Conservatives-republicans-libertarians, do you practice a system of closed logic?
I started with a question focusing on what I consider contradictions between the “mutually consensual voluntary” relationship and the “forced” relationship (link for reference but not necessary viewing).
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201...
In response to my initial question, I solicited such comments as the following on the subject of unions (note, I introduced the context ‘thug’ and the respondent is explaining why the characterization applies appropriately to unions):
“A THUG must be paid or serviced in exchange for NOT screwing with you.”
“With Unions it's your money or your job.”
The union proposition is an exchange of payment for positive services, advocacy and representation. That is NOT a “pay me or I will do something to harm you” proposition, that is a “pay me and I will provide a service” proposition. Even if you think it’s a joke, even if a union fails to perform, the issue is performance and it does not alter the quality of the proposition… so, the premise “with unions it's your money or your job” is a prejudicial and incomplete assessment of material fact but this is not the subject of my question, this is about the quality of your logic.
If you insist the ‘mutually consensual voluntary’ nature of the union relationship is pure charade masking the underlying coercive and forcible truth, in my estimation that is a perfectly legitimate argument and furthermore, I think it demonstrates complexity of thought and skilful critical analysis of complicated subtlety… SO… is the mortgage relationship between creditor and debtor a “pay me and I provide a service” proposition or is it a “pay me or I will do something to harm you” proposition if you insist the ‘mutually consensual voluntary’ nature of the relationship is pure charade?
Does your complexity of thought and skilful critical analysis of complicated subtlety transfer seamlessly to examination of that relationship? Does your system of logic open and close selectively based on your sentimental inclinations or do you think something else better explains this glaring omission?
Update:LV426: I remind you (and in fact this applies to most of you), the subject is not unions, the subject is your system of logic. Everything you just said about unions, you could not just as easily say about mortgages if you were so inclined? The question is: DO YOU PRACTICE A SYSTEM OF CLOSED LOGIC? -and based on your response, your system of logic is evidently so closed, you cannot even grasp the concept of transfering it intact to another subject but instead just heap more irrational flawed assumption atop irrational flawed assumption. Thank you for your honesty.
Update 3:The second of your unchallenged flawed assumptions is my now favorite classic cliché: “Unions will prevent or terminate your employment if you don't pay their dues.” Tell me, will mortgage lenders “prevent or terminate” my habitation of a domicile if I “don’t pay”? Is that the single only thing they do? Is that the single only possible way to describe or even interpret the relationship or does some pretense of a ‘service’ precede those circumstances? If I characterize the mortgage relationship in that fashion, you have WHOLE LOT OF **** TO SAY about that, don’t you?
THE SUBJECT IS NOT UNIONS, the subject is your system of logic and how you apply it but your undisciplined hatred of humanity and society along with the mere appearance of the word ‘union’ has you so blinded with rage, you can’t even comprehend the subject matter you are reading. There is not one molecule of objective thought or logic to you, pal. You are reciting learned phrases with no more independence or sophistication
Update 5:than a parrot and since the long dead Ayn Rand will not be issuing you any “leadership approval or executive order” to modify your thought any time soon, your condition is apparently permanent. Don’t even bother responding, I already have all the answer I am ever going to get from you: CLOSED LOGIC! Thanks for the confirmation, thanks for proving my point for me and thanks for making it all so easy.
Comments
Hmm...
The answers are pre-ordained. They just need to be shoehorned into questions as they come up.
The fact is that the right believes in advancing its own agenda no matter what it takes, which involves only selective agreement with the law, including honoring of contracts. ∠°)
All Logic is a fixed or 'closed' system.
A word has a fixed definition. An action or object must meet that definition for the word to apply.
So you asked why Cons apply the word 'thug' to union activists but not corporate activists.
Now if we agree a 'Thug' is someone who must be paid or serviced in exchange for NOT screwing with you.”...
AND that Unions will prevent or terminate your employment if you don't pay their dues.
Then Unions meet the definition of 'Thugs'
Unions are not Thugs because they sell employment negotiation services...
...They are Thugs because THEY will prevent your employment if you DON'T buy their 'service'.
You are not a Thug if you sell neighborhood businesses protection... You are a Thug if you are selling them protection from YOU.
Society works on the notion of fair exchange. Typically money in exchange for some good or service. Sometime it's money now in exchange for more money later. While the agreement is voluntary, honoring it is NOT. If you pay for a product you do not get, if you provide a product you are not paid for... that is HARM. And within the law you may seek redress.
So yes dear, if your Union fails to provide the service they charged you for - they are thieves & have harmed you.
If you fail to pay back the money you have borrowed, YOU are a thief & have harmed your creditor.
And if you cannot distinguish between a Thug demanding unearned payment & a Creditor demanding repayment, you have no place in civilized society.
" Even if you think it’s a joke, even if a union fails to perform, the issue is performance and it does not alter the quality of the proposition"
Wow. Can I give you the "apologist of the day" award? If other models fail to perform, we nail them to the wall. Why does the concept of union work get a pass when it fails?
Union workers tend to * love * their jobs. Very few seek to leave them. Why? Because, it's essentially an insurance policy against employer action for poor performance.
I could, essentially, put a lawyer on retainer to advocate for me in the event of my dismissal from my non-union job. Of course, it won't go anywhere.
Most employers in union shops don't even want to deal with the hassle and simply shunt the poor performer off to a place where they'll do the least damage.
For people without much of a work ethic (or at least lacking initiative), a union/employee relationship is * perfect *. Force them to join? Holy crap, they'd be lined up to fork over a few bucks to ensure their lazy attitude is protected for the next 20 years.
I haven't any concept what you're asking Do you propose neo-cons (Bush, Thatcher etc.) and libertarians (ron paul) properly Neo-cons have faith in socially conservative, better militia yet nonetheless much less taxes Libertarians on the different hand are frequently laissez-faire, and that they've faith that the governement does not have the final to impose any regulations that infringe on ones liberty it is the subject with the political spectrum, the two must be seen conservative. in case you're asking what a republic is, properly that's barely a sort of parlaiment, the place the pinnacle of state isn't a monarch.
So, you don't feel that you've made yourself look stupid enough on this subject yet?
Trying to pass the "pay me a bribe or you're not allowed to have a job" off as a "service" is amazingly idiotic. These are the kinds of "services" that organized crime "provides" to people all the time.. which is telling as it's virtually impossible to separate unions from organized crime, the two are so closely integrated.
The second bit of laughable ignorance here is trying to separate unions from “pay me or I will do something to harm you.” It's laughable because we ALL know violent unions have always been.
You fail.
Democrat voter, who is a union member, elects Democrat. Democrat promises higher pay, via taxes, to union worker. Union figures out the scam and takes proceeds of union workers and donates them to Democrat, without asking the union members individually if this was ok by them. Democrat gets re-elected and again promises more pay and benefits to be shouldered by the tax payer.
That's what the answerer meant. It's a scam with the management and the employee siding against the tax payer. And it is the reason why unions have no place in the public sector.
Please define what you mean by "a system of closed logic" as if I were a child. Never heard of it.
A libertarian may not be necessarily a coservative-republican. It might be one who identify oneself simply with liberty in all aspects of life - not knowing exactly how to apply the "liberty" concept in all contexts, perhaps.
There is such a thing of volition in the nature of a human being, therefore one can act according to one's will (voluntary) or one can be forced to act AGAINST one's will. These two actions distinguish the type of economic society one wants to live in. Humans only have two alternatives for survival in a social context: they can deal with one another like animals, stealing, robbing and murdering each others or they can produce and TRADE. Trade is a concept that pertains only to humans who can USE logical thinking and have discovered the VALUE of acting accordingly.
Verbal masturbation. Why don't you take some writing lessons so you can write more economically? You've said in 400 words what could have been said in about 30.
It's been my observation that conservatism is a logic based ideology that requires discipline and unwavering principles. If you read this as "closed logic" then it's because your system does not hold fast to any set of principles. Your "principles" change in an almost whimsical fashion that can't be explained logically. This is why conservatives and liberals will NEVER see eye to eye.
I practice a system of dynamic logic.
I assume first that I don't know enough to create my own conclusions. Then I take all valid information from the environment and draw conclusions from that. The fact that the world is always changing is what makes my logic dynamic.
Unless you believe in Right to Work, your entire premise is flawed, as membership in an external organization as a condition of employment is a form of extortion.