> Raw reasoning and logic is not constantly changing.
That's exactly why it's a better foundation for economic conclusions.
Why would you keep requesting evidence even after acknowledging that there's evidence every which way? Anyone can just cherry-pick evidence that suits them, but where does that leave us?
Reasoning based on correct premises works pretty well though.
> I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms.
Let's just say I've seen those terms thrown around, but they're vague and obtuse enough to be practically meaningless. That's hardly surprising, considering their main use is rationalizing government intervention.
For example, no economy can ever reach "pareto optimality": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_optimality .. because every single voluntary exchange leaves both participants better off, because otherwise they wouldn't go through it. Since value is subjective, it really is enough that they both perceive a benefit in the trade.
If you want to argue against that, you'd have to somehow magically know how much I'd be willing to pay for a Ford Fiesta tomorrow at 4pm. But you can't. No one else can. Just like I couldn't possibly know your preferences at some given moment in time.
So yeah, pareto optimality is nonsense, as explained above, and so is a lot of the other stuff involved in these discussions. That's part of why I demanded definitions.
> I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion.
You'd have to look to the Austrian school of economic thought for that, but all of them would agree with me.
> This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries.
All the services you list are provided by people working for a living. Do you want to claim people need governments to tell/force them to work for a living?
> I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing.
No you don't. No one wants to be robbed, any more than beaten to a pulp with a baseball bat. What you might be thinking is that you're willing to pay for those services, but that would also apply without getting robbed.
> At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.
That's exactly why it's a better foundation for economic conclusions.
Why would you keep requesting evidence even after acknowledging that there's evidence every which way? Anyone can just cherry-pick evidence that suits them, but where does that leave us?
Reasoning based on correct premises works pretty well though.
> I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms.
Let's just say I've seen those terms thrown around, but they're vague and obtuse enough to be practically meaningless. That's hardly surprising, considering their main use is rationalizing government intervention.
For example, no economy can ever reach "pareto optimality": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_optimality .. because every single voluntary exchange leaves both participants better off, because otherwise they wouldn't go through it. Since value is subjective, it really is enough that they both perceive a benefit in the trade.
If you want to argue against that, you'd have to somehow magically know how much I'd be willing to pay for a Ford Fiesta tomorrow at 4pm. But you can't. No one else can. Just like I couldn't possibly know your preferences at some given moment in time.
So yeah, pareto optimality is nonsense, as explained above, and so is a lot of the other stuff involved in these discussions. That's part of why I demanded definitions.
> I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion.
You'd have to look to the Austrian school of economic thought for that, but all of them would agree with me.
> This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries.
All the services you list are provided by people working for a living. Do you want to claim people need governments to tell/force them to work for a living?
> I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing.
No you don't. No one wants to be robbed, any more than beaten to a pulp with a baseball bat. What you might be thinking is that you're willing to pay for those services, but that would also apply without getting robbed.
> At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.
You're right about that :)