Forum:Libertarianism, loauv vs rob
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
From the Saloon Bar.
Libertarianism[edit]
Quoting RobSmith/nobs: "C'mon, seriously. $4 million in taxes and $4 million charity in just one year. That's $8 million. Christ, Rmoney has created more jobs than Obama ever did, and paid those workers high wages out of his own pocket, simply by hiring a contractor to build him a three car garage." Anecdotal. On his own ignoring what he did in government, sure, he made more jobs. I am concerned about making a happy, materially wealthy, free society. I do not believe the policies supported by Romney will get us there. I do not believe libertarian policies work. Thus, in that sense, in their hypothetical roles as president, Obama will surely do more to make our society happier, more materially wealthy, and free. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- That just has not been the record. Look at the poverty rates. Look at CNN Fact Check.Net Loss of Nearly 1 Million Public-Sector Jobs Since Obama Took Office. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cool story, bro.
- So you're saying we should expand the public sector. Glad we agree. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- The one million public sector jobs lost are vastly state and locality jobs, not federal. This presumably is the result of (a) democratic elections; (b) unwillingness of voters to raise taxes to support public sector payrolls, benefits, and pensions; (c) not directly related to federal deficits or Obama. nobsCorporations are people, too 16:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, you're apologizing for just citing evidence that has nothing to do with Obama, when you used it to attack Obama? So, you were in complete error? I'm sorry, I can't have conversations with people if they're unwilling to admit error when they're wrong. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again, you miss the point. CNN Fact Check calls the DNC & Obama's claim of creating 4.5 million jobs complete bullshit, and CNN cites the fact 1 million public sector jobs have been lost during Obama's tenure. Obama claims the election is about different visions, his of big deficits & public sector growth, and Rmoney's of private sector growth which then allows for public sector growth. I'm not in disagreement with anyone about anything. I'm just presentling facts and evidence. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I mentioned that libertarian policies don't work. You tried to present counter-evidence, using Obama as an example of a not-libertarian. You presented your evidence as "Net Loss of Nearly 1 Million Public-Sector Jobs Since Obama Took Office". You then clarified that Obama had nothing to do with it. If you do not see the intellectual dishonesty inherent in that framing, then I will have nothing more to do with you. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Libertarian" is a broad umbrella term, and the line of attack on Romney generally is he's devoid of a core ideology, so it's a moot point. Now, the public sector being totally dependent upon the size, growth, and expansion of the private sector is probably not simply a libertarian tenet. Those who hold the view the public sector can grow at the expense of a static or shrinking private sector probably are outside the mainstream of modern academia and public opinion. nobsCorporations are people, too 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's not an admission of guilt nor an apology. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I mentioned that libertarian policies don't work. You tried to present counter-evidence, using Obama as an example of a not-libertarian. You presented your evidence as "Net Loss of Nearly 1 Million Public-Sector Jobs Since Obama Took Office". You then clarified that Obama had nothing to do with it. If you do not see the intellectual dishonesty inherent in that framing, then I will have nothing more to do with you. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again, you miss the point. CNN Fact Check calls the DNC & Obama's claim of creating 4.5 million jobs complete bullshit, and CNN cites the fact 1 million public sector jobs have been lost during Obama's tenure. Obama claims the election is about different visions, his of big deficits & public sector growth, and Rmoney's of private sector growth which then allows for public sector growth. I'm not in disagreement with anyone about anything. I'm just presentling facts and evidence. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, you're apologizing for just citing evidence that has nothing to do with Obama, when you used it to attack Obama? So, you were in complete error? I'm sorry, I can't have conversations with people if they're unwilling to admit error when they're wrong. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- The one million public sector jobs lost are vastly state and locality jobs, not federal. This presumably is the result of (a) democratic elections; (b) unwillingness of voters to raise taxes to support public sector payrolls, benefits, and pensions; (c) not directly related to federal deficits or Obama. nobsCorporations are people, too 16:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- So you're saying we should expand the public sector. Glad we agree. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cool story, bro.
Frankly, you lost me. The point is, yourself & Mr. Obama evidently are in that minority that believes expanding government payrolls while shrinking private sector payrolls somehow is beneficial to the overall society. This is complete nonsense according to generally accepted economic scholarship and public opinion, worldwide. nobsCorporations are people, too 01:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- You have to be a troll, or have your head so far up your own ass. Read this whole thing again, starting at the "libertarianism" topic. I said "libertarianism doesn't work". You said "nuh uh, see how Obama's policies fail?" (itself full of fallacies). You later said "well, those job numbers I just cited, they don't anything to do with Obama". That is what we call dishonesty, or at least inconsistency. I still await an admission that your first quote about Obama was totally off mark, either by accident which you later corrected, or off mark with malicious intent. I await a statement of wrongdoing, an admission of guilt, and an agreement that you won't do it again. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- <schools LoAUV in the art of rhetoric> You said, "I do not believe libertarian policies work." BFD. Saying it does not make your personal beliefs factual or even remotely resemble reality. The premise of your argument was a personal belief. I cited the factual, historical record. I further presented evidence that Obama's love of federal deficits did not directly lead to public sector jobloss (although an indirect case can be made). I further cited evidence the democratic will of the electorate opposes Obama's love of tax increases (while reserving comment on the wisdom of "austerity measures").
- If I stated, "I believe you are a troll", does that make my premise valid? Your argument is faulty, being entirely based upon your stated personal belief. Fuck, maybe I'm offended by such naivety. Maybe you should apologize to me, and admit your guilt. Would that, then, make me "win" the argument? nobsCorporations are people, too 10:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- "The one million public sector jobs lost are ... not directly related to federal deficits or Obama" and "I further presented evidence that Obama's love of federal deficits did not directly lead to public sector jobloss (although an indirect case can be made)" ... Pick one you goddamned hypocrite. Either he is responsible, or he isn't, and to what degree. Don't say he's not responsible but add in that he is responsible. That is intellectually dishonest. Either way you've contradicted yourself at least 4 times thus far. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- So you seem to be discussing the personal popularity, fate, fame and fortune of one particular man, whereas I am discussing basic policy initiatives and systemic problems in the U.S. economy. Let me express point blank -- I could give a fuck about your sentiments toward your fantasy heroes. If you wish to discuss problems troubling 13 million unemployed, 40 million underemployed, the 165 million adults in America and the 150 million plus dependent children, fine. Let's do that. But fuck Obama. His approval and popularity ratings have nothing to do with how 312 million Americans will live the rest of their lives. nobsCorporations are people, too 21:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're the one who brought it up first. One argument at a time. Explain how your initial citation of Obama, his policies, and his effect or his not-effect on public sector job-loss relates to the claim libertarianism does not work, or admit that you initially posted a non-sequitir. Then, agree that you've contradicted yourself several times, and clarify for future reference whether you believe whether Obama was responsible for the public sector job-loss which you cited and initially claimed. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- USA Today reported during Obama's first 100 days that the federal government is the largest source of revenue for the states. The ARRA largely provided aid to public sector workers in the states, and did jack-diddly shit for private sector workers. One can only theorizes that a Pelosi/Reid filibuster proof congress would have done more over the years, but voters not only shit canned a Democratic House, they elected several reform governors and state houses. This is how democracy works. Voters wanted austerity, not tax increases, which Obama has constantly called for. We can discuss the wisdom of austerity, but Obama's failure to build consensus in the country certainly can be cited as a cause why public sector jobs have been lost. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're the one who brought it up first. One argument at a time. Explain how your initial citation of Obama, his policies, and his effect or his not-effect on public sector job-loss relates to the claim libertarianism does not work, or admit that you initially posted a non-sequitir. Then, agree that you've contradicted yourself several times, and clarify for future reference whether you believe whether Obama was responsible for the public sector job-loss which you cited and initially claimed. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- So you seem to be discussing the personal popularity, fate, fame and fortune of one particular man, whereas I am discussing basic policy initiatives and systemic problems in the U.S. economy. Let me express point blank -- I could give a fuck about your sentiments toward your fantasy heroes. If you wish to discuss problems troubling 13 million unemployed, 40 million underemployed, the 165 million adults in America and the 150 million plus dependent children, fine. Let's do that. But fuck Obama. His approval and popularity ratings have nothing to do with how 312 million Americans will live the rest of their lives. nobsCorporations are people, too 21:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- "The one million public sector jobs lost are ... not directly related to federal deficits or Obama" and "I further presented evidence that Obama's love of federal deficits did not directly lead to public sector jobloss (although an indirect case can be made)" ... Pick one you goddamned hypocrite. Either he is responsible, or he isn't, and to what degree. Don't say he's not responsible but add in that he is responsible. That is intellectually dishonest. Either way you've contradicted yourself at least 4 times thus far. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
False dichotomy, Obama and libertarianism[edit]
I can't spell it out any simpler than this. I claimed that liberatarianism doesn't work. You cited Obama. How is this fucking relevant? This is not multiple choice. You are doing an argument from false dichotomy. Proving Obama's policies suck do nothing to demonstrate that libertarian policies work (compared to all alternatives). LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's simplify things and talk about the Output Gap; I could, if you wish, go into detail to explain what it is, how we got here, how it relates to unemployment, etc. nobsCorporations are people, too 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd prefer you to resolve with me the existing issues, namely: Do you think Obama is responsible for the public sector job loss, and what does that have to do with my claim that libertarianism does not work? If the claim is irrelevant, I want you to admit that, and admit that your first post was a non-sequitir. If Obama is responsible, I want you to admit that you were dishonest in your later posts where you said he wasn't responsible. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- No. 1, Obama is responsible because he makes himself responsible. He has at times attack the policies over the past 30 years, however now he seems to limit it to 10 years seeing that Bill Clinton is campaigning for him. Secondly, the one million public sector jobloss occurred during his tenure; in 2008 he blamed McCain for jobloss during Bush's tenure, so he is being held to his own standards, as I stated above. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd prefer you to resolve with me the existing issues, namely: Do you think Obama is responsible for the public sector job loss, and what does that have to do with my claim that libertarianism does not work? If the claim is irrelevant, I want you to admit that, and admit that your first post was a non-sequitir. If Obama is responsible, I want you to admit that you were dishonest in your later posts where you said he wasn't responsible. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
How much of a libertarian are you?[edit]
I first need to see how much of a libertarian you are. Are you with me in having the government have taxes in order to incentivize the taking of some vaccines, like the polio vaccine 50 years ago when it was prevalent? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Public education perhaps, as well. Things like the minimum wage or FDIC however, which do not draw on a tax base, are a different matter. nobsCorporations are people, too 21:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- What about stuff like the FDA? EPA? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes and yes, being fully cognizant of the potentials for abuse and corruption. Fannie Mae OTOH is directly related to why we are having this discussion right now. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do agree that the specific federal interference in the housing market and the bubble it helped create over the last 30~ years was a major driver of the recent crisis. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, so you aren't a libertarian, right? Is the following a fair interpretation of your initial post of disagreement at the top of this page? "I agree that libertarianism doesn't work. I think that Romney is not a libertarian, and I think his economic policies are better than Obama's." If so, I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I thought this was a discussion about libertarianism, given that's how I very clearly framed it at the start, and thus I thought it was not a discussion of Obama's policies vs Romney's policies. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am a libertarian in that I'm suspicious of government and believe in the rights and responsibilities of individuals. I am pragmatic and less and less ideological with age. I am untrusting of certain ideologies hostile to individual rights and responsibilities, and hostile to ideologies that worship at the altar of government. I know why civilizations form themselves into governments with police forces and armies -- to protect trade and the businessman -- the people who support government with taxes. When governments bite the hand that feeds them -- the businessman -- it is time to reform government. nobsCorporations are people, too 01:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes and yes, being fully cognizant of the potentials for abuse and corruption. Fannie Mae OTOH is directly related to why we are having this discussion right now. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- What about stuff like the FDA? EPA? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Personal belief[edit]
When I say "I believe X (to be true)", that is merely a statement that I consider the proposition X to be true. Maybe I think it's true for justified reasons. Maybe I don't. The statement "I believe X (to be true)" encompasses both of those positions, and more. It is not definitively a statement of personal faith. This is how I'm going to use the word, and this is how a great many other people use the word, so suck it up, and drop this uber pedantic mode if you would, please. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- You say above, "When I say "I believe X (to be true)"...Maybe I don't [believe X to be true]" That's just psychotic nonsense. nobsCorporations are people, too 21:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did not say that. I said when I say I believe X to be true, I am sharing my conviction that it is. I am not necessarily sharing that I am well justified. I am not necessarily sharing that I take that position on faith. I am merely and only sharing my conviction that the proposition X is true. What is so hard to get about this? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, now that you got your head screwed on right. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did not say that. I said when I say I believe X to be true, I am sharing my conviction that it is. I am not necessarily sharing that I am well justified. I am not necessarily sharing that I take that position on faith. I am merely and only sharing my conviction that the proposition X is true. What is so hard to get about this? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
argument ad populatum (sp), for Obama's policies[edit]
"I further cited evidence the democratic will of the electorate opposes Obama's love of tax increases (while reserving comment on the wisdom of "austerity measures")." Argument ad populatum (sp). How is this relevant to the question of whether libertarian policies work (compared to all alternatives)? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- People voted for budget austerity and against tax increases when they shit-canned the Democratic Congress and castrated Obama. If Obama wants to ignore the will of he people, let him do so. Let him face the voters once again. But everyone knows America is in for more decline and rising poverty for another four years if he is re-elected. nobsCorporations are people, too 22:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- The first part of any honest debate is to focus on one issue at a time. We are going to focus on whether libertarianism works, and whether your initial citations involved Obama constitute a relevant citing of evidence to contradict the claim that libertarianism does not work. I am not going to let you continue to throw shit on the wall and see what sticks. We are going to focus and resolve the already existing issues before moving on. This argument ad populatum is irrelevant. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- People evidently voted for what you describe as libertarianism, and rejected Obama's "economic policies", to the extent that he ever had any. It is my personal belief he not only does not understand anything at all about economics, the budget, and business, he never had any economic program, choosing rather to "lead from behind" the budget priorities of Nancy Pelosi & Co. who focused on feeding their own interests, and not helping the unemployed find work in the private sector. Being a personal belief however, I could be wrong. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- The first part of any honest debate is to focus on one issue at a time. We are going to focus on whether libertarianism works, and whether your initial citations involved Obama constitute a relevant citing of evidence to contradict the claim that libertarianism does not work. I am not going to let you continue to throw shit on the wall and see what sticks. We are going to focus and resolve the already existing issues before moving on. This argument ad populatum is irrelevant. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Surely the crux of libertarianism is to question whether the use of violence against the individual is morally justified for the 'greater good'. And who has the moral authority to make and implement that decision and action? Everything else is just 'gish gallop'? Dirk Steele (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Drive-by trolling[edit]
Libertarianism is MUCH better than liberalism. However, it still supports politically correct, liberal hogwash regarding marijuana and porn, and should not be supported. — Unsigned, by: I am extremely politically INcorrect / talk / contribs 2012-10-31T00:48:12
- The question is more aptly framed, Does libertarianism buy lunch? vs Why does liberalism enable freeloaders? nobsCorporations are people, too 00:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is highly inadvisable to buy lunch using abstract concepts. Next thing you know, you'll be asking if anarchism can fold bedsheets.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not really; according to a UK website the phrase was originally invented by a libertarian. The problem here is, the same guy the Brits call a libertarian, Americans call Progressive. nobsCorporations are people, too 21:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is highly inadvisable to buy lunch using abstract concepts. Next thing you know, you'll be asking if anarchism can fold bedsheets.
- Can anyone explain the difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism. I get confused. Who has hijacked which term? Liberal in Europe means lassez faire. (This is a USA only question). Thanks. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Means different things to different people. I'm a "follower" of Mill. You may want to start by reading that. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Can anyone explain the difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism. I get confused. Who has hijacked which term? Liberal in Europe means lassez faire. (This is a USA only question). Thanks. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well I am not sure about utilitarianism. If the majority is made more 'happy' by exploiting the minority slaves then is this moral? Also.. have you completed the politial compass questionaire? Where do you stand? http://www.politicalcompass.org/test Dirk Steele (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- While many people may attribute such naive utilitarianism to Mill, that's not what he actually wrote. I suggest you read the whole rationalwiki page on him. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- As for your questionaire... This one-dimensional chart and two-dimensional chart is total bullshit. For what little it's worth (IMHO near nothing): Economic Left/Right: -4.62 \ Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well I am not sure about utilitarianism. If the majority is made more 'happy' by exploiting the minority slaves then is this moral? Also.. have you completed the politial compass questionaire? Where do you stand? http://www.politicalcompass.org/test Dirk Steele (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Me? Economic Left/Right: -0.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10. It would be interesting to collate the main RatWiki contributors. — Unsigned, by: Dirk Steele / talk / contribs 2012-10-31T02:04:47
- Ok I will read further. You mentioned the concept of utilitarianism which I thought meant the happiness of the majority is more important than the fulfilment of individual desire. I am most likely wrong as usual. Also I do accept that the political compass questions (not mine!) have a cultural bias in order to create a certain result required by those that have created those specific questions. It is nonscience. But interesting. I am skeptical about most things. Dirk Steele (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- "If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. And we’re going to fix it. If there is a screw up, we're going to fix it." --No better example of utilitarianism spoken from the mouth of a great leader in recent decades than this. nobsCorporations are people, too 03:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Very few tragic events are optimal, That it was a tragic event in human terms was also part of the Commander in Chief's message that time. Did you see the facepalming on the part of the Daily Show host, at how the right-wing propaganda machine took that sound bite so far out of context it was gasping for air? You, Rob, just did your part in the bearing of false witness, and can fuck right off for it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- For the benfit of us Europeans on this board can you explain what the fuck you are talking about? Dirk Steele (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Murdoch-and-friends message machine tried to use some tightly focussed cherry picking/quote mining to paint Obama as a heartless automaton who called the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi "not optimal." Rob, repeating that as if it meant something, is a smirking liar. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the usual Rob style of non-sequitur distraction from the topic at hand. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- blah blah blah... tell it to the families of the victims, "My Son is not OPTIMAL, my son is very DEAD." nobsCorporations are people, too 12:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cool story, bro. Go ahead on, spinning the deaths of other people's kids into your politics. Then there was the gazelle I met in Libya who would eat cigarette butts out of people's hands, since that's evidently what we came here to talk about. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, what do you suppose Obama considers an optimal number of deaths in the storm? nobsCorporations are people, too 20:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Rob ought to know what "begging the question" means, but seems to be a facetious cunt instead. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, what do you suppose Obama considers an optimal number of deaths in the storm? nobsCorporations are people, too 20:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cool story, bro. Go ahead on, spinning the deaths of other people's kids into your politics. Then there was the gazelle I met in Libya who would eat cigarette butts out of people's hands, since that's evidently what we came here to talk about. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- blah blah blah... tell it to the families of the victims, "My Son is not OPTIMAL, my son is very DEAD." nobsCorporations are people, too 12:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- For the benfit of us Europeans on this board can you explain what the fuck you are talking about? Dirk Steele (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Very few tragic events are optimal, That it was a tragic event in human terms was also part of the Commander in Chief's message that time. Did you see the facepalming on the part of the Daily Show host, at how the right-wing propaganda machine took that sound bite so far out of context it was gasping for air? You, Rob, just did your part in the bearing of false witness, and can fuck right off for it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- "If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. And we’re going to fix it. If there is a screw up, we're going to fix it." --No better example of utilitarianism spoken from the mouth of a great leader in recent decades than this. nobsCorporations are people, too 03:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok I will read further. You mentioned the concept of utilitarianism which I thought meant the happiness of the majority is more important than the fulfilment of individual desire. I am most likely wrong as usual. Also I do accept that the political compass questions (not mine!) have a cultural bias in order to create a certain result required by those that have created those specific questions. It is nonscience. But interesting. I am skeptical about most things. Dirk Steele (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)