Sadly, this isn't even valid. At least the modern, three-premise version of the argument (as defended by William Lane Craig) has that going for it. However, something like this is appropriated by Craig as justification for his second premise. Unfortunately, his arguments for the impossibility of an "actual infinite" fail just as badly.

If you mean to say that "God does not exist," cannot possibly be the conclusion of a sound argument, you're simply wrong. Indeed there are many valid arguments which would serve as candidates (evil, hiddenness, etc.).

Well, I think it's certainly plausible that, although Jacob's brother was the smoke monster we saw active on the island, he wasn't the *only* smoke monster that has ever existed on the island. There were people on the island before Jacob/MiB ever got there. Doesn't seem too much of a stretch to imagine that the MiB wasn't the first guy to get tossed down the golden-hole (indeed, the skeletons we see down there attest to that).

That's all well and good, I suppose. But when you pay money for an online good and the seller reneges on the deal to deliver, just don't come crying to the government-run courts or police, okay?

(Emphasis mine)

What exactly is the "true value of the stock"? If your answer has anything to do with the future (future revenue, future earnings, etc.), please explain how you're able to know the "true value" of anything which has yet to happen.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. I am quite confident when asserting the universal negative, "God does not exist". I am also confident, for exactly the same reasons, when asserting, "There are no married bachelors", or "Five sided squares do not exist".

Far from being "logically indefensible", or "unproven and unprovable", logic requires that we affirm these truths.

When you're complaining about not producing enough, you're advocating for increased efficiencies and productivity. Sure, producing enough to cover every possible "rainy day" is not in the cards, regardless of economic system; producing as much as we can is the best we can do. If you're advocating trading production for some other goal, you're going to produce less, not more.

By employing that idled portion of the labor force, you would increase supply; but, you'd also increase demand. Profit would grow as efficiencies of scale take hold.

"Idle", as in un- or under-employed. Whether or not your example fits into this definition depends upon who is doing the valuing, I suppose; the laborer or the employer.

A laborer working at his peak 100% of the time may be perfectly efficient from the employer's perspective. But a more balanced, lower stress approach may provide more value to the laborer (and, in the long run, the employer) than such robotic efficiency.

In what way is idling a large portion of the labor force--wasting all those hours of potentially productive labor--efficient? That's like burning crops as they stand in their fields, or throwing coal into the sea. That's not efficiency; that's a waste.

They keep failing because their incentive structure is all messed up.

I'm not sure why you think those two goals are mutually incompatible. Idle labor is pretty inefficient.

They have no say... except for the vote.

It's a shame everyone else is too stupid or too lazy to devote that kind of effort to learning the truth, huh?

My condolences. It's too bad you spent so much time coming up with exactly the wrong conclusions.

You think people are too stupid to implement a system where they aren't treated like children. But, you are smart enough to see through this. I got it.

Somehow you were able to obtain more information, right? So, the rest of the people are simply too stupid to figure out what you have, right?

I get it. You don't have to try to justify yourself.

You think the people are stupid and ignorant, have been lied to and are too dumb to see it, and should be treated like children.

But you, on the other hand, are wise enough to have seen through these lies, and are the one to tell other people what to think and how to act, by virtue of your superior intellect.

Somehow, you manage to believe these things and still maintain that you respect the "will of the people"; the people too dumb to think or act for themselves.

All that, and you don't understand what the word "volunteer" means.

Yes, I understand that you believe the people are too stupid to see through the "lies". You, on the other hand, are so much smarter and more perceptive than them.

Your condescension oozes from every post.

Not only are the people too stupid to see they are being lied to; they are ignorant too. Is there any insult you won't heap upon the people whose will you respect?

Yet another example of something the people were too ignorant and stupid to see, huh? It's a good thing you are so much wiser, and can tell them what to do.

I know, it takes someone as smart and wise as yourself to see through it. The rest of the stupid, ignorant masses need your help to run their lives. I get it.

Or the people. I get it.

Not only are the people stupid and ignorant; they're comparable to rape victims? Could you possibly think any less of them?

But somehow you do, right? It's too bad everyone other than you is so ignorant and stupid.

Yeah! The "will of the people" is that advertisers exist, so it must be bad.

You've never volunteered for anything before? Did you starve to death?

Do you understand the concept of "volunteering"?

Vote counts. Poll results. Consumer habits. etc.

And if people didn't like that behavior, they wouldn't shop there.

And why was Wal-Mart able to exercise such control... Because everyone shops there.

Ignorance the people are too stupid or lazy to overcome, right? It's still contempt for something you profess to respect.

Don't blame me. Blame the people patronizing those businesses. They're the ones responsible.

And those ignorant people are too stupid to see they're being lied to, right?

And there you go. You finally admit that you know what the people want, better than they do themselves.

You should tell that to the tens of thousands of volunteers that make up the overwhelming majority of both major parties' campaigns. They would probably be troubled to learn that they have starved to death.