Conservative Club II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

In theory it fails as well. The notion that the good is defined by happiness is known as eudaimonism and it certainly has its proponets. However, this view has critical flaws. By defining the good as happiness one has created a moral theory where the good is a species of egoism. This is because happiness is subject specific. Egoistic moral theory, as with its cosmological corollary, has a reductionist tendency which means the "I" maintains a primacy. That is ultimately implosive and self defeating.

---

I think that this is knitpicking. Surely you are right, but both good and happiness would have a larger meaning in a society where we no longer have to fight for our survival. I think that you base your notion on to medieval values. Surely you would agree that we have reached a bit longer.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

It is more fruitful to see the good as expanding beyond the self: as that which seeks what is best for the other.

---

As long as it doesn't make you happy ?? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes, there is nothing within the commercial act that requires a moral referent. Further all things within the dynamic are interchangeable. This applies to buyer, seller, object of purchase and assigned value.

---

In a commercial act you need to have a certain level of "business moral". Even if it is not based on any religious values, all parties needs to have a certain level of "honesty" and "trust", wouldn't you agree?
Also the object as well as it's value need to follow this "business moral". If not, it will not be a commercial act anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Assumptions work through the assuming. If you mean that anti-monopoly law restricts corporate growth and thereby helps control political influence then things become more complicated. To determine whether such a law "works" one must first determine a viable threat exists. If under full disclosure legislation all commercial/political contact is always already available for public scrutiny then what you have described is at best a redundancy.

---

Yes, but what an important redundancy...... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't know how a good business is being defined here. If a good business is any business that isn't a monopoly then you have allowed quite a large margin. Further, there are a whole host of businesses that may not be the largest company for there field but nonetheless weld massive amounts of capital. In addition, the anti-monopoly law seems specious as a political influence control since a company that only owns 58% of a market seems essentially as powerful as a company that owns the monopoly status 60%.

---

It depends on the field it's in. Monopoly is normally defined as a situation where the business holder, for what ever reason, not have to follow market economy principles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The Alcibiades option, as I will name it, is not about removal of corrupt power, but that the threat of corruption is ever present and thus stands as a retort to simple idealism about power and the state.

---

So that means that the type of rule really is irrelevant. Corruption will sooner or later arrive ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

I think that this is knitpicking. Surely you are right, but both good and happiness would have a larger meaning in a society where we no longer have to fight for our survival. I think that you base your notion on to medieval values. Surely you would agree that we have reached a bit longer.....

---

I don't think this is nitpicking, but rather looking at the basics of the concept. I don't understand the reference to societal progress. I was attempting a simple rational analysis. Rationality is not culturally bound. Lastly, the viewpoint I put forward has Classical roots not Medieval (this is nitpicking ~;) ).

Quote:

---

As long as it doesn't make you happy ?? ~;)

---

The happiness of the subject is not determinative.

Quote:

---

In a commercial act you need to have a certain level of "business moral". Even if it is not based on any religious values, all parties needs to have a certain level of "honesty" and "trust", wouldn't you agree?
Also the object as well as it's value need to follow this "business moral". If not, it will not be a commercial act anymore.

---

It is certainly possible to argue that a base trust is attends any commercial transaction that rises above a direct barter system. However, that does not create moral standing or guarantee an ethical system. A slave master may trust that his buying new workers will be healthy and promptly arrive after payment, but this trust does not make him a good guy. The formula for the commercial transaction does not speak to moral content. Further, if the slave master after paying doesn't get his slaves or they arrive sick and are unable to work, because the seller lied or cheated, what of it? The buyer's misfortune is a practical concern and only negatively impacts the seller if there is legal recourse or the seller meets up with the slave master again. Thus, determining any positive or negative makes appeal to things beyond the transaction itself.

Quote:

---

It depends on the field it's in. Monopoly is normally defined as a situation where the business holder, for what ever reason, not have to follow market economy principles.

---

No, monopoly is a legal category and is tied to percentage of market share.

Quote:

---

So that means that the type of rule really is irrelevant. Corruption will sooner or later arrive ?

---

No, the type of governance is important because it impacts quality of life and unlike economics is tied to notions of justice. Further, corruption is not a guarantee, but a danger to be guarded against, though if we followed the Platonic idea then yes, all political systems already contain within them the seeds of their own destruction which always bear fruit.

Anyone familiar with the proposed bankruptcy reform before Congress?

From what I hear, the proposal would make it tougher for people to have their debts wiped totally clean through bankruptcy, forcing people to pay at least part of their debts back using any income they have after housing, food ect.

On one hand, I say good- it should be tougher for people to shirk their commitments and from racking up huge debts only to declare bankruptcy to get out of paying... On the other hand, this reform is being heavily lobbied by banks and credit card companies and I think they dig their own graves when it comes to bankruptcy. Why do they still offer pre-approved credit cards by the dozens to people who are already thousands in debt? Why are they so quick to make car or home loans to credit risks? I sometimes tend to think the credit companies already hold all the cards by hoarding your personal information, credit score, ect. so why make things even easier for them at the expense of consumer. I also feel that the idea that a person can take a financial risk without fear of being shouldered with debt for the rest of their lives is an important entrepreneurial aspect of American culture.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't think this is nitpicking, but rather looking at the basics of the concept. I don't understand the reference to societal progress. I was attempting a simple rational analysis. Rationality is not culturally bound. Lastly, the viewpoint I put forward has Classical roots not Medieval (this is nitpicking ~;) ).

---

I think your concept is Classic Medieval then..... ~D

Rationality doesn't really steer the political scene, any American would know that. I think it's here we differ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The happiness of the subject is not determinative.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

It is certainly possible to argue that a base trust is attends any commercial transaction that rises above a direct barter system. However, that does not create moral standing or guarantee an ethical system. A slave master may trust that his buying new workers will be healthy and promptly arrive after payment, but this trust does not make him a good guy. The formula for the commercial transaction does not speak to moral content. Further, if the slave master after paying doesn't get his slaves or they arrive sick and are unable to work, because the seller lied or cheated, what of it? The buyer's misfortune is a practical concern and only negatively impacts the seller if there is legal recourse or the seller meets up with the slave master again. Thus, determining any positive or negative makes appeal to things beyond the transaction itself.

---

The commercial transaction has nothing to do with the parties involved being good or not. Your example with slaves as the subject is irrelevant. I would argue that for making a commercial transaction fucntion, you need to have an accepted moral for it. If not, it will not work. In modern life, stock exchange, currencies etc are all based on an agreed moral. If the trust for the system and its moral vanish, so does the system. Its not as rational and logical as we all would like to believe.
Slavery, tobacco, drugs etc are all commodities with questionable moral, but this has nothing to do with commerce or market economy.
Let us focus on the way of transaction as such instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, monopoly is a legal category and is tied to percentage of market share.

---

In the law maybe, and of course its always possible to translate it in to market share. Even though, there are other ways to corner markets than just market share. Example are attempts to monopolize distribution chains of after market products in the automobile industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, the type of governance is important because it impacts quality of life and unlike economics is tied to notions of justice. Further, corruption is not a guarantee, but a danger to be guarded against, though if we followed the Platonic idea then yes, all political systems already contain within them the seeds of their own destruction which always bear fruit.

---

I think I can agree with this, even if I believe that democracy many times is given to much credit compare to other systems.

Might be time to step up to my duties and suggest this one be taken outside. After 2 pages I think this is more right-left debate than right-right. Now if anyone listens or cares about my suggestions is another matter. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

On one hand, I say good- it should be tougher for people to shirk their commitments and from racking up huge debts only to declare bankruptcy to get out of paying... On the other hand, this reform is being heavily lobbied by banks and credit card companies and I think they dig their own graves when it comes to bankruptcy. Why do they still offer pre-approved credit cards by the dozens to people who are already thousands in debt? Why are they so quick to make car or home loans to credit risks? I sometimes tend to think the credit companies already hold all the cards by hoarding your personal information, credit score, ect. so why make things even easier for them at the expense of consumer. I also feel that the idea that a person can take a financial risk without fear of being shouldered with debt for the rest of their lives is an important entrepreneurial aspect of American culture.

---

It's important to remember that bankruptcy is a key thing in a market economy. We need to have a way to remove failures from the market place.
When it comes to private persons, they can't really go bankrupt. A company will sieze to exist, eq. die, and we can't really execute people in debt so there must be other alternatives.
I think that in most European countries, a person with to much debt becomes "black listed" for new debts and will have a chance to negotiate a deal with the creditors....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

After 2 pages I think this is more right-left debate than right-right.

---

I wouldn't go so far and call Pindar a lefty because he find commercial transactions amoral....... ~D

Don't feed the liberal trolls... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Anyone familiar with the proposed bankruptcy reform before Congress?

From what I hear, the proposal would make it tougher for people to have their debts wiped totally clean through bankruptcy, forcing people to pay at least part of their debts back using any income they have after housing, food ect.

On one hand, I say good- it should be tougher for people to shirk their commitments and from racking up huge debts only to declare bankruptcy to get out of paying... On the other hand, this reform is being heavily lobbied by banks and credit card companies and I think they dig their own graves when it comes to bankruptcy. Why do they still offer pre-approved credit cards by the dozens to people who are already thousands in debt? Why are they so quick to make car or home loans to credit risks? I sometimes tend to think the credit companies already hold all the cards by hoarding your personal information, credit score, ect. so why make things even easier for them at the expense of consumer. I also feel that the idea that a person can take a financial risk without fear of being shouldered with debt for the rest of their lives is an important entrepreneurial aspect of American culture.

Thoughts?

---

I once heard a former banking industry head say something along these lines - (might try to find it - but today I am just to lazy to research)

That the banking industry offers credit cards to high-risk consumers because of the tax writeoff because of bad consumer debt. They also make a large income level from the interest rate on such cards. Enough to off set the risk because of the number of consumers in this area that are attempting to re-establish their credit - so they pay the high interest rate plus the annual fee on these types of cards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I once heard a former banking industry head say something along these lines - (might try to find it - but today I am just to lazy to research)

That the banking industry offers credit cards to high-risk consumers because of the tax writeoff because of bad consumer debt. They also make a large income level from the interest rate on such cards. Enough to off set the risk because of the number of consumers in this area that are attempting to re-establish their credit - so they pay the high interest rate plus the annual fee on these types of cards

---

Right, which also further makes me fail to see why they 'need' this reform. If they're really worried about bad debts stop extending credit to bad risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Right, which also further makes me fail to see why they 'need' this reform. If they're really worried about bad debts stop extending credit to bad risks.

---

Heard about the legislation motion today in the news - but haven't really looked into it yet.

Been paying attention to a local issue recently - it seems the state of Texas is going to modify its taxing policies. Most of them are bad ways to get more money.

For instance the legistalators are looking into a snack tax of 3 cents for the foods that fall in that catergory.

Then there is a payroll tax that is going to be done on the employer's - but is not going to be an income tax because it would violate the state consitution.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-b...00003&SORT=Asc

bmolsson

My brothers have spoken. You as a gentile are no longer allowed in the inner sanctum. Therefore your reeducation will have to contiune out among the rabble. I will start a new thread titled: "Economics and moral appeal" that will pick up the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

bmolsson

My brothers have spoken. You as a gentile are no longer allowed in the inner sanctum. Therefore your reeducation will have to contiune out among the rabble. I will start a new thread titled: "Economics and moral appeal" that will pick up the discussion.

---

That was not fair. I was the one DEFENDING morally correct commercial transactions !!! ~;)

If you happens to be a closet socialist, please don't fear me, I won't tell...... ~:grouphug:

Time for a little bumpage...

Alright fellow conservatives, looks like the Republicans will have in 08...
Rice
McCain
Gulliani
Frist

In my opinion, not much of a choice. Condi maybe, but I'm troubled with her semi pro abortion stance, though I'd vote for her is its against the Hildabeast. No way in hell I'd vote for Rudy, Mr Social liberal ass monkey. McCain seems to be a bit of a pussy or as the press says a "maverick". I think I'd vote for Frist but my belly button lent has more personality and plus he hasn't really put all those obstructionist democrats in the Senate in check like a majority leader should.

So what is a man to do? Here's hoping that Jeb changes his mind!!! Anyone agree?

Maybe Dino Rossi- governor in exile of the state of washington (the post currently being filled by a usurping ex-attorney general). The stolen election (see www.soundpolitics.com) might be overturned, meaning he would return to his rightful post.

I don't think's he's a crazy social liberal, and he's 1/4 native. The first native american pres would be republican! Another smack to those all talk, no action dems.

Jeb would be good- but the dems would raise a big ole hollar about a 'dynasty' though he could probably fight it be pointing out that Hilagrendal would be a dynasty, and that his relation doesn't mean he's worse in any way.
Of course, his prospects would depend on W's success.

McCain? No way. Pro gun control, and sponsered the "Help incumbents by silencing the people" bill also known as the campaign reform bill.

Rudy - a last resort, due to his liberaleze.

Frist's record would be picked apart by the dems, and he's not a dynamic guy. But a fair-to-middlin' prospect. W was relatively unknown, after all, and Frist has name recognition. His chances would depend on what the GOP does with its majority.

Rice would be another coup - the first woman pres, the first black pres, as a republican! We could accuse the dems of being racist if they ever critised her. Or ask loaded questions like;
"'So you don't want there to be a black female pres?'
'Well, uh, yes I do...'
'Then why do you hope Rice loses, you filthy bigot?'
'Well, I just don't want her to win- she's against my principles'
'So you only want minorities if they toe the party line and never think for themselves?'"
Though that might get old after a while.
I wouldn't worry too much about the mildly anti-life stand. Even if Roe does go, its highly unlikely that they will ban it on a federal level. Hopefully, she'll just leave it to the states. Of course, some moronic activist judge might try to declare unconstitutional any state abortion bans, but that would be overturned, if Roe had been previously overturned.

Crazed Rabbit

I forgot about Dino, I'd vote for him. Hopefully someone will come out soon that will overcome all the naysayers like W; the most "misunderestimated" President of all time!!! ~:)

*busts the double doors open*

*slowly emerges sporting perfectly groomed hair, a sharply tailored suit, and black sunglasses*

Good morning gentlemen, I have retoined.

*reaches into coat pocket and pulls out Magnum revolver*

*sets the gun on the counter and says,*

"Drinks are on me tonight gentlemen"


You see, I have been very posperous in my absence. I have been very fortunate in making 'legitimate' business deals that may or may not have breached certain international trade agreements in the Pacific rim. :grin2:



It's good ta be back ~:smoking:

*Raises mug to TK*

Welcome back!!! ~:cheers:

Now let the games begin!!!

Liberals beware!!! ~D

The Spirit of 1994 It's kinda disappointing how so many Republicans seem to have forgotten what got them in power in the first place. Many of their promised reforms seem to have been forgotten as our representatives are now more interested in protecting their jobs than doing anything meaningful.

I agree Xaihou, I'm a little tired of the "40 acre and a mule" promises that the politicians, more specifically, the Republican party, are "handing out". Way too much pork.

Sadly, there are very few politicians out there who are willing to actually not waste money. We need to do something, but the means to implement it is also part of the problem.

Indeed, there are some 'real' Republicans out there- just not enough of them. For the rest, what choice do we have? Vote Dem and bring about even more government bloat and more obstructionism in the Senate? There's just no viable alternative. :embarassed:
For the record, I voted third party when Senator Specter was up for election- I knew he had a lock on it anyhow, so I thought Id try to make 3rd party candidates at least a little more viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Indeed, there are some 'real' Republicans out there- just not enough of them.

---

Can't people just take banjo lessons ??? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Can't people just take banjo lessons ??? ~;)

---

The sound you hear approaching your door are jackboots. You have been marked for cleansing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

For the record, I voted third party when Senator Specter was up for election- I knew he had a lock on it anyhow, so I thought Id try to make 3rd party candidates at least a little more viable.

---

You're from Penn? Well at least you don't have "dumb as a box of rocks Boxer" as your Senator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

You're from Penn? Well at least you don't have "dumb as a box of rocks Boxer" as your Senator.

---

Yup, from PA. People are expecting a big fight in the next election too. Casey (son of the former governor) is challenging Santorum for his seat.

Quote:

---

Yup, from PA. People are expecting a big fight in the next election too. Casey (son of the former governor) is challenging Santorum for his seat.

---

In that case go Rick. This is the kind of republican we need more of. Any of you ever watch Scarborough country. Now theres the kind of person we need back in congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

In that case go Rick. This is the kind of republican we need more of. Any of you ever watch Scarborough country. Now theres the kind of person we need back in congress.

---

I definitely like Santorum. Sometimes he seems a bit too much of a Bush yes man- but he does have some strong Conservative beliefs.

Also, I hear Pat Toomey, the guy that challenged Specter in the primaries and current Representative may be running for governor in PA. I would be very happy to see him oust fast Eddie Rendell, especially considering what a strong anti-spending conservative Toomey is.

Great. Now when Tuition goes up next year, some Democrat can give a speech about the "spiralling cost of a college education." Notice how people who make that claim never talk about the "spiralling wages of people with real skills?"

(Wasn't sure where else to rant about whining, Guevara-worshipping college kids, hope I'm not intruding.)


Oh, and if I was Georgetown I would never have caved. None of these turkeys would've died over this.

I gotta go with Condi.. i doubt she'll fall pro-abortion Dave.

Shes got something about her.. a mix of toughness, finesse, and bitchyness with a solid conservative mindset. Shed make the perfect first woman president. No need to worry about her being tough on the bad guys.. ~D

On a purely political note.. the first black president being a rep. would be nice aswell.

Basically, i think a Condi presidency would be a continuation of the W presidency.. even with the big government spending, im willing to accept that.

:bow: