Thread: Pres. Obama, between a rock and a hard place.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Many people might believe that was their experience, I flatly disagree with them. Like I flatly disagree that free will exists, it's all in the same bag.

Society produces us, society produces every one.

eh, well, agree to disagree then. sounds like we have opposing philosophies about life.

Indeed, unfortunately, only one of them can be backed up by anything more than 'that's just how I think it is'

Good day.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Many people might believe that was their experience, I flatly disagree with them. Like I flatly disagree that free will exists, it's all in the same bag.

Society produces us, society produces every one.

And society produced the thought process that made you arrive at your conclusion that society produces people (which actually is the nurture debate). And if there is no free will, everything is arbitrary and the rich are no different from the poor, they didn't have control of their actions in the first place.

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

And society produced the thought process that made you arrive at your conclusion that society produces people (which actually is the nurture debate). And if there is no free will, everything is arbitrary and the rich are no different from the poor, they didn't have control of their actions in the first place.

Indeed it did, I am a product of society, quite a good one I think. That is my working hypothesis, which can be observed, until I am presented with evidence to the contrary, that is what I'm working with.

I'm not sure a lack of free will makes things arbitrary, though I would be interested to hear your explanation of that.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Indeed it did, I am a product of society, quite a good one I think. That is my working hypothesis, which can be observed, until I am presented with evidence to the contrary, that is what I'm working with.

I'm not sure a lack of free will makes things arbitrary, though I would be interested to hear your explanation of that.

In fairness, I guess I would have to hear more about how free will doesn't exist (the conceptualization can change conclusions). If you mean that there is absolutely no free will, and that actions are reduceable to reactive products of external factors, no one is responsible for their actions. Everything is a result of random factors in a temporal chain. All actions past and present meld into one whole (as far as "meaning" goes), and differentiation between individual events is pointless. My love for my wife becomes a byproduct of society, my attempts to work hard are not really attempts, but reflexive reactions to previous and current events... Essentially we become automatons.

Now that's all fine if this is your philosophy, but lack of free will unavoidably leads to arbitrariness. (yeah it is a real word, had to check it though... Be a good one for scrabble).

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

The point I failed at making is that it doesn't make sense for a big shot to use their "influence" to elect officials that want to tax the crap out of them, cap CEO salaries, or regulate their business.

Mr Corporation makes a dollar, the govt charges 50cents in taxes, Mr Corporation passes the costs to the consumer, so now Mr Corporation still has a dollar after paying taxes. What does Mr Corporation care about paying taxes, its not his money.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Mr Corporation makes a dollar, the govt charges 50cents in taxes, Mr Corporation passes the costs to the consumer, so now Mr Corporation still has a dollar after paying taxes. What does Mr Corporation care about paying taxes, its not his money.

I see your point, but I don't think it is realistic. There is a restricted range ad to how much can be accounted for with price increases. The markets can only support so much of that. And mr corporation cares a lot about having his salary capped... They are money hungry devils after all. It serves Mr corporation the most if they don't have to compensate for the 50 cent tax, and they can expand their enterprise or get into more markets.

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

I see your point, but I don't think it is realistic. There is a restricted range ad to how much can be accounted for with price increases. The markets can only support so much of that. And mr corporation cares a lot about having his salary capped... They are money hungry devils after all. It serves Mr corporation the most if they don't have to compensate for the 50 cent tax, and they can expand their enterprise or get into more markets.

one word...

deregulation!

its REALLY realistic...
Since they are not regulated they do whatever they want...so what they do...don't compete...

Originally Posted by pio

one word...

deregulation!

its REALLY realistic...
Since they are not regulated they do whatever they want...so what they do...don't compete...

I disagree (bet you didn't see that coming), deregulation doesn't mean that anyone has to buy a given product. When people get sick enough of paying, someone with ambition recognizes an opportunity to make a ton of money from those who are unsatisfied, and creates a new market alternative.

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

I disagree (bet you didn't see that coming), deregulation doesn't mean that anyone has to buy a given product. When people get sick enough of paying, someone with ambition recognizes an opportunity to make a ton of money from those who are unsatisfied, and creates a new market alternative.

that would be perfect if it was how the US worked...
sadly thats not OUR reality...
the big business will either destroy the new guys, take over them, or make them one...some call that greed...some call that capitalism...

reality is...Oil deregulation cause the $4+ gas prices...and will cause the 100$ per soon...

reality is deregulation caused the Mortgages meltdown...