EIRMOS:However, in society today, there are many countries w/socialized health care, w/statistics superior to the US's. And even less money is spent per person than in the US's private, capitalist health care system, yet health is worse here, on average. It's that single payer (socialization) of healthcare, costs money, but it's quite less money. Socio-economic inequality has many observable and negative side-effects. I didn't see much mention of that, in my reading of Mises.
European health care isn't that great, they mostly have better health statistics because they have less obesity and drug use, which has nothing to do with health care. In fact, if you control for these factors the US has better health statistics. Their systems don't really cost less, that's partially due to accounting tricks, but also because they get all their medical technology for free from the US. Without the US around they would probably still have 1950's technology and thus way worse health statistics. Also US health care is far from private, in fact half of health care in the US is provided by the government and the other half is heavily distorted by regulation.
Capitalism does not actually lead to "socio-economic inequality" and socialism does not alleviate it. The numbers I found show that the amount of wealth in the hands of the richest 1% is higher in Sweden than in the US. The shtick on "inequality" is just another excuse to oppose markets. When socialists lost the intellectual battle over which economic system is more efficient, they simply switched their rhetoric to inequality and the environment. But capitalism is superior to in these aspects as well.
"However, in society today, there are many countries w/socialized health care, w/statistics superior to the US's. And even less money is spent per person than in the US's private, capitalist health care system, yet health is worse here, on average. It's that single payer (socialization) of healthcare, costs money, but it's quite less money. Socio-economic inequality has many observable and negative side-effects. I didn't see much mention of that, in my reading of Mises."
How is health measured? Are there different metrics being used? I know there are different metrics being used when it comes to infant mortality, so my guess is that there are. Also, European countries have been fudging their economic data for decades not to mention that in a socialized industry you don't have real prices so it's impossible to tell if it's really cheaper or not.
I've continued replying to the OP's critique of the calculation problem in this thread: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/414.aspx
Only going to talk there about the section "3. PRELIMINARY CRITICISMS OF THE MISESIAN MODEL", where he proves that Mises had it all wrong in the first place, and that on the contrary it's the free market that is the disaster.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
What health measurement are you talking about, and from which source? Here's the equalitytrust/Wilkinson, Pickett's sources.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/methods
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/docs/responses-to-all-critics.pdf
Chapter 6: Life expectancy and infant mortality Relationships between income inequality and life expectancy have been repeatedly demonstrated since 1979 13. There are over 200 tests of this link, internationally and in the US states, and the vast majority of studies confirm the adverse impact of inequality 14. At times, the cross sectional associations have seemed to disappear 15, and reappear 16. This variability is probably caused by the long lag periods between sudden changes in income distribution and their effects on health – given that health is affected by circumstances throughout life. We do accept that this is one of the weaker associations demonstrated in The Spirit Level, although the association is clearly much stronger among US states. If the 128 studies of the relation between income inequality and health which use data for large areas (whole nations, regions, states or cities) are classified before the use of what are often inappropriate control variables, only 6% fail to show some significant associations. Two important new pieces of evidence have appeared recently. One is a study published in the British Medical Journal – a meta-analysis of multi-level studies of income inequality and health. 17 This shows unequivocally that, even after controlling for individual income or education, inequality is related to significantly higher mortality rates. (This study is almost certainly ‘over controlled’ and so underestimates the magnitude of the effect of inequality on mortality because individual income and education are related to health principally because they are markers of status.) The second is a study showing that US states with bigger increases in inequality between 1970 and 2000 had less improvement in life expectancy than those with smaller increases. 18 Saunders accepts our evidence on links between income inequality and infant mortality Conclusion: physical health is better in more equal societies and increases in inequality in US states are associated with lower improvements in life expectancy
Chapter 6:
Life expectancy and infant mortality Relationships between income inequality and life expectancy have been repeatedly demonstrated since 1979 13. There are over 200 tests of this link, internationally and in the US states, and the vast majority of studies confirm the adverse impact of inequality 14. At times, the cross sectional associations have seemed to disappear 15, and reappear 16. This variability is probably caused by the long lag periods between sudden changes in income distribution and their effects on health – given that health is affected by circumstances throughout life. We do accept that this is one of the weaker associations demonstrated in The Spirit Level, although the association is clearly much stronger among US states. If the 128 studies of the relation between income inequality and health which use data for large areas (whole nations, regions, states or cities) are classified before the use of what are often inappropriate control variables, only 6% fail to show some significant associations. Two important new pieces of evidence have appeared recently. One is a study published in the British Medical Journal – a meta-analysis of multi-level studies of income inequality and health. 17 This shows unequivocally that, even after controlling for individual income or education, inequality is related to significantly higher mortality rates. (This study is almost certainly ‘over controlled’ and so underestimates the magnitude of the effect of inequality on mortality because individual income and education are related to health principally because they are markers of status.) The second is a study showing that US states with bigger increases in inequality between 1970 and 2000 had less improvement in life expectancy than those with smaller increases. 18
Saunders accepts our evidence on links between income inequality and infant mortality
Conclusion: physical health is better in more equal societies and increases in inequality in US states are associated with lower improvements in life expectancy
Also, European countries have been fudging their economic data for decades not to mention that in a socialized industry you don't have real prices so it's impossible to tell if it's really cheaper or not.
We selected our countries according to a strict set of rules – with no departures or exceptions. We took the richest 50 countries ranked by wealth according to the Atlas method, which the World Bank uses to classify countries into Low, Medium and High Income categories. Our source was the World Development Indicators Database, World Bank, April 2004. From the richest 50 countries we excluded those with populations of less than 3 million to exclude tax havens, and then used all the remaining countries for which a comparable income distribution measure was available in the United Nations Human Development Reports.
Eirmos,
There is a logical fallacy there, one that actually caused this recession.
The bigwigs noticed that people who own their own homes have better family lives, treat their children better, are more educated and educate their children to higher levels of success, work harder, and are in many ways better and more succesful citizens than people who do not own their own home. In fact, they pay their mortgages, while those who rent tend to be deadbeats.
So they came up with a brilliant idea: Put every last man woman and child in their own home, and they will be model citizens.
Name of the fallacy: putting the cart before the horse. People have to be of good character, first model citizens etc, which will lead them to getting rich enough and responsible enough to buy a home and pay the mortgage. Just shoving a deadbeat alchohic retard into his own home will not change him. it will cause the current recession when he and millions like him do not meet their payments.
You get the idea. Poor people are often poor for a reason [=stupid, careless, irresponsible, undisciplined, etc.], and that same reason makes them live unhealthy lives. Just giving them money won't fix anything.
Now you may say I have not proven that to be the case. I don't have to. Those reports have to prove it is not the case. That's what research is about, proving stuff.
If theory or truth can't be observed, or empirically tested (at least in theory) by others then it's not falsifiable.
Suppose I wanted to try to falsify observation ("empirical testing"). How would I do this?
Eirmos, There is a logical fallacy there, one that actually caused this recession. The bigwigs noticed that people who own their own homes have better family lives, treat their children better, are more educated and educate their children to higher levels of success, work harder, and are in many ways better and more succesful citizens than people who do not own their own home. In fact, they pay their mortgages, while those who rent tend to be deadbeats. So they came up with a brilliant idea: Put every last man woman and child in their own home, and they will be model citizens. Name of the fallacy: putting the cart before the horse. People have to be of good character, first model citizens etc, which will lead them to getting rich enough and responsible enough to buy a home and pay the mortgage. Just shoving a deadbeat alchohic retard into his own home will not change him. it will cause the current recession when he and millions like him do not meet their payments. You get the idea. Poor people are often poor for a reason [=stupid, careless, irresponsible, undisciplined, etc.], and that same reason makes them live unhealthy lives. Just giving them money won't fix anything. Now you may say I have not proven that to be the case. I don't have to. Those reports have to prove it is not the case. That's what research is about, proving stuff.
So I guess my response would be that : I can (I do) volunteer at the place I get food from, I can(I do this) grow a portion or even (eventually) the majority of my produce at some point. All voluntarily intrinsic, extrinsic, and image motivated, but I need some resources to do so. Like food, water, electricity, seeds, medicine, shelter. Just b/c someone has either or both, money or a home, doesn't mean that they'll do anything about helping lighten anyone else's load, or be productively prosocial, more self sufficient, etc. . In my mind, large scale volunteering requires free access to most resources. No labor for money. Otherwise, the system may be provably inefficient and an impedement and maybe reversal of productive motivation. It's provably the promotion of false-scarcity, and anti-social behavior, not merely meant to guide the masses, but to enslave the masses. There is provably a power elite that thinks debt-control (control via debt) is the best course of action, b/c they think it has to be done, but it doesn't. *Maybe I'm jumping to too many conclusions at this point? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation
Here's another interesting study though. This helps pinpoint where the type of motivation and how environment determines it's effectiveness.
http://opimweb.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/seminars/Meier_Paper.pdf
Poor people are not necessarily any of those things b/c of monetary anything, unless society says so. Disadvantaged people are more susceptible to mental and physical problems, b/c of their life experiences, but it's usually not pre-genetically determined, it's also environmentally triggered. Somewhat related to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36HquPzdxf4
Another thing, which may seem obvious, but there was never a modern moneyless civilization. They never actually did that part of it. I'm actually not familiar w/why they never actually tried. I would like to know more facts about why Communist societies like China or former-Soviet Union didn't take it that far. In a moneyless society, the need for money would have to of been surpassed by scientific testing, collaboration, evaluation of natural resources, population, caloric needs, and so forth..
Do I have any points that seem valid?
If you wanted to falsify observation through empirical testing, you would have to of done enough research on the the topic, *constuct a hypothesis, then experiment w/a test, followed by analysis of the results. The hypothesis would be something like, "Money is necessary for an economy to function most efficiently *in that situation". . Or even "Single Payer is necessary for economic efficiency *in this situation" Then you would have to basically determine how accurate your hypothesis was in light of the experiment's results. The next test is usually based upon a revision of the origninal hypothesis..
There are studies that can draw from many statistically distinct scientific fields of inquiry..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology
"Another thing, which may seem obvious, but there was never a modern moneyless civilization. They never actually did that part of it. I'm actually not familiar w/why they never actually tried. I would like to know more facts about why Communist societies like China or former-Soviet Union didn't take it that far. In a moneyless society, the need for money would have to of been surpassed by scientific testing, collaboration, evaluation of natural resources, population, caloric needs, and so forth.." Because there are only two alternatives. Barter (which sometimes happens, but it is near-impossible to apply to a modern civilization. Also, people will want something that can easily be exchanged, which becomes money), or complete control of society (which comes with calculation problems, and breaks down into barter or money once people start trading). In the complete control, choosing it voluntarily is a trade.
And, if you are serious about saying that a moneyless society would work I would like to hear a proposal for how society would function without money or barter, if you want to show how a moneyless civilization may be viable, and adaptable to changing conditions. Unless you are willing to bring in the issue of coercion, you also need to answer why people would choose to join your civilization over a monetary civilization.
Also, doesn't charity imply barter or money?
Schools are labour camps.
Eirmos.
There have been at least two huge threads about this, the current one being one of them.
1. If you have a look at the first two or three of this thread, it summarizes my position.
I don't think scarcity is false [where will the goodies come from if no one is making them], I don't think volunteers will produce enough for everyone [why should they?], and I think Adam Smith's Invisible Hand means this:
The only way to get something in a free market is to give people what they want. Thus the very greediest become the greatest benefactors. The only way they could feed their greed was to be as generous as possible, working like dogs to benefit mankind.
I'm in the midst of this long philoshopical piece now, and am worn out for the nonce discussing socialism. My apologies.
2. Lenin and his buddies tried a no money system right after they took over. The starvation they caused has so wide spread that they gave up.
I wonder what the OP thinks should happen if the democratic concensus is to have capitlaism and individual rights?
I've always thought the term democratic socialsim was a bunch of non sense. Its only democratic for those that want socialism.
EIRMOS: Caley McKibbin:Suppose I wanted to try to falsify observation ("empirical testing"). How would I do this? If you wanted to falsify observation through empirical testing, you would have to of done enough research on the the topic, *constuct a hypothesis, then experiment w/a test, followed by analysis of the results. The hypothesis would be something like, "Money is necessary for an economy to function most efficiently *in that situation". . Or even "Single Payer is necessary for economic efficiency *in this situation" Then you would have to basically determine how accurate your hypothesis was in light of the experiment's results. The next test is usually based upon a revision of the origninal hypothesis.. There are studies that can draw from many statistically distinct scientific fields of inquiry.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology
Caley McKibbin:Suppose I wanted to try to falsify observation ("empirical testing"). How would I do this?
You misunderstood the problem of the task. You are merely saying that you try to falsify observation ("empirical testing") with empirical testing.That is not possible. It contradicts itself.
delete this post
EIRMOS:delete this post
not writing this post ;)
SKYLIEN: You misunderstood the problem of the task. You are merely saying that you try to falsify observation ("empirical testing") with empirical testing.That is not possible. It contradicts itself.
It is not a contradiction all the time. For example, whatever was tested before might not have been sufficient to really examine whats going.
In other words, if the hypothesis were derived from faulty thoery, or the test wasn't complete, someone else can construct a better hypothesis or test. And if the test results are the opposite then you have empircally falisfied an empircal observation.
I would like to know more facts about why Communist societies like China or former-Soviet Union didn't take it that far.
Lenin did try to abolish money. He changed his mind later.
Let me clarify what I meant earlier. How do you use observation to falsify the idea that observation is a reliable source of knowledge? What I'm trying to demonstrate is that at the bottom of all knowledge there is an ultimate self-evident assumption. There is no magic trick around that.
In a couple of words, "Incompleteness theorem".
Well that's not the same as doing. And Communism is not the Venus Project's RBE model (which actually is serious about a moneyless society, but whom also seek to test out their ideas, before implementing them.
Again, I seriously think that Communism is not a Resource Based Economy, b/c most of the people in TZM , and TVP including it's founders, will always deny you that .... There may be some similarities, but they could not possibly be the same. But feel free to keep asking questions. I'm not mad or anything. As far as ECP is concerned, it's not about RBE, which is b/c it never existed, nor was it mentioned and only in theory does it exist.
Of course Mises doesn't have a real argument against an RBE, b/c Mises critiques about "Socialism".. An RBE is not really what we know as Socialism or Communism. Jacque Fresco did not get the idea for the Venus Project from the Communist Manifesto, based on all the times I've heard him speak, when the subject of Communism gets brought up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHiy4EuUD2U
A guy who steals a watch goes to prison. Economically speaking, It's cheaper to give a guy a watch than put him in prison..
It's cheaper to give a guy a watch than put him in prison..
Let me clarify what I meant earlier. How do you use observation to falsify idea that observation is a reliable source of knowledge? What I'm trying to demonstrate is that at the bottom of all knowledge there is an ultimate self-evident assumption. There is no magic trick around that.
That's b/c it is replicable, and your method and all the variables are accounted for.. Say someone perfectly does the exact same experiment, based on your information, and does not observe the same results, then something isn't right, an error was made in the original record, mistranslation, fraud, and so forth. The results of the original experimenter's experiment would no longer be conclusively valid..
EIRMOS: That's b/c it is replicable, and your method and all the variables are accounted for.. Say someone perfectly does the exact same experiment, based on your information, and does not observe the same results, then something isn't right,...
That's b/c it is replicable, and your method and all the variables are accounted for.. Say someone perfectly does the exact same experiment, based on your information, and does not observe the same results, then something isn't right,...
When you try to replicate (falsify) social science or economics experiments involving, say, 300 million people over a certain territory, do you use a time-machine, tele-portation devices or some other methods of making sure that "all the variables are accounted for"? Just curious.
If after this post you think I didn't help answer that question, then define the relevant parameters of what you think is difficult to account for, w/o money. Paraphrasing ECP: -> Capital goods and labor are very heterogeneous, therefore economic calculation requires common basis to compare forms of labor and capital. The goods that cost less money are more desirable to use. That signaling and rationing function both prevent over-use of any resource. W/o money, you can't easily compare goods and services, and you wont have enough knowledge. So then bureacrats are left to the decision making, not people. I'm going to put this out there, it's just my thoughts. Empirical information (the common basis) is the key to going beyond the final frontier of the monetary utility in economics calculation. What if only those products, which are proven best by consensus and also a number of identical field testing in various and controlled situations, to be best suited for the purpose and best in consideration for natural resource avaliability, and for aesthetics if it's important too. Design the infrastrucutre so only those products were mass produced.. Open sourcing all this information through the internet, or print, and constantly updating ASAP. Also products that allow for people to research, collaborate, build and invent new and better products.Or even just produce their own.
The following presentation makes me hopeful.
Open Source Blueprints for Civilization
EIRMOS:Well that's not the same as doing. And Communism is not the Venus Project's RBE model (which actually is serious about a moneyless society, but whom also seek to test out their ideas, before implementing them. Again, I seriously think that Communism is not a Resource Based Economy, b/c most of the people in TZM , and TVP including it's founders, will always deny you that .... There may be some similarities, but they could not possibly be the same. But feel free to keep asking questions. I'm not mad or anything. As far as ECP is concerned, it's not about RBE, which is b/c it never existed, nor was it mentioned and only in theory does it exist.
Oh my God, I don't even understand how any thinking person takes this Venus project stuff seriously. It's based on first grade economic ignorance. Basically it just assumes away scarcity to imagine a post scarcity utopia. Nice trick, lol. Any system can do that. I can say that my carrot-based-economy (CBE) will be a post scarcity utopia if I simply assume that scarcity does not apply to it.
Be honest Nero, you don't have much experience w/the Venus Project or Zeitgeist Movement..
http://v-radioblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-is-venus-project-not.html
Sorry for not posting this sooner. Big error on my part too.
Does a physicist need to spend his time familiarizing himself about witchcraft and shamanism to know that their beliefs are fundamentally flawed?
You're clinging to a priori reasoning while neverminding posteriori.. Your reasoning, I'm learning, is independent of experience, and it's not on par w/ the standards of modern science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Empiricist_objection
An ontological argument for the existence of God attempts the method of a priori proof, which uses intuition and reason alone.[1] The argument examines the concept of God, and states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist.
Eat your words.
I didn't say anything about communism. Try to dispute what I said: The Venus project simply assumes that scarcity does not apply to their system. With that little trick any economic problem vanishes into thin air, and they can imagine a utopia without money or work. All that talk about robots and efficiency is just distraction.
ERIMOS- Be honest, have you read all 8 pages of this post? I thought this thing was squashed when apfel left. We decided the ECP is real and unsolvable, and even if you could wiggle around this, you would have to completly change "human nature."
try http://media.mises.org\video\MU2009\12_Salerno_MU2009.wmv...good stuff
I like what Stefan Molyneux said about the computer that builds all the best stuff in the world. He said that to know human preferences as intimately as the computers building all the stuff, that machine would have to posess an superhuman intelligence and may decide that it does not need the humans all that much. My part is that when it comes to that conclusion it decides to rid itself of humans, the humans would not stand a chance against it as it would control the production of everything that humans need to survive. So the whole project has in its utopia sown the seeds for its own destruction.
EIRMOS: You're clinging to a priori reasoning while neverminding posteriori.. Your reasoning, I'm learning, is independent of experience, and it's not on par w/ the standards of modern science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Empiricist_objection
False Dichotomy. One is not used where the other is not(Or shouldn't be). Instead both methods are mutually used together when there exists an honest effort to discover truth. It is false to assume that aprioristic reason is used in place of posteriori and vice versa. The two are complimentary as far as discovering truths are concerned. For it is aprioristic reasoning that helps us understand and interprit empirical results(probability dilemma of a coin toss).
The empirical sciences which reject reason repeatedly publish studies which contradict themselves regularly every few years.They look rather silly every time it happens(Which is frequent).
But all of this is besides the point. Your arguments are without empirical merit anyways. Additionally anyone can tweak the variables so that the empirical data is twisted in their favor. Absent any reasoning any studies provided are meaningless. I could present an empirical study to you which allegedly proves witchcraft exists. Whats the point? There is more empirical data and more theoretical support for that data for markets then you could ever dream of having support your own arguments, and your own argument lacks a coherent theory. (You cannot and will not ever be able to get past the calculation issue)
EIRMOS:An ontological argument for the existence of God attempts the method of a priori proof, which uses intuition and reason alone.[1] The argument examines the concept of God, and states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist.
Except that the premise is easily falsified, via reason. So when you make a statement "Eat your words". Human action is a bit more difficult to denounce.
Eirmos:Eat your words.
Is the antagonism necessary? I suppose anyone who rejects reason as a means to discover truth has nothing else to offer.
You responded to what I said about RBE and Communism.. And you say a lot of things w/o much weight. . . TVP s not a political ideology. You don't seem to know how to argue outside of political conceptualizations, which is not what the TVP is about. It's not utopian a priori science fiction. The idea is to fix our culture by redesigning it, based on the principles of modern science.
Bogart: I like what Stefan Molyneux said about the computer that builds all the best stuff in the world. He said that to know human preferences as intimately as the computers building all the stuff, that machine would have to posess an superhuman intelligence and may decide that it does not need the humans all that much. My part is that when it comes to that conclusion it decides to rid itself of humans, the humans would not stand a chance against it as it would control the production of everything that humans need to survive. So the whole project has in its utopia sown the seeds for its own destruction.
Me, several pages ago. And I've said this repeatedly every month this topic comes up.
The idea is to fix our culture by redesigning it, based on the principles of modern science.
I just spit up my Coke all over the computer monitor. How in the world can you use science to "redesign" such an abstract, generalized concept as culture? Moreover, what even is the current United States "culture"? Can it be quantified, measured, or even accurately described?
EIRMOS:It's not utopian
Yes it is. You expect computers to predict the subjective preferences of every man, women, and child on earth. Your making a claim that you can create an omniscient being. Even more hilarious is you think empriical evidence is on your side.
Tog get around this many TVPers argue that human behavior will predictably change. But this can just be dissmissed as desperate nonesense. When it gets to that point they've lost.
I don't even think you comprehend what your arguing and It's very clear you don't know what the economic calculation problem is. Regretfully many members of this forum also do not understand it and often mis-represent it's signifigance.
Rcder: The idea is to fix our culture by redesigning it, based on the principles of modern science. I just spit up my Coke all over the computer monitor. How in the world can you use science to "redesign" such an abstract, generalized concept as culture? Moreover, what even is the current United States "culture"? Can it be quantified, measured, or even accurately described?
TVP has admited that in order for their model to work human's must fundamentally be different. They must behave different and hold different preferences. All we have to do is sit back and lol at that. The argument defeats itself.
Assumptions aside, men. Obviously reason isn't always compatible w/objective reality. As an example: Failures are more highly probable as direct causative result of social inequality.. This means economic inequality is causative to many health and crime problems. **To say otherwise, is not acceptable if you can't actually falsify it.
Can we provably not, objectively determine subjectively experienced needs and also meet them? Can we provably not, objectively determine how to maximize certain behaviors while minimizing others?
EIRMOS:Failures are more highly probable as direct causative result of social inequality.. This means economic inequality is causative to many health and crime problems.
Inequality does not have any social consequences whatsoever. Poverty may cause problems, excessive wealth may, but inequality is just a comparison. Besides, no social engineering scheme in history ever managed to reduce inequality.
Eirmos: Obviously reason isn't always compatible w/objective reality.
After reading this are we suppose to assume future discourse with you would be productive/meaningful? I mean I don't typically go out of my way to talk to people who reject reason. How could you?
Eirmos:s an example: Failures are more highly probable as direct causative result of social inequality.. This means economic inequality is causative to many health and crime problems.
Again, a perfect example of someone who draws a conclusion posteriori absent any priori guidance. Let me add one to the pile. In NYC, during the summer, icecream sales coorelate with homocide rates. Clearly icecream should be banned.
Point aside, the methods by which you measure inequality is flawed. No one study makes any coherent sense in their assessment of what is or should be equal. The very concept of inequality itself is nonesensical. So ofcoare your going to draw nonsensical conclusions.
Thanks for providing such an eloquent example of nonesense. (You really need to consider long and hard if the methods employ maximize your success in discourse with your fellow man, help you discover truth, and help you understand the world around you. Or if instead they just leave you more confused.)
Assumptions aside, men.
Okay, they're aside.
Obviously reason isn't always compatible w/objective reality.
...what.
As an example: Failures are more highly probable as direct causative result of social inequality.. This means economic inequality is causative to many health and crime problems.
How this is a refutation of reason, I don't know. Has anyone here claimed that poverty doesn't drive people to do life-changing and damaging things?
Can we provably not,
Proving a negative is impossible. The burden of proof is on you to prove to us that scientific management of the economy (an idea that has existed since the Progressive Era) is workable.
objectively determine subjectively experienced needs
Are you serious? Reread that sentence again, I'll let you find the blindingly obvious error.
Can we provably not, objectively determine how to maximize certain behaviors while minimizing others?
You can try. It's called social engineering, and the results are typically quite messy.
I wasn't refuting reason.
I also wasn't implying that posteiri was better than priori.
I am saying that reason must change in accordance w/scientific inquiry. .. Science must be priori and posteiri..
Now how are you guys actually disagreeing w/me, after clearing that up?
Say there are problems, like crime rates rising. In this situation my intuition is alarmed, and my attention shifts to the variables revolving around these problems.
You are right about that. I was also implying that there already is evidence that we can.