/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3424009]

Why do liberals supply the week ? That's against natural selection you know.

[Anonymous No.3424013]

Maybe it's cheaper than supplying the day?

[Anonymous No.3424023]

>week

thanks for confirming my opinions about hardcore conservatives

[Anonymous No.3424024]

Weeks are just as important as the months OP.

[Anonymous No.3424029]

years are the master race
destroy the weeks

[Anonymous No.3424030]

>>3424009
They have an adversion to days.

>Why do liberals supply the week ? That's against natural selection you know.

[Anonymous No.3424031]

Why are republicans so contradictory.
IE: Very Christian yet they hate helping the poor.

[Anonymous No.3424035]

>>3424013
>>3424023
>>3424024

3 libtards down. I purposely wrote weaks instead of weeks

[Anonymous No.3424039]

>>3424031
They'll only help them through religious institutions. Seriously, they want this country to just perform as a standing army, and let NGO's run all social services.

[Anonymous No.3424045]

>>3424035
>jokes on them, i was only pretending

[Anonymous No.3424060]

>>3424009

do the weak spell poorly?

[Anonymous No.3424064]

competition is a real force, but in humans cooperation is far more important.

libertarians have never spent a few months alone.

[Anonymous No.3424129]

>against natural selection
Everything we do is against natural selection. That's the point, natural selection happens naturally, not because of human influence.

[Anonymous No.3424140]

>>3424035
>3 libtards down. I purposely wrote weaks instead of weeks

Oh my god, I hope for your sake you're trolling.

[Anonymous No.3424171]

>>3424129

I mean natural selection as in ability to make it in the system. I don't mean like out in the wilderness natural selection.

[Anonymous No.3424191]

>>3424031

>Very Christian yet they hate helping the poor

One word: Sloth.

Why would they help ?

[Anonymous No.3424332]

>>3424171
Except that kind of "natural selection" has no societal value.

[Anonymous No.3424369]

Fortnight master race reporting in

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3424387]

>Why do [insert group] insit on forming groups when that's against the universe's ceaseless trek towards greater entropy?

[Anonymous No.3424388]

Scientifically beautiful planck time here

[Anonymous No.3424406]

Libertarian reporting for duty! And you all know by its very nature, 4chan is extremely libertarian?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3424416]

>>3424406
I don't like libertarianism. Why are personal freedoms more important than the whole?

[Anonymous No.3424422]

>>3424035
Textbook "oh god I said something stupid, better pretend I did it on purpose to troll people."

Not even gonna sage. Laughing my ass off.

[Anonymous No.3424423]

>>3424406
>>And you all know by its very nature, 4chan is extremely libertarian?

retarded and angry...?

[Anonymous No.3424429]

>>3424416
what freedoms of the whole?
(don't conflate libertarianism with anarchy)

[Anonymous No.3424431]

>societal value

[Anonymous No.3424434]

>>3424031
don't believe in evolution
support social darwinism.

Yeah, I don't know.

[Anonymous No.3424436]

>>3424406
why 'by its very nature'? i seriously hope you don't think libertarianism implies a support of piracy. in 2011.

[Anonymous No.3424437]

The rights of every individual trump the right of one individual.

The rights of the population trump the rights of the capitalist.

[Anonymous No.3424441]

>>3424434

I didn't say anything of the like

[Anonymous No.3424443]

>>3424437
WHICH fucking RIGHTS?
name one. then we'll see if this is just bullshit rhetoric that can't be ad absurdum'd to oblivion.

[Anonymous No.3424452]

Both ends of the spectrum are retarded. We really need better morals in this nation. We shouldn't need the government to support the poor and we shouldn't let free market capitalism run wild. On the social Darwinism thing, we need a policy of "tough love". Since the beginning of man we have cared for the weak (not week) and it has polluted our genetics. I say we care for all but only tune best humans (smartest, strongest, most resistant to disease) can breed.

[Anonymous No.3424456]

Saying that benefiting the weak is against natural selection is like saying building skyscrapers up is against gravity.

[Anonymous No.3424458]

>>3424064
>libertarians have never spent a few months alone.


>That feel when you once spent 5 months without so much as talking to anyone outside of your immediate family

>That feel when you could survive in the wilderness without breaking a sweat due to living in bum-fuck nowhere where wilderness survival was a required course

And I don't oppose charity for the poor, but it shouldn't be funded by taxes or the government, seeing as it doesn't require government intervention to function efficiently, and its basically just taking away money from everyone to give to a few people.

[Anonymous No.3424459]

*the

[Anonymous No.3424460]

Individuals have rights. Christians, Atheists, Gays, Straights, Blacks and everyone in between do not.

[Anonymous No.3424461]

>>3424031
Because if the poor are entitled to help then their situations won't improve.
If the poor are screwed and then receive a helping hand, they will improved.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3424464]

>>3424429
Why do should the freedoms of the individual come before the general good of the larger population? Every libertarian I have met simply states that liberty is more important than the greater good, but when I ask why they look/sound dumbstruck... they say "just cuz". It's as if libertarians believe in a baseless objective morality, IMHO.

[Anonymous No.3424466]

>>3424458

You don't like "taking away money from everyone to give to a few people"?

You do know that progressive tax systems take money mostly from the few right?

Taking from everyone and giving to a few is what capitalism does as a system. Like it or hate it, that's how it is.

[Anonymous No.3424470]

>>3424464
>Why do should the freedoms of the individual come before the general good of the larger population?
Because the general good best benefits from individual freedoms.

[Anonymous No.3424473]

>>3424443

How about the rights of people to healthcare, education, food, water, a clean environment and safety?

How about the right to work for oneself for a decent wage, instead of getting paid a pittance to work as an intelligent piece of machinery?

How about the right to be informed by an impartial media instead of a biased one?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3424475]

>>3424031
Because political parties are subject to natural selection. The era we live has left Rebublicans the niches they currently fill.

[Anonymous No.3424479]

>>3424470
So, what you're saying is, the best delusion is a selfish delusion.

[Anonymous No.3424480]

>>3424452

Genetics can be improved. If you were smart you could've figures this shit out. So you're on the train

[Anonymous No.3424484]

>>3424470

There's some semantics I should elaborate on here.

the 'public good' means 'for the benefit of everyone'. That is, the benefit of each individual. The idea that all it does is puff up some construct or identity (like the State) is ludicrous.

[Anonymous No.3424487]

Building up can allow for more dense population and less waste of land where the sick, lame and lazy become dead weights on society and drag us down genetically as a species.

[Anonymous No.3424502]

>>mfw communists in 2011

Capitalism is the best way to improve the welfare of the poor, from food, to good jobs, to freedom of press. Countries where these are controlled by the government have less of these than where they are entrusted to the free market. Compare any western country to the USSR or North Korea.

It's nice to *want* to help the poor, but government control of the economy does not help them.

[Anonymous No.3424504]

We don't have the knowledge or technology to create genetically perfect people yet. That would be the case in the future although not far off.

[Anonymous No.3424516]

>>3424502
Yes, it is like raising the minimum wage. Oh I feel so bad for those poor people, they should be making some more money. Failing to realize raising the minimum wage reduces the number of low level jobs available so the poor starve instead lol.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3424517]

Bitter Cynical asshole elitist answer:

Its easier to farm cows than hunt cows

Open minded good person attitude:

By functioning as a caring community we evolve into a species better than what we were.

[Anonymous No.3424521]

>Why do liberals supply the week ? That's against natural selection you know.
>Why do liberals supply the week
>the week?

You best stfu since they're obviously supplying you if you can't even use the proper homophone

[Anonymous No.3424524]

What I don't get about the left, is that their policies resemble a baseless religion. They all say were supposed to abide by their their rigid social and economic code because were morally obliged to help the poor or whatever. But why? Did God give us that responsibility? Did Darwin? Or is it all just fucking bullshit?

[Anonymous No.3424528]

>>3424502

mfw people think the only 2 political economies are america and soviet russia

Seriously. What about anarcho-syndicalist 1937 catalonia, what about cold-war era Yugoslavia?

Neither the USA nor the USSR had workers controlling the means of production. That's what we need for an egalitarian society.

Finally, market socialism is a thing.

[Anonymous No.3424535]

>>3424524

Depends what moral system you subscribe to. I am a leftist, I subscribe to utilitarianism. Helping the poor makes people happier. Divine command morality and appeal to natural are about the most easily abused and immoral ethical systems I've seen.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3424537]

>>3424524

I think some people (myself included) have sympathy, and motivation to help people. Morality is completely baseless, and might as well be random. But I'd prefer a moral code that respects each individual in a society, and tries to make society as optimal as possible.

Otherwise everyone would be mean and I would just cry all the time in despair of all the misfortunes.

[Anonymous No.3424541]

>>3424516
Thats some grade A stupidity you got there. If there is a reason why the minimum wage is not very effective, it is because it merely inflates everything around it.

That being said, the minimum wage is still a good idea for a country as large as the US.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3424543]

That is a generalization. Poverty hurts society as a whole. Taxing the rich and keeping the heads of the lower class above water infringes apon the liberties of the rich, but it is a net benefit to society as a whole.

Same goes for smoking. The average person is apparently too stupid to realize smoking isn't worth the risk of disease, which is why the government "unfairly" taxes cigarette companies so much. By removing the publics freedom to bt cheap cigarettes it significantly reduces lung cancer rates, thus improving society.

Society is nothing but a system that can be engineered and fine tuned in various ways to provide the most net gain. Libertarians want to restrict the number of ways available for that engineering and fine tuning.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3424544]

>>3424528

Heh

Is there any act record of how anarchist spain functioned, and not just anarchists being like "Well actually it worked in spain!"?

[Anonymous No.3424547]

>>3424464
right, and you're really impressing me by repeatedly ignoring the fucking question.

WHICH RIGHTS. name a right which 'the whole' can have at the expense of the individual and a libertarian would object to.

[Anonymous No.3424548]

>>3424516

Please cite an empirical study that confirms this please. The ones I've seen show negligible impact, some in favour of employment, some retarding employment, depending on the area.

inb4 herp my economic theory says it so it must be true

[Anonymous No.3424553]

>>3424547

>>3424473

Mfw you can't read.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3424569]

Your question didn't relate to what I was trying to say so I chose to reword my post. Benefits to society need not take the fomn rights.

[Anonymous No.3424573]

Families should support their own kids. The burden of an irresponsible nigger shouldn't fall upon the working people and society. Except for the racial slur there cause you want to be politically correct I think many of you agree with this.

[Anonymous No.3424576]

>>3424528
Its impossible for me to prove that Capitalism is better than an economic system that existed in a single region for less than a year. Talking about such systems skirts very close to an appeal to lack of evidence. Other systems applied only in specific regions for short times have similar problems of unfalsifiableness:

Capitalism is the best system of all the systems that existed largely and long enough for us to have enough data to measure how they did.

>>Neither the USA nor the USSR had workers controlling the means of production. That's what we need for an egalitarian society.

Who do you think did do such a system? And if no one anywhere did it, despite many countries professing their favor of it and claiming they did, maybe actually having workers "controlling the means of production" is impossible. If so, you should not advocate it.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3424588]

My post (>>3424569) was supposed to link to (>>3424547).

[Anonymous No.3424589]

>>3424548
>Economics
>Empirical Study

choose 1

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3424592]

>>3424548

I just want to say. I think you are right, or, at least I agree.

I mean, the money to pay people minimum wage has to come from somewhere. But, I think the reasoning is (and I like the reasoning) is that if someone is working they should be entitled to a certain amount, even if that means some people will get laid off (maybe). We are better off if society is that way, and the reality is society wont make itself that way.

And I also think I have seen side by side comparisons of different economies and the impacts on employment. It was negligible if I remember correctly too.

[Anonymous No.3424598]

>>3424541

Tell me your thoughts on waiters getting paid less than minimum wage and the people who are burdened by some unwritten law called tipping.

[Anonymous No.3424600]

>>3424573
So, society shouldn't try to fix your oppression of other people's liberties?

Right.

[Anonymous No.3424610]

>>3424598
Why? If you're trying to imply something, use greentext, it's more effective than your obtuse insinuation.

[Anonymous No.3424614]

>>3424548

Statutory Minimum Wage Controls: A Critical Review of their Effects on Labor Markets

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vLxo7mfP9RUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Abbott&
#44;+Lewis+F.+Statutory+Minimum+Wage+Controls:+A+Critical+Review+of+their+Effects+on+Labour+Markets&
#44;+Employment,+and+Incomes&ots=EGxyzRdwjm&sig=DdSA4U2OYUrcoYVt7AwYAU3A8sk#v=onepage&am
p;q=Abbott%2C%20Lewis%20F.%20Statutory%20Minimum%20Wage%20Controls%3A%20A%20Critical%20Review%20of%2
0their%20Effects%20on%20Labour%20Markets%2C%20Employment%2C%20and%20Incomes&f=false

[Anonymous No.3424615]

>>3424553
mfw you think libertarianism excludes those a priori.
there is such a thing as constitutional libertarianism you douche.
but none of those things you said are 'rights of the whole'. the right to life is an individual right, just like the non-aggression principle. what is 'whole' about it?
the rights of the 'whole' taking precedence over the rights of the individual mean, for instance, if the whole votes that slavery of negroes is okay, then it is okay. clue: you've ruled out objective morality so you can't disagree.
i am not opposed to healthcare. i am not opposed to food stamps. if you need to force somebody's hand to save another's life, i believe in that. so do plenty of non-radical libertarians.
but i believe that beyond providing rights, the non-aggression principle applies. the 'whole', for instance, does not have the 'right' to more expensive, tasty food. they do not get to prioritise this over the right of somebody to refuse and not be forced into prison at the point of a gun.

[Anonymous No.3424620]

>>3424576

Its impossible for me to prove that Capitalism is better than an economic system that existed in a single region for less than a year. Talking about such systems skirts very close to an appeal to lack of evidence. Other systems applied only in specific regions for short times have similar problems of unfalsifiableness:

-Fair enough for Spain but Yugoslavia's economy lasted for far longer (decades) and is much better documented. It was ethnic turmoil that lead to the breakup, not economic.

Capitalism is the best system of all the systems that existed largely and long enough for us to have enough data to measure how they did.

-This is an unsupported assertion

>>Neither the USA nor the USSR had workers controlling the means of production. That's what we need for an egalitarian society.

Who do you think did do such a system? And if no one anywhere did it, despite many countries professing their favor of it and claiming they did, maybe actually having workers "controlling the means of production" is impossible. If so, you should not advocate it.

-First of all, no it is not impossible. It doesn't even require a socialist government. Worker cooperatives are examples of workers' control on the scale of a single enterprise, and they're common enough.

Argentina has several 'recovered factories' that went bankrupt under capitalist ownership, and were awarded to their workers by the courts. Several of them are now profitable without the overhead of paying a capitalist.

Ricardo Semler converted Semco to run on more egalitarian principles and wrote a book documenting it.

Putting these principles into practise on a large scale is far harder and will probably never completely be done. Yugoslavia is the best example of this.

[Anonymous No.3424629]

>>3424615

I can never connect with libertarians because we use different ethical systems.

You appear to be concentrating on rights, so you'd be using deontological ethics, right?

I'm a utilitarian, so I wouldn't say outright that 'this deserves more than that' as a blanket statement. You need to judge each situation on its own. In some cases the invididual needs to be protected from the public, in others the public needs to be protected from the individual.

[Anonymous No.3424630]

>>3424548
>>inb4 herp my economic theory says it so it must be true

If you recall, economic theory says unemployment should result in the LONG RUN as firms adjust the capital to labor ratio to increase the marginal productivity of labor. But in the short run capital is fixed. So the effects should be seen in the years after the change takes place.

But that's very hard to tease out empirically because there's so much noise. An immediate decrease of 5% employment is easy to detect. But that same decrease over 10 years is all but impossible.

I know that may not satisfy someone who does not believe there is an effect to detect. I'm just saying: economic theory also says this effect will be hard to detect empirically.

[Anonymous No.3424632]

>>3424600

What are you saying ? That just because it is politically incorrect to abandon a kid or force abortion on someone, we should live to fund the irresponsible decisions made by some slouching dung ? You know I heard somewhere in minnesota or somewhere else they expelled the illegal immigrants so in result there are 3200 job openings that nobody wants to sign. I think you should job those jobless people.

[Anonymous No.3424634]

>>3424630

[Anonymous No.3424639]

>>3424615
>if you need to force somebody's hand to save another's life, i believe in that.
This is where I disagree because it is hypocritical. That is like saying I would like this person's life to be saved, but I'm not going to do it. Or I'll rob Peter so I can give to Paul, instead of just giving to Paul (stealing is wrong bro). Helping someone who is needy is not an obligation, it is an act of benevolence, or selfishness in the case of being motivated by empathy.

[Anonymous No.3424644]

>>3424629
liar.
when was the last time you killed somebody, harvested their organs, and saved six other people's lives?
either you're admitting you're immoral or you're admitting you're a bullshitter.

[Anonymous No.3424646]

>>3424632
What are you saying? Society shouldn't try to make up for the history of it's curtailing of liberties? Do you think that you should never have to answer for your own historical behavior? Are you completely sin free in your version of life?

[Anonymous No.3424647]

>>3424632
Perfect, that means no one who lives there has any excuse or need for government handouts. Everyone can be productive in helping society by taking care of their own needs first and foremost.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3424650]

>>3424646

Do you like affirmative action?

[Anonymous No.3424652]

>>3424639
> That is like saying I would like this person's life to be saved, but I'm not going to do it.
you seem to have no grasp of the basic issue at hand.
the issue is when they don't have the resources/ability to do it.

[Anonymous No.3424659]

>>3424650
>>3424650
As much as I like eugenics. And by affirmative action, you must mean things like small business assistance and anti-monopoly laws.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3424663]

>>3424659

Uuuuh...? What?

I just meant affirmative action, like, restrictions on what percentage of your employees can be white, or any other demographic. Which I believe is the conventional meaning of affirmative action.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3424664]

>>3424644
He said he was a utilitarian. There are no morals involved. The values of actions are determined by how well and to what extent they accomplish goals.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3424667]

>>3424664

I dont think utilitarianism is amoral. It just means you are maximizing utility. What "utility" is, can be anything though.

[Anonymous No.3424669]

>>3424664
okay? replace 'immoral' with 'not acting according to utilitarianism', it doesn't make a difference.

[Anonymous No.3424671]

>>3424652
Implying there aren't impoverished people who give in their impoverished state. Bill is poor, Bill sees Peter who has no food, Bill gives him some of the food he does have.

What you are suggesting is: Bill is poor, Bill sees Peter who has no food, Bill steals Paul's food and gives it to Peter. Why doesn't Peter steal his own food or ask Paul if he can have some of his?

[Anonymous No.3424672]

>>3424663
So you don't mean laws like what percentage of money can go to small businesses, and what percentage of a market can be held by one company.

Perhaps you think theres some difference between that and any other societal belief in diversity?

[Anonymous No.3424674]

>>3424646

You seem to lose your point after couple of sentences. I won't waste time with you

[Anonymous No.3424678]

>>3424647

THAT'S RIGHT.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3424679]

>>3424672

>So you don't mean laws like what percentage of money can go to small businesses, and what percentage of a market can be held by one company.

No, I dont mean that.

>Perhaps you think theres some difference between that and any other societal belief in diversity?

Yeah, perhaps I think a lot of things. I just wanted to know what you thought about affirmative action, exactly how the word means it. But forget it.

[Anonymous No.3424680]

>>3424674
Well it's better to have loved and lost than to never had loved at all.

[Anonymous No.3424682]

>>3424679
See, you're asking about racial affirmative action, and I'm pointing out that we use affirmative action all the time in every societal sphere.

This means, unless you disagree with small business assistance, disadvantaged businesses, anti-monopoly laws, then theres no difference betweem those affirmative actions and those race related.

It's all the same to me, and you'd have to be against regulation to stop affirmative action.

But again, I assume you mean to pick an emotionally charged discussion rather than an economical one. Which is ironic.

[Anonymous No.3424687]

>>3424671
the fuck are you on about?
a) okay, he steals directly from him. does this satisfy you? of course not, why present it as an alternative.
b) uhhhh... the entire fucking point is that he is refusing to give him any food. that's why force is needed. if enough people are giving food by their own volition then there doesn't need to be any coercion in the first place, duh. the state will cease to exist when enough people are altruistic.

until then, by definition, there are people having their human rights violated, and others refusing to do anything about it when they could. THIS is the situation, now stop ignoring it.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3424701]

>>3424682

[Anonymous No.3424703]

>>3424701

[Anonymous No.3424713]

How does this make you feel

[Anonymous No.3424716]

>>3424713
Like a repost:
>>3424634

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3424739]

>>3424703

Okay, yeah, Ill be blunt I am having some problems.

You know, I havent given it a thought whether there is a difference between racial, and economic affirmative action. And I dont really care to, because either way, it doesnt have anything to do with how either of us feel about affirmative action AKA, affirmative action. Maybe you are right about this point you are trying to make, but... thats kind of unrelated to my question?

Also, there was a statement about me choosing an emotional rather than economic discussion. Whats up with that? The two are mutually exclusive? How was anything I said... emotional to begin with?

[Anonymous No.3424807]

>>3424466

>You do know that progressive tax systems take money mostly from the few right?

Yes, but I believe that taxes should be regarded as a social construct, not a burden we place on every one better off than us.

>Taking from everyone and giving to a few is what capitalism does as a system. Like it or hate it, that's how it is.

First of all, capitalism as a system, doesnt "take" from anyone, its all barter.
second of all, look around you. Is everyone living in dire poverty? How did you buy the computer your typing on?
Thats all capitalism, and its working quite nicely where I am.

>>3424473
>How about the rights of people to healthcare, education, food, water, a clean environment and safety?

People receive all that under social contracts, mild government regulations, and minor taxes.

>How about the right to work for oneself for a decent wage, instead of getting paid a pittance to work as an intelligent piece of machinery?

People will only work for what its worth to them.
Anyone being payed above minimum wage will continue to be payed that much.
And it will let people who's work doesn't justify minimum wage into the market.

>How about the right to be informed by an impartial media instead of a biased one?

Because Mother Russia had such a great and impartial news system, eh comrade?

>>3424464
The good of the public has almost always correlated with the freedom of the individual

>>3424437
>The rights of every individual trump the right of one individual.

When the rights of even one individual are infringed, then the rights of every individual crease to exist, and are replaced by the rights of some individuals

>The rights of the population trump the rights of the capitalist.

Whos rights am I infringing when I lay claim to the fruit of my labor?

[Anonymous No.3424823]

>>3424035

[Anonymous No.3424832]

>>3424807
Democracies/Republics tend to value equality over liberty.

[Anonymous No.3424845]

>>3424739

for the record, affirmative action is neither a racial policy, nor an economic one.