Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (15258)	3/23/2010 8:11:22 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

I've always suspected the libertarians were at heart an delayed rebellion against authority. Different type of authority. A government or other controlling authority is someone who can tell you what to do (or at least is going to try). An "Argument from authority" refers to the idea of accepting something is right just because of who says it. Its the more positive version of, or mirror of an ad-hominem argument (which is essentially that an argument or claim is wrong or should be dismissed because of the person or group making it). In terms of formal logic an argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Something isn't wrong or right based on who said it. In more informal terms, its an idea often used, because people can't be experts on everything and tend to differ to others who are, or are perceived as, experts. In that sense its less a fallacy than a weak argument. Arguments from authority are weak for several reasons prominent among them is the fact that not everyone accepts the same authorities (and different authorities will give different answers, you can find an "expert" who will support just about any remotely popular position, and many unpopular ones). In this case I don't think I accept any authority on the estimates of future costs, whether or not I'd agree with their estimates, they are essentially different opinions. If the opinions are back with facts and logic, then we have to look at the facts and logic, not just decide whether we like it based on the person or group making it. Another weakness in arguments from authority is that even for the most respected and generally accurate authorities. Even one that both sides agree is a good authority, can still be wrong (and will often be wrong in cases like this). Beyond the general weaknesses in arguments from authority, the fact is the CBO has proved itself to be a lousy authority in this area. Its gotten it significantly wrong, almost every time (in fact as far as I can tell you can drop the "almost", and just say "every time", but I may be missing some time when it got it right, so I'll leave the almost in). Every successful country in world history had a strong central government Which has little to do with the idea of a government that tries to control most of society. A strong central government is one that has the legal and physical power to take care of its areas of responsibility (or at least to override attempts to stop it, even without a successful attempt, the government could just fail, power doesn't imply intelligent implementation of policy). "Strong central government" doesn't mean "a central government that tries to do everything. To the extent that central governments have chocked off market forces, and substituted political control you've tended to have a decline in growth. Humans are the most "socialist" animal on the planet. It's our basic nature... we nurture and support each other and that raises the entire species. "Nurturing and supporting" and "socialism" are two entirely different beasts.