I will have to pass. I am already suffering from oughtism.
Of course. So now it begins the moral-subjectivism-game. Since the parasites believe that they are the pillars or society it follows…what exactly ?
The point of my statement is that state-employees do not have the unilateral class-interests necessary for a libertarian revolution of “parasites” v. “non-parasites” a la the proletariat revolution.
The moral-subjectivist game is an attempt at the sociological imagination, trying to figure out what motivates those individuals, and it thus follows that there is no unilateral class-interest between all governmnment-workers that strong differs between the interests of workers in the private sector.
They have a singular employer. It is not as if we are talking about employee’s from a variety of professions.
Its not that simple: government-employees are employed by differing departments of the government, and inter-departmental differences can be massive at times.
This coming from the man who several pages ago was using Occam’s razor.
A) Occam’s razor cannot be used to oversimplify the evidence, only to ensure that the theory being utilized is the most economical with the evidence, and B) I never used Occam’s razor, rather I was showing how Nigrahm was abusing Occam’s razor. I suggest you actually counter me with something other than a false snide remark next time you respond.
My mistake on Occam’s razor. However, it still stands that governmental employees are employed by a singular institution. Hypothetically if I work for Yamaha instruments and a friend is employeed by Yamaha ATV’s that does not mean we are employed by a different corporation. We are both employeed in Yamaha, just different sub-divisions of the same corporation.
Surely the government is an institution per se; nevertheless, it is a very complex animal, with many independent, side-by-side bureaucracies, and departments that definately do not share the same purpose, ergo interests, and might not even be completely friendly with one another. To complicate matters you have regional divisions between governments that may very well include differing ideologies between each other.
Resulting from this will be that the “class” of government-employees will be anything but homogenous, and that “class” will be nothing other than a descriptive category.
Nonsense. When faced with their own abolition you seem to infer that they will not band together to save their source of income. Honestly, you are overcomplicating a simple truth in an effort to divert the main point of this topic: perhaps a mistake you made in this thread, or perhaps your unwillingness to establish economic class conflict due to the establishment of the state apparatus.
That is not necessarily an outcome of my point, and the belief that they will band together to save their source of income is ridiculous at best without any prior experience. Even worse, you cite no prior phenomena to support this thesis, rather you assume we can validate such an idea on an a priori basis.
I’m showing how the entire premise of this thread is an oversimplification of a very complex reality made to fit into an ideologically-acceptable box that has the usual us v. them fairy tale implied.
There are no “economic classes” per se, they are at best analytical tools to describe the a mean tendancy of a group of individuals to be used as each case-study necessitates. Individuals act out of their own interests, not those dictated to them by their economic status. In addition, the entire idea of “class conflict” throws to the wind methodological individualism for groups do not act, only individuals do.
A priori common sense. Would you just willingly give up your source of income simply because people [ strangers ] didn’t like the way you did business?
No you are being purposely obtuse for some unknown reason that I have yet to discover.
Hypothesizing that governmental employees want to secure their livelihood is rational logical deduction. It is no more contradictory to state that government employees will band together to secure their jobs then it would be to say that home owners will band together to secure their neighborhood.
A priori common-sense is nonexistent, common-sense is very much a posteriori.
For academic quality.
Far too many variables for a “rational”, logical deduction. There are too many interests that influence individuals’ actions in such a scenario for any such deduction to be little more than a whimsical prediction.
Really? So deducing that all bachelors are not married is not common sense? Of course making such a deduction is a priori.
So you claim.
Nonsense. You know that I am correct in stating that individuals will protect their interests and the more individuals that can be persuaded to do such a thing the better the protection. Therefore when presented with the end of their income…perhaps something that have been doing for decades, you seem to think that they will just give it up and not fight and persuade others to fight with them.
That is not common-sense: that is an analytic a priori judgment. Common-sense is empirical, and is also falliable, hence not a priori.
We do not know the situation they are faced with, and thus our predictions are, at best, shots in the dark; for instance: if the odds of them getting new jobs is higher than fighting for their old jobs sucessfully, then it follows that them not fighting for their jobs is a logical prediction.
So you are claiming that a priori is infalliable?
Actually we know the situation: They are faced with the end of their income. An a priori prediction is that they fight to save it.
The analytic a priori, and synthetic a priori judgments all lead to true statements, as long as there is not a fault in the person’s reasoning.
How dependable is their current source of income? What are their own ideological judgments of value? Will they be able to find new sources of income relatively quickly? Is it worthwhile fighting for their current source of income?
Those are all questions that we don’t know about the situation, and because of that lack of information, we cannot make a worthwhile prediction as to the behavior of those individuals in question. In addition, revolutions don’t happen overnight, and the entire situation changes as the revolution rippens; it is beyond our knowledge what that situation would be if there were to be a libertarian revolution of sorts.
Therefore infallability in not dependent on a priorism itself but the individual utilizing it. Therefore a priori statements can in fact be based on common sense since a priorism is not equivolent to known truths based on sensory depravation
Nonsense. We can make rational deductions based on human logic and action as to which is the more likely event to occur. If you are so quick to state we have know idea how an individual is to act in the social sphere, how could you ever make an economical prediction? Or do you believe that economics cannot grasp the future, only the past?
No, an a priori statement, whether analytic, or synthetic, is true, otherwise it is not an a priori judgment, but an error.
You are not making sense here.
One needs to know the basics of the situation before one can make a prediction as to what are the most likely events to occur.
Economics does not exist to make predictions, and it cannot make predictions even close to the calibar of the physical sciences because there are far too many factors to account for, and all the information necessary to truly make such a prediction is decentralized throughout the entire economy - by the time you collect it, its relevance to the future has greatly diminished.