Thursday, March 6, 2014

Is Congress An Expert On You?

Absolutely zero results found for "Is Congress An Expert On You?"  Is that surprising?

Reply to:  Obamerate - To Destroy Individual Foresight

*********************************************

"Parroting" implies I'm simply repeating without understanding. So no, I'm not "parroting" other people's material.

If you tell me that the items that your wife places in your shopping cart are far superior to the selections that you would have made...then this would make sense. Why? Because she probably knows your preferences better than anybody else does. She's an expert on you.

If you're a theist and you tell me that you believe that the items that God places in your shopping cart are far superior to the selections that you would have made...then this would also make sense. Why? Because clearly you believe that God is omniscient. If God is omniscient then he too would be an expert on you.

For some reason you believe that the items that congress places in your shopping cart are far superior to the selections that you would have made. Why do you believe this? Seriously...why is this something that makes sense to you? Can you please explain it?

Is congress also an expert on you? How so? Because you voted for them? Because you sleep with all of them every night? Or maybe congress is not an expert on you...but it's ok because somebody doesn't have to be an expert on you to know what items should be placed in your shopping cart?

You won't explain it because you can't explain it. There is no explanation. It's just a stupid and harmful tradition that the majority has yet to question. I know this because I've actually studied the topic.

How did you become an atheist? Were you born an atheist? If you weren't born an atheist...then what religion were you raised to believe in? How strong a faith did your parents have?

Personally, I was raised as a 7th Day Adventist. That's what I believed to be true. But then, when I was around 11, I started to learn about evolution...and it made far more sense than what I had been led to believe.

Survival of the fittest makes sense. Organisms that are better adapted to their environment will outperform the competition and gain more control of limited resources. Any organisms that have combinations of traits that decrease their fitness will lose control of limited resources. If they fail to adapt then they will go extinct.

If we created a market in the public sector...some government organizations will be fitter than others. And who will determine fitness? Consumers. It would be up to consumers to decide which government organizations should gain more control of society's limited resources.

Just like parrots want a tasty fig tree to gain more control of nature's resources...so too would consumers want a very beneficial government organization to gain more control of society's resources. The alternative is nonsense. Let's force parrots to consume figs which don't match their preferences? Let's force people to sacrifice their blood, sweat and tears to government organizations that fail to provide blessings? Let's take limited resources from beneficial government organizations and give them to harmful government organizations?

Parrot sovereignty makes sense but taxpayer sovereignty does not?

If taxpayers can't choose which public goods they put in their shopping carts...then the cost/quality/variety of public goods will certainly reflect this.

No comments:

Post a Comment