1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Good for you kmax, don't forget to save the edit where I make note of the contradiction, i.e. everyone acting in their own best interests is not in their own best interests.
I'm highlighting this to print screen and save as, cause in all my debate time I think this may very well be,albeit marginally so, the very first occasion in debates of Wajoma actually acknowledging the possibility of an alternate view to that of his stated position as actually having any merit. I'll be saving it into my special Moments I will cherish Folder
and
make sure you save the all important 'but'.
Originally posted by WajomaYou are without a doubt one of the most humorless sods I ever had the sad pleasure to encounter. Whoop whoop whayyyyy!
Good for you kmax, don't forget to save the edit where I make note of the contradiction, i.e. everyone acting in their own best interests is not in their own best interests.
and
make sure you save the all important 'but'.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathe same way that someone can promote a free thinking self reliant nirvana and yet tirelessly reiterate the same unchanging formulations reactions and soundbites. Instead of an eclectic thinking outside of the square we have a one trick pony who finds it radical, the notion that we should all learn how to share.
So how is it a contradiction?
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87now that's funny, can I laugh now?
the same way that someone can promote a free thinking self reliant nirvana and yet tirelessly reiterate the same unchanging formulations reactions and soundbites. Instead of an eclectic thinking outside of the square we have a one trick pony who finds it radical, the notion that we should all learn how to share.
Originally posted by kmax87Stand up comic? and a great one at that? No, I see you as a whacked out 'performance artist' who takes a dump on stage then smears doodoo on himself.
all great stand up is based on some truth so yeah, ratflyao
The reason I have to repeat myself is that you continue to get it so wrong. Never have said anything about nirvana, if that is what you seek, fine, do it on your own time with your own resources.
If a person has learnt how to share this would suggest that it is something they would do of their own free will, rather than because nanny state was waving a stick at them. Some how I don't think this is what you had in mind, you're a fan of the stick method.
Originally posted by WajomaLook if it worked for you thats fine but I wouldn't attempt anyone else's performance triumph's. I usually get by just with putting egg on my face. If you think smearing crap all over me will improve my performace i'll give it a go, I mean it has worked for you.
Stand up comic? and a great one at that? No, I see you as a whacked out 'performance artist' who takes a dump on stage then smears doodoo on himself.
The reason I have to repeat myself is that .....
And the reason that you have to repeat yourself is probably just the early onset of dementia. Have your B12 checked out. Lowered levels of it can lead to memory and cognition issues.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, you could regard health care and education as private goods, but I prefer to regard them as collective since there is a collective interest; it helps me if someone else is healthy and well educated. It doesn't help me if someone else has a Hummer. I'm not sure if that agrees with the accepted definition in economics.
Health care or education need not be 'consumed' (emphasis here) collectively. Are you thinking of a collective good as a public good (i.e. non-rivalrous and non-excludable to a certain degree)? It seems to me you're focusing on the non-rivalry property, but I just want to be precise here.
They don't have a personal financial interest in taking decision olitician cares about being re-elected, then a populist agenda may be the lose-lose outcome.
Your second point: that's not really a PD in my opinion, since it relies on people being ignorant and/or irrational and vote for a bad politician.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut if that's what you believe in then the most correct justification for public health care is not the prisoner's dilemma but the presence of externalities.
Well, you could regard health care and education as private goods, but I prefer to regard them as collective since there is a collective interest; it helps me if someone else is healthy and well educated. It doesn't help me if someone else has a Hummer. I'm not sure if that agrees with the accepted definition in economics.
Your second point: that's n ...[text shortened]... on, since it relies on people being ignorant and/or irrational and vote for a bad politician.
Ok, that was not one of the best examples, but that's beside the point. What is different between economic and political agents that the PD applies to one and not the other?
Originally posted by PalynkaBut if that's what you believe in then the most correct justification for public health care is not the prisoner's dilemma but the presence of externalities.
But if that's what you believe in then the most correct justification for public health care is not the prisoner's dilemma but the presence of externalities.
Ok, that was not one of the best examples, but that's beside the point. What is different between economic and political agents that the PD applies to one and not the other?
What do you mean?
Ok, that was not one of the best examples, but that's beside the point. What is different between economic and political agents that the PD applies to one and not the other?
It does apply to political agents, just not in the particular example you gave.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI already admitted the example was bad. But the point remains. You're arguing against anarchy because of the existence of the PD, but government would also fail the same test.
It does apply to political agents, just not in the particular example you gave.
What do you mean?
If it "helps [you] if someone else is healthy and well educated" then you're talking about the presence of externalities in health and education. This is a broader concept than the narrow PD framework.
Originally posted by PalynkaGovernment does fail in some respects, just not as bad as anarchy does. Each form of government has its pros and cons.
I already admitted the example was bad. But the point remains. You're arguing against anarchy because of the existence of the PD, but government would also fail the same test.
What do you mean?
If it "helps [you] if someone else is healthy and well educated" then you're talking about the presence of externalities in health and education. This is a broader concept than the narrow PD framework.
If it "helps [you] if someone else is healthy and well educated" then you're talking about the presence of externalities in health and education. This is a broader concept than the narrow PD framework.
Well, the PD is mainly that healthy people can "defect" and not pay for caring for the chronically sick or the poor (or by proxy, through an insurance company which refuses to insure them), but society as a whole is worse off because of this.
A similar problem occurs for educating the poor.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut that's not a PD! Try creating the payoff matrix and you'll realize that the problem is that the poor agent cannot even choose, not that the strategy of not having health care is dominant.
Well, the PD is mainly that healthy people can "defect" and not pay for caring for the chronically sick or the poor (or by proxy, through an insurance company which refuses to insure them), but society as a whole is worse off because of this.
Originally posted by PalynkaThe wealthy are better off by having healthier and better educated poor people, but they are even better off if they don't have to fund it themselves. There is no decision of a poor person involved here.
But that's not a PD! Try creating the payoff matrix and you'll realize that the problem is that the poor agent cannot even choose, not that the strategy of not having health care is dominant.