In the UK Houses of Parliament they have a register of member's interests - such that any potential biases MP's bring to the debate are known to others. Perhaps that might be a good practice for philosophers.

Told you so!

There aren't any evolutionary skeptics.

Yeah, well, some thought experiments were intentionally constructed to exemplify a theoretically impossible situation.

And, if I’m putting my knowledge in a locker, fercrissake.....let’s just make it an isolated system, forego all that entropy stuff.

But it was fun to play with, while it lasted. — Mww

This is a thought experiment for adults. People who have some knowledge and life experience to store. I'm guessing from your tone you're about 14 - going through that dismissive phase. We've all been there - don't worry about it, you won't come across as a wanker forever.

Re labels, it would just be "family," "friends" etc. If you were looking for dividing up knowledge into categories, that would be different than focusing on influences. — Terrapin Station

For me, one of my labels would certainly read 'the need to know what's true' - but in that locker, would be hidden a difficult childhood, in a troubled family in which I was the youngest child - and my parents and elder sister made great sport from constantly lying to me, and fooling me to make an idiot out of me. Without going into too much more detail it gave me a desperate 'need to know what's true.' So that's how I'd label that locker.

But that's just me. It could be anything. Song lyrics, nature walks, Mr Phillips my amazing math teacher - anything! It could be your first three lockers were labelled Plato, Aristotle, Socrates - suggesting you were heavily influenced by the development of Greek philosophy, or those three labels could read Greek philosophy, Christianity, science - which describes in overview, the European mindset. I honestly cannot tell you what I'm looking for up front. But the more people participate the better the meta analysis.

I’m not making fun of the OP, honest; I just don’t have a clue how I would accomplish what it wants. I suppose, though, if the negation is so much easier than the affirmation, there’s something wrong with the exercise to begin with. — Mww

Oh boy, is that a mistake! Reality is subject to entropy - which means the easy road leads ever downward unto stagnation and death. Everything good is uphill, and going uphill requires effort. We need to expend energy just to stand still - or we fall apart. It's an absolute physical law.

As for this exercise, it's a thought experiment. Einstein didn't actually throw a guy off a roof when thinking about gravity, and similarly, you're not actually dead. It's a hypothetical scenario that creates the objective distance from your knowledge - that you can categorize it. A thought experiment.

, if I could have understood what your main influences are -
— karl stone

If you want to know that, it's probably better to just ask it in a straightforward manner, and then you could request that we keep our answers to 10 categories or whatever.

It's not the easiest thing to list, because there's so much overlap or so much of a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but for me, I'd probably say (as a top 10, with some effort to order them, though that kind of fell apart in the middle):

(1) family, especially parents, maternal grandfather, sisters, a couple particular uncles and aunts, as well as wives
(2) closest friends
(3) teachers, especially high school and university as well as private music instructors (and also the music teacher at my elementary school)
(4) general work experience, including doing the work itself, reaction to the work, interaction with colleagues, etc.
(5) philosophy in general
(6) the sciences in general
(7) views of artists, including people I've worked with (I've mostly worked in arts & entertainment)
(8) the arts from a consumer perspective--films, music, novels, video games etc.
(9) leisure experience/travel etc.
(10) media more broadly, including Internet interaction — Terrapin Station

Thanks for trying this. I appreciate it's not easy to condense the sum of your knowledge into 12, or 10 categories - and there is no right answer. But I was looking for the labels on the locker door, not the contents of each locker.

How you go about labeling the lockers is one of the interesting things. Still, from your list, I see that you had a lot of influential people in your early life, or I somewhat prejudiced your selections by the things I suggested in my earlier post. That's something I was trying to avoid. I think you must have had a good life though, that's pretty clear. And it's that kind of thing that can be deduced as meta analysis. That's what I'm trying for. Thanks again for being the first person to take this at all seriously.

That's interesting - thanks everyone. I'm reminded of a realization from the early years of my philosophical journey; which was that I was searching for a trap door, a back door, an escape hatch, a trick, the secret code - or whatever, as a quick and easy way to knowledge and power. Maybe it comes from the Adam and Eve story - they eat the apple, and kerching! knowledge of good and evil!

What I found instead was that knowledge is a never ending climb - with plateaus now and then, that offer new and increasingly extraordinary vistas. Early on - there was a tendency to imagine, that each plateau was the summit, but I soon realized that people always think they're right. Even when they apologize for being wrong "I'm sorry, but I didn't know that x, y, z and therefore..." Yeah, you were wrong, but would have been right if reality were different. Everyone always thinks they're right - and are willing to deny reality to maintain that belief, while searching for the magic apple.

It would have been useful to me, if I could have understood what your main influences are - how you would categorize and describe your knowledge. Things like: my mother, religion, school stuff, TV, science - those kind of broad headings. I don't want to invade your privacy, but instead what I got is a load of smart-arse remarks, which is just as telling in its own way.

1. It's the listening part where you learn.
3. Possibly a translation thing but I always interpreted "speaking up" as taking a (verbal) stance against injustice and unfairness — Benkei

1. If you're going to be pedantic, it's the thinking part where you learn.
2. What happened to 2?
3. And for motherhood and apple pie?

I can make do with the following three points I'm confident enough to impart as wisdom you can live by:

1. Nobody ever got smarter by talking
2. Oefening baart kunst it's similar to "practice makes perfect" but with the important distinction that "kunst" doesn't mean perfect but "art" or "craftmanship"
3. Speaking up is golden, silence is oppression — Benkei

1. Socratic dialogue?
2. Catchy!
3. Inane chatter being the happy medium, I suppose?

Is the idea here that all my knowledge is interconnected, and I therefore have no way to label the lockers, other than simply label them all "knowledge"? — Echarmion

Looks like there's going to be a queue!

That's a dodecalemma ;)

Anyway, what use is my knowledge to me if I have died? — SophistiCat

Must a dilemma have only two possible outcomes? Maybe the dilemma is do as instructed, or don't. Now you don't move on. Humans!

"Stressed out by Brexit? I have a mindfulness exercise for you, one guaranteed to bring calm. Instead of imagining a deep, cool lake or a beach of bone-white sand, comfort yourself by imagining the day, several years from now, when a Chilcot-style inquiry probes the epic policy disaster that was Brexit. As you take deep breaths, and with your eyes closed, picture the squirming testimony of an aged David Cameron under sustained interrogation. Look on as Boris Johnson is at last called to account for the serial fictions of the 2016 campaign. Or perhaps contemplate the moment the panel delivers its damning, final report, concluding that this was a collective, systemic failure of the entire British political class."

Let's fund the NHS instead!

How low can they stoop! The Guardian is reduced to cribbing my forum posts for its headlines. — unenlightened

Here's the headline,

MPs have voted for a fantasy. It’s an indictment of our entire political class
Jonathan Freedland

but the byline is more interesting:

History will damn the architects of Brexit – and the politicians on both sides whose delusions are leading us to disaster

If they can identify them!

Cameron hid his part in stoking anti-immigrant rhetoric and pushing for a referendum from 2005 - behind fake advocacy of Remain, and May obliged him by cancelling the EU ID card scheme in 2010, sacking the long term head of the borders agency Brodie Clark, screeching from the Home Office about the Human Rights Act as it relates to immigration, anti-immigrant billboard vans driving round the streets, while doing nothing to fulfill Cameron's unbelievable tens of thousands pledge on immigration - allowing 660,000 immigrants into the UK in 2015, and publishing those figures during the 2016 referendum campaign period, in which both Cameron and May declared themselves Remainers.

So now, the Tories can blame the whole thing on EU intransigence and "the will of the people" - while their money is taking a tax break in Panama, the economy crashes and they come back relatively richer, and with an excuse for further deregulation and austerity forever after!

Those are the facts - and they are entirely absent from the UK media.

Two things. One: nihilism neither contains nor upholds any value that requires one accept nihilism. When you realize this, you can just reject it.

Two: we know the purpose of a thing from its nature. So we must ask, fundamentally, what is our nature? Human beings are evolving from ignorance into knowledge over time. We inherit the benefits of past struggles to survive, and to know, in order to breed, and pass on that information. And therein lies our purpose - to live, to know to live. To take what has been handed down to us and use it to the best of our ability to provide for the future.

On paper, the prognosis is good.
— karl stone

Without a global coalition to do it? Are you thinking that China will do it unilaterally? I mean, notice how vehemently Euros hate Americans and it's the same culture. How could a global coalition come into being? — frank

I do not suggest a globalist approach. I suggest regionalism. Regional trade blocs are emerging all across the world, EU, AU, ASEAN, and so on. These do not suffer, to the same extent global government would suffer, from the problem of perceived legitimacy. Regional government has a natural interest in promoting internal markets - which promote human welfare, in turn necessary to slow the growth of human population. Further, because nations tend to trade most with their immediate and close neighbours - the cost of regulations applied across a region like the EU, with 28 countries, are mitigated, because a cost that applies equally to direct economic competitors is not a competitive disadvantage. So regional government can afford to have higher regulatory standards, and the market is too large to be threatened by big companies wanting a race to the bottom for profit.

My great-grandfather saved bits of string and aluminum foil and passed them down. I inherited them and use them to filter out alien broadcasts and lies from Donald Trump.

You meanwhile go on and on about aluminum production costs while completely unprotected. You do the math. — frank

Is that a threat? I understand the things I'm talking about are sensitive - but given the little I have to lose, and the possibly infinite opportunity cost for humankind, I cannot in good conscience concede to any such threat. I seek to fulfill what I see as a naturally occurring obligation, to take what has been built from sticks and stones by the struggles of all previous generations, to secure the future for humankind. It is technologically possible to support a large human population sustainably. The difficulties are ideological - and I'm trying to deal with those questions honestly and sensitively. On paper, the prognosis is good. We are actually very well placed to achieve sustainable markets, providing for high standards of human welfare, leveling off at around 11 billion people by 2100. But not if we stick our head in the sand.

I happen to be an expert on both aluminum and clarifying shampoo. This is me: — frank

So how much energy does it take to produce aluminium? It's a lot, right! You could use renewable energy to create hydrogen fuel, and burn that to power these energy intensive industrial processes. I understand, the entire world's current energy demand could be met from a square of solar panels 450 miles to each side. That's over 200,000 square miles - but we cut down 170,000 square miles of rain-forest every year! And it wouldn't have to be one 450x450 mile square. The best place for such installations, I would argue - is at sea, because there's water that can be transformed into both hydrogen fuel and fresh water - piped inland, to burn in traditional power stations, and do things like irrigate wastelands for agriculture - rather than clear cutting and burning the forests.

It would probably be less environmentally damaging just to spray a whole can of hairspray on my head everyday
— karl stone

There is a hair-care product better than aluminum foil or hair spray. I recommend SUAVE DAILY CLARIFYING SHAMPOO.

Daily Clarifying Shampoo is loaded with nanoparticles and neurotransmitters that burrow through the scull, right into that tangle of confused neurons and synapses. Daily Clarifying Suave dispels the fog of bad information, misapprehensions, mistaken notions, confusions, vague anxieties, unjustified biases, wrong ideology, and politically abhorrent memes. Through regular application of this fine product you may progress from being a complete idiot to a much sought-after guru. (Results will vary.)

Bring out the sparkle in whatever mind you have left! That's DAILY CLARIFYING shampoo.

It's fixes your head, if not your hair. — Bitter Crank

Those are some big claims for a shampoo. They copied that right off the label of "Lilly the Pink's medicinal compound" - but at least had the decency to add the disclaimer, 'results may vary' rather than the bogus claim to be 'efficacious in every case.' Pardon me if I don't buy it.

I dunno... I claim no detailed knowledge of Rand or Objectivism, so this is more of an instinct reaction.

First, for any philosopher selling any philosophy, we might tune out the analytical mind for a bit and just observe the person most invested in the philosophy. Are we drawn to that person? Do we want to be with them? Do we want to be like them? What kind of atmosphere has their philosophy created on their face?

Personally, I'm most drawn to those philosophers who mostly just sit there sharing a deep sincere smile, and who have no compelling need to sell you their ideas. I'm obviously not like that myself, but such a philosopher seems a worthy goal to shoot for, imho.

Capitalism? Again, I dunno. I'm wary of all "one true way" economic theories. Personally I favor capitalism in the middle of the income range (most people) and socialism at the extremes, with the goal to create a middle class society. My sense is that Rand is too dogmatic to accept such compromises. I'd be equally wary of anyone being dogmatic from the other direction. Neither pure capitalism or socialism has been shown to work. — Jake

I "dunno" - who you're responding to there Jake - maybe me? I haven't read Atlas Shrugged either. I have read this thread, and responded - in my usual fashion, to 'objectivism' as it is presented here. It seems to me that it's about the objective self - as opposed to the objective truth; and I find that false and reprehensible, and I said so. I do that. I don't much care what kind of atmosphere it creates - particularly when Alcopops would use this philosophy to dismiss any responsibility for polluting the actual atmosphere.

There is a role for objective knowledge that benefits humankind, but it's not personal and social philosophy. Let me provide an example to explain. Every time I put clothes in the tumble dryer I say, out loud "It could be renewable energy. It's not, but it could be!" And that illustrates the problem. I have a need that I must meet - and no ability to do so in a manner that's responsible to the objective truth. It's possible that need might be met responsibly - but only if government and industry are responsible to objective truth. But they're not.

My philosophy argues they should be - and describes means in which that can be achieved while maintaining economic, political and social stability, and promoting high levels of human welfare. That so, it saddens me somewhat that Rand saw fit to take a giant dump and call it objectivism. At least, so far as I can tell from reading this thread.

I think you're stuck in the president's reality distortion field. Do you have any aluminum foil? — frank

It takes vast amounts of energy to produce aluminium. It would probably be less environmentally damaging just to spray a whole can of hairspray on my head everyday - like President Evil does! Unless it were renewable energy - then it wouldn't matter so much if I had a tin foil hat! But it's not renewable energy, is it? So it's not me in the tin foil hat - it's anyone who thinks they can simply ignore reality - and use a can of hairspray everyday, and keep combing it over until there's nothing left.

This really lacks an understanding of what makes up a sound moral argument.

Morality should be grounded on what is longterm good for everyone, or least possible bad option, not shortterm satisfaction for a single person or two persons.

It's not morally justified to give drugs to someone because the will be happy in the shortterm if it means they run the risk of runing their life or other peoples life in the longterm.

Morality is all about holistically evaluating both short and longterm consequences for everyone. — xyz-zyx

I agree entirely. I think the problem stems from what is meant by objectivism. It's not objective truth. Rather, it seems to be about isolating the individual from all moral implication and responsibility. It is the objective self - not the objective reality; a philosophy attractive to adolescents seeking to establish an identity independent of their parents, and those who would seek to benefit from feeding this crap to kids!

Do we have a collective mind? Do we have a collective stomach?
Everyone is an individual with their mind and their own stomach. — AppLeo

Yes and yes. There's something called the collective consciousness that makes it very difficult to be an individual in an absolute sense. The language you use, the concepts from which your arguments are built - and the fact that I can understand what you're saying, are all the consequence of societies, and cultures. Then there's food production, which is - necessarily achieved by the division of labour, and the trade of goods and services.

It's not an absurd claim at all. And I don't understand how it's objective that groups matter more than individuals. — AppLeo

One reason the group is more important than the individual is that the group can protect individual rights, whereas the individual often can't.

How is it contrary? — AppLeo

To my mind, objectivism means objective truth. It's a matter of fact that human beings evolved as tribal animals, and later, tribes joined together to form societies and civilizations. Furthermore, natural and sexual selection craft the individual - in relation to the social and natural environment, giving them psychological characteristics, pre-dispositions and aptitudes - including an innate moral sense, built upon by experience. There is no self made man, no Robinson Crusoe, no individual as such. To ignore this is a contradiction of objectivism - if by objectivism you mean objective truth.

Why are these anyone's responsibilities? Why should these responsibilities matter? Who cares if we over fish, or deforest, or pollute the earth? Can someone give me a reason why these are problems and why anyone should be responsible for preventing these problems? — AppLeo

There are two reasons - I would argue. First is the question, what is my existence if there's no future? Why should I have children, or build a business, or write a book, if I have no genetic, economic or intellectual legacy? To please myself? A mere masturbation then? I'd go out of my way to deny a conception of myself as an empty issue.

Second, is the fact that previous generations struggled endlessly to build all this, which I inherit. My body and mind, crafted by evolution, my language and culture, the physical and ideological infrastructure of society, the house I live in, this computer. I didn't invent, or build any of that. Receiving all these gifts, I think there's a natural moral obligation to use what others struggled to build, and I inherited, to provide as well as possible for subsequent generations.

p.s. in your previous post, you attributed several quotes to me that are not mine.

I wouldn't view this issue morally. I'd view it psychologically, and suggest there probably are good reasons for such behaviour that have little or nothing to do with the person who has been ignored. I'd urge that person to put their personal feelings aside, and try to understand that the causes, and the effects of such a difficulty with relationships - are likely to be far worse than his own momentary sense of rejection.

In 'Enemies of an Open Society' (1947) Karl Popper warns that science as truth leads to tyranny. It seems to me that Rand is skirting this problem in a deliberate, but unsuccessful manner. The argument that there are no groups, only individuals - is an absurd notion, but necessary to maintain objectivism construed as "reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism" - because, the natural implication from objectivist philosophical proscription, is an objectivist state - in which political and personal freedom, individuality, creativity and so forth - would be crushed out of existence by the need to 'make our representations conform' to an unarguable objective truth.

Rand's conceit - that people can live as individuals, without forming any kind of organisational structures - is necessary to avoid the implication that objective truth is unarguable - and thus, tyrannical. But individualism is contrary to the natural order of human evolution, our psychology and the entire history of society and civilization. That's a massive abdication from reality; and thus a contradiction of objectivism's own supposed values.

I say this as a philosopher who argues that we need to recognize the significance of scientific truth in order to meet challenges such as climate change, deforestation, overfishing, pollution and so on; but I do not ignore vast swathes of reality in order to do so. The larger part of my arguments are concerned with how to integrate scientific truth politically and economically - while avoiding these negative social implications. And I dislike intensely the impression formed from reading this thread - that objective truth should be used as an excuse to shirk all such responsibilities.

That's exactly what I would expect a zombie to ask. — frank

Only because you have no braaaaains!

Okay, but you should try to recognise that this doesn't support your explanation over and above mine, and you should try to recognise that a conspiracy theory is obviously not a fact, and therefore you shouldn't refer to it as factual as you have done. I'm absolutely fine with genuine facts, but the way that you're connecting the dots and exclaiming, "Ah ha!", is something else entirely. — S

So let me ask you a question - why did Cameron pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, adding "or vote me out" while simultaneously cancelling an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK control over immigration? Why did Cameron keep Theresa May in post for six years - without a word of criticism as she failed to deliver on that pledge?

Also, take into consideration that Cameron made the referendum a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament, that he took to UK out of a centrist coalition in the EU, and joined right wing nationalists, and ultimately, put himself on the wrong side of his impossible, failed immigration pledge championing the Remain cause?

You keep calling it a conspiracy theory - but if you believed Cameron, you'd have voted Remain. He threatened WWIII - for goodness sake. Why would he do that if not to further sabotage his credibility and damage the Remain cause? Did he believe he could deliver tens of thousands? Did he believe WWIII would break out in the event of a Leave vote? Did you believe him? If not then, why now?

Yes, and pedantry is pedantry. If you think that I didn't know the outcome, and that I meant that the Tories won an overall majority in 2010, instead of it resulting in a hung parliament, then you're an idiot. Do I have to word everything I say as though I'm speaking to an idiot when I'm speaking with you? — S

Not at all. I know very well you can't pack every fact into every sentence. I meant to indicate that it's a significant fact that Cameron was in coalition from 2010. It scuppered his plans, and that's why he voted against the referendum petition in 2011 - because he didn't have a majority in the HoC, and that's why Theresa May was Home Secretary for a world record six years - while failing dramatically to deliver on an absurd immigration pledge on which Cameron had staked his political career! i.e. tens of thousands "or vote me out!"

As for your other comments, ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments. Stop being so sensitive. I don't know you. I'm commenting on your arguments... your myopic crazed arguments!

Oh, don't be so predictable. — S

The facts are the facts. But as you speak of predictability - is there any possibility at all that you would not dismiss an argument that suggested the 2016 referendum was corrupt - and agree that a legitimate democratic result cannot follow from a corrupt process?

If not the fact that Cameron was a brexiteer who campaigned dishonestly and lost on purpose for Remain, how about stolen facebook data used to target propaganda that incited racial hatred, or how about financial corruption and Russian interference?

My prediction is, that wouldn't change your mind either!

David Cameron is a cunning political creature, but not infallible. He was just being a chameleon out of self-interest. He was working for Michael Howard, someone who is well-known to be a strong Eurosceptic. Then, given his prior role in producing this kind of politics, and given his now vindicated belief that an EU referendum would be a pledge which would contribute towards his party winning the general election, which they did under him in 2010, he was just latching on to what he judged to be a winning strategy. Likewise with his pledge on reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. The more plausible explanation is that he simply judged making such pledges to be winning strategies. — S

Cameron didn't win the 2010 election though. It was a hung Parliament. The Tories were in coalition with the pro-eu Lib Dems. Think about that in relation to Cameron's 2010 silly immigration pledge - and the fact that Theresa May was the longest serving Home Secretary in living memory.

May and Cameron immediately cancelled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK control over EU immigration. May sacked the head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clark, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the UK in 2015, and published those figures during the 2016 referendum campaign period.

Meanwhile, by championing Remain, Cameron put himself on the wrong side of his own failure on immigration - in a referendum he alone decided would happen, and forced on an unwilling Parliament!

That's not true.
— karl stone

Your constant fabrications have become tedious.

Cameron voted against an EU referendum in 2011.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2011-10-24-372-commons/mp/10777 — Inis

What fabrication? What have I fabricated? Everything I said is a checkable fact:


Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.

Only afterward did UKIP begin making electoral gains - largely due to courting the BNP, and organizing far right groups to vote in low turnout EU elections. Parliament debated and rejected a call for a referendum in 2011, by 485/111. Yet Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and then made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament nor amended by the Lords.

It's simply untrue that Cameron was forced into a referendum he didn't want. So why do people believe it? The pertinent question is - how did Cameron end up on the wrong side of his own ridiculous immigration pledge in a referendum he alone provided for, that was all about immigration?

And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111.
— karl stone

Cameron voted against a referendum in 2011.

So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013,
— karl stone

Because UKIP were at 10% in the polls. — Inis

That's not true. Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.

Only afterward did UKIP begin making electoral gains - largely due to courting the BNP, and organizing far right groups to vote in low turnout EU elections. Parliament debated and rejected a call for a referendum in 2011, by 485/111. Yet Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and then made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament nor amended by the Lords.

It's simply untrue that Cameron was forced into a referendum he didn't want. So why do people believe it? The pertinent question is - how did Cameron end up on the wrong side of his own ridiculous immigration pledge in a referendum he alone provided for, that was all about immigration?

I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time.
— karl stone

Is Riccardo suggesting that countries cooperate in order to maximise the total output? — Kippo

If by 'cooperate' you mean trade, then yes. Trade is supposed to maximize total output - and make everyone better off. I brought it up, and only now I'm reminded I don't like all the implications, particularly with regard to skills and employment. But still, where capital would otherwise be left idle it can promote inward investment and create new opportunities, I guess. It's so easy to dismiss an issue like trade deficits using a concept like this, and the supposition that everyone is better off, then when asked to explain - it's a whole can of worms - that last time, were the economics professor's problem. But I do remember he would caution against getting hung up on any one idea like that were a comprehensive explanation of how economies work. Worms everywhere! Can we move on?

Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like.
— karl stone

The common Brexiteer is living proof that Neanderthals didn't go extinct all those years ago. — S

You seem to be ignoring Her Majesty's plea to find common ground. That can't be achieved by calling brexiteers stupid. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Being misled into voting for an unplanned, uncosted policy failure by corrupt politicians is not their fault.

It becomes harder to maintain that position when they are the guy in the pub who knows nothing, telling die hard fans how football should be played - but then, like Micheal Gove told them, "we've had enough of experts." It's not their fault!

You mean "they" shouldn't be so ignorant...
— karl stone

No, I meant you, following on from your football analogy. But yes, them too. — S

Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like.

Actually, the campaign for an EU referendum can be traced back to 2011 when the cross-party People's Pledge group was formed. They took no position on EU membership, other than it should be put to the people. In 2011 a petition of 100,000 signatures calling for an EU referendum was handed into Downing Street. — Inis

And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013, and make it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament, or amended by the Lords? Do you call that democracy? It's a clear abuse of democratic process.

I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.
— karl stone

Blameworthy ignorance. You shouldn't be so gullible as to allow yourself to be easily deceived, and if you're going to get involved in the game, then you should at least do your homework. Many people were motivated to vote leave because of their own nationalist and anti-establishment sentiment. Some people don't listen to reason. Some people block it out. Some people believe what they want to believe. — S

You mean "they" shouldn't be so ignorant... but I say, an unplanned, uncosted policy failure should not have been put to the people in a referendum in the first place. The desire for this referendum does not originate with the people. It originates within the Tory Party. Whether you accept that Cameron was a brexiteer or continue in ignorance of the fact, a Tory disease has been inflicted on the whole country.

And what do they care? Their money is having a tax break in Panama - while they crash the economy into brexit mountain, giving them a clean slate for 40 years of Thatcherite betrayal, and an excuse for austerity forever. That's why an obviously crooked referendum 'must be respected' - why a marginal vote is an absolute mandate, and why May is wasting time on a deal no-one supports - while the clock runs out on Article 50.

And just think about all the bargain empty houses and bankrupt businesses they'll be able to snap up at rock bottom prices.

With regards to surplus and deficit with trade partners , why is a deficit "bad" and a surplus "good"? I ask, because if one is continually selling and not buying, then what is the point of selling? — Kippo

Trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing - but there isn't a brexiteer alive who's heard of Riccardo, less yet understands the doctrine of comparative advantage. I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time.


From On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation by David Ricardo.
London: John Murray, 1821.

To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the
labour of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the
same country, might require the labour of 90 men for the same
time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine
in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place,
notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be
produced there with less labour than in England. Though she could
make the cloth with the labour of 90 men, she would import it
from a country where it required the labour of 100 men to produce
it, because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her
capital in the production of wine, for which she would obtain
more cloth from England, than she could produce by diverting a
portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the
manufacture of cloth.

And their pets! Think of the puppies!
— karl stone

Karl, I'm concerned that you might have become a zombie. — frank

Are you? Did you bite me?

Sounds similar to when we had the join EU debate in this country.

The "Join" crowd painted a picture of the gates of paradise opening with EU membership and the "Don't join" crowd painted a picture of utter doom, perdition with the end of our independence. Back then the old politicians with warm ties to Russia dominated the "Don't join" crowd (so things have some continuity at least here).

Neither side was anywhere near being correct, but their lies live on. The realistic prediction that "things actually won't change so much for the ordinary person and from the viewpoint of the ordinary person" would have been far better, but who would campaign with that kind of slogan? — ssu

Let's not bother then, eh?