Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2015, 12:44 AM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(26-12-2015 09:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @EvolutionKills, I thought of a simpler challenge for you. Let's see if like all the US lefties I know you run with your tail between your legs, or if you're able to answer a few basic questions about your belief system honestly and directly without trying to change the topic.

Given: By libertarianism I mean 'people are free to make their own choices without force or coercion'.


I don't even need to answer anything else, because you're first premise is infantile.

Without force or coercion? That has never happened. If it's not some form of group or government keeping people in check with the threat of force, people would simply be using force themselves. Survival of the fittest, might makes right, those who have power can use it against those who do not. Even in your examples, Scandinavia still taxes it's people and enforces laws with both the use and threat of force...

Conversely the only way to guarantee the maximum amount of freedom for everyone would be to ensure that everyone has the same access to resources, education, and everything else that affects our options (ensure everyone has the same freedom of choice). How would you maintain such a system without force? You could not because as soon as a single individual took advantage of the complete lack of force or coercion and tried to tip the balance of things in their favor at the expense of others, and others having no recourse against this, the system utterly falls apart.


Libertarianism is, at core, inherently self contradictory.


Effectively, the logical outcome is the absurdest anarcho-capitalist extreme that is sub-Saharan Africa; where all you need is an AK and the will to use it.


Power will never be equal, nor could equality be enforced without force; and the complete lack or coercion is effectively anarchy. There is no way to prevent others from using their force to coerce others without the use of force or coercion to prevent it. There will always be checks and balances, forces and counter forces, the trick is finding the right balance that most can agree with.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-12-2015, 02:33 AM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
From the Skepticrat, Episode 007.

http://skepticrat.libsyn.com/

[Image: Skepticrat-logo-square-2000x2000.png]

Noah - Mark loves the show. He loves the Scathing Atheist too [their other podcast]. He left it a great review, he even voted for it in the Podcast Awards at podcastawards.com, and he loves this show too. When we talk about things that we know about, but not when we talk about things we don't know about.

Heath - And as it turns out through some improbable mutual vacancy in our collective educations, the things we don't know about line up exactly with the things Mark disagrees with us about.

Noah - Hmm...

Heath - He writes, quote, "when you guys talk about most subjects, you're pretty rational. But when it comes to Libertarianism, you buy into the silliest stereotypes and pass along derision uncritically." End quote.

Noah - Yeah, but not end email. Because there were eleven paragraphs, I actually counted, eleven paragraphs in defense of that basic thesis; but we'll spare you the details. That's basically it.

Heath - Mostly because almost none of them had anything to do with anything we actually said, did, or implied at all, anywhere on the show...

Noah - I didn't call it a tantrum.

Heath - I didn't say you called it a tantrum.

Noah - That's because I didn't.

Health - But that's the crux of his argument. You seem like a reasonable guy, you disagree with me on this point, you must not know anything about it.

Noah - Right, well he actually said at one point "I don't understand why so many otherwise reasonable people refuse to understand this". Those where his exact words. Hello! When all the reasonable people you know disagree with you, your first reaction shouldn't be honing your powers of persuasion here, you should back off for a second and say "Maybe..."

Heath - It might also be that people have thought it through, and rejected it; and they are reasonable, and you're not quite as much... Now I'm very willing to concede that striving towards a libertarian ideal is a very reasonable goal in many cases, we should want as much freedom of choice as possible in lots of things. We should want a guarantee of civil liberties. But, those don't get protected without taking away the freedom to choose, say, not serving blacks in restaurants. Telling somebody to go start a 'no-whites-allowed' restaurant really isn't a solution to that.

Noah - Right, but of you talk to these ideologically committed libertarians, they act like there can never be market forces in favor of discrimination. Either that or worse, they just don't care that there are. Probably why you don't see a lot of libertarians coming from minority populations or, you know, people who have missed meals in general.

Heath - So yes, it is very logical to consider libertarian principles as part of one's political philosophy, but taken as a full blown ideology, it's absolutely ridiculous.

Noah - It's like saying "I think 'no' is generally the correct answer". The logical extreme is an impossible fantasy.

Heath - So Libertarianism, it should really be treated like, I dunno, a zoo type of thing. It's okay to look at it, think about it's significance in history, and even take pictures; but no touching! Big glass partition! When you're a kid you want to get right up next to it, and that's fine, that's cool, I understand that. But when you grow up, it becomes a lot less compelling for most people.

Noah - Right. Look, I get the appeal of Libertarian ideology because, look, I'm white and college educated! It would probably kick-ass for me!


Heath - Right, and it does makes sense when applied to, say, theoretical microeconomics, and hypothetical universe with nothing but guns and butter; it's great for that. But when you stop thinking in terms of a single person trying to make money, or a single firm trying to make money, and try to consider the principle of macroeconomics, like monetary policy for example, it's clear that central organization of some sort is at least sometimes necessary.

Noah - Yep, or maybe even always. But like when you're sitting in a dorm room shit-faced on micro-brews and doing, you know, "I've never been fucked in the ass by life" math, there aren't any starving old people on the ledger. You can set aside this data and plausibility shit in favor of well armed Utopianism and an irrational belief in the inherent goodness of the free market.

Health - And that's fantastic for you, the free market, but, just uh, a quick review. The free market still trades in human beings!

Noah - Right! Yes, yes! Exactly. Despite the fact that we have regulatory efforts to the contrary.

Heath - We tried to stop that, it still happens! The free market is not very good! It can't, say, build an efficient road system or electricity grid or a water delivery system, or create the internet. The free-market can't educate a society, it can't protect the environment, it can't put out fires very well. It can't protect against theft of property, or enforce contracts, or any of the stuff rich people need for being wealthy to matter and for them to stay that way.

Noah - Right, and the key here is even a little bit of Libertarianism is the wrong direction in most situations. The reason the regulations and laws where there in the first place is because somebody found a loophole in the social contract and started fucking it! We don't add regulations because everything is just doing spiffy.

Health - Yeah, the market often sucks! Invisible hands cause the [Great] Depression, and real hands fixed it! The worst economic crashes in American history were immediately preceded by highly deregulated banking sectors and a speculative bubble.

Noah - Hmmm...

Heath - And they were immediately followed by a government coordinated solution that absolutely had to happen! Like the New Deal, or more recently, when the government saved the entire banking sector from completely collapsing. Had the market been allowed to continue in it's, whatever its natural path of sometimes wildly volatile equilibrium, that would have meant complete meltdown of US financial institutions. And therefore, an international financial meltdown as well. And all that would have bee so much worse if we stuck with Libertarianism completely...

Noah - Which is why Libertarian argument are so quick to retreat to the theoretical, to get out of the real world. But as soon as you start layering in reality, all you have left is a snappy slogan.

Heath - What snappy slogan? You mean, "Everyone do whatever you want and it'll work out"? Really? That's your... Why would you ever think that's a good idea? How would that...?

Noah - Umm, micro-brews and not being fucked in the ass by life...

Heath - Well, there you go. So Libertarians, they kinda want the world to operate like a perfectly fair game of Monopoly, and they seem to think it actually does in some cases. And everyone tries to win and it's great, but in reality, every time someone loses they starve to death! I mean, if the penalty for going bankrupt in Monopoly was dying in real life, there'd be a lot more collectivist sharing strategies going on in that game! And if one asshole start winning by too much, everyone else would be very much justifiably ganging up on them and forcing them to share.

Noah - Right, and it's worth pointing out that in order for this game to work at all, there have to be losers, right? So the penalty for losing has to be conciliatory enough that the losers don't say "Fuck this game!" and take the other guy's shit.

Health - Right, or just flip the board over eventually. And most importantly, at the core of it, Libertarianism in it's pure form is blatantly self contradictory. Society can't maximize their 'liberty units' without making sure the resources are allocated somewhat equitably. Laissez faire markets don't lead to that solution. That's two of the fundamental tenets of Libertarianism, maximum liberty and lack of market interference, and they directly conflict.

Noah - And the appeal is that sometimes our policy is just so shitty that doing nothing looks good in comparison. You know if the choices are leeches or praying shaman, the shaman may be the better choice, but that doesn't make his magic real.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh, so you're psychic now too? Will the wonders never cease?

Apparently. I predicted you would refuse to answer those 5 simple "a or b" questions.

(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Simple answer, where is the profit motive for private industry to over take infrastructure? Is vital infrastructure something we want maintained with a profit-goal in mind?

You haven't thought this through. Everything the government pays for it gets from the people anyway. So the people are paying for the infrastructure regardless, and wherever people are willing to pay for something, business is ready to provide it. And who builds all the roads, etc.? Government employees? They're already built by private for-profit corporations. So with your system the people are ALREADY paying private for-profit corporations to provide infrastructure. All I'm saying is that instead of having a bureaucrat pick which private company will provide infrastructure (ie the one that contributes most to his campaign) and give that company a monopoly, using force to make everyone buy their infrastructure from them even if the infrastructure is terrible, instead I want to make it harder on the corporations. I want them to fight to the death to provide the best product at the best price by putting the power in the hands of the people--not the bureaucrats--to decide who is providing the best infrastructure at the best price.

YOU are the one who advocates giving select private, for-profit corporations monopolies. I am the one advocating competition.

(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Even assuming this is true, would that work now? Given how displaced and overworked most Americans are? Would that even be a feasible solution now? Would it have remained a feasible solution had it remained in place?

Huh, public transport isn't feasible?

(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Considering that we're not seeing a huge private investment in such public transportation, I can only assume that private industry has already ran the numbers and they just don't work.

YES they don't work because once companies succeed in providing world-class infrastructure that is efficient and well liked, the government takes it over. The public mass transit companies WERE investing heavily and built a transportation network beyond the imagination of government types, and the government came in with force and took it away, and dismantled everything they built, and forced us to use cars. That's why the numbers don't work.

(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Remember, regulations are often put in place because somebody found a hole in the social contract and started fucking it.

Perhaps, but most often regulations are put in place because somebody has an inferior product they can't sell on the free market and need the government to forfe people to buy their shit. Like cars.

(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How about everything? It's powered by a power grid mostly envisioned and built by the public. Also how many of these devices are computers, or use transistors? Ideas that got their start and were developed in college laboratories funded by government grants or in private companies funded by defense industry contracts. The very first modern computer was a massive vacuum tubed monstrosity the size of a barn that was developed to compute artillery trajectories and ballistics for the US Army.

Yes, but they were all built by private companies. I will restate the questions: What do you have in your home that was built by a state-run enterprise? At one point half the business in the world were state-run (ie communist). Name ONE (just one) good product they were able to produce.

(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Our gun laws are far more lax (more freedom to bear arms when and where you want and having relatively cheap and easy access to them, go capitalism!) than theirs, and yet we have higher crime; there are many factors at play here.

Look it up. Switzerland has among the laxest gun laws and gun ownership. And the lowest crime. Heck they GIVE military assault rifles to every family in the country!

I hate guns, have never touched one, and what differentiates us libertarians from the rest is we reject the use of guns whereas for you guys a gun is the mandatory first step in any solution. But, looking at it scientifically, gun control is to the American left what climate change is to the American right. All the statistics prove gun control doesn't work. In most cases, crime gets worse, and best case, like in Australia, it simply has no negative effect. Look at Europe. The 5 countries with the lowest rate of gun ownership have 3 times as much violent crime as the 5 countries with the highest rate.

You want to stop gun violence? Consider my pov: The reason Switzerland can give people guns like candy and not have violence is because the government preaches non-violence. They never invade and attack other countries. If someone else is different from you, they preach tolerance and respect. Compare to the US, which invades and attacks all over the world, and teaches that if someone is different from you the correct response is to blow their head off. Look at the poll of whether Americans should bomb Agrabah. Look at how politicians on both sides insist the correct response to Iran is to carpet bomb them.

So guess what happens when the government teaches kids from birth that the right thing to do with people different from you is kill them? Then when kids like Adam Lanza feel different from others, they do exactly what the government taught them to do.

We libertarians have been screaming for centuries that violence begets violence and the more violent you are towards others, the more violence you will suffer. We told you so. So stop complaining.

(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Could have fooled me, as so far, you've done nothing but rant against it [government].

Wrong, I rant against violence and force no matter who is doing it. When the government reduces force so people are free to choose without coercion, I praise government. When government initiates force and denies people freedom of choice, then I rant against it. The same as I would against any non-government organization that does it.

(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nope, the right-wing claim they want to cut taxes, even when it's not feasible for the amount of spending they want.

For once we agree. They simultaneously say 'let's cut taxes' and 'let's spend trillions of dollars carpet bombing Iran'. absurd

(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How quintessentially right-wing. Don't like it? You can leave! *spitoon*

That's right-wing? So if you check into a hotel and the hotel says you can leave if you don't like it, that's right-wing. But if the hotel locks you in the room and says you're not allowed to go anywhere, that is left.

Fine, then I'm right wing. When I invite people to my home, they're always free to leave if they don't like it. I hope I never go into your home.

The left says why libertarians want to deal with private companies and not government. This is why!!! With private companies if they do a shitty job we can leave and go where we get good service. With government, you knuckle-draggers think we should be forced at gunpoint to use your shitty service and never allowed to leave.

(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fuck you, efficient spending of tax dollars is exactly what I do want. But de-centralization and localization is not a magic cure-all, just look at the sad state of our education system.

Again, you CAUSED it. A few years after the Dept of Education was formed and centralized the power, Milton Friedman showed the charts that quality of education took a nose dive, and predicted as long as it was centrally planned, it would get worse and worse. Finland, however, had a mediocre education system, but they took the libertarian approach as far as they could and decentralized education so much that each teacher gets to pick his own curriculum.

Now, 30 years later, Finland ranks #1 across the board in education, and the US keeps nose diving just like Friedman warned would happen. You keep praising Scandanavia oblivious to the fact their success comes from running away from the policies you advocate!


(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Force people to stay? In what universe? All anyone can seem to talk about is trying to keep people out, because for as fucked up as things are here, it's still an improvement and worth emigrating for many people.

What happened when Eduardo Severin (facebook co-founder) renounced his citizenship, because he had dual Brazil/US citizenship and gave up living in the US. The left was outraged that it was a 'loophole' that because he had Brazilian citizenship he was allowed to give up his US citizenship and escape. The democrats even wrote the EX-PATRIOT ACT to block US citizens and long-term residencts from being able to leave.

And the US raised the cost to renounce your citizenship by over 10x, and now there's a 2 year wait--and that's for people who already have other citizenship and even have the option of renouncing.


(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Some things work better, or indeed need to be centrally regulated. Leave education up purely to the whims of individual states or municipalities therein, and you see the bullshit we have with abstinence-only sex education and creationism being taught in science classes.

Reality check. The quality of education in the US was much better before it was centralized aroudn the Dept of Ed, and is much better in Scandananvia where it is de-centralized.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 11:40 AM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(27-12-2015 12:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(26-12-2015 09:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Given: By libertarianism I mean 'people are free to make their own choices without force or coercion'.
I don't even need to answer anything else, because you're first premise is infantile.

Without force or coercion? That has never happened.

Yes, it's difficult to eliminate it 100%. But if you rank countries by how close they get to the libertarian ideal of eliminating it, the more libertarian the more people live long healthy happy and prosperous lives.

The more the government uses force and coercion the worse people's lives become.

So the question is which direction should we head towards?

What do you think?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 12:37 AM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2015 02:33 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh, so you're psychic now too? Will the wonders never cease?
Apparently. I predicted you would refuse to answer those 5 simple "a or b" questions.


Because they're infantile, much like you. They're also based on you trying to ram-rod your assertions across and pretend they're my opinions. You keep counter-pointing with 'the left' (as if that's some sort of monolithic force of evil, like Sauron in the Lord of the Rings) instead of acknowledging what I wrote to represent myself, and that is supremely tiring and dishonest you stupid fuck. So guess what? I'm going to call you an asshole.

You are an asshole!

See? I can make self-fulfilling predictions too! Drinking Beverage


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Simple answer, where is the profit motive for private industry to over take infrastructure? Is vital infrastructure something we want maintained with a profit-goal in mind?
You haven't thought this through. Everything the government pays for it gets from the people anyway. So the people are paying for the infrastructure regardless, and wherever people are willing to pay for something, business is ready to provide it. And who builds all the roads, etc.? Government employees? They're already built by private for-profit corporations. So with your system the people are ALREADY paying private for-profit corporations to provide infrastructure. All I'm saying is that instead of having a bureaucrat pick which private company will provide infrastructure (ie the one that contributes most to his campaign) and give that company a monopoly, using force to make everyone buy their infrastructure from them even if the infrastructure is terrible, instead I want to make it harder on the corporations. I want them to fight to the death to provide the best product at the best price by putting the power in the hands of the people--not the bureaucrats--to decide who is providing the best infrastructure at the best price.


Except that simply deregulating things doesn't solve that problem. Because if you have a profit goal, and no regulation (and thus no accountability), the inevitable end result is cut corners in the name of greater profits. Simple deregulation won't fix this issue, whereas campaign finance reform and greater transparency could.

For example, the 'natural remedies' problem the FDA has. Homeopathy and other 'natural' remedies are self-regulated, which means effectively they're unregulated, because when the FDA was established such products had so little traction as to not be worth the effort. The government regulatory body allowed the industry, as small as it was, to self regulate; you know, the Libertarian ideal, maximum corporate freedom. It has since in the last decade or so grown into a multi billion dollar industry, and it's filled with problems. These companies sell magic bullshit as medicine. We have homeopathic pills being sold to treat real maladies. Under the best cast scenario, they're harmless sugar pills (however a child who takes a sugar pill for their asthma instead of their inhaler is far from being harmless). Under worst cases, the pills are actually laced with real medicine, but in unregulated and unlabeled amounts. It's pretty common for 'natural' pills claiming to be filled with herbs and spices in an effort to cure impotence, to actually have unlicensed amounts of the active ingredient in Viagra. Unregulated natural remedies often have other drugs in them, in unlabeled and unregulated amounts, ranging from aspirin and ibuprofen to hard core narcotics. If you don't know that, and take it, it can be potentially lethal; between unforeseen health complications, and potential deadly interactions with other drugs.

The industry was given it's freedom, and when given the chance to, it needlessly endangers it's customers in the name of profit. That is unacceptable. They found a hole in the social contract and they're fucking it, right now.

This shit gets people killed. Regulations are important, and when used properly, serve the best interests of the public at large.


Nuance motherfucker, do you understand it?


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  YOU are the one who advocates giving select private, for-profit corporations monopolies. I am the one advocating competition.


Did I ever say that? Did you even wait for my opinion before just assuming it then attacking your created imaginary strawman? No?

That's what I though, go fuck yourself. Drinking Beverage


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Even assuming this is true, would that work now? Given how displaced and overworked most Americans are? Would that even be a feasible solution now? Would it have remained a feasible solution had it remained in place?
Huh, public transport isn't feasible?


Certain kinds in certain places will work, but not in others. That's why you see subway systems in downtown New York and Chicago, but not in rural Kansas. Is this really a foreign concept for you? Facepalm

Would just installing a network of bullet trains be financially feasible now? Given our current habits? Most likely not.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Considering that we're not seeing a huge private investment in such public transportation, I can only assume that private industry has already ran the numbers and they just don't work.
YES they don't work because once companies succeed in providing world-class infrastructure that is efficient and well liked, the government takes it over. The public mass transit companies WERE investing heavily and built a transportation network beyond the imagination of government types, and the government came in with force and took it away, and dismantled everything they built, and forced us to use cars. That's why the numbers don't work.


Hey fucktard, that's all besides the point.

Would it work now? Given our current infrastructure and transportation habits? Would it be anything close enough to being as convenient for enough people for it to be sustainable? I'd imagine the answer is 'no' across the board, or else private industry would probably be lobbying for specific deregulation and government funding to allow them to build these things. You know, buying special favors from the government, the systemic problem we have everywhere else. And yet none of them, even when they could buy off the government, seem to see a worthwhile profit in your idea.

I wonder why? It's not like they're above buying special favors, concessions, and deregulation. Consider


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Remember, regulations are often put in place because somebody found a hole in the social contract and started fucking it.
Perhaps, but most often regulations are put in place because somebody has an inferior product they can't sell on the free market and need the government to forfe people to buy their shit. Like cars.


Wow, what a masturbatory fantasy world you live in.

But no, I'm sure regulations having people in the food service industry wash their hands is to advance the interests of inferior products.

I'm sure regulations requiring us to wear seat belts is to cater to inferior products.

Let the banks gamble with depositor money! Because clearly any regulation to stop them from gambling is really only there to herd us into using inferior banks... Facepalm


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How about everything? It's powered by a power grid mostly envisioned and built by the public. Also how many of these devices are computers, or use transistors? Ideas that got their start and were developed in college laboratories funded by government grants or in private companies funded by defense industry contracts. The very first modern computer was a massive vacuum tubed monstrosity the size of a barn that was developed to compute artillery trajectories and ballistics for the US Army.
Yes, but they were all built by private companies. I will restate the questions: What do you have in your home that was built by a state-run enterprise? At one point half the business in the world were state-run (ie communist). Name ONE (just one) good product they were able to produce.


And your point is? Have I yet advocated for complete state overtake of all of the means of production?

Go have your masturbatory fantasy argument with theoretical communism with yourself, because I'm not interesting in arguing with you over a position I don't hold; you fucking inept jackass. Facepalm


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Our gun laws are far more lax (more freedom to bear arms when and where you want and having relatively cheap and easy access to them, go capitalism!) than theirs, and yet we have higher crime; there are many factors at play here.
Look it up. Switzerland has among the laxest gun laws and gun ownership. And the lowest crime. Heck they GIVE military assault rifles to every family in the country!


They also have forced conscription, where everyone serves in the military and has training. Even now, however, they no longer store the ammunition for those weapons in individual houses; the bullets are still kept by the military on government property.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I hate guns, have never touched one, and what differentiates us libertarians from the rest is we reject the use of guns whereas for you guys a gun is the mandatory first step in any solution.

"you guys"

Fuck you. If you want to argue with an imaginary opponent, have at it. I'll leave you to masturbate over in the corner by yourself, where you can imagine all of your opponents and their imaginary opinions.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But, looking at it scientifically, gun control is to the American left what climate change is to the American right. All the statistics prove gun control doesn't work.


Australia. United Kingdom.

I win. Drinking Beverage


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  In most cases, crime gets worse, and best case, like in Australia, it simply has no negative effect. Look at Europe. The 5 countries with the lowest rate of gun ownership have 3 times as much violent crime as the 5 countries with the highest rate.


So what option do we have? Will deregulation and an even greater saturation of guns on the market improve our situation?

How does 'more guns' help decrease gun violence?


But what am I doing even asking you questions, when you've already assumed my answers... Rolleyes


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You want to stop gun violence? Consider my pov: The reason Switzerland can give people guns like candy and not have violence is because the government preaches non-violence. They never invade and attack other countries. If someone else is different from you, they preach tolerance and respect. Compare to the US, which invades and attacks all over the world, and teaches that if someone is different from you the correct response is to blow their head off. Look at the poll of whether Americans should bomb Agrabah. Look at how politicians on both sides insist the correct response to Iran is to carpet bomb them.


Your POV is that of someone who doesn't live int he United States and have to deal with this shit on a regular basis. Unfortunately you've also shown that your POV is only interested in arguing with it's imagination, so your POV is worth fuck all so far.

I'm still waiting on baited breath for you to tell me, once again, what my opinion is.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So guess what happens when the government teaches kids from birth that the right thing to do with people different from you is kill them? Then when kids like Adam Lanza feel different from others, they do exactly what the government taught them to do.


We're not the Nazis you stupid fuck. We don't have state sponsored hate training. There are plenty of problem here with our education and social safety net, but once again, expecting a nuanced understanding from you when you'd rather just project your imagined single-issue attestation? Why should I, or anyone else, even bother with you?


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  We libertarians have been screaming for centuries that violence begets violence and the more violent you are towards others, the more violence you will suffer. We told you so. So stop complaining.


Go fuck yourself.

I'm complaining because it's a problem that needs fixed, and your imaginary solutions are infantile in their inept vagueness. "Be less violent" is an answer that wouldn't pass muster in an elementary school report, let alone as any sort of tangible or feasible realpolitik solution.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Could have fooled me, as so far, you've done nothing but rant against it [government].
Wrong, I rant against violence and force no matter who is doing it.


All governments have and use force. If there was no force, it would be anarchy, not a government. You'll never have 100% zero coercion, because even attempting to establish such a system would require the implementation of force and the use of coercion to both initiate and maintain it.

This is where you take a nose dive out of (your sadly skewed) reality and straight into the glue-sniffing Glen Beck theoretical Libertarianism that is, at base, self contradictory and entirely unfeasible in our reality given human nature.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  When the government reduces force so people are free to choose without coercion, I praise government. When government initiates force and denies people freedom of choice, then I rant against it. The same as I would against any non-government organization that does it.


And here we can agree to an extent, but also realize that there exists a continuum. There will always be a debate as to when and where and how much force to use, and simply rallying against all force is both infantile and a non-starter; because it's a theoretical extreme position that completely falls apart with self contradiction.

But of course, this requires nuance; a concept you seem to have zero understating of.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nope, the right-wing claim they want to cut taxes, even when it's not feasible for the amount of spending they want.
For once we agree. They simultaneously say 'let's cut taxes' and 'let's spend trillions of dollars carpet bombing Iran'. absurd


See that? You do have some rudimentary reading comprehension. Color me surprised.

But it's still ignores the fact that you are now agreeing with me, when I took umbrage with your initial fallacious blanket assertions. So, you know, there is that...


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How quintessentially right-wing. Don't like it? You can leave! *spitoon*
That's right-wing? So if you check into a hotel and the hotel says you can leave if you don't like it, that's right-wing. But if the hotel locks you in the room and says you're not allowed to go anywhere, that is left.


No, that's kidnapping, you stupid fuck. Facepalm

Don't people have a right to not be driven from their homes, their jobs, their families, by policies that specifically target them? Should we instead endorse discrimination, and if you don't like your second class status, you can always leave?

Is migration really the best answer to inequality?

Oops, there I go again trying the Socratic method again, silly me. For the record, I'm pretty sure that Socrates would have delivered a flying drop kick to your spleen by now for your rampant disregard of what people are actually saying to you. You know, it's the principle of the thing.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Fine, then I'm right wing. When I invite people to my home, they're always free to leave if they don't like it. I hope I never go into your home.


For as much as you indulge in hyperbole, you really suck at it.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The left says why libertarians want to deal with private companies and not government. This is why!!! With private companies if they do a shitty job we can leave and go where we get good service. With government, you knuckle-draggers think we should be forced at gunpoint to use your shitty service and never allowed to leave.


Assuming, of course, that the other companies are not cohorts against you, otherwise known as a cartel (see also: OPEC). Or that a single company, with zero regulations to worry about, has decided to either chop up the market into monopolistic territories (like the US broadband network), or there exists only a single provider for that service.

Simple deregulation doesn't solve the problem. Deregulation doesn't, in and of itself, ensure better service; and to claim otherwise is to ignore reality. But properly implemented and enforced smart regulations can guarantee a minimum level of expectation, and allow for alternative recourse should those regulations be broken or otherwise not adhered to.

Once again, I'm not seeing anything more here than a rant against bad regulations; which is not an adequate argument against regulations writ large.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fuck you, efficient spending of tax dollars is exactly what I do want. But de-centralization and localization is not a magic cure-all, just look at the sad state of our education system.
Again, you CAUSED it.


No, I did not. I'm am but a single person in a nation with a population in the millions and who's existence predated my own birth by centuries. But sure, keep being a fucking moron if it amuses you.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  A few years after the Dept of Education was formed and centralized the power, Milton Friedman showed the charts that quality of education took a nose dive, and predicted as long as it was centrally planned, it would get worse and worse. Finland, however, had a mediocre education system, but they took the libertarian approach as far as they could and decentralized education so much that each teacher gets to pick his own curriculum.

Now, 30 years later, Finland ranks #1 across the board in education, and the US keeps nose diving just like Friedman warned would happen. You keep praising Scandanavia oblivious to the fact their success comes from running away from the policies you advocate!


Uh, citation please.

The United States is not Scandinavia, and deregulation here has seen nothing but the adoption of adverse education policies. If we further left the locals to self determine their education, we'd get a self perpetuating circle of ignorance reinforcing ignorance. We'd have religions ideologues teaching creationism as fact.

Now would allowing them to do that, as opposed to stopping them in the name of science, be a net positive for the personal freedom of the advocates of ignorance? Sure. That's why Libertarianism is really popular among the States Rights advocates and all others who want to subvert Federal power; and almost exclusively for the express purpose of asserting their own instead.

But is that in the best interest of the children? Is it in the best interest of the nation that will eventually rely upon these children later as adults? Doesn't knowingly allowing them to be taught lies as facts do them a disservice? Doesn't purposely lying to children limit their freedom of thought?

Your Libertarian wet-dream bullshit really starts to show it's true colors the instant you start to layer reality over it.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Force people to stay? In what universe? All anyone can seem to talk about is trying to keep people out, because for as fucked up as things are here, it's still an improvement and worth emigrating for many people.
What happened when Eduardo Severin (facebook co-founder) renounced his citizenship, because he had dual Brazil/US citizenship and gave up living in the US. The left was outraged that it was a 'loophole' that because he had Brazilian citizenship he was allowed to give up his US citizenship and escape. The democrats even wrote the EX-PATRIOT ACT to block US citizens and long-term residencts from being able to leave.


One, 'The Left' is not a monolithic force. It is not Sauron from the Lord of the Rings, you incompetent incredulous fucktard.

Two, the Patriot Act was a bi-partisan piece of legislation written up and passed in haste in the post 9-11 fervor. There were plenty of mistakes made at that time with severe worldwide repercussions.

Three, I don't know enough or care enough about expatriate issues, because there is more than enough that needs to be fixed right her and now for the people who cannot afford to leave even if they wanted to. I imagine that a co-founder of one fo the biggest tech startups in history hard more than enough money to spend his way out of whatever problem he had that don't affect the vast, vast, vast majority of people living here. I'm not saying that he wasn't wronged, only that his problems are so far down on the list of 'shit that needs to be fixed' as to not even rate an after thought, and yet this idea of 'expatriate injustice' only ever seems to come up as the masturbatory klaxon call of Libertarians.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And the US raised the cost to renounce your citizenship by over 10x, and now there's a 2 year wait--and that's for people who already have other citizenship and even have the option of renouncing.


What's the rate on people coming in to going out? Right. Immigration policy for people coming in takes priority as far as reform is concerned. Sorry, but this is reality, and you can only fight so many battles. Expatriation is not the hill I'm going to die on, especially not as a current citizen myself.


(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Some things work better, or indeed need to be centrally regulated. Leave education up purely to the whims of individual states or municipalities therein, and you see the bullshit we have with abstinence-only sex education and creationism being taught in science classes.
Reality check. The quality of education in the US was much better before it was centralized aroudn the Dept of Ed, and is much better in Scandananvia where it is de-centralized.

Citation please. We've had federal regulation of education since long before the Department of Education was established in 1979, and can be traced back farther than that. It was predated by the Federal Security Agency in 1939, and even it was just a reorganization of the current piecemeal initiatives concerning education, health, and social security.

The Greatest Generation, the ones that fought in second World War, saw the development of the modern computer and atomic weapons, and put a man on the moon? The ones that helped build and oversaw American global hegemony? They received education under a system of federally regulated mandates. Drinking Beverage


So, in short, you can go fuck off in the corner and masturbate with your imagination on someone else's time. I'd done wasting mine on your reality deficient opinions.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
28-12-2015, 12:07 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  the 'natural remedies' problem the FDA has.... you know, the Libertarian ideal,

100% wrong. In every libertarian system all transactions must be entered into voluntarily. If a company misrepresents what is in the product and makes false claims, that is FRAUD. The government already has the right to pursue criminal charges against the perpetrators, and every libertarian supports this. The issue is if a company offers a product honestly, should consumers have the choice to use it, or should the government decide.

The problem with fraudulent home remedies is not a lack of regulation--but a lack of enforcement of truth in advertising and fraud laws. But IMO an even bigger problem is that US consumers who DO educate themselves and make informed decisions about what to buy are blocked by the government. An AIDS patient who needs Daraprim is FORCED by the FDA to buy it from Martin Shkreli for $750/pill and threatened with jail time for smuggling if he tries to import it from the UK where it's sold for 66 cents a pill. In Europe, sunscreen is unregulated. And they have enjoyed modern, safe ingredients, like Mexoryl. In the US it's regulated and ingredients must be FDA approved, which costs an estimated $1 billion, so the only approved ingredients, like methylbenzylidene, are dangerous, cancer-causing chemical that mimic hormones and interrupt the endocrine system (source)). It caused such outrage for dermatologists for so long that finally just this past year Congress introduced the suncreen innovation act to reduce the regulatory burden since some Americans were dying because they couldn't get access to modern ingredients.

Google "does the fda cause more deaths than save lives" and you'll see the vast majority of independent research has concluded "YES", by blocking access to good drugs, the FDA kill more people than are saved by preventing access to bad ones.

(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Let the banks gamble with depositor money!

Who were the ones back in 1999 arguing against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (repeal of Glass-Steagall)? Yeap, just us libertarians. dems and reps voted overwhelmingly in favor, and Ron Paul gave a speech that because the American taxpayers were already being forced to bail out the banks, there MUST be laws protecting tax payers from banks that take on too much risk, and he warned that if you give the bank free reign to gamble with whatever risk they want, but say that American taxpayers will bail them out when they fail, they're bound to take too many risks and it will lead to a financial crisis. On Sept 2003 he made a prediction before Congress "The special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital that they could not attract under pure market conditions. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing, the damage will be catastrophic." And right up until 2006 when he was predicting a financial crisis, both dems and reps said it couldn't happen--government regulation would prevent it.

We told you so.

(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But, looking at it scientifically, gun control is to the American left what climate change is to the American right. All the statistics prove gun control doesn't work.


Australia. United Kingdom.

I win. Drinking Beverage

nope, you lose.

[Image: GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-U.K.-Violent-Cri...00x288.png]

[Image: GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-U.K.-Violent-Cri...00x275.png]

[Image: GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Australian-Homic...00x284.png]

see 'effects of Australian gun control laws' in wikipedia

(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 11:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So guess what happens when the government teaches kids from birth that the right thing to do with people different from you is kill them? Then when kids like Adam Lanza feel different from others, they do exactly what the government taught them to do.

We're not the Nazis you stupid fuck. We don't have state sponsored hate training.

Really? GW and Cheney (and even Dems like Hillary) were insisting the correct response to Iraq, a defunct government which the US already decimated and was powerless to pose any threat to the US, was to carpet bomb them.

(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  All governments have and use force. If there was no force, it would be anarchy, not a government. You'll never have 100% zero coercion, because even attempting to establish such a system would require the implementation of force and the use of coercion to both initiate and maintain it.

Libertarians agree a government is by definition that organization which has a monopoly on the use of violence in a given jurisdiction. Where we disagree is if this power should be used defensively to stop violence and allow free choice (rape, homicide, etc.), or used offensively where the government initiates violence against non-violent members of society (drug laws, etc.)

(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If we further left the locals to self determine their education, we'd get a self perpetuating circle of ignorance reinforcing ignorance. We'd have religions ideologues teaching creationism as fact.

Read Power to the Councils: Decentralized Education. Finland had a mediocre education system when it was centrally controlled in the 60's, then they adopted the libertarian system of decentralized control, and rose to #1 within 1 generation. This isn't disputed.

Sure, maybe some teachers teach crazy stuff, but overall decentralization works best and allows to communities to be accountable. Besides, in the US, roughly half the population believe creation should be taught as fact. So the real risk exists in the US that the entire country could be taught this thanks to central planning, and then nobody in the country will be able to get a science-based education.


(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Two, the Patriot Act was a bi-partisan piece of legislation written up and passed in haste in the post 9-11 fervor. There were plenty of mistakes made at that time with severe worldwide repercussions.

You're confused. I said the ex-patriot act. Totally unrelated. It was the democrats obsession with stopping emigration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2015, 10:31 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(28-12-2015 12:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  the 'natural remedies' problem the FDA has.... you know, the Libertarian ideal,

100% wrong. In every libertarian system all transactions must be entered into voluntarily. If a company misrepresents what is in the product and makes false claims, that is FRAUD. The government already has the right to pursue criminal charges against the perpetrators, and every libertarian supports this. The issue is if a company offers a product honestly, should consumers have the choice to use it, or should the government decide.

The problem with fraudulent home remedies is not a lack of regulation--but a lack of enforcement of truth in advertising and fraud laws. But IMO an even bigger problem is that US consumers who DO educate themselves and make informed decisions about what to buy are blocked by the government. An AIDS patient who needs Daraprim is FORCED by the FDA to buy it from Martin Shkreli for $750/pill and threatened with jail time for smuggling if he tries to import it from the UK where it's sold for 66 cents a pill. In Europe, sunscreen is unregulated. And they have enjoyed modern, safe ingredients, like Mexoryl. In the US it's regulated and ingredients must be FDA approved, which costs an estimated $1 billion, so the only approved ingredients, like methylbenzylidene, are dangerous, cancer-causing chemical that mimic hormones and interrupt the endocrine system (source)). It caused such outrage for dermatologists for so long that finally just this past year Congress introduced the suncreen innovation act to reduce the regulatory burden since some Americans were dying because they couldn't get access to modern ingredients.

Google "does the fda cause more deaths than save lives" and you'll see the vast majority of independent research has concluded "YES", by blocking access to good drugs, the FDA kill more people than are saved by preventing access to bad ones.

(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Let the banks gamble with depositor money!

Who were the ones back in 1999 arguing against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (repeal of Glass-Steagall)? Yeap, just us libertarians. dems and reps voted overwhelmingly in favor, and Ron Paul gave a speech that because the American taxpayers were already being forced to bail out the banks, there MUST be laws protecting tax payers from banks that take on too much risk, and he warned that if you give the bank free reign to gamble with whatever risk they want, but say that American taxpayers will bail them out when they fail, they're bound to take too many risks and it will lead to a financial crisis. On Sept 2003 he made a prediction before Congress "The special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital that they could not attract under pure market conditions. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing, the damage will be catastrophic." And right up until 2006 when he was predicting a financial crisis, both dems and reps said it couldn't happen--government regulation would prevent it.

We told you so.

(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Australia. United Kingdom.

I win. Drinking Beverage

nope, you lose.

[Image: GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-U.K.-Violent-Cri...00x288.png]

[Image: GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-U.K.-Violent-Cri...00x275.png]

[Image: GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Australian-Homic...00x284.png]

see 'effects of Australian gun control laws' in wikipedia

(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We're not the Nazis you stupid fuck. We don't have state sponsored hate training.

Really? GW and Cheney (and even Dems like Hillary) were insisting the correct response to Iraq, a defunct government which the US already decimated and was powerless to pose any threat to the US, was to carpet bomb them.

(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  All governments have and use force. If there was no force, it would be anarchy, not a government. You'll never have 100% zero coercion, because even attempting to establish such a system would require the implementation of force and the use of coercion to both initiate and maintain it.

Libertarians agree a government is by definition that organization which has a monopoly on the use of violence in a given jurisdiction. Where we disagree is if this power should be used defensively to stop violence and allow free choice (rape, homicide, etc.), or used offensively where the government initiates violence against non-violent members of society (drug laws, etc.)

(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If we further left the locals to self determine their education, we'd get a self perpetuating circle of ignorance reinforcing ignorance. We'd have religions ideologues teaching creationism as fact.

Read Power to the Councils: Decentralized Education. Finland had a mediocre education system when it was centrally controlled in the 60's, then they adopted the libertarian system of decentralized control, and rose to #1 within 1 generation. This isn't disputed.

Sure, maybe some teachers teach crazy stuff, but overall decentralization works best and allows to communities to be accountable. Besides, in the US, roughly half the population believe creation should be taught as fact. So the real risk exists in the US that the entire country could be taught this thanks to central planning, and then nobody in the country will be able to get a science-based education.


(28-12-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Two, the Patriot Act was a bi-partisan piece of legislation written up and passed in haste in the post 9-11 fervor. There were plenty of mistakes made at that time with severe worldwide repercussions.

You're confused. I said the ex-patriot act. Totally unrelated. It was the democrats obsession with stopping emigration.



"So, in short, you can go fuck off in the corner and masturbate with your imagination on someone else's time. I'd done wasting mine on your reality deficient opinions."



Hey jackass, thanks for showing you cannot read for shit. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: