Thread Rating:

Poll

16 votes (76.19%)
5 votes (23.8%)

21 members have voted

mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
September 1st, 2010 at 12:28:06 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Karl Marx couldn't have said it any better.



Marx wasn't entirely wrong about many things, though his basic premise was flawed. It's not an insult (though you meant it as one) to compare my thinking to that of Marx. He was a deep thinker. But the concept of utilitarianism--the greatest good for the greatest number--goes back much farther than Marx, to Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and John Stuart Mill, all 18th-century philosophers. So the comparison with Marx is invalid--he actually didn't believe in utilitarianism; rather, he advocated UNEVEN distribution of resources according to the needs of the state, completely ignoring the happiness of any individual or class of individuals.

I don't see how anyone can object to the concept of government providing the greatest good for the greatest number. In a world of finite resources, it seems fairest to allocate those resources to where they can do the most good. That's all that utilitarianism is--it has little, if anything, to do with the theories of Karl Marx.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
September 1st, 2010 at 12:32:52 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I thought Marx DID say it. Its called spreading the misery equally, kinda like a manure spreader. Once everybody is equally miserable, and you have no hope of a better life, you die inside and half the country drowns their misery in vodka.



Marx never advocated equal distribution of resources. Rather, he postulated "to each according to his need"--by definition, an uneven distribution. In any case, no true Marxist state has ever existed---only totalitarianism in the guise of Communism/Marxism. Soviet Russia was neither communist nor Marxist---they just called themselves those things.

In any case, what I am advocating is UTILITARIANISM, a philosophy which predates Marxism by a hundred years. It has little, if anything, to do with communism or Marxism.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 424
  • Posts: 24174
September 1st, 2010 at 12:34:58 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321



I don't see how anyone can object to the concept of government providing the greatest good for the greatest number.



It doesn't work because it rewards sloth, laziness, ineptness, and stupidity. It punishes the creative, those who work hard and contribute the most. Its never worked and never will work. Duh..
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
September 1st, 2010 at 12:53:09 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

It doesn't work because it rewards sloth, laziness, ineptness, and stupidity. It punishes the creative, those who work hard and contribute the most. Its never worked and never will work. Duh..



That's based on the childishly naive and stupid premise that every person exists in some kind of vacuum. In the real world, what benefits my neighbor also benefits me, and conversely, even if I'm successful and rich, I won't be very happy if everyone around me is poor and dying.

Once again, you are confusing utilitarianism with socialism. The two concepts/philosophies are completely dissimilar.

The ultra-conservative wingnut philosophy you spew is based on the flawed premise that everyone who is wealthy got that way because of good ol' Horatio Alger pluck, hard work, and talent, while the poor are that way because they're stupid and lazy. That is an absurd notion, but it's worth remarking that it still is in the rich man's interests to not have all those undeserving poor people (as in, undeserving of life) dying at his feet. For one thing, they might cough on him.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 424
  • Posts: 24174
September 1st, 2010 at 1:13:30 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

The ultra-conservative wingnut philosophy you spew is based on the flawed premise that everyone who is wealthy got that way because of good ol' Horatio Alger pluck, hard work, and talent, while the poor are that way because they're stupid and lazy.



No, thats pretty much it most of the time. There are exceptions, but poor people in a successful country, who remain poor all their lives, are almost always lazy, or have mental problems. Sorry to burst your bubble.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14435
September 1st, 2010 at 4:41:18 AM permalink
Its time government stopped trying to protect everyone from their own folly.
Legal to get ripped off by a state run lottery but illegal to gamble at 0.48 percent house edge at a high limit blackjack table!

Besides,... we all know that females often get themselves in a spot of difficulty while gambling and get themselves out of a bit of financial difficulty in a very old fashioned manner. So bring on those 18 year old girls!!

Casinos don't care about underage gambling... they only care about their licenses.

One major casino had a pit boss who upon being presented with a 21 year old UCLA student's legitimate birth certificate congratulated the young man on his three year old Player's Club card!

I think it was hilarious when that Laughlin casino ejected the 20 year old pilot of the plane that had flown in some gamblers. He is competent and capable to fly passengers for hire but too immature to feed 2.50 into a slot machine?
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3467
September 1st, 2010 at 7:07:18 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

The largest casino in my state lets 18 year olds gamble and they act just like everybody else, except they have very little money.



Is that a state that has forfeited federal highway assistance?
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3467
September 1st, 2010 at 7:10:23 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

It still is in the rich man's interests to not have all those undeserving poor people (as in, undeserving of life) dying at his feet. For one thing, they might cough on him.



The last of the Marxist threats betrays a lack of understanding in that the so-called "rich man" would have taken adequate steps to avoid such a problem.
teddys
teddys
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
  • Threads: 150
  • Posts: 5444
September 1st, 2010 at 8:05:44 AM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Is that a state that has forfeited federal highway assistance?

I'm guessing it's an Indian casino so they don't need to worry about that. A lot of Indian casinos have an 18 year-old limit, Soaring Eagle in Michigan, for one. Federal highway assistance is forfeited if you lower the drinking age, not the gambling age, I think.
------------------------
By the way, I think the gambling age should be lowered. I think 18 is a good age for everything, as most people are going off to college, living away from home, are no longer legal "minors," etc. They should be able to make adult decisions for themselves at that point.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
konceptum
konceptum
Joined: Mar 25, 2010
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 790
September 1st, 2010 at 8:14:37 AM permalink
I never understood why there should be a difference between 18 and 21, or for that matter 16 and 18 and 21. I do think that one age should be chosen, and that should be chosen as the age of adulthood, and all freedoms and responsibilities conferred at that age.

As an interesting aside, this past weekend while playing craps, the pit boss asked to see the ID of a guy that was playing. After reviewing the ID, the pit boss turned the ID over to security. A security guy then came over and told the player that he would have to collect his chips, cash out, and leave. It seems the date of expiration of his ID, as of the day before. This, of course, was at about 12:35 in the morning, so his ID was expired for 35 minutes. And apparently he had been playing since about 10, or so he told the security guy. It was interesting to me on several levels. The security explained to the guy that kicking him out was based solely on the gaming commission. That once the ID was reviewed, and the expiration date noted, they had to kick him out, or face fines or worse. Security even told him that should he go to another casino, and they not ask for ID, he'd be ok, but once he was asked for ID and it was seen that his ID was expired, he would be asked to leave.

It was also interesting that even though the ID was legitimate, albeit expired, and clearly showed the guy's date of birth, and that he was of age to be in a casino, that the security could not use any of that information, simply because the ID was expired.

This was a Nevada driver's license, by the way. The other interesting thing is that here in Arizona, our licenses don't expire until we turn 65. So the concept of an expired driver's license took me by surprise as well.

To his credit, the guy, while expressing a bit of annoyance at having been carded and then asked to leave, put up no resistance, and did not argue with security. He just seemed hurt at having to leave.

  • Jump to: