• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Is Your Partner Cheating on You?

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Analogy

For this analogy to work we have to assume that your partner is, for the most part, rational. This is because libertarians and anarcho-capitalists have to assume that taxpayers are, for the most part, rational...

Isn't that the central basis for the libertarian creed? The notion that educated free adults can be trusted with matches... not to mention their bank accounts and votes? If the masses are intrinsically stupid -- sheep -- then the paternalists are right and no future society of maximized freedom will ever be possible. - David Brin, Essences, Orcs and Civilization: The Case for a Cheerful Libertarianism

If you struggle with the idea that taxpayers (and your partners) are not sheep then please read this article by Paul Bonneau...The Problem With the 'People Are Idiots' Meme.




With that in mind...let's say that your woman...or man...is cheating on you. If you want them to stop cheating on you then it's absolutely essential for you to understand exactly why it is that they are cheating on you.

Given that your partner is probably not a sheep, we cay say with relative certainty that your partner is cheating on you because you are failing to meet their needs in one or more areas. If you can accurately identify exactly how you are failing to meet their needs...then you will be in a much better position to understand exactly what you have to to do in order satisfy their needs. If you can adequately satisfy their needs then you would eliminate their motive to cheat on you.

This entire process requires effective communication with your partner. You have to ask your partner..."what needs of yours am I failing to meet?"

  • Am I not satisfying your physical needs?
  • Am I not satisfying your emotional needs?
  • Am I not listening to you enough?
  • Am I not spending enough time with you?

The challenge is...you can't blame your partner for cheating. This is because your partner is, for the most part, not a sheep. That means that you have to be willing to honestly admit that you have inadequacies. If you're unwilling...or unable...to take an honest look at your inadequacies then you'll never be able to address them and your partner will continue to cheat.

If you want to completely eliminate the state...or reduce the heck out of the state...then you have to understand the needs of taxpayers. You can't just tell them over and over to stop cheating because cheating is wrong. Taxpayers aren't dumb...they aren't immoral...and they aren't sheep. So it's essential that you try and figure out why they are cheating. It's not that difficult...all you have to do is ask them..."which of your needs is the private sector not satisfying?"

  • Is the private sector not satisfying your needs for national defense?
  • Is the private sector not satisfying your needs for welfare?
  • Is the private sector not satisfying your needs for education?
  • Is the private sector not satisfying your needs for healthcare?

Allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations receive their taxes would allow them to accurately and effectively communicate which of their needs are not being adequately met by the private sector. This information is priceless. Without it there's no way you'll be able to convince taxpayers to stop supporting the public sector.

The challenge is...this all depends on your ability to admit and acknowledge that the private sector is not perfect. Like every single one of us...it has its shortcomings. Are you willing to take an honest look at these shortcomings? If you can do so...then you will be able to take the necessary steps to address these inadequacies, failings and shortcomings of the private sector.

Let's Prove We're Not Sheep

Ok, let's spend a little bit more time considering the communication aspect of this analogy...because...this is where all the goodness is at. In technical terms we can refer to this as "revealing preferences". Do any of you remember those oldish commercials where people were asked what they would do for a Klondike Bar? That's a perfect example of revealing preferences. "Random" people on the street were asked if they would cluck and dance like a chicken for a Klondike Bar. Would you be willing to give up your dignity for a Klondike Bar? If you answered "yes" then you would be revealing your preference for the momentary enjoyment of a Klondike Bar over your momentary loss of dignity.

The question of whether you would forgo your dignity for a Klondike Bar is, in technical terms, known as an opportunity cost decision. Everything we want has opportunity costs. All the time/money we spend on one thing we value cannot also be spent on other things we value. This forces us to prioritize how we spend our time/money. The opportunity cost concept, which is arguably the most important economic concept, was first developed by Bastiat in his epic essay...What is Seen and What is Not Seen. Opportunity cost decisions help ensure the efficient allocation of limited resources. In other words...they help ensure that people who really want Klondike Bars are the ones who receive them.

If you've already read Bastiat's essay then you will of course know that Bastiat was considering the opportunity costs of taxes. We all stand to benefit as a society from lower taxes because you spend your money better than the government can spend your money. Spending your money allows your unique preferences to help determine the most efficient allocation of limited resources. If you can't reveal your preferences for a Klondike Bar then we can't really be certain if you should really have one or not.

Perhaps you're asking yourself..."but if he's such a big fan of Bastiat, then why doesn't he advocate for lower taxes or no taxes?" The thing is...if you understand the opportunity cost concept then you'll understand that there's absolutely no need to argue for lower taxes. By allowing taxpayers to reveal their preferences in the public sector...we'll be able to see what is missing from the private sector. If taxpayers spend their taxes on government Klondike Bars...then we'll understand that there is a shortage...or absence of...private Klondike Bars. With this information you'd be able to start a private organization dedicated to supplying Klondike Bars.

When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponets of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likley be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

When it comes to the efficient allocation of limited resources...we can't rely on voting. Voting is good for a lot of things...but efficiently allocating resources is not one of them. This is simply because there's a huge information disparity between 1) asking somebody if they want a Klondike Bar and 2) asking somebody what they would do for a Klondike Bar. Given that you're the only one that knows what you would do for a Klondike Bar...we can begin to understand why congress can't even come close to accurately answering the question of how our taxes should be spent. This leads us to Hayek's concept of partial knowledge. Here's a great passage from his epic essay on The Use of Knowledge in Society...

The problem is thus in no way solved if we can show that all the facts, if they were known to a single mind (as we hypothetically assume them to be given to the observing economist), would uniquely determine the solution; instead we must show how a solution is produced by the interactions of people each of whom possesses only partial knowledge. To assume all the knowledge to be given to a single mind in the same manner in which we assume it to be given to us as the explaining economists is to assume the problem away and to disregard everything that is important and significant in the real world. - Friedrich Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

Part of the answer is in your hand, part of the answer is in my hand...and everybody's partial answers are in the invisible hand. If we truly want to answer the question of what the public sector should supply then all we need to do is to allow taxpayers to choose which government organizations receive their taxes.

Ok ok, so my cheaters analogy is far from perfect. But if anybody wants to criticize it then you might as well go ahead and criticize a few of my other analogies while you're at it...

Aikido, Dune and Taxes
The Real World - Pragmatarian Rules
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,618
Reaction score
51,866
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What if your partner's needs are irrational? As in, they expect you to make a million dollars a year AND be there 24/7 to keep them company? :roll:
 

OneMale

Banned
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
67
Location
usa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Xerographica, you have done a traditional substitution of sole results by stating partners as possessions of one another, not two sole results sharing a common interest. Subliminal as it is, it does set a notion of ownership of another person's lifetime and that gets transfered into those reading this op.

Societal evolution in it's finest measure of conquering hearts and minds to rule body and souls of the next generation to perform as the ancestry was commanded to do institutionally honoring time relativity by any definition of societal character role playing.

Know what is real before getting caught in arguing incomplete realities to choose a side of misdirecting the misguided in order to save humanity's greater good intentions nobody knows exactly what they are for real other than metaphors and metaphysical maybes..
 
Last edited:

1Perry

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
7,624
Reaction score
1,859
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Given that your partner is probably not a sheep, we cay say with relative certainty that your partner is cheating on you because you are failing to meet their needs in one or more areas.

This is as far as I got. You can not say this for a relative certainty. Or at least whatever it is, it's something that is absolutely impossible for you to provide. Some people are just going to cheat. Period. There is nothing you can do to change this.

Newt Gingrich would be an excellent example here. Since the basic assumption is wrong, I see no need to read further.
 

OneMale

Banned
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
67
Location
usa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What if your partner's needs are irrational? As in, they expect you to make a million dollars a year AND be there 24/7 to keep them company? :roll:

Boy, do I understand that. My wife loves to tell me how she was 3 in her highschool class academically and I, well let em say it wasn't anything higher than average. She was in who's who for 2 years, honors society and all that crap.

But she takes words literally one way, her benefit. Now I love this woman anyway even if she is always angry at me for not talking to her anymore. But I learned early on in the marriage that when she asks "If you were me what would you do?" to answer her with "exactly what your doing to me now".

It was after the second time when things didn't go as she wanted them to from my advice offered she would tell her friends on the phone that I told her what to do when she only asked for an opinion.

See she is smarter than I am and knows how to trap people subliminally. Now multiply that by those creating societal evolution. Know what is real before spending your life making other people's reality real. It will capture your children to repeat the process again and again each generation passing through this moment always here and forever now to what remains balanced within it.
 
Last edited:

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,814
Reaction score
20,220
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Given that your partner is probably not a sheep, we cay say with relative certainty that your partner is cheating on you because you are failing to meet their needs in one or more areas.

This is as far as I got. You can not say this for a relative certainty. Or at least whatever it is, it's something that is absolutely impossible for you to provide. Some people are just going to cheat. Period. There is nothing you can do to change this.

Newt Gingrich would be an excellent example here. Since the basic assumption is wrong, I see no need to read further.

If your partner is a sheep, your problems are much deeper than this forum can deal with. It's also illegal, depending on local laws.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,618
Reaction score
51,866
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Given that your partner is probably not a sheep, we cay say with relative certainty that your partner is cheating on you because you are failing to meet their needs in one or more areas.

This is as far as I got. You can not say this for a relative certainty. Or at least whatever it is, it's something that is absolutely impossible for you to provide. Some people are just going to cheat. Period. There is nothing you can do to change this.

Newt Gingrich would be an excellent example here. Since the basic assumption is wrong, I see no need to read further.


Damn right. You don't have to have a lot of experience in the world to learn that there are some people that are just GOING to cheat no matter what you give them.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think the people are sheep.

I think that people, as individuals, are incapable of making thoroughly educated decisions when it comes to all necessary policies all on their own.

I read an article that said that in order for someone to become an expert at a skill they have to spend 10,000 hours practicing that skill.

So imagine how many hours every individual taxpayer has to spend on every single type of policy in order to make an informed decision on that individual policy. Including the allocation of taxes.

This is why I favor a representative democracy. I know that I cannot become an expert in all the arenas that the government must make policy on. Therefore, it is more efficient for me to vote for those experts that I agree with and for them to make political decisions on my behalf. However, I also support a check in that these representatives can be overruled by via referendum so that if they make a political decision too unpopular to their constituents it can be stopped.

So, yes, I agree with you that not everybody is a sheep.

But it is a fact that not everybody is an expert either, and the masses may not have access to all the information required to make an informed political decision. Which is why I put my trust in elected representatives.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If your partner is a sheep, your problems are much deeper than this forum can deal with. It's also illegal, depending on local laws.

The government has no right telling people (and fauna {and some flora}) who they can and cannot love.

True love knows no bounds.

<3
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
70,429
Reaction score
36,600
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Analogy

For this analogy to work we have to assume that your partner is, for the most part, rational. This is because libertarians and anarcho-capitalists have to assume that taxpayers are, for the most part, rational...



If you struggle with the idea that taxpayers (and your partners) are not sheep then please read this article by Paul Bonneau...The Problem With the 'People Are Idiots' Meme.




With that in mind...let's say that your woman...or man...is cheating on you. If you want them to stop cheating on you then it's absolutely essential for you to understand exactly why it is that they are cheating on you.

Given that your partner is probably not a sheep, we cay say with relative certainty that your partner is cheating on you because you are failing to meet their needs in one or more areas. If you can accurately identify exactly how you are failing to meet their needs...then you will be in a much better position to understand exactly what you have to to do in order satisfy their needs. If you can adequately satisfy their needs then you would eliminate their motive to cheat on you.

This entire process requires effective communication with your partner. You have to ask your partner..."what needs of yours am I failing to meet?"

  • Am I not satisfying your physical needs?
  • Am I not satisfying your emotional needs?
  • Am I not listening to you enough?
  • Am I not spending enough time with you?

The challenge is...you can't blame your partner for cheating. This is because your partner is, for the most part, not a sheep. That means that you have to be willing to honestly admit that you have inadequacies. If you're unwilling...or unable...to take an honest look at your inadequacies then you'll never be able to address them and your partner will continue to cheat.

If you want to completely eliminate the state...or reduce the heck out of the state...then you have to understand the needs of taxpayers. You can't just tell them over and over to stop cheating because cheating is wrong. Taxpayers aren't dumb...they aren't immoral...and they aren't sheep. So it's essential that you try and figure out why they are cheating. It's not that difficult...all you have to do is ask them..."which of your needs is the private sector not satisfying?"

  • Is the private sector not satisfying your needs for national defense?
  • Is the private sector not satisfying your needs for welfare?
  • Is the private sector not satisfying your needs for education?
  • Is the private sector not satisfying your needs for healthcare?

Allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations receive their taxes would allow them to accurately and effectively communicate which of their needs are not being adequately met by the private sector. This information is priceless. Without it there's no way you'll be able to convince taxpayers to stop supporting the public sector.

The challenge is...this all depends on your ability to admit and acknowledge that the private sector is not perfect. Like every single one of us...it has its shortcomings. Are you willing to take an honest look at these shortcomings? If you can do so...then you will be able to take the necessary steps to address these inadequacies, failings and shortcomings of the private sector.

Let's Prove We're Not Sheep

Ok, let's spend a little bit more time considering the communication aspect of this analogy...because...this is where all the goodness is at. In technical terms we can refer to this as "revealing preferences". Do any of you remember those oldish commercials where people were asked what they would do for a Klondike Bar? That's a perfect example of revealing preferences. "Random" people on the street were asked if they would cluck and dance like a chicken for a Klondike Bar. Would you be willing to give up your dignity for a Klondike Bar? If you answered "yes" then you would be revealing your preference for the momentary enjoyment of a Klondike Bar over your momentary loss of dignity.

The question of whether you would forgo your dignity for a Klondike Bar is, in technical terms, known as an opportunity cost decision. Everything we want has opportunity costs. All the time/money we spend on one thing we value cannot also be spent on other things we value. This forces us to prioritize how we spend our time/money. The opportunity cost concept, which is arguably the most important economic concept, was first developed by Bastiat in his epic essay...What is Seen and What is Not Seen. Opportunity cost decisions help ensure the efficient allocation of limited resources. In other words...they help ensure that people who really want Klondike Bars are the ones who receive them.

If you've already read Bastiat's essay then you will of course know that Bastiat was considering the opportunity costs of taxes. We all stand to benefit as a society from lower taxes because you spend your money better than the government can spend your money. Spending your money allows your unique preferences to help determine the most efficient allocation of limited resources. If you can't reveal your preferences for a Klondike Bar then we can't really be certain if you should really have one or not.

Perhaps you're asking yourself..."but if he's such a big fan of Bastiat, then why doesn't he advocate for lower taxes or no taxes?" The thing is...if you understand the opportunity cost concept then you'll understand that there's absolutely no need to argue for lower taxes. By allowing taxpayers to reveal their preferences in the public sector...we'll be able to see what is missing from the private sector. If taxpayers spend their taxes on government Klondike Bars...then we'll understand that there is a shortage...or absence of...private Klondike Bars. With this information you'd be able to start a private organization dedicated to supplying Klondike Bars.



When it comes to the efficient allocation of limited resources...we can't rely on voting. Voting is good for a lot of things...but efficiently allocating resources is not one of them. This is simply because there's a huge information disparity between 1) asking somebody if they want a Klondike Bar and 2) asking somebody what they would do for a Klondike Bar. Given that you're the only one that knows what you would do for a Klondike Bar...we can begin to understand why congress can't even come close to accurately answering the question of how our taxes should be spent. This leads us to Hayek's concept of partial knowledge. Here's a great passage from his epic essay on The Use of Knowledge in Society...



Part of the answer is in your hand, part of the answer is in my hand...and everybody's partial answers are in the invisible hand. If we truly want to answer the question of what the public sector should supply then all we need to do is to allow taxpayers to choose which government organizations receive their taxes.

Ok ok, so my cheaters analogy is far from perfect. But if anybody wants to criticize it then you might as well go ahead and criticize a few of my other analogies while you're at it...

Aikido, Dune and Taxes
The Real World - Pragmatarian Rules


well, off the top of my head, I would say your partner is probably cheating on you because you spend 7 hours a day putting stuff like this together.....
 

GreenvilleGrows

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
566
Reaction score
221
Location
My version of reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If your partner is cheating on you, it MIGHT be because you are failing to meet one of their "needs" (wants). You MIGHT be failing to meet a "need" 1.) ignorantly, 2.) willfully, or 3.) due to inability.

It may be that their "need" is unrealistic or even impossible to be met. By anyone. Ever.

Your method for choosing what should be funded with public money is as good as voting. I mean, it is essentially another manner of voting. But, it does not ensure that a person's "need" will be anymore realistic - or possible. Unlike a marriage, a government should not attempt to address all of the citizen's wants and needs. A government should only attempt to address a basic structure the limits impairments to achieving one's wants/needs for one's self. It should not attempt to obtain or fulfill one's wants/needs for one's self. That's not the relationship.
 
Last edited:

OneMale

Banned
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
67
Location
usa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If your partner is cheating on you, it MIGHT be because you are failing to meet one of their "needs" (wants). You MIGHT be failing to meet a "need" 1.) ignorantly, 2.) willfully, or 3.) due to inability.

It may be that their "need" is unrealistic or even impossible to be met. By anyone. Ever.

Your method for choosing what should be funded with public money is as good as voting. I mean, it is essentially another manner of voting. But, it does not ensure that a person's "need" will be anymore realistic - or possible. Unlike a marriage, a government should not attempt to address all of the citizen's wants and needs. A government should only attempt to address a basic structure the limits impairments to achieving one's wants/needs for one's self. It should not attempt to obtain or fulfill one's wants/needs for one's self. That's not the relationship.

well said.
 

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
samsmart, guess you missed my thread on. In the for-profit sector and the non-profit sector people are not expected to be experts in every single area. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Civilization developed for the simple fact that we established a division of labor. Nowadays people are experts in only one or two very specific areas.

So the invisible hand works on the basis of a division of labor. This was the topic of my post on Unglamorous but Important Things. If you search on that page you'll see I added your response to the long list of people who do not understand how the invisible hand works.

You don't have to understand how the invisible hand works for it to work. But you do have to understand how the invisible hand works in order to effectively evaluate whether taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations receive their taxes. Not only that...but understanding how the invisible hand works is necessary to effectively evaluate many other political topics.

That's why, in my opinion, it's well worth it to take the time to familiarize yourself with the topic. It won't take 10,000 hours...maybe it will take anywhere from 1-5 hours. You're not receiving a Ph. D. in economics...you're just learning about one very important part of economics...how the invisible hand works. Here's what I recommend...

Thoroughly read the following essays/articles...

1. Unglamorous but Important Things
2. A Marvel of Cooperation - Russell Roberts
3. What is Seen and What is Not Seen - Bastiat
4. The Use of Knowledge in Society - Hayek

Once you understand why 150 million taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations receive their taxes then you'll understand how the invisible hand works.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,618
Reaction score
51,866
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
samsmart, guess you missed my thread on. In the for-profit sector and the non-profit sector people are not expected to be experts in every single area. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Civilization developed for the simple fact that we established a division of labor. Nowadays people are experts in only one or two very specific areas.

So the invisible hand works on the basis of a division of labor. This was the topic of my post on Unglamorous but Important Things. If you search on that page you'll see I added your response to the long list of people who do not understand how the invisible hand works.

You don't have to understand how the invisible hand works for it to work. But you do have to understand how the invisible hand works in order to effectively evaluate whether taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations receive their taxes. Not only that...but understanding how the invisible hand works is necessary to effectively evaluate many other political topics.

That's why, in my opinion, it's well worth it to take the time to familiarize yourself with the topic. It won't take 10,000 hours...maybe it will take anywhere from 1-5 hours. You're not receiving a Ph. D. in economics...you're just learning about one very important part of economics...how the invisible hand works. Here's what I recommend...

Thoroughly read the following essays/articles...

1. Unglamorous but Important Things
2. A Marvel of Cooperation - Russell Roberts
3. What is Seen and What is Not Seen - Bastiat
4. The Use of Knowledge in Society - Hayek

Once you understand why 150 million taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations receive their taxes then you'll understand how the invisible hand works.


Fine, but I think trying to equate this in some fashion to cheating spouses was an ill-advised effort.
 

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Given that your partner is probably not a sheep, we cay say with relative certainty that your partner is cheating on you because you are failing to meet their needs in one or more areas.

This is as far as I got. You can not say this for a relative certainty. Or at least whatever it is, it's something that is absolutely impossible for you to provide. Some people are just going to cheat. Period. There is nothing you can do to change this.

Newt Gingrich would be an excellent example here. Since the basic assumption is wrong, I see no need to read further.

To have made it that far you must have read this...

"Isn't that the central basis for the libertarian creed? The notion that educated free adults can be trusted with matches... not to mention their bank accounts and votes? If the masses are intrinsically stupid -- sheep -- then the paternalists are right and no future society of maximized freedom will ever be possible." - David Brin, Essences, Orcs and Civilization: The Case for a Cheerful Libertarianism

As a libertarian...do you believe that we should get rid of any government organizations?

Also, are you really going to judge Newt Gingrich for cheating? When Jesus told the onlookers..."Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone" I guess you would have been that guy who picked up a stone and cast it.
 

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Fine, but I think trying to equate this in some fashion to cheating spouses was an ill-advised effort.

Heh, because it's so close to valentines day? I took it for granted that some people were going to get distracted by the analogy. It was still worth it though for everybody else...even if it was just a couple people.

The analogy works for libertarians because libertarians have to assume that people are for the most part not intrinsically stupid. True libertarians don't want to kick various things over to the private sector just so that they can pay less taxes. They want to kick things over to the private sector because they believe that the private can do these things better than the public sector can. Is this true though?

If your partner cheats on you...and they are not stupid...then they must have their reasons. Those reasons reflect shortcomings on your part. Are you capable of taking an honest look at your own shortcomings?

If we allowed taxpayers to choose which government organizations received their taxes...and taxpayers are not stupid...then their decisions would reflect shortcomings on the part of the private sector. Are libertarians capable of taking an honest look at the shortcomings of the private sector?

If the private sector is truly meeting the welfare needs of taxpayers then why would taxpayers allocate any of their taxes to government welfare programs? If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...and they chose to give their taxes to government welfare programs...and we assume that taxpayers are not stupid...then the only logical conclusion is that the private sector is not adequately meeting the needs of taxpayers when it comes to welfare programs.
 

1Perry

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
7,624
Reaction score
1,859
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
To have made it that far you must have read this...

"Isn't that the central basis for the libertarian creed? The notion that educated free adults can be trusted with matches... not to mention their bank accounts and votes? If the masses are intrinsically stupid -- sheep -- then the paternalists are right and no future society of maximized freedom will ever be possible." - David Brin, Essences, Orcs and Civilization: The Case for a Cheerful Libertarianism

As a libertarian...do you believe that we should get rid of any government organizations?

Any? Sure.

Also, are you really going to judge Newt Gingrich for cheating? When Jesus told the onlookers..."Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone" I guess you would have been that guy who picked up a stone and cast it.

God can judge him. I just will never vote for him. But I was just using him to show that some people are simply going to cheat. It's, well I'm not sure it's the right words but I would never make a statement that it's the fault of those who were cheated on in all cases because they were cheated on.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,154
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
This makes no sense to me.

You say if your partner isn't a sheep you can't blame them for cheating; you must look to yourself for how you're failing to meet their needs.

Problem is, if they aren't sheep, that means they can think on their own, and you can most certainly blame them for making the decision to cheat. That doesn't mean you may not also be failing to meet their needs (which means you are both to blame for your situation), but the only way you couldn't blame them for cheating is if they are sheep and don't really think about their decisions. If they're mindless, they can't be blamed. But if they are mindful, they most certainly can be. You have this on its head.

If I'm failing to meet my partner's needs, I expect them to be mature enough to talk to me about it, rather than going behind my back. Those are precisely the same expectations I have for myself. I have those expectations because I believe both of us are thinking people, and I expect them to be able to reason on why cheating is the incorrect response to relationship problems.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,618
Reaction score
51,866
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Heh, because it's so close to valentines day? I took it for granted that some people were going to get distracted by the analogy. It was still worth it though for everybody else...even if it was just a couple people.

The analogy works for libertarians because libertarians have to assume that people are for the most part not intrinsically stupid. True libertarians don't want to kick various things over to the private sector just so that they can pay less taxes. They want to kick things over to the private sector because they believe that the private can do these things better than the public sector can. Is this true though?

The private sector can do many things better than gov't... but IMO not everything. Some things actually are best left as gov't services, like military, police and courts.


If your partner cheats on you...and they are not stupid...then they must have their reasons. Those reasons reflect shortcomings on your part. Are you capable of taking an honest look at your own shortcomings?


You started off talking about cheating; that got most of us focused on the whole cheating-spouse thing rather than on economics or taxes or gov't.

The problem with this analogy has nothing to do with Valentines' Day. It has to do with the assumption that cheating is typically a rational activity.

Cheating is rarely rational. It is usually emotional, typically selfish and self-centered, and sometimes it is done because the cheater has psycholgical problems, problems that would cause them to cheat no matter what their spouse does.


Your analogy falls apart because humans are not entirely rational at best.... when it comes to sex and cheating they are RARELY behaving rationally.

A fully rational person is unlikely to cheat. Instead they will attempt to communicate their unmet needs to their partner; if that fails they will suggest counceling; if that fails they will give final warning: do something or I am outta here. Then they leave, and perhaps seek another relationship.

Again, cheating is rarely rational behavior.



If we allowed taxpayers to choose which government organizations received their taxes...and taxpayers are not stupid...then their decisions would reflect shortcomings on the part of the private sector. Are libertarians capable of taking an honest look at the shortcomings of the private sector?

If the private sector is truly meeting the welfare needs of taxpayers then why would taxpayers allocate any of their taxes to government welfare programs? If taxpayers could choose which government organizations received their taxes...and they chose to give their taxes to government welfare programs...and we assume that taxpayers are not stupid...then the only logical conclusion is that the private sector is not adequately meeting the needs of taxpayers when it comes to welfare programs.


Yeah, well I doubt there's enough private charity activity to meet the needs of those in need, but whatever. I can't emphasize this enough: The fact that you started off with cheating spouses, and failed to make your analogy work, has skewed the whole thread.
Most of us are now too concerned with correcting your BADLY wrong ideas about cheating to have any interest in talking about invisible hands.
 
Last edited:

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
hehehe...oh I love this analogy. SmokeAndMirrors...I mean...in my post I cover topics...revealing preferences...opportunity cost...partial knowledge...which explain the fundamental problems with liberals/progressives...yet you want to focus on the cheaters. The cheaters! I love it!

Can somebody have two boyfriends?
 

1Perry

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
7,624
Reaction score
1,859
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
hehehe...oh I love this analogy. SmokeAndMirrors...I mean...in my post I cover topics...revealing preferences...opportunity cost...partial knowledge...which explain the fundamental problems with liberals/progressives...yet you want to focus on the cheaters. The cheaters! I love it!

Can somebody have two boyfriends?

Weeeeeeee, off the deep end we go.....
 

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The private sector can do many things better than gov't... but IMO not everything. Some things actually are best left as gov't services, like military, police and courts.

This is the libertarian theory...but it's not the anarcho-capitalist theory. We actually have no idea what the public sector can really do better than the private sector...pragma-socialism.

Your analogy falls apart because humans are not entirely rational at best.... when it comes to sex and cheating they are RARELY behaving rationally.

Most of us are now too concerned with correcting your BADLY wrong ideas about cheating to have any interest in talking about invisible hands.

What I clearly stated from the get-go is that this analogy is directed at libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. So it's really awesome and entertaining that you're making this monumental effort to explain to me how cheating really works! I love it! As if this is something that really needs to be clarified to anybody. Don't we all hold these truths to be self-evident? I guess that's why I find the amount of effort you're dedicating to explaining the fatal flaw in my analogy so very amusing and well worth having chosen this analogy in the first place.
 

GreenvilleGrows

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
566
Reaction score
221
Location
My version of reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If I'm failing to meet my partner's needs, I expect them to be mature enough to talk to me about it, rather than going behind my back. Those are precisely the same expectations I have for myself. I have those expectations because I believe both of us are thinking people, and I expect them to be able to reason on why cheating is the incorrect response to relationship problems.

I like this post in general, but also specifically in relation to the OP. I believe this is true for our relationship with the government as well. If the government isn't meeting your needs, then communicate it by voting not by blackmail.
 

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I like this post in general, but also specifically in relation to the OP. I believe this is true for our relationship with the government as well. If the government isn't meeting your needs, then communicate it by voting not by blackmail.

How effectively does voting communicate your needs though? Imagine if your partner is not meeting your needs. Would simply filling out a survey help your partner understand which needs of yours are most important to you?
 
Top Bottom