"Do You, as a Candidate for President, Really Believe..."

[paft.livejournal.com]

Susan Grigsby, who lost her brother, Steve, to cancer: What really horrified me about the debate was not the poorly phrased question, it wasn’t Dr. Paul’s answer, and it wasn’t even the scream after Wolf Blitzer asked, ‘Would you let him die,’ and somebody in the audience yelled ‘Yeah!’ That wasn’t as horrifying as was the silence from the stage, from these men and women who are running for office, not a word. Nothing.

This is the reality of the right wing libertarian attitude toward the sick. It is vile. It is inhumane. It is unworthy of Americans.

The question posed by Susan Grigsby needs to be asked of every Republican candidate. "Do you, as a candidate for President, really believe that if an American cannot get, or does not get insurance, that they should be treated the way Steve was?"


When they don’t answer it it needs to be asked again. And again. And again. They cannot be allowed to evade it. They cannot be allowed to look the other way.

Republicans are already trying. Here’s Mitch McConnell when confronted with that clip from the debate and asked if it troubled him:

(Brief chuckle) Look, we have a lot of people running for president, there are going to be a lot of debates, a lot of things said, a lot of audience reactions, I don’t have a particular reaction to what’s going on in the Republican campaign for president right now.

The silence that horrified Susan Grigsby continues.

Prominent Republicans are afraid of coming out in favor of saving the lives of the sick and uninsured.

Comments

Re: Oh brother, is there no end to the disingeuousness of political animals?

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

So, what you're admitting is that Move On is asserting that "Republican Silence" killed her brother, not cancer.

No, that's not what he said at all. Did you even watch the video or read his comment?

Keep on pretending that the economic calculation problem doesn't even exist. Hey, if Biblical Creationism gets a hearing in the world, why not the economic equivalent?

Well, it doesn't exist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#Criticisms) Austrian economics is the economic equivalent of Biblical Creationism - asserting that there is no such thing as empirical proof for its claims and that it must therefore be correct.

Re: Oh brother, is there no end to the disingeuousness of political animals?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

No, it is the non-Austrians who are discarding reality. Consider this gem of a critique of the economic calculation problem from the Wikipedia article:

It has also been claimed that the contention that finding a true economic equilibrium is not just hard but impossible for a central planner applies equally well to a market system; As any Universal Turing machine can do what any other Turing machine can, a system of dispersed calculators (i.e. a market) has in principle no advantage over one central calculator.
Note: Gramatical correction of last sentence mine.

Yes, according to Turing's theory, any single Universal Turing Machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine) can in theory simulate all of the Turing Machines in a distributed system. Of course, this theory depends upon wishing away logistics problems, information acquisition problems, and the problem of needing to operate in a finite time frame, but hey, it is possible. I have a degree in computer science. I will be the first to admit that Alan Turing's ideas have merit in my profession. The problem arises when we apply abstract ideas to economics in ways that divorce us from reality: the math may be perfect but the world the math models may have no connection to the real world nor may we even wish that it would. Consider: Do you actually have any idea what this theory, applied as it is, is saying in plain English? Who are the "calculators" who impute value to existence? Individual human beings are, based upon their subjective experiences, their individual natures, and their present contextual circumstances. The critique offered, in plain English, says that it is hypothetically possible to replace each and every last thinking, valuing human being on the planet with a computer that simulates him perfectly. Then, according to Turing's theory, every one of those computers could be itself hypothetically be replaced by one sufficiently powerful machine that simulates all of them. Economics without human beings: what a brilliant concept they've discovered that just devastates Ludwig von Mises. I don't know about you, but I for one, do NOT welcome our new robot overlords.

Re: Oh brother, is there no end to the disingeuousness of political animals?

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Let's ignore for a moment that this is only one of a series of critiques on the wikipedia page.

The problem arises when we apply abstract ideas to economics in ways that divorce us from reality: the math may be perfect but the world the math models may have no connection to the real world nor may we even wish that it would.

Yes, that's why we test them empirically. How else would we know whether they have any connection to the real world? This is an odd objection for an Austrian to make, given that praxeology is just giving up on testing.

Who are the "calculators" who impute value to existence? Individual human beings are

...

The critique offered, in plain English, says that it is hypothetically possible to replace each and every last thinking, valuing human being on the planet with a computer that simulates him perfectly.</>

I think you lost something there. The critique doesn't say anything about computers or humans, just calculators.