User talk:Wejer

Feel free to leave a message. Wejer   15:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lately, the discussions on the talk page have taken the turn of debates. It was not intended for philosophical issues to become victims of some ruthless sport. To counter this, I have devised a set of guidelines for everyone to follow:

Wejer   10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks - even for the sake of winning an argument, this will be frowned upon at all times.
 * Keep an open mind - remember, you have two ears but only one mouth.
 * Avoid logical fallacies - Read me!

With responses to: RE: Response
Firstly I'd like to address the P.S.2. point. I read this when I have time. In addition, me posting on your talk page alerts you, but you posting on your talk page doesn't alert me. I do my best to remember though. Hopefully copying the whole lot below makes it easier to read for you - I have no preference, so will do my best to accomodate :). The response you responded to is indented, though I've left this out where your reply provides sufficient context. Bulleted points are your responses to mine. Plain text is my new words. You can probably hive the rest off to an archive now, to shrink your page.

Let's begin!


 * If he tells the boss, this would mean he had to fill in a complicated report, which takes a lot of time.
 * If he finished the report, he couldn't hope for a rewarding pay-raise, because by law, everyone in the factory has the same salary.
 * If he decided against telling the boss, some other, 'selfless' person would 'surely' find the fault, and report it to the boss. And he wouldn't have to lift a finger himself.
 * Thus, he decides against telling the boss.

The first point is irrelevant. The length of the report needn't differ in a planned economy. The second point is a nice idea. However, some part of me hopes that he would realize that when he tells the boss, everyone would benefit and so it is in his interest. The third point depresses me. You are probably right, that the human tendency towards apathy is such that it assumes that 'someone else' will fix it. I'd like to make the point that I don't do this, naturally however, I am inhibited by personal bias. This is probably the main reason the system fails. Yet, as I don't believe that capitalism is perfect, it's not a show stopper.

You then make the point about the full reward. If the system is implemented, the reward you get is the full reward. Suppose for a moment that the invention was patented by the employee. He leaves the company and earns millions. This might be construed to be the full reward. But the faithful hard working employee in your system doesn't get that. So lets not use language which assumes that there are two lines to be followed - the world is many shades of gray (grey), your argument has a logical fallacy!


 * Alas, no. Community rules are voluntary to follow. Only the state can define law, which is compulsory to follow. By serving the 'needs' of the state, the individuals of a community may suffer.

Ok, I think I can accept this.


 * "The 'basic state' is a flawed concept."


 * I am not familiar with the term 'basic state'. Perhaps you should rephrase this so that I can understand you.

Sorry, I should probably have used the term limited government


 * I think it shall be in the right of the individual to decide if they want to be cared by a crappy hospital or by a professional one. If the individual cannot decide for himself (because he is dying), his family will probably help him make that desiscion. I presume that it lies in the family's interest that each member is taken well cared of. Besides, the health care system is not "one of the largest parts of the state system". It is usually in the area of 10%. If people weren't forced to pay so much tax to uphold such an ineffecient system, they would probably be able to actually afford their hospital bills. Eureka!

Naturally everyone would pick the good one providing they could justify the expense. I'm not sure on your location. I'm from the UK. 18% of the UK budget is spent on the health service. Including care homes and the such like, it's ~ 40%. As regards your comments on the inefficency's the US has one of the most limited governments in the world, but people still struggle to pay for hospital bills.. I'm not convinced by this argument.


 * "Not familar with the term redneck economics, but I'll agree to abolish it!"

Lovely!
 * As I state below however (which I wrote first!), your continued use of the term is prohibitive to the discussion.


 * "The definition of altruism is 'selfless concern for the welfare of others'. Clearly it's not a selfless concern if he's benefitting from it."

Yet, one can benefit the group by helping oneself. This is especially true when it comes to altruism in animals, when animals act in accordance to their selfish genes.


 * Here we are, reverting to animal instincts. My self belief is that people can outgrow the sum of their DNA. Clearly you believe otherwise. My point however, was that it was incorrect to state that it was altruism, so shouldn't be viewed as such.


 * "My more major point, is that these people profit of other's misfortune."

I think disgusted is a bit strong. I'm merely disappointed that they have to exist. Naturally I will look at the report, if you only read what you agree with, you learn far less. I make it a point to read newspapers not aimed at my political bias, in order to understand others and myself better. As for the X-Box - I'm not totally sure, but they are profiting from the minimal wages allowed in LEDC's and those with minimal labour laws:. I've no doubt the same practices govern the Windows OS.
 * Are you still talking about Bill Gates here? Microsoft gave us Windows and X-Box, among other things. And I believe that somewhere in my archive I have a link to the yearly report about the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. You should check it out, it's annual budget is close to 15,000 million dollars! (with no small thanks to Warren Buffet) Oh sorry, I forgot you are disgusted by charities. Don't read the report.

Well, at least charities are a lot better alternative than the socialist method, which involves theft ('tax') in the name of the greater good. Voluntary cooperation always beats forced labour in terms of productivity.


 * Let's rename it 'individual contribution to support the community'. Sounds far better doesn't it. Let's not try to move the argument to language please. Again my opinion differs on the truth of the second statement.

Suprise is not the aim. Fair point, but it still remains the case that their is insufficient evidence to correctly prove it either way.
 * One cannot approve of charities if one does not approve of the right to private property. I am not really surprised, to tell the truth.
 * Oh, and I think it is well within reason that the government gets the most attention. They have the bigger treasure cave, after all.


 * "Wrong. If you need a commission, it is clear that the natural state is not to have competition. You don't see an anti-commission do you, preventing the alternative. The commission doesn't speed it up, it allows it to continue to exist."


 * Funny, I don't recall saying that a competition commission is 'needed'. However, I did say that "all monopolies ultimately get broken because of competitional pressure" - This is true under the condition that the state does not try to meddle with regulation (which is the case of planned economy reforms, among others).

Nor did I state that you did. It was the logical conclusion of my earlier point about the natural creation of a monopoly. I disagree with your later statement as can be shown below.

I have no comment to make here. You seem to be making a comment which doesn't further your own point, but is merely an ad hominem attack.
 * I guess it is in the nature of radical socialists to deny the existance of competition. How could they go on otherwise?


 * If I understand you correctly, you do not seem to share my view that humanity is a part of nature. However, all living organisms share the trait of rational egoism, otherwise they would not exist. Natural selection would have long sorted the unfavourable genes away. Same thing happens in market economics, when unproductive or biased companies meet their end. Then more 'adaptable' companies take their place, and thus keeps up with the situational perfection.

I'm in agreement with Darwin. Moreover, that we are a natural force, shows that the natural state is the creation of a monopoly. You are actually wrong with the idea that natural selection would remove a gene if it is useless. If it serves neither positive nor negatively to the species it would remain in some and not in others, depending on other mutations and cross-breeding. The transfer from the animal kingdom seeks to prove my point about humans not having advanced past the sum of their DNA. Which is disappointing personally.


 * Should we accept the view that humanity does not abide to the laws of nature, then we would also have to assume man is never rationally egoistic. Through both experience AND reason, we can declare that man is indeed selfish, because if he wasn't, he wouldn't exist (all according to Darwin). This in turn makes it actually quite plausible (if not outright certain) that man is indeed a part of nature.


 * I don't as stated, so I shall move on.

Oh, and perhaps you should stick with human endeavours when making punch-lines. Chimpanzees won't help you.
 * I was being serious, you are remaining on the line of the ad hominem as a line of defence perhaps?


 * "You aren't talking about the same issue. I'm not talking about research. I'm talking about mass production. We don't need any research, the technology is there."


 * Indeed, mass production is positive, as long as quality is reasonably maintained. Solar plants is no exception, however neither is nuclear plants, so I think we can both agree to that all energy sources could benefit from such manufacturing productivity. However, my belief is that nuclear power will still keep the race. Besides, if we run out of uranium, that is probably for the best anyway. As the uranium price rises, so does the price of nuclear material for fission bombs. This in turn would put both dictatorships and terrorist organizations in a much less intimidating position. And when that time comes, we can peacefully transfer to any renewable energy source of our choice, whichever is most productive. It is really quite a wonderful solution.

I don't think (to my knowledge) that I disagreed about using Nuclear power. It's certainly the best of the non-renewables.


 * Capitalism - I have to point out that historically, the word 'liberalism' meant to decribe an ideology not very unsimilar to classical liberalism today. New Liberalism came later, where socialism fused with liberalism, forwarded by individuals such as John Stuart Mill. Nonetheless, you say that capitalism may not by defenition include a liberal stand point. However, right now you are conversing with someone who has about the same views of social stances as you, even if our economical standpoints are different. Does this mean that I (Wejer) am not a capitalist by your definition? Because obviously I am trying to combine free market economics with a liberal view on social policies.

I think similar views of social stances might be more accurate. Unless, on the graph we were either identical in every question with a social nature, it is obvious we will differ. In addition, your methods may differ in order to achieve the aims - I think you probably have very similar views, but the methods to achieve them may be different. You are a capitalist though!


 * Socialism - Indeed, there isn't a requirement for socialist reform to be involunatary, however unless it is an anarcho-syndicalist society (from what I have heard from you, you don't define yourself as an anarchist, right?), this action is almost always handled by the state apparatus. Simply, if you don't pay your taxes, you are getting thrown in jail. Not only are they denying a certain freedom of property, they are also excercising social cohersion by the violence monopoly (which is exclusive to the state).

No I think Anarchist isn't a good definition of my beliefs. Not sure what other questions this point generates, so I'll move on.


 * Equality (economics) - Sorry for being a bit vague here. What I was hinting at specifically was wealth redistribution. A free marketeer like me would for example advocate that everyone pay the same income tax percentage (%). However, socialists like you would probably prefer that everyone had the same income (in units), so they would put a different tax percentage (%) according to how high your income was (or prohobit high income altogether). Both you and I claim that these separate systems are fair and just, although on different grounds. Classical liberals claim it is necessary with income differences in order to promote progress in the form of labour and invention. Some right-wing libertarians would claim that the individual has the right to his whole income, and that taxes in all cases is a kind of theft (see Natural law). Socialists in general claim this is a matter of principal, that every human being is equal, and thus ultimately deserve the same wage, regardless of his/her contribution to society. Does that defenition make more sense to you?

Yes and I think you've identified my position clearly here. Abolishing income would be a nice final ending, although the concept of choice necessitates some system similar to currency in a very limited form.


 * Communism - When you say you are a communist, does that mean that you simply believe in the communist utopia? The communist utopia I am referring to is the one defined by Marx as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". By that definition, even communist dictatorships is communist, because they have the same "dream". Such states may claim that there is still burgeoise in their ranks, and this is why they have yet to achive the utopia as described by Marx.

Yes, the communist utopia is the goal. I disagree on your view about the dictatorships, because in my view they have merely reduced the size of the upper class to their people (or in their view preferably just them). At the end of the day, all dictatorships are essentially the same - with the community often adopting communist-ic principles in order to survive while the dictator and cronies controls 95% of the country's output.


 * Fair trade - Are you desputing that Fair Trade is 1) the result of red-neck-economics or 2) the result of individuals in a free market? If it is 1), I agree with you, if 2) I am not. Regardless what its aims are however, I think the Fair Trade organization should have free reign, regardless of its positive or negative effect on any form of "capitalism".

To be honest, I've yet to find a good definition of 'red-neck economics'. Judging from the Wikipedia article it would seem to be a derogatory term for an ethnic group implying they are stupid. So I shall try to avoid that term. I think it's the result of the poor economic system which makes socially minded people driven to bypass it to create a fairer (my definition not yours, according to the equality in economics point you made above) system.


 * Protectionism - I would lean towards that protectionism is indeed a nationalistic idea, however the tools they use to influence the market clearly has a touch of the planned economy. Free marketeers like me despise such mercantilism, because we have an international perspective (much like yourself).

Ok I think we can agree and move on here.


 * Competition - Two competing companies can both make a profit without overthrowing the rule of the other, either by failing to provide superior competition or failing to buying up one another. There are a lot of empirical evidence of this fact, although what springs to mind is the competition between Microsoft's X-box, Sony's playstation and Nintendo (although Nintendo is definately the pioneer in this area, with its Wii-technology). They have succeeded with dividing up the market between them, but cannot overthrow the rule of each other (one spokesman of Microsoft actually claimed that it is "positive thing" that the companies (Sony and Nintendo) are competing with Microsoft. However, it is unclear if this is the general view in the Microsoft corporation, and I also cannot remember the source where I found it.) It is true that all companies strive to get a complete monopoly, although I disagree that a monopoly cannot be broken by anything but state intervention. However, this would undoubtly require larger-than-average amount of starting capital. Nonetheless, if rich and shrewd, a "challenger" with a big purse may overthrow a monopoly and recreate the free market (although sometimes, those purses may not be so big at all, both examples is possible according to empirical studies)

Hmm, a far more common Microsoft policy is: Embrace, extend and extinguish - link to the appropriate Wikipedia page. Other examples are the Halloween Documents concerning Open Source software.

The main problem is that if a monopoly is obtained in a key industry, then the company is able to subvert both government and by extension the general public (in turn removing potential challengers).


 * I think a Competition Commission could be useful in tackling the company cartels that dilute the free market. However, I am more reluctant to allow them the power to keep the companies from using their private property to buy each other. This is ultimately a matter of freedom, to allow each individual to spend their money in any way they see fit. EDIT: I changed my mind. The only infringement on private property when it comes to preventing two companies to fusion is a handful of people. The rest of the population is still able to use their money to buy shares as they please. If these kind of actions would result in a monopoly-free market, that would indeed be positive. (8:33, 30 Januari 2009)

Sorry can you try to restate this, I'm not sure what your current view is after the edit.

King Runite1

PS: I've made the decision to archive our discussion in a seperate page - see User_talk:Wejer/King Runite1 for all of the rest of it. Hopefully this will help other people who want to discuss your views and other issues. King Runite1 23:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Framkly, I understand you have good intentions when archiving my talk page. However, I think that right belongs to me solely. I will therefore restore the rext you have currently moved. Please do not repeat this mistake again. Btw, you shall put this page on your watchlist if you want to keep up to date. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 07:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Query
You wished once to have me tell you in-game something. I am on 6pm-10pm EST. When are you on? --Eternalseed 19:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aww that was nothing really. Still, it would be nice to chat with you. Add me and send a message, and then I will add you too. We don't really have talk about politics, we could just hang around. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 20:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive
Hey Wejer, I think you may want to archive this as your first talk page. It's gotten really, really big. I suggest you resolve the current conversations, or just archive all of the already resolved ones, and then continue those that are still active. Just a thought :) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rendova, good thinking about the archives. I will do that tomorrow, or at least in the near future. Good night. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The archive turned out very well. Thanks for the tip! If you have any other concerns, feel free to express them. Wejer   08:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

UotM
I don't know you at all, but respect your right to express your opinions. However, I think that your comment has the effect of an OPPOSE vote, which you know is not allowed. Please consider your comment in this regard. Thank you for your attention to this. --Hatchenator 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling me this. I will update my comment on the UotM page. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review of this. I want to be be perfectly clear though, I respect your opinion and your expressing concerns, initially, at the UotM was valid.  It is just when you stated that you could not support one candidate, that I thought you may have reached the point of opposition.  Of course, this is just my opinion and that is why I wanted you to review your comments thinking about it from that perspective.  I am certainly capable of being wrong or simply out to lunch.  But I do appreciate your review of your comments.  I understand your intentions and respect your clarification.  Again, thank you very much for your reflection.  --Hatchenator 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your concern is noted. However, I must be honest to myself. Should I stoop to self-censorship, this would include removing the link I posted, and that would be like lying to myself. I think it is in the spirit of this wiki to watch both the positive and the negative sides of a stance. As long as one keeps a civil tongue, I think this should hardly be any problem.
 * I am not going to go into any kind of opposition should the community choose to go against my stance. I will respect their desiscion, even if I would have to respectfully disagree with it. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Political/philosopical discussions
I've enjoyed the discussion here. With your permission, I will bring attention to the page through the off topic sticky. Dtm142 22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thank you. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 06:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll make you smarter!
What is the name of our closest star?

How old is the earth?

Is y=mx+b the standard form for a linear equation?

What does the French word montre mean?

Blackhole252