the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

[Skepdick]

stan, lou, and mack all want to achieve and maintain the same thing (keeping their families, safe, fed, clothed, educated, housed, etc)

certainly seems like a group or communal goal till you dig deeper

each man has his own particular take on what it means to further & maintain his family: stan and his are country folk, what they do to further themselves is not the same as what lou (a city dweller) and mack (an off-the-gridder) do

further, all three men (and their families) have different notions about what bein' safe, fed, clothed, educated, housed, etc. means

diggin' deeper, we can see what appears to be group or communal goals are really individual goals

So what you are saying is not everybody wants to be safe, clothed, educated, housed and fed - because you are equivocating "safety", "clothing", "education", "housing" and "feeding"?

Personally, I've never met a person who doesn't want to be safe, clothed, educated, housed and fed. But they do disagree on how to get there.

[henry quirk]

I ain't seein' how that's so.

Since criminals and the immoral aren’t blunted by the current level of government, clearly the current level is insufficient and we need more! QED.

Whatever the level of government by sorts of Mafia, that government is insufficient.

No government that lines its own pockets , or legislates to empower itself, is a sufficient government. I wish to God there was an honest government somewhere in his world.

any circumstance where one is *under the heel of another is always for crap

don't pine for the fjords, er, I mean honest gov

dump gov: hire proxies









*no more accurate description of bein' governed exists

[henry quirk]

stan, lou, and mack all want to achieve and maintain the same thing (keeping their families, safe, fed, clothed, educated, housed, etc)

certainly seems like a group or communal goal till you dig deeper

each man has his own particular take on what it means to further & maintain his family: stan and his are country folk, what they do to further themselves is not the same as what lou (a city dweller) and mack (an off-the-gridder) do

further, all three men (and their families) have different notions about what bein' safe, fed, clothed, educated, housed, etc. means

diggin' deeper, we can see what appears to be group or communal goals are really individual goals

So what you are saying is not everybody wants to be safe, clothed, educated, housed and fed - you are just equivocating "safety", "clothing", "education", "housing" and "feeding".

so: different folks can't have different ideas about what it means to be safe, fed, clothed, educated, housed, etc.

you: commie

[Skepdick]

so: different folks can't have different ideas about what it means to be safe, fed, clothed, educated, housed, etc.

you: commie

They can.

Hence me calling out your equivocation. Do you understand what "equivocation" means, henry?

in logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses

You seem to be using all of the above words in stan's sense; lou's sense and mac's sense. That's "multiple senses" you see?

[henry quirk]

They can.

if they can then why do you say I'm sayin' not everybody wants to be safe, clothed, educated, housed and fed?

folks either have differin' notions or they don't

stan assesses he and his are safe, at home, in the middle of the night cuz stan has a loaded stoger at his bedside; lou assesses he and his are safe cuz his apartment buildin' has a security system and he has 911 on the speed dial

I think stan, overall, is safer (he retains control over his circumstance) while lou is less safe (he relies on tech installed & maintained by another, he relies on strangers to come to his aid)

so, no, I'm not equivocating: I'm recognizing difference

[Skepdick]

They can.

if they can then why do you say I'm sayin' not everybody wants to be safe, clothed, educated, housed and fed?

Because you are equivocating "safe", "clothed", "educated", "housed" and "fed".

folks either have differin' notions or they don't

Yeah! That's how equivocation works.

stan assesses he and his are safe, at home, in the middle of the night cuz stan has a loaded stoger at his bedside; lou assesses he and his are safe cuz his apartment buildin' has a security system and he has 911 on the speed dial

Yeah! That's how equivocation works.

I think stan, overall, is safer (he retains control over his circumstance) while lou is less safe (he relies on tech installed & maintained by another, he relies on strangers to come to his aid)

YEAH! THAT IS HOW EQUIVOCATION WORKS.

so, no, I'm not equivocating: I'm recognizing difference

Then why are you using the same word to describe different things? Because... that is what equivocation means.

Of course, you are free to "have a differin' notion" of equivocation from the rest of us.

[henry quirk]

I'm not doin' this...

using ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself

my language is plain, I've concealed nuthin', I've committed


Circlin' back: those group or communal goals are really individual goals

[henry quirk]

define safe in a way both the country boy and the city dweller would recognize and agree with

[commonsense]

Yes, the goal is alike with others, but it’s not a group goal. It’s more a competitive goal. In the sense that one person may achieve his goal of wealth for himself and his family, while others may fail, it is non-unique.

Yes, but everybody wants to achieve the goal. Nobody wants to fail at achieving that goal.

And if everybody is to actually succeed at achieving the goal, then the game cannot be a zero-sum game.

So not-playing a zero-sum game is a group goal IF you want to minimise your individual risk of failing at your individual goal.

You have no clue as to how people earn their livings and provide for their families.

[Skepdick]

You have no clue as to how people earn their livings and provide for their families.

Well, not precisely but I doubt they are playing a zero-sum game.

Otherwise we'd all be worse off in society. Not better.

[Belinda]

stan, lou, and mack all want to achieve and maintain the same thing (keeping their families, safe, fed, clothed, educated, housed, etc)

certainly seems like a group or communal goal till you dig deeper

each man has his own particular take on what it means to further & maintain his family: stan and his are country folk, what they do to further themselves is not the same as what lou (a city dweller) and mack (an off-the-gridder) do

further, all three men (and their families) have different notions about what bein' safe, fed, clothed, educated, housed, etc. means

diggin' deeper, we can see what appears to be group or communal goals are really individual goals

So what you are saying is not everybody wants to be safe, clothed, educated, housed and fed - because you are equivocating "safety", "clothing", "education", "housing" and "feeding"?

Personally, I've never met a person who doesn't want to be safe, clothed, educated, housed and fed. But they do disagree on how to get there.

What are proxies?

[henry quirk]

What are proxies?

as I use it: a proxy is someone you hire to do that which you can't do for yourself

you got a clog you can't dislodge?

you hire a plumber (or proctologist)...he's your proxy

and, no, the current iteration of elected folks aren't proxies: they're rulers (they're supposed to be employees)

and, no, employees and proxies aren't the same thing


only way to get rid of rulers is to depose 'em (might see the start of that, here, on nov 4)

only way to get rid of employees is through process & procedure (in context, these are elections)

only way you need to get rid of a proxy is to say you're fired, get the fuck out

[Skepdick]

What are proxies?

Representatives that act on your behalf, I figure?

But as you see, henry is already insisting that proxies aren't members of parliaments or subordinates (and other special pleading)

Either way, he has all the chess pieces in place for principal-agent problems to arise when you can't hold your "proxies" accountable.

[henry quirk]

he has all the chess pieces in place for principal-agent problems to arise

a specific example, please

I ain't holdin' my breath that you'll foist one up

[Skepdick]

he has all the chess pieces in place for principal-agent problems to arise

a specific example, please

I ain't holdin' my breath that you'll foist one up

You want me to give you specifics about your particular life?

You understand what the principle-agent problem entails (conflict of interest).
You know who you have hired.
You know the kind of power you've bestowed upon your principals
You know how they can screw you if they so choose to.

Surely you don't need me to do your thinking for you?