Oklahoma Restaurant: Not white, straight & rich? Screw you.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Someone in America doesn't like someone else? And his beliefs are reflected through his business?

Shocker.....

Seems like another day on planet earth to me. Moving on.

And how many get away with it in violation of federal law for over 40 years?

Let me get my all seeing crystal ball, and pull those figures up for you.

*shake shake shake*

"Somewhere between a handful and more then there should be."

Nods

[The Fascist American Empire]

1. No.
2, No.
3. No, not if he allows disabled people and others in.
4. No.

[Utceforp]

And how many get away with it in violation of federal law for over 40 years?

Let me get my all seeing crystal ball, and pull those figures up for you.

*shake shake shake*

"Somewhere between a handful and more then there should be."

Nods

Isn't one person getting away with being racist despite there being federal laws against it more than there should be?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Let me get my all seeing crystal ball, and pull those figures up for you.

*shake shake shake*

"Somewhere between a handful and more then there should be."

Nods

Isn't one person getting away with being racist despite there being federal laws against it more than there should be?

Feel free to report him to the local authorities then, if it's that open and shut.

I look forward to seeing him on the 11 o'clock news in bracelets.

[The Antartic Colonies]

My son pointed out this post to me, and after reading it through I was impelled to give one more go at a response. I hoped not to give another diatribe, but I wanted to make a final appeal to respond to your rebuttle. I will address your post by each paragraph or two.

Am I too entrenched in my own opinions? I grew up believing in god...but I changed my beliefs when I was around 11. Politics wise I started as a libertarian...but then I changed my beliefs when I thoroughly studied the best arguments in favor of more government (liberalism) and those in favor of no government (anarcho-capitalism). I nearly always read what my opponents suggest that I should read. As a result of all this, I'm equally familiar with the economic arguments of Paul Samuelson (Nobel Prize winning liberal economist) and those of James M. Buchanan (Nobel Prize winning market economist).

This is a good strategy. When you understand why someone stands on one side of a debate, you are better able to undermine their arguments by attacking at the core of their statements. I also really like the name drops (I studied Physics in graduate school, so my literacy in economics is limited - the last economics text I've studied was Karl Marx's "Capital", and that was years ago). This is what I think people wanted to hear when they wanted evidence to back up your assertions. This also means you can appreciate my comment that experts can be wrong, too. Playing to my strengths, I take Albert Einstein as an example: he wrote the basis for General Relativity, Bose-Einstein Statistics, the Einstein Coefficients in Laser Physics, and even predicted the expansive model of the universe with a Cosmological Constant, as well as his most famous relation on how nucleons convert some of their mass into gluons to form the basis of the Nuclear Strong Force that holds nuclei together (i.e. E=mc^2). But, he was proven wrong when it came to explaining Quantum Mechanics via Hidden Variable Theory (at least with local variables). So, I extend this caveat to the references you mentioned - but I'm adding these names to my "Reading Wish List" so I can mull over what you're saying when I get some time.

If I was firmly entrenched in my own opinion, then I simply would have assumed that those on either side of my position had nothing of value.

This describes every one of your posts on this thread. I think everyone here can vouch for me on this. To be fair, that doesn't mean you're wrong - it just means you're stubborn.

Now, it's because I'm thoroughly versed in the best arguments of both sides...that it's really easy for me to tell from your arguments that you haven't really done much digging into what the other side has to say. Not just that, but I'm also confident that you're not familiar with the best economic arguments in favor of government. And by best I mean most widely cited. You seem older...and I'm doubtful that you're going to start doing some serious digging. But I might be wrong.

You are preceptive, so I have to give you credit on that. I'm 40 this year, but once again you sound dismissive to my arguments because I am not arguing from an economic-model stance or name-dropping reputable economists. Please attack my arguments based on where I am coming from, or else I am going to be as dismissive to your rebuttles. To rebuff your assessment of me, I'd argue that you are old enough to be up until 4 AM writing posts, but young enough to still believe you know everything (say a male in his mid-twenties?). Once you've had your hat handed to you by people you thought were beneath you enough times, you'll get over arguing for the sake of showcasing your moxie. Please be objective when you debate with people.

A second and personal point - one of my advisors during my post-doc gave a great piece of advise: "You die stupid." A mind is like a knife blade - if you don't keep it sharp, it starts to get dull and is dangerous to use. Like I said, I've got a long list of texts I want to read before I die - I am not so arrogant that I can't add a book or two to change my stance on issues. What matters is how you make your case.

Were Jesus and Socrates wrong? The majority thought they were wrong...so they had them killed for being blasphemers. When I really seriously think about this I am filled with self doubt. It's so easy to jump on the bandwagon. This concern leads me to ethical pragmatism. What is false today might be true tomorrow. What is gospel today might be heresy tomorrow.

So I certainly do not take rules at face value. A lot of your argument consists of pointing out the rules to me. But the rules don't reflect economics...they reflect the opinions of the majority. Rules should never reflect opinions...they should always reflect values. And values can only be revealed by personal sacrifice.

Here, finally, you make a good point. You are correct that one of my basic arguments is compliance with the letter of the law. If you are arguing what is ideal rather than what is allowed, then my first point of what's wrong with Gary's Chicaros won't work with you. I have heard this argument before about how you can't legislate morality, but once again I think this is incorrect. You can't legislate beliefs, but you can legislate morality.

One case in point: you can't legally demand a parent to love their child, but you can demand they take responsibility for their clothing, food, shelter and medicine. One can argue that current child protection laws are morally-based. Some parents love their children, and some don't. This is a matter of personal conviction, and no one can force or demand people to believe or not believe in something (although many have tried). But, one can legally demand people to behave in one way or another, and many laws are written to do just that. The criminalization of murder, theft, rape, perjury, and substance abuse are all moral-based laws.

Therefore, I'm not a liberal, I'm not a libertarian...and I'm not a conservative...I'm a pragmatarian. I believe that people should be free to choose where their taxes go.

I've noticed this. But I hesitate to agree with your self-description of being a pragmatarian. Pragmatists are supposed to be a "do what works, not what's ideal" kind of people (at least that's been my impression), and too often people who call themselves pragmatic imply that they are realistic and evidence-based in their actions and intentions. I don't get that in your posts, but I'll accept what you say on this without any further debate. Personally, I'm more of a Federalist, but like I said before I consider myself first-and-foremost a Moderate. I think extremes can be troublesome, and usually compromise (i.e. equality in dissatifaction) results in moderate stances on issues in the end. I feel that is more pragmatic in my opinion.

Kinda like in the Bible with Noah. People were certain that he was insane...but they didn't prevent him and his family from building and boarding his boat. And Noah, even though he was confident that he was correct...he didn't try and force anybody to board his boat. Both sides were certain that the other side was making a mistake...but they didn't intervene. This is the standard. It's heterogeneous activity. It's a decentralized approach. It's hedging our bets...it's not putting all our eggs in one basket.

Interesting analogy. I'm not a Christian anymore, but I'm familiar with the story. I'll have to ponder this one some more.

The alternative is centralization...conceit...hubris...overconfidence. Failure to recognize that fallibilism is a given.

Perhaps your first thought when it comes to pragmatarianism is that people will spend their taxes on the wrong things. I think people should be free to spend their taxes on the wrong things because maybe I'm the one who is actually spending my taxes on the wrong things. Maybe I'm worshiping and sacrificing to the wrong god.

Aha - we now get to the crux of your philosophy. If I understand you correctly, your argument is that people should be free to do as they please (including what they do with their tax money), because conformity on a society-wide level is inherently flawed and prone to disaster.

Assuming that, I will take issue with this logic. Humans have survived their infancy because they cooperated. We are a tribal species. From hunting to child-rearing, we have aggregated into communities because humans depend upon the synergy that comes from shared resources and the shared fruits of our labors. Abandoning this to persue a "Lone-Wolf" or "Everyone-For-Themselves" mentality is counterproductive. Perhaps it is a viable option now because of all the groundwork made to make basic necessities readily accessible in the U.S., but generally human survival has always been based on teamwork and therefore a law for ensuring pro-society conduct. I am not familiar with any society, ancient or modern, that has thrived on a "co-habiting" concept that you seem to idealize.

Let's take China for an example: in 30+ years, they have gone from a wrecked economy to a world superpower that has a robot on the moon. Their economy has gone lightyears ahead becasue they established very pro-business laws (contrary to being a communist country) at the cost of many personal freedoms. But, their one-child policy has done a travesty to their family and social structure, and now a number of guys have no potential spouses. I'm oversimplifying their case, but the general point is that they didn't get to where they were using Libertarian ideas, or even Democratic ideas. So, a rhetorical question: what emperical basis do you give to justify your belief that letting people throw their taxes where they wish will benefit society as a whole (i.e. what society in history has done it and it worked?) Or, is it based upon an economic model that looks "wizz-bang" on paper?

So, when you say that I'm interested in returning to the 1800s...well...you're barking up the wrong tree. If you want to regurgitate your attacks on conservatism/libertarianism...then check out the Ron Paul Forums.

If you're saying you don't want to re-create the economic anarchy that highlighed the 1800s, then good - we agree on that. My argument is that such ideas can inadvertently resurrect that kind of economy, because you are recreating the same legal & economic conditions. If your stance is different, then please state where or how - I really do want to know.

Second, I've done some homework on Ron Paul, and I have to admit he's one of the few Libertarians I actually do respect. I don't agree with his platforms, but he makes great arguments for them in my opinion. His argument against abortion was the first one I actually found respectable. His personal accounts of doing late-term abortions and his decision as a medical doctor to discontinue the practice is admirable. Even I have to back off and admit, as a society we have to draw the line at some point. I also think he got wronged by the Republican party during the primaries, and it was during the 2008 & 2012 elections I really came to believe that Primary Elections in the U.S. are rigged - and I'm talking about *both* major parties. Now that Obama has come on board to legalize Marijuana, I think his platform against the "Failed War on Drugs" is finally going mainstream. One more disagreeable law I have to put up with, I guess...

Regarding the rest of your arguments...like I said, they reflect that you haven't really scratched the surface. I could go through them...but I felt that it was necessary to first try and clarify my position and see if you actually made the effort to do any digging.

Hmmm...I'm probably coming off more than a bit douchey...but let's see if you can look past my style to objectively consider the substance.

Here is where you got me - I couldn't let this comment go unanswered. I've made my best efforts to be objective and look past your "coarse" style of debating. I've spent hours (more than I should, really) on my posts, and most times people never seem to take the time to really take me to task on them. You disappoint me that you didn't argue my counterpoints - are you just trying to dismiss them to save face from having to admit I'm actually right?

If you want to argue economics, I think Karl Marx's thesis on the unsustainability of the capitalist system is very compelling. I've listened to a number of audio lectures by Richard Wolff, and they make sense, but I'm not sold on a purely Marxist economic model either. Marx's signature text was a product of its time (mid-1800s) so he was discussing unfettered & unregulated capitalism that couldn't be sustained - not a hybridized regulated capitalism we are evolving into these days. Also, I think he was quick to discount the contributions the bourgeoisie in terms of decision-making ability compared to the laborers who are more suited to working than management. How does Marxism stack up against your current understanding?

But, ultimately I am arguing ethics. It is ethical to support the common good, which is comprised of individuals but also the compromises that make a collection of individuals function as a society. There is a balance that must be made between individual rights and common good, and that requires 1) a central authority, and 2) a common law that all must abide. Of course, I think a Democratic system works best on this point - it is inefficient, but it is safe. It is not pretty or fair to all people at all times, but it is stable. This is the point I think you've addressed, but failed to sell me on.

This has been invigorating - thanks for responding to my posts and putting up a fight. I don't get these opportunities often, and I think I overendulge. If you still think I am a fool giving a fury that means nothing, the so be it. You have your right to your opinion, right or wrong, and I've got other things to do. Good Luck.

[Xerographica]

Let's take China for an example: in 30+ years, they have gone from a wrecked economy to a world superpower that has a robot on the moon. Their economy has gone lightyears ahead becasue they established very pro-business laws (contrary to being a communist country) at the cost of many personal freedoms. But, their one-child policy has done a travesty to their family and social structure, and now a number of guys have no potential spouses. I'm oversimplifying their case, but the general point is that they didn't get to where they were using Libertarian ideas, or even Democratic ideas. So, a rhetorical question: what emperical basis do you give to justify your belief that letting people throw their taxes where they wish will benefit society as a whole (i.e. what society in history has done it and it worked?) Or, is it based upon an economic model that looks "wizz-bang" on paper?

You offered China as an example...and then asked me for empirical evidence. But that's exactly what China is. Yes, Chinese people can't choose where their taxes go...but they can choose where their money goes. Choosing where your money goes is no different than choosing where your taxes go. A market is a market whether it's in a private sector or a public sector. China didn't have a market when Mao was in charge. Resources were allocated using a top down approach. It was a command economy...a visible hand...the epitome of conceit. The Great Leap Forward (a misallocation of a massive amount of resources) caused a famine which resulted in the deaths of 30 million people. In 1978...when Deng Xiaoping took over...he created a market in China. You said that China didn't get to where they are via libertarian ideas...but the market is the libertarian idea.

Can I misallocate a massive amount of resources? No, that's because I don't have a massive amount of resources. I have a house. I could bet it in a high stakes card game. Losing would result in a misallocation of my resources...I'd lose my house. But none of my neighbors would be negatively impacted.

In a market, if I want to gamble with my neighbors' homes...then I'd have to go door to door and try and persuade them to gamble on my idea. Persuasion is priceless. This is because if I want to successfully persuade my neighbors to let me gamble with their homes...then I'd have to provide them with some really excellent information.

Mao didn't have to solely rely on persuasion to allocate other people's resources. Like I said, a top down approach is the epitome of conceit. And that's exactly what we have in our public sector. If we created a market in the public sector...then if our leaders want to start a war with another country...the onus would be on them to persuade us to pay for the war with our own money. This would require that they provide us with enough solid information to convince us that they were not just tilting at windmills.

I've noticed this. But I hesitate to agree with your self-description of being a pragmatarian. Pragmatists are supposed to be a "do what works, not what's ideal" kind of people (at least that's been my impression), and too often people who call themselves pragmatic imply that they are realistic and evidence-based in their actions and intentions. I don't get that in your posts, but I'll accept what you say on this without any further debate. Personally, I'm more of a Federalist, but like I said before I consider myself first-and-foremost a Moderate. I think extremes can be troublesome, and usually compromise (i.e. equality in dissatifaction) results in moderate stances on issues in the end. I feel that is more pragmatic in my opinion.

Deng Xiaoping was a pragmatic consequentialist. He went around saying that it didn't matter whether a cat was black or white...what mattered was whether it caught mice. He was saying that markets produce results. Why do they produce results?

Aha - we now get to the crux of your philosophy. If I understand you correctly, your argument is that people should be free to do as they please (including what they do with their tax money), because conformity on a society-wide level is inherently flawed and prone to disaster.

Assuming that, I will take issue with this logic. Humans have survived their infancy because they cooperated. We are a tribal species. From hunting to child-rearing, we have aggregated into communities because humans depend upon the synergy that comes from shared resources and the shared fruits of our labors. Abandoning this to persue a "Lone-Wolf" or "Everyone-For-Themselves" mentality is counterproductive. Perhaps it is a viable option now because of all the groundwork made to make basic necessities readily accessible in the U.S., but generally human survival has always been based on teamwork and therefore a law for ensuring pro-society conduct. I am not familiar with any society, ancient or modern, that has thrived on a "co-habiting" concept that you seem to idealize.

Imagine a society where everybody thought exactly alike. Would that society make much progress? What's progress? Progress is coming up with better ways of using society's limited resources...and that's not possible if everybody thinks alike. Even when people think differently, progress will be hindered if people are marionettes. Progress happens when the strings are cut.

Imagine an Easter Egg hunt. Would it be a good idea to tie all the kids together? No, less ground will be covered...so you decrease the chances of success. But leaders have always been willing to tie the people together because, for most of human history, leaders were gods. Well...that's what they thought. So pyramids were built while famines killed multitudes. You can't trade a pyramid for food. And massive amounts of limited resources were misallocated to war after war. This will continue as long as the people fail to see the fatal flaw of a top down, centralized, conceited, visible hand approach.

If you're saying you don't want to re-create the economic anarchy that highlighed the 1800s, then good - we agree on that. My argument is that such ideas can inadvertently resurrect that kind of economy, because you are recreating the same legal & economic conditions. If your stance is different, then please state where or how - I really do want to know.

Libertarians want to reduce the scope of government and anarcho-capitalists want to eliminate the government. As a pragmatarian, I simply want taxpayers to have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. In other words, I want to create a market in the public sector. This is the decentralized, bottom up, invisible hand way to determine what the government does.

The only thing wrong with government is that we allow 500 people to be our puppet masters. In a pragmatarian system, congress would still be there...and if you didn't want to shop for yourself in the public sector then you could simply give your taxes to your favorite congressperson.

The result is that the demand for public goods would determine what the supply of public goods is. Right now we're still pretty much in the dark ages. We have no idea what the demand for any public good truly is. This is a fundamental problem. How can we know what to do with society's limited resources if we don't know what the demand is? The current supply of public goods reflects the guesses of 500 congresspeople. If the guesses of 500 government planners were good enough then we wouldn't need markets.

If you want to argue economics, I think Karl Marx's thesis on the unsustainability of the capitalist system is very compelling. I've listened to a number of audio lectures by Richard Wolff, and they make sense, but I'm not sold on a purely Marxist economic model either. Marx's signature text was a product of its time (mid-1800s) so he was discussing unfettered & unregulated capitalism that couldn't be sustained - not a hybridized regulated capitalism we are evolving into these days. Also, I think he was quick to discount the contributions the bourgeoisie in terms of decision-making ability compared to the laborers who are more suited to working than management. How does Marxism stack up against your current understanding?

Marxism is conceit.

But, ultimately I am arguing ethics. It is ethical to support the common good, which is comprised of individuals but also the compromises that make a collection of individuals function as a society. There is a balance that must be made between individual rights and common good, and that requires 1) a central authority, and 2) a common law that all must abide. Of course, I think a Democratic system works best on this point - it is inefficient, but it is safe. It is not pretty or fair to all people at all times, but it is stable. This is the point I think you've addressed, but failed to sell me on.

The common good? Check out these charts in this survey I created...public goodness survey. Which chart best represents the common good? Do any of them?

This is a good strategy. When you understand why someone stands on one side of a debate, you are better able to undermine their arguments by attacking at the core of their statements. I also really like the name drops (I studied Physics in graduate school, so my literacy in economics is limited - the last economics text I've studied was Karl Marx's "Capital", and that was years ago). This is what I think people wanted to hear when they wanted evidence to back up your assertions. This also means you can appreciate my comment that experts can be wrong, too. Playing to my strengths, I take Albert Einstein as an example: he wrote the basis for General Relativity, Bose-Einstein Statistics, the Einstein Coefficients in Laser Physics, and even predicted the expansive model of the universe with a Cosmological Constant, as well as his most famous relation on how nucleons convert some of their mass into gluons to form the basis of the Nuclear Strong Force that holds nuclei together (i.e. E=mc^2). But, he was proven wrong when it came to explaining Quantum Mechanics via Hidden Variable Theory (at least with local variables). So, I extend this caveat to the references you mentioned - but I'm adding these names to my "Reading Wish List" so I can mull over what you're saying when I get some time.

Physics...so I guess it's ok to imagine a function. The input consists of everybody's spending decisions...which reflects their preferences and circumstances. The output is the supply of goods and services. What would happen to the output if you prevented women from shopping for themselves? What would happen to the output if you prevented teenagers from shopping for themselves? What would happen to the output if you prevented minorities from shopping for themselves? What would happen to the output if you prevented everybody but 500 people from shopping for themselves? The output would poorly reflect the preferences and circumstances of consumers. But the consumers wouldn't grasp this because they can't see the unfiltered input. In other words, they can't see the demand. It's demand opacity. Creating a market in the public sector would eliminate demand opacity.