell you that truly correct mathematics are simply a matter of opinion. Find me one mathematician who will tell you that a = !a, if only someone decides it does.
Ha ha....I work very closely with mathematicians for a living and have had very interesting debates with them. I also have a strong math background myself (formal education). So I've asked these questions, of my colleagues and of my professors. There is no matter of opinion here. To suggest that maths developed with no intent (currently) of doing anything for the real world is 'an opinion' is just wrong. There are mathematical discoveries whose import was not appreciated until much later for a variety of reasons, but it was still accepted as good hard publishable mathematics at the time, then just ignored, or left alone. In fact that is one of the reasons why maths should be free to do what ever it wishes (not adhere to the 'real world') and examine seemingly useless things, (I'm sure in your eyes) since we don't know what may happen later when someone cleverer looks at it.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Comments
a system that accepts a basic standard of living that all should be privy to, one that believes that resources are consumed in a sustainable way, where the interests of the few do not supercede the interests of the many ...
it is not far from what we have now - except the corportacracy that engulfs our culture now is turned upside down ...
What "basic standard of living" is that? What do you mean by "sustainable"? And what happens when the methods to achieve that "sustainability" prevent "all" from achieving the "basic standard of living that all should be privy to"?
This directly contradicts the above. If everyone deserves a "basic standard of living", that means the interests of just one person below that standard of living would supercede the interests of everyone else.
Or did you just mean to say "where the interests of those I agree with supercedes the interests of those I do not"
It certainly doesn't sound far from what we have now.
clean water, affordable housing/transportation, access to health care, education, etc ...
well - that is always going to be the pinch no matter what system in place you put forth - not everyone is going to agree with it ... in any case - i don't see the contradiction ...
on the surface - but the reality is we are far from it ...
How much of it?
What does "affordable" mean? Affordable to someone in society, affordable to many in society, or affordable to everyone in society? What qualifies as "housing"? What "transportation" am I entitled to and what are its limits?
What happens when 500 people need heart transplants tomorrow and you only have enough heart surgeons to perform 200?
How much education? On what topics?
"Etc"??? What does that mean?
You don't see the contradiction between saying that "the interests of the many will not supersede the interests of the few" and also saying that "all will have access to a basic standard of living"?
Given your limited definition above of "basic standard", let's say that I need a heart transplant. Your state structure demands that I receive it, regardless of what it takes. Let's say you don't have enough medical personel to give me that heart transplant. The only way to get enough is to sell enough clean water to another country such that everyone falls below the basic standard you've defined here. If you sell that water, you'll have a situation where my interest supercede everyone else's interest. If you don't sell that water, you'll have a situation wherein my basic rights have been violated. So, do you see the contradiction now?
It's exactly where we are now. The people who define "basic standard" and "sustainability" are simply not you.
do you see your example being anywhere reasonable?? ... right now - heart transplants are more concerned with the amount of suitable donors ... where do you envision your scenario being remotely plausible?
the contradiction only exists when you manipulate it to - the reality is that as a basic concept - it is not very contradictory unless the majority don't believe in the things i mentioned in which case you would be right ...
as for who's defining that "standard" and "sustainability" - yes, that isn't me right now - nor is it the people ... that's the problem ... and in no way are we even remotely close to being sustainable right now ...
as for your earlier questions - they can't be answered until there is an understanding of what are the conditions by which we live ...
Absolutely. It's what happens in every socialistic society -- the list of rights grows as production shrinks. I realize we're talking about "modern socialism" here, so I thought maybe you had figured out a way to fix that.
It's completely plausible. Many states currently suffer from severe shortages of heart surgeons. Current projections show that the United States will suffer from a shortage of 5,000 heart surgeons within the next decade. At many points in history and in many places, the number of health care providers has been far outstripped by the demand.
What you're not even thinking of is that simply agreeing on or believing in the things that comprise the "basic standard of living" does not magically make them exist, nor does it make them non-contradictory. You've gauranteed everyone transportation. Does that mean cars? Who's going to make them? How does that fit in with your "sustainability"?
Nor are you helping matters by promising everyone a house. The basic challenges to sustainability are consumption levels and appropriate technology. You're going to dramatically increase consumption levels while removing incentives to develop new technologies.
There's nothing "sustainable" about arbitrary guarantees.
I have no idea what this means. Can you please expand?
i don't know of any shortages here ... nor any other country that has public health care ... also, i don't see how you stifle incentives for new technology - part of access to health care is to also investing in prevention through various programs ...
i said affordable housing/transportation ... that doesn't mean giving everyone a house and car ... it means access to public transportation or a home that is affordable ...
yes ... consumption levels do indeed need to drop - through collective planning - consumption can be dropped below what it is now ... also, we would need to have a shift in terms of our understanding of the indicators by which we judge our progress ... we can't operate under a model that seeks to only promote economic growth without consequence ...
as for the last bit - i can't answer how much water because it would be dependent on what is available, nor tell you what affordable is unless we know what people are earning, etc ...
Like it or not, this is the 21st century, folks. We are part of an increasingly interdependent global community. Time to take your heads out of the sand.
Or out of your asses, wherever they may be at the present moment.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
The irony of this is Libertarians might be the only ones out there who aren't isolationist when it comes to a global economy.
Everyone else wants tarriffs and price supports to keep thier jobs in thier respective countries.
when it comes to making money, i have no doubt that they're all for globalizing. i mean, these ARE republicans we're talking about, right?
it's their social and foreign policy that seem to be outdated and insular.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
no they aren't republicans. No Republican in office currently wants anything close to free trade no matter what it says on their agreements or in thier speeches. Anytime you see money from the government going out to artifically keep the price of a good like Tobacco or Corn or Cotton someone somewhere else in the world is suffering because of it...but it keeps the consituant voter in the particular job that they like.
The social policy could be one of indifference depending on your viewpoint or one of Freedom if you're one who just wants to be left alone by your government.
Perspective is really all we are dealing with when it comes to politics anyway.
Most of the arguments about politics and religion are semantics.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003/B/20036330.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/1999/09/10/gas990910.html
By further limiting the reasons people invent new technologies. Namely, you'll end up centralizing the health care system, fixing prices, and limiting profits, yes?
Well, that's wonderful, but obviously you won't prevent all heart attacks through your "various programs", particularly given the fact that you'll end up guaranteeing everyone food which will likely end up equating to fatty, cheap products (i.e. our food stamp programs) that will further increase heart problems. Furthermore, you'll be reducing people's incentives to stay healthy by giving them free health care.
Ok, public transportation from where and to where? If you put a train station 20 miles from my house, you certainly haven't delivered on the promise of transportation, have you? And you still haven't defined "affordable" or even "housing"? What does those mean? How are you going to sustainably build those houses?
But you're entire theory is that people need to consume more. You might drop some people's level of consumption, but that won't outweigh all the new houses, trains, and hospitals you're building.
Completely agreed. However, that seems to be your only standard, aside from something you haven't defined called "sustainability". You are the one demanding increased consumption for society.
The amount of water that is available constantly changes. What formula will you use to determine the amount you'll give to each?
You certainly know what people are earning these days. However, your promise of affordability will be completely moot since your efforts will then dramatically increase housing prices through increased demand. You're going to have to forcibly set housing prices, which will in turn affect salaries to the point you'll have to set those too. So you can just tell me what you'll set both housing prices and salaries to.
where do i say consumption needs to increase?
as for the shortages - yes, they have occured because of funding shortages ... a ploy used by the conservative agenda to promote a privatization of services ...
if the gov't provides health care - then there is no need for profit but there is an incentive to reduce costs that will drive innovation ... the same thing can be applied across the board whether it be addressing shortages, waste or whatever ...
there is a stat somewhere that we used to spend 16% of our money on food and 9% on our health care now, the figures are essentially reversed - do you see the trend? ... putting poor people on a diet of twinkies and coke is not helping anyone ...
you take a far too literal approach to this discussion with your goal of being to render it faulty ... your example of the train is a prime example ... everything doesn't work in isolation ...
you are basically asking me to delineate how each and every program will work in this hypothetical situation ... you need to look just at the whole picture - i can't answer every question - i can only answer on what my motivations would be ...
take the US - most communities are designed to require everyone have a car, therefore everyone needs gas and big roads ... then you take some places in europe where public transportation takes a precedent and the attitudes are different there ... these are some of the basic concepts i am talking about ...
i'm talking about a generalized approach and you're asking me what formula i would put in place to allot water?? ... do you think that is a reasonable question in the context of this discussion?
You said it twice. First, you said that everyone needs to be gauranteed a basic level of consumption, ostensibly because many people do not meet that basic level currently. Second, and more deeply, you said that a political structure should exist wherein consumption should be determined not by a concomittant production (as in capitalism), but rather by simple political mandate.
Hehe...so the shortage of heart surgeons is a "conservative ploy"? Wow, the requisite paranoia in your socialistic utopia has started early.
Huh? "No need for profit"? Your entire system is based on profit. You're giving everyone services that have a value in exchange for doing nothing. So there's nothing but profit except for those who have to deliver those services. They're working for a value that you would have given them even if they didn't work, which means eventually they're going to stop working.
Reducing costs is not necessarily the thing you want to use to "drive innovation". Surgery sans anesthetic would be a lot cheaper, but I don't think you really want that, do you? You might want to read a little history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
How is it applied "across the board"? If I have a water shortage, for instance, what incentive exists to decrease consumption when I'm getting my water for free? Secondly, what incentive exist to increase the supply when the only thing my labor is getting me is accountability and responsibility?
No, it's not helping anyone. Don't you find it interesting those numbers have switched since you nationalize or hmo'ed health care?
So in other words I shouldn't use your words but rather your immagination?
Your motivations are meaningless to me, frankly. I'm interested in how your system is going to work, not why you want to have it.
Why don't you ask who built those roads, and for what reason? The government built them for "the common good", using much the same logic you are here.
That's all fine and good, but there are some differences you're missing. Public transportation in Europe took a precedent because most European cities were built before cars. Furthermore, cars a less affordable to operate in Europe. Our stupid government, in all its infinite wisdom, decided that it would be in the "common good" to make gas and cars and roads as cheap as possible, using much the same logic you are here.
Absolutely I'm asking that. Your "generalized approach" is meaningless without the specifics of implementation.
Most certainly. You're going to be giving orders and I'm going to be receiving them, so I'd like to be prepared.
BS, huh? Many experts disagree with you. Here's a quote for you.....
'Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.'
Know who said this?
Not sure what you are going on about here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act#The_Privacy_Rule
Just because someone interprets something differently than you, it does not make them dishonest. Your statement is dishonest. Funny how it is always the 'other person' who misinterprets, twists, & distorts the meaning :rolleyes:
There is a reason the founders did not make the constitution specific. We do not limit ourselves 18th century medicine, science, & technology. The founders did not want to limit us to 18th century political science & economics.
I'll address you other points later.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The same guy who said, regarding slaves:
"Actual property has been lawfully vested in that form, and who can lawfully take it from the possessors?"
This doesn't address the point at all. PHI may prevent certain information from being made public, but it certainly does not prevent the government from using personal information where it requires.
The constitutional contradiction between preventing governmental control to make your health decisions vis a vis abortion and using government to limit the health decisions of other vis a vis mandated single-payer healthcare is unavoidable.
I didn't say that. What makes someone dishonest is pretending to believe in a Constitutional protection when it justifies one's preferred behavior but then ignoring it when it would limit another. That is dishonest.
There are plenty of people who interpet things differently than I do. I don't mind that, so long as there is a consistent, logical basis to their interpretation.
Absolutely. They didn't agree on very much.
I completely agree! However, this is a blanket excuse too often used to justify anything. A Constitution, by its very nature, is a limiting document. I rarely here people who advocate for a loose interpretation of the Constitution ever mention what it limits, but only what it permits.
ok ... it seems our motivations for this discussion vary ...
so, i'll excuse myself ... i will just say that your views of "gov't" should be tempered with the understanding that it is run by corporations not the people ...
What a strange response.
That makes for a wonderful bumper sticker. The fact of the matter is that the "gov't" is run by a whole lot of corporations and people all seeking to extract from each other whatever they wish based on whatever standards happen to be convenient. That's the problem. That's what needs to be understood.
Ah, and you make my point as to why the founders should not be held up as secular saints and used to further your agenda (with terms like 'plain meaning, etc')
Do you mean like insurance companies currently do?
Are you talking about everyone having to use the gov't health care system without alternatives? Having one system to choose from? What do you think about two-tiered systems?
I think this is a weak argument and I have pointed out where this would be true in your society as well. Libertarian methods 'limit' behavior as well. Look at the private property argument. It might protect my property, but it limits another from accessing it. Not saying that is right or wrong, it just is.
Oh, I agree.
You have got to understand how the Constitution is supposed to work. The whole purpose of Congress is to enact laws to apply the Constitution to specific circumstances. The courts determine whether laws are constitutional. You stated earlier that you didn't like the 'subjective' nature. But that is why we turn to the experts of the courts, to interpret the law.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
That's fine. But, regardless, it seems odd to use quotes from a strict constructionist to justify loose interpretation of the constitution.
Absolutely! But at least, in most states, I'm not required to have an insurance policy.
Yes.
I think a two-tiered system is fine, in terms of privacy, as long as a third tier exists wherein I'm not required by law to have insurance.
I completely agree! Property rights are certainly a restriction on natural freedoms.
There's a difference between interpreting subjective law and objective law. For example, mathematicians "interpret" mathematical structures. But one cannot apply subjective meaning to fundamental mathematics -- it is a universal. A math teacher may "judge" your proof, but he or she does it based on the rules of math, not subjective preferences. A judge who is subjectively interpreting law based on his or her own interpretations is making law, not interpreting it.
Uh, not sure you want to use mathematics as your analogy, but I kind of like it myself. He he....... Are there 'undefined terms' in your political argument? Did you know that Calculus was originally developed to solve problems in physics (specifically the orbits of planets) and it can be used effectively for problems in economics, biology, etc.? All of calculus, like any mathematics, is based on theorems proved from axioms and definitions, both of those containing undefined terms. To apply it to any field, you give meaning to those 'undefined terms' using terms of your application. If, then, you can show that the axioms are 'true' in terms of your application, then you know that all theorems, and all methods of solving problems based on those theorems, still work! Undefined terms are fundamental to mathematics and Mathematical structures are 'templates' and the undefined words are the 'blanks' that have to be filled to apply the template to a specific purpose.
Not a good argument for you.........ha ha
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I don't think you understand the argument. Everything you say is above is absolutely fine, but you recognize the difference between the above and what you're advocating, yes? Do you see a ruling body of mathematics that determines when and where math may be applied and how it is applied? Or is there a standard of proof greater than a subjective determination by a select group of individuals? In mathematics, can I pretend based on my own whims that "undefined terms" are in fact defined, or vise versa? My I choose which math to employ and which to ignore to arrive at my chosen answer, or does the problem itself demand the appropriate methods to determine the correct answer? If you believe a Supreme Court's subjective interpretation of vague laws handed to the by Congress maps to mathematics, I'm not sure where to go from here.
There are plenty of potential axioms on which human society can lay its foundation, ranging from the supremecy of the individual to the supremecy of social measures. However, there are no contradictory ones on which human society can lay its foundation.
Ahh, my computer keeps acting like my message doesn't post, then I type it again, then it shows up! frustrating!!!!
Then disappears again!!!!
Computer probs obviously, oh well, I'll try to repsond again later.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
How does the "scope" of mathematics change the issue?
I am somewhat familiar with category theory, but I fail to see how it changes the issue. Despite its dealing with abstracts, it has a fundamental basis from which all operate. Furthermore, it cannot violate other functions of mathematics or logic as it is based upon them.
Nothing you're saying here invalidates what I said or even addresses it. Mathematics, in all forms, attempts to define or employ universal laws based on a natural order, not a subjective choice. It is the role of mathemeticians to determine the objective reality that exists, not to create a new one that does not exist.
OMG, you saw this post? After I posted it I saw a double post, so I deleted the double post, then I didn't see either post. I am only able see my double now???
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I did, but it's gone now. Weirdness.
All I'm saying is that your mathematical analogy does not hold.
Define 'exists'. Unless you have a suitable vague notion of what 'exists' is and its 'measure' your statement is vacuous.
I've no idea what you even mean by 'determine the objective reality that exists' as it pertains to mathematics. If you think mathematics is purely limited to modelling things that do exist then, I would say you do not have a good understanding of the field. Mathematics has gone way beyond that. There are examples of theoretical physics that have no basis in the observed data of the real world. Non-euclidean geometry was developed without recourse to the real world.
What I'm saying to you is can't choose your definition of mathematics to fit your opinion. There are many mathematicians that feel what they do has no basis in reality and are perfectly happy with that position. You might care to take into account their views before telling them what they do.
Ha ha........this thread has been completely hijacked by me trying to debunk your one analogy.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
A state in which an object occupies space.
I think we have a very specific notion of what exists and how to measure it. That is the whole purpose of logic and science. Certainly that notion is far from complete, and as such scientific and logical pursuits remain. Politics is not immune from this process, particularly when one invokes logical concepts such as "law" and "right".
Mathematics is little different than a map. Rather than mapping land and water that exists around us, mathematics maps the rules for identity and operation that exist around us.
Certainly! But they have basis in the real world. No mathematics exist outside the "real world", meaning a world defined by constants and structure.
Yet each and every one of its principles corresponds to something in the real world.
This is silly. It's absolutely fine to suggest that much of mathematics exists in theory and is absent direct observation. This is very true. Yet each and every mathematician will tell you that the proof of the validity of their efforts is not human choice or opinion, but consistency with the structure of the given environment of identity. Please, find me a mathematician that will tell you that truly correct mathematics are simply a matter of opinion. Find me one mathematician who will tell you that a = !a, if only someone decides it does.
Ha ha............I reminded of a mathematician's facetious remark concerning some large number, 'if that even exists'
Again you can't 'prove' you political beliefs by misrepresenting mathematics! Your statement above is false and I will get into your 'real world' argument in a minute.
Ha ha......I don't know what would make you think this unless you know nothing about mathematics.
Consider Pythagoras's theorem.......Pythagoras's theorem actually fails spectacularly in spherical geometry as is easy to see. Consider a right angled triangle, the base lying on the equator and the apex at the north pole. The two sides from the apex to the base always meet the base at right angles, and they always have the same length irrespective of the length of the base, hence the Pythagorean theorem fails to hold 'in the real world.'
Here is an example of theoretical physics that has no basis in the observed data of the real world that is interesting to me, topological quantum field theory. Firstly, there is no observational data to imply that string theory is correct, and secondly a 2-d TQFT is a functor from a category whose objects are (finite) collections of circles and whose morphisms (think of this as evolution in time) are given by riemann surfaces with certain openings. None of those objects were invented to describe physical phenomena directly, and arguably they still aren't being used to describe physical phenomena.
As for other things: category theory was not developed with the intent of doing anything for the real world.
Here's another one: is there anything in the real world that is actually a continuum? We pass to the continuous because that makes our life easier.
What about groups? Groups were invented to study the roots of polynomials. Does that make them motivated by the real world? They also describe the symmetries of objects (not necessarily realizable in 3-d real space) so are they based in 'the real world?'
What about schemes? Can you clarify what is necessary for something to be considered applicable to the real world? Would you dismiss the above as math according to your definition?
And yet it was an attempt to see if the parallel postulate was independent of the other axioms, and its models were a long time in being invented. My point was no one could find a geometry in which the parallel postulate failed and there was no natural model for hyperbolic geometry until after it was given some abstract ones, thus despite being the most naturally occurring geometry, it was purely invented before it was found in physical form. The invention of hyperbolic geometry was a purely theoretical exercise, founded from a desire to see if the parallel postulate was intrinsic to geometry.
Ha ha....I work very closely with mathematicians for a living and have had very interesting debates with them. I also have a strong math background myself (formal education). So I've asked these questions, of my colleagues and of my professors. There is no matter of opinion here. To suggest that maths developed with no intent (currently) of doing anything for the real world is 'an opinion' is just wrong. There are mathematical discoveries whose import was not appreciated until much later for a variety of reasons, but it was still accepted as good hard publishable mathematics at the time, then just ignored, or left alone. In fact that is one of the reasons why maths should be free to do what ever it wishes (not adhere to the 'real world') and examine seemingly useless things, (I'm sure in your eyes) since we don't know what may happen later when someone cleverer looks at it.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein