Cuts to UK Science Research and Student Grants:

[Seth]

FFS. Can't you fucking read??!

Yes, I can.

No, you can't. The answer to your question is on this very page.

Yes, I can. There is no answer found anywhere in anything you have ever attempted to write, since day one at RDF.

[piscator]

Fuck that. OPM pays my company's entire payroll!1!

Of course it does, but your company doesn't have the power to simply take what they want from others to make payroll, it has to negotiate and provide value for value. Socialist governments operate on the basic economic principle that everybody is entitled to what everybody else has, even if they don't do a lick of work to earn it, so the government has to take from those who do work in order to give money to those who don't.

Big difference.

Rigid dichotomy strawman that exemplifies why you get so little traction with your differentials locked on "Barry Goldwater". The free market has already decided what kind of government it wants. You're trying to tell it it's mistaken.
Any questions why you're broke?

It's not a free market, and that's the point.

So the free market of political ideas is somehow being manipulated so that people in representative republics always seem to choose some level of Socialism? Or is it just not a free market of ideas, and that's what historically prevents people from universally forming night watchman states founded on the bedrock of full laissez faire capitalism?

[pErvinalia]

FFS. Can't you fucking read??!

Yes, I can.

No, you can't. The answer to your question is on this very page.

Yes, I can. There is no answer found anywhere in anything you have ever attempted to write, since day one at RDF.

Fuck off, troll.

[pErvinalia]

Fuck that. OPM pays my company's entire payroll!1!

Of course it does, but your company doesn't have the power to simply take what they want from others to make payroll, it has to negotiate and provide value for value. Socialist governments operate on the basic economic principle that everybody is entitled to what everybody else has, even if they don't do a lick of work to earn it, so the government has to take from those who do work in order to give money to those who don't.

Big difference.

Rigid dichotomy strawman that exemplifies why you get so little traction with your differentials locked on "Barry Goldwater". The free market has already decided what kind of government it wants. You're trying to tell it it's mistaken.
Any questions why you're broke?

It's not a free market, and that's the point.

So the free market of political ideas is somehow being manipulated so that people in representative republics always seem to choose some level of Socialism? Or is it just not a free market of ideas, and that's what historically prevents people from universally forming night watchman states founded on the bedrock of full laissez faire capitalism?

It's because everyone other than Seth and his extreme right libbo buddies are "Marxist Useful Idiots". It's interesting that on one hand Seth thinks that the majority of the population are brainwashed by Marxist propaganda, but on the other hand he advocates the 'rational actor' theory of market management (i.e. free markets). One one hand the free market in ideas is corrupted by Marxism, but on the other he claims that a free market in economics would somehow work. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

[Seth]

FFS. Can't you fucking read??!

Yes, I can.

No, you can't. The answer to your question is on this very page.

Yes, I can. There is no answer found anywhere in anything you have ever attempted to write, since day one at RDF.

Fuck off, troll.

No, you fuck off trollbait.

[Seth]

Fuck that. OPM pays my company's entire payroll!1!

Of course it does, but your company doesn't have the power to simply take what they want from others to make payroll, it has to negotiate and provide value for value. Socialist governments operate on the basic economic principle that everybody is entitled to what everybody else has, even if they don't do a lick of work to earn it, so the government has to take from those who do work in order to give money to those who don't.

Big difference.

Rigid dichotomy strawman that exemplifies why you get so little traction with your differentials locked on "Barry Goldwater". The free market has already decided what kind of government it wants. You're trying to tell it it's mistaken.
Any questions why you're broke?

It's not a free market, and that's the point.

So the free market of political ideas is somehow being manipulated so that people in representative republics always seem to choose some level of Socialism? Or is it just not a free market of ideas, and that's what historically prevents people from universally forming night watchman states founded on the bedrock of full laissez faire capitalism?

When the government interferes with the market by imposing laws and regulations intended to pick winners and losers in the market it's not a free market. It doesn't matter how it gets that way. "Democracy" and "free markets" are not at all the same thing.

[pErvinalia]

Are you saying the public isn't getting what they are voting for? Which is it? Are the public marxist useful idiots, or are they rational economic actors?

[Seth]

Are you saying the public isn't getting what they are voting for? Which is it? Are the public marxist useful idiots, or are they rational economic actors?

The public and the free market are not at all the same thing. The public may get what it wants through democracy, but that only means that the majority can be tyrannous, and usually is. What the public "votes" for has nothing to do with free-market economic principles.

The fundamental core component of free markets is the individual right to the exclusive use and ownership of private property. Any regulation that interferes with that right takes the "free" out of "free market."

[pErvinalia]

The principle of the free market that I am talking about is "rational actor theory". That is, individuals left to make their own "rational" choices will lead to the best outcome for society. Now I know you believe in this bollocks, so that is why I am raising it. If you believe that individuals are "rational actors", then why do you doubt their voting intentions regarding politics (given the economy is the major issue people vote for or against)? Basically, depending on which bullshit you are peddling, citizens are either duped idiots or they are highly rational beings. Which fucking one is it?

[Seth]

The principle of the free market that I am talking about is "rational actor theory". That is, individuals left to make their own "rational" choices will lead to the best outcome for society. Now I know you believe in this bollocks, so that is why I am raising it. If you believe that individuals are "rational actors", then why do you doubt their voting intentions regarding politics (given the economy is the major issue people vote for or against)? Basically, depending on which bullshit you are peddling, citizens are either duped idiots or they are highly rational beings. Which fucking one is it?

It depends on how you define "the best outcome for society." Socialists believe that the "best outcome" is economic and social equality for all, without regard to how that equality is achieved.

Individuals are rational actors only when their choices are not constrained by the political and legal environment within which they live. When the government taxes a wealthy individual in order to support a dependent class individual, the wealthy individual is not acting rationally because he is being compelled to contribute to the support of the dependent class, something which a rational actor might or might not do on his own.

Rational actor theory requires that the individual be allowed to act as he or she chooses to act, and it holds that most people are rational actors and will act in their rational self interest when it comes to organizing and operating the society. This does not mean that every individual will be a rational actor, it means that overall society will act rationally when left to it's own devices to do so.

Democracy is not a part of rational actor theory. Rational actor theory in fact denies majoritarianism by necessity because majoritarianism is the opposite of rational individual action, it is in fact compelled action that is all too often entirely irrational.

Therefore, in a society where the majority rules, rational actor theory doesn't apply because once the majority discovers it can vote itself largess from the public treasury, it will always elect those who promise the most government benefits even when this is entirely irrational, which it perforce is, because to obtain the money to fill the public treasury, the government must interfere with the rational actions of individuals and force them to act irrationally by supporting a welfare state that can only end in social bankruptcy.

Rational actor theory does not particularly care about those who refuse to or fail to act rationally you see. Rational actor theory says that what's best for society is that each individual be free to make his or her own choices about their economic condition and future, for better or for worse.

Rational actor theory says that if you are rational, you won't become dependent on government for your living, and if you do, then you are not acting rationally. It also says that other rational actors may find it rational to support you if the causes of your dependency are beyond your control and by no fault of your own because if you are supported through a crisis period, you will eventually become productive and independent again.

But rational actor theory also says that if you are simply indolent or unwilling to act rationally, then you are undeserving of the support of the society and the rational thing to do is to allow you to suffer the consequences of your sloth and idleness in the hopes that you will become rational and decide to put some effort into caring for yourself and becoming a contributing member of society.

Socialism doesn't care whether a dependent class individual is acting rationally or not, it purports to "care" about all individuals and is willing to force others to labor on behalf of the dependent class whether or not the individuals in the dependent class are rationally worthy of that labor or not.

And that's one of socialism's primary failings: it creates and maintains a perpetual dependent class, and it does so quite deliberately because when the individual depends on the government for his survival, he will do whatever the government tells him he must do to gain the largess from the public treasury, including voting to keep the ruling elite in office, where they can profit enormously by skimming money and power from the top before allowing some pittance remaining to trickle down to the dependent class to keep them mollified.

That's not rational.

[JimC]

Are you saying the public isn't getting what they are voting for? Which is it? Are the public marxist useful idiots, or are they rational economic actors?

The public and the free market are not at all the same thing. The public may get what it wants through democracy, but that only means that the majority can be tyrannous, and usually is. What the public "votes" for has nothing to do with free-market economic principles.

The fundamental core component of free markets is the individual right to the exclusive use and ownership of private property. Any regulation that interferes with that right takes the "free" out of "free market."

In most Western countries the essence of that property right is true, putting to one side your "tax is theft" obsession...

As always, you are attacking a socialist straw man that simply does not exist anywhere except your own imagination...

[pErvinalia]

yep.

[rainbow]

Bloody students. What have they ever done for us?

[pErvinalia]

You know what they've done? They learned to critically think and can see how irrational and selfish conservatives are. Hence why neoliberal governments always look to pare back universal education.

[rainbow]

You know what they've done? They learned to critically think and can see how irrational and selfish conservatives are. Hence why neoliberal governments always look to pare back universal education.

Easily solved with some Chemtrails and some fluoride in the water.