Originally posted by bbarrThe point of the fishing example is to ask why actions which are necessary to the flourishing of some group of people be accommodated simply because that group is (arguably) a majority? There are people for whom fishing is as necessary to flourishing as parenting is for others; why does the fact that these people are relatively uncommon mean that they should not be afforded the same luxuries as those for whom parenting is necessary for flourishing?
Anyway, having children may not be practically necessary, if what that means is that it is possible for one to lead a flourishing human life without having children. But this is irrelevant to my point. The vast majority of people have psychologies such that having children is taken by them to be practically necessary for flourishing. And this is not merely ...[text shortened]... ntingent upon their cultural habituation. These drives come from our nature as human organisms.
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenThat's right. What about minority rights, such as the rights of chess players to be afforded the same accommodations, or consideration if you will, as parents?
The point of the fishing example is to ask why actions which are necessary to the flourishing of some group of people be accommodated simply because that group is (arguably) a majority? There are people for whom fishing is as necessary to flourishing as parenting is for others; why does the fact that these people are relatively uncommon mean that they ...[text shortened]... ould not be afforded the same luxuries as those for whom parenting is necessary for flourishing?
Originally posted by royalchickenThen your point is misguided, as I've never argued that accomodation should follow majority interest simply by virtue of majority interest.
The point of the fishing example is to ask why actions which are necessary to the flourishing of some group of people be accommodated simply because that group is (arguably) a majority? There are people for whom fishing is as necessary to flourishing as parenting is for others; why does the fact that these people are relatively uncommon mean that they ...[text shortened]... ould not be afforded the same luxuries as those for whom parenting is necessary for flourishing?
Originally posted by bbarrThen I still don't understand the difference between parenting and fishing, because there exists at least one person for whom flourishing is contingent upon fishing.
Then your point is misguided, as I've never argued that accomodation should follow majority interest simply by virtue of majority interest.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYour world is static and unproductive. What you said is only true for a pure exchange economy without production (and without the individual having a shred of preference for solidarity).
Yes it is. Pareto efficiency is where no one can be made better off without someone else being made worse off. The equilibrum I gave meets those conditions. Better go back back to High School, Poser.
Keep up the ignorant remarks, you're doing fine.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou can start your homework:
Your world is static and unproductive. What you said is only true for a pure exchange economy without production (and without anyone with a shred of preference for solidarity).
Keep up the ignorant remarks, you're doing fine.
Not every Pareto efficient outcome will be regarded as desirable. For example, consider a dictatorship run solely for the benefit of one person. This will, in general, be Pareto optimal because it will be impossible to raise the well-being of anyone (excluding the dictator) without reducing the well-being of the dictator, and vice versa. Nevertheless, most people (except perhaps the dictator) would not see this as a desirable economic system.
There is often more than one Pareto efficient outcome for a given amount of resources. For example with a dictatorship, both with dictator Alice or with dictator Bob, the outcome will be Pareto efficient because in the first instance it will be impossible to raise the well-being of anyone without reducing Alice's benefit and similarly for Bob.
http://www.answers.com/topic/pareto-efficiency
Ignorant?? Someone who uses a term without knowing what it is and then apparently doesn't understand the concept of an "equilibrum" shouldn't be calling other people ignorant.
Originally posted by sasquatch672You are absolutely wrong except at a very small number of universities (not even 100). There are schools in the biggest football conferences where the operating costs of the program exceed revenue. A very few programs are BIG money makers like Notre Dame, Nebraska, Florida St., etc. etc.
Football and to a lesser extent basketball are huge money makers for schools, and often support the rest of the athletic department.
I agree - there are areas in the world where women are not the equals of men. How many women play football in the NFL? And isn't it ironic that alot of schools respond to Title IX not by adding programs for women, but by cutting them for men?
Originally posted by no1marauderCopy-pasting answers of High-School concepts in economics will do you no good.
You can start your homework:
Not every Pareto efficient outcome will be regarded as desirable. For example, consider a dictatorship run solely for the benefit of one person. This will, in general, be Pareto optimal because it will be impossible to raise the well-being of anyone (excluding the dictator) without reducing the well-being of the dict ...[text shortened]... esn't understand the concept of an "equilibrum" shouldn't be calling other people ignorant.
Your ignorance relies on your previous example of the donuts. That example is incorrect and you'll keep making a fool of yourself if you defend it. Only someone looking at a static and unproductive economy can make the claim you made. Look around, is the economy static and unproductive?
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaIdiot, do you know what an "equilibrum" is? Besides, you made the claim that the situation I described wasn't a Pareto Efficient one, not about it's real world applicability. You were wrong. Fess up.
Copy-pasting answers of High-School concepts in economics will do you no good.
Your ignorance relies on your previous example of the donuts. That example is incorrect and you'll keep making a fool of yourself if you defend it. Only someone looking at a static and unproductive economy can make the claim you made. Look around, is the economy static and unproductive?
no1: EDIT: An equilibrum where one guy has all the donuts and everybody else starves to death is at Pareto Efficiency.
Poser: No it's not, you don't know crap about the subject.
Now don't you feel like a total nimrod (not that should be an unusual feeling for someone such as you)?
Originally posted by no1marauderSo your idea is than in a static and unproductive fairy tale your bad guy would keep all his doughnuts?
Idiot, do you know what an "equilibrum" is? Besides, you made the claim that the situation I described wasn't a Pareto Efficient one, not about it's real world applicability. You were wrong. Fess up.
Ok, I thought we were talking about economics. Lol, what a loser.
Originally posted by PalynkaI am. You're trying to hide that you used a term without knowing what it actually meant. You got called on it and are now showing what a complete jerkwad you are by failing to admit your error. That's pretty pathetic.
So your idea is than in a static and unproductive fairy tale your bad guy would keep all his doughnuts?
Ok, I thought we were talking about economics. Lol, what a loser.
Show that my example is not Pareto Efficient or shut your ignorant mouth.
Originally posted by no1marauderGo read about libertarianism, the welfare theorems, the Coase theorem, etc. Pareto efficiency is a fundamental concept in libertarianism (hence one of Amartya Sen's criticisms of libertarianism went into attacking the idea that libertarianism leads to Pareto efficiency).
I am. You're trying to hide that you used a term without knowing what it actually meant. You got called on it and are now showing what a complete jerkwad you are by failing to admit your error. That's pretty pathetic.
Show that my example is not Pareto Efficient or shut your ignorant mouth.
I'm sorry you decided to be a child about it and rave about it being an unimportant concept. It definitely is for libertarians.
I don't expect you to get it, you're too much of a moron to stop two seconds to think about what others say.