Yes, but there are guidelines as to what a proper sample size should be. Don't you agree? Sweeping generalizations are pretty silly. Perhaps even the one I just made
Thank you. I don't have strong views - mostly because I haven't thought about it much. However, it seems that any restrictions will be discriminatory. I'm not sure voting is the problem. I think it's the problem is that congress and the president routinely ignore the constitution. the constitutions sole purpose is to outline the limits of government. Unfortunately, making it too specific increases the probability of ignoring it in the future because natural changes in the course of human evolution won't be covered and will be seen as exceptions. It can't be to broad and vague because then it can be interpreted any way which way and will lose its meaning. So, I basically think we're screwed and I might be immigrating again to another country when this one becomes too socialist. Probably sooner than I imagined a year ago.
JNBadger, there are two main set pieces in the book that you will refer to the rest of your life. The first is Francisco's money speech, and the other is John Galts 60 page opas toward the end. These really bring a lot of objectivism philoposphy into focus.
Objectivism holds that there are "universally absolute truths", just like in the Abrahamic religions. Objectivism defines their truth from a starting postulated axiom for the epistemology - which the rest of the theories are built upon. It is easily characterized by the aggressive stance towards society, where they tend to want to shape everyone and everything into their world image. The books of Ayn Rand, and her persona is one of blatant worship, while she had very poor results in her intimate interpersonal relationships. The apparent appeal of Objectivism is the adolescent breaking out of his normal subjugated family life and approaching adulthood with "strong logics" and intent to organize their world view according to "their truth" and independence as young adults. When one gets older - one understands that there are more than two sides or bivalence in the universe, and that the world is not organized after abstract logics or mathematics - but that these models are glimpses of situational knowledge which we structure into knowledge. These systems can be invalidated of course - as the universe and any entity part of such systems evolves, disappears or other phenomenons start influencing the situation or system "that we thought we knew". One good example from physics - the gas models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry#Shock_layer_gas_physics Also - Kurt Gödel presented the possibly most significant characteristic of abstract concepts and systems with his Incompleteness theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphilosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_truth Bivalence is just the set of two approximations of opposite extremes on a scale - interpolated between the two situational/systemic positions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivalence One can formalize this, by having a restricted and limited system - but which never can "control" or "contain" reality. That is why one need to consider open and complex adaptive systems, and keep a sense of "critical rationality" (Karl Popper) while letting go of the limiting restraints of reductionism. But of course it helps to keep things simple while trying to fit it in one's brain... The simpler - the easier sometimes - confer the religious texts and books of Ayn Rand. However - as for markets - nothing beats laissez-faire, as long as those corrupting regulators are kept away and that includes having transparent information - not the dishonest actors forcing investors into their rigged trading schemes, backed by corrupt and biased legislations.
Thunder, I was an economics major. Thus, I happen to be very familiar with Galbraith and because most of Roosevelt's advisers and cabinet members were great fans of Stalin, I'm very familiar with Roosevelt and his desire to spread socialism as well. Galbraith was an intense admirer of the Soviet Union. Upon returning from that shit hole in the 1980's (I left in the 70's and things only got worse), he wrote an article on the New Yorker proclaiming the greatness of the Soviet Union, the satisfaction of its people and its amazing full employment. That is but one example of Galbraith's blind religious belief in the holy power of government. Galbraith was a masterful and witty writer. As an economist, he contributed nothing of note. His sole argument was never reason but aggressive assertion. It is so because Galbraith says it is so, but he wasn not capable of economic reason that will stand the debate of a first year economics student. He is what V.I. Lenin called a "useful idiot". I gave you a brief but reasonable explanation of why you're wrong. Your response for my request to explain yourself is to give me a reading list. This tells me that you don't really know what you're talking about because you can't explain to me the reasoning behind why <i>you</i> believe free-markets would lead to a worse outcome than the command economies advocated by both Roosevelt and Galbraith. Just to make one thing clear in this discussion: in communism, the government directly controls the means of production, in a regulated economy the government controls the means of production indirectly through regulation, but just as in the communist economy, the government controls the means of production. The difference is largely semantic. When you propose regulation, you are in fact proposing the very economy that the Soviet Union had.
Whoa, hombre, let's not get ahead of ourselves. As I suggested, read Titan if you want real world historic examples of why under-regulation leads to barriers to entry. (And that's just one book.) To answer your question in broad strokes, the powerful assert their strength and are not moderated in a truly laissez-faire market, thereby engaging in anti-competitive behavior to the detriment of other enterprises and the consumer. Things have a way of getting monopolistic if strength is left to its own devices. And unless you are that monopolist, then it is less than a good deal for you. But don't take my word for it. Get acquainted with history. I think you underestimate Galbraith and slot him where you find it most convenient to suit your purposes. You are quick to assume I know nothing. How very "objectivist" of you.
JNBadger, time and energy does not permit to get into a big debate with the people in this thread. But I will state that those naysayers here have no idea about the subject whatsoever. They are utterly ignorant about the ideas and especially their place in the history of philosphy. As you read on and get deeper into the subject, if you want to discuss some of these concepts feel free to message me and I can either answer them simply or refer you to more material. Best, Mike
I understand Galbraith very well and slot him where he belongs - as does the field of economics. But Galbraith is not the issue. The issue is Galbraith's ideas and <i>that>/i> is what is being slotted. "Things have a way of getting monopolistic if strength is left to its own devices. " is not an argument. You need to give me the reasoning behind that and I don't think you have any because I think you're just repeating what someone else told you. I may be wrong about you, but you're doing nothing to prove me wrong and I wish you would by explaining to me how <i>you</i> understand these terms and how one thing leads to another. Karl Marx argued in <i>Das Kapital</i> that free markets (laissez-faire) leads to businesses competing to the point that wages and prices both fall to the point where monopolies form and wealth becomes concentrated. Galbraith was certainly not the first to propose this idea. Unfortunately for Karl, who argued that the first sign of this was a falling wage, wages were rising as he was writing those words. For your (and Karl Marx's) statement to be true, we have to accept that there will be no new inventions because inventions increase the number of goods and businesses exist and decrease the power of monopolies. We can't accept this assumption because we know from experience it is not true. The point of forming a monopoly is to be able to control the price. However, as soon as the price is increased by the monopoly, so is the profit potential for competitors and new competitors enter the market to take advantage of that. This has been true of every single monopoly which has not been a government created monopoly. Even Standard Oil never controlled more than roughly 87% of the U.S. oil market because of competition. So, the only way to create a true and lasting monopoly is to convince government regulators to write laws to prevent competition. Which, if you're in a heavily regulated industry such as the one I'm in, you know first hand that this is exactly what happens - to the detriment of the economy as a whole (because it gives protection to weak firms who happen to be industry insiders) and to the customers (who pay higher prices because of lack of competition). Government is important to provide common defense, run the court system, maintain rule of law, to look out for the interests of children and the insane and to redistribute some wealth to the indigent. However, when government begins to decide where the line of "moderation" is, you get into trouble because then the government is free to dictate morality and in giving it the power to do so, the pandora's box of unbridled government power is open because any issue can become a moral issue. I've already responded to this. I said that without government regulation but with the maintenance of Rule of Law the rich man's power is limited only by his ability to pay a price the poor man is willing to accept for his property. With government free to intervene beyond rule of law, the rich man pays a bribe to politicians to have the poor man's property declared "imminent domain" and force him to sell at a price he may or may not like against his will. Explain to me, please, why you think this is untrue. I'm not interested in what Galbraith or Veblen or any other economist has to say on the subject. I already read what they think. I want to know what you think.