Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-08-2014 12:19 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I never said about not using force. I meant not initiating force.
Plus, denial of service is not initiation of force and it is very effective as a punishment.
As for the food... People generally can't afford to pay doctor in cash, this is why health insurance exists. Health insurance is gets more profit if customers are healthy. This is why customers who aren't will pay more for health insurance, thus motivating them to eat healthy. This will force food companies to put healthy food on the market.
Also, most unhealthy food in the US such as McDonald's is government subsidized, such as the corn on which beef is grown. Drinking Beverage It takes 7 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. On free market there is no way in hell that 1 pound of beef would be cheaper than 7 pounds of grain. No chance of that. I tell you, government subsidies make unhealthy food seem cheaper than it actually is. It's tax pre-paid.

Oh Lumi, once again, magical thinking doesn't count.

You're still assuming that Insurance companies would actually exist at all in your unregulated chaos, something I find extremely doubtful. Insurance companies rely upon regulations, not only to regulate how they work, but to regulate how everyone else works as well. This allows them to more accurately judge and assess risk, which is the key to operating a successful insurance company. Without regulations, the potential risks jump exponentially, which would have to be offset by skyrocketing premiums. Remember that there is no one to enforce regulations, so even if the insurance company tried to mandate certain behaviors with a contract; who or what would enforce that contract? Nothing, because the unregulated free-market 'utopia' will not magically force the company to comply with the insurance company's stipulations. Does a breech of contract count as an 'initiation of force' enough for the Insurance company to send their mercenaries after them to make them pay up? Because if there's one thing we need more of, it's company owned and operated militias.

People have a hard enough time getting health insurance as it, what makes you think that it would be at all affordable or common enough for the average consumer in your volatile free market (remember, magic and feels don't count)?



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Do you imply that the consumer base isn't what you describe?
May I ask, who was in charge of educating the consumer base for the last 50 years or so?

I'm a realist, and you are a naive child. Apparently your public and private education has failed you greatly. Is there any evidence that the entire consumer base is intelligent, rational, well informed, with access to many options they can afford? Fuck no, and there is no reason (once again, magic and feels don't count) to assume that they will in your wet-dream unregulated utopia.

People are not rational, see religion (and your own woo-woo bullshit). Will your anarchic-capitalist utopia outlaw religion while you're at it? Of course not. Will there be regulations and mandates for at least a minimum level of competence? Of fucking course not, that would not only be regulation and interference in the free-market, and an impediment of your free will to remains as ignorant as you can get away with. Will people be well informed? Without regulation for things like mandatory disclosure and fairness in advertising, what makes you think the information available will be at all comprehensive or reliable, even if one can get access to it (because even access to information isn't guaranteed either). Even if they can, there are no guarantees that there will be any feasible competition, or that it will be affordable? None whatsoever.

You can't promise anything more than magical thinking, and that's not good enough Lumi.



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm going to skip the rampant financial sector wealth and CEOs, so far I saw all such things tracked to a government regulation. Free market makes common sense, shitty practices lead to shitty results.

Magical thinking doesn't count Lumi. What would prevent CEO abuse? Nothing. No regulation, no standards, no laws, no ethics. Nothing would prevent a smart successful company from subsuming it's competition, gaining a monopoly, then becoming lazy and unresponsive. They might fail, but there is no guarantee. Others might compete, but they will be able to throw around massive clout to stomp out new competition aggressively; then again other's might not see the profit to be made in taking on the only competition in a head on pissing match. What is to stop the formation of price fixing cartels? "LOL the consumers and magic" are not sufficient answers.

(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm going to skip Bitcoin too, you can look up the difference to fiat currency by yourself.

A currency not backed by a physical commodity? Yep, that's fiat. Yep, that's Bitcoin.

Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But this is getting very interesting, i think I see some kind of discourse in what you say.

Can you please define me what is a "guarantee"? Especially in economic and social sense. Not political, that was already said. For example, what guarantee is there that people will come to work regularly or that there will be food in the shops every morning, that sort of thing.

You often say, "who is going to prevent people from" and "who is going to prevent corporations from"...
Can you sum up the motivations and goals of people that they need to be prevented from? Who can prevent them and what about the preventor's or regulator's motivation?

What is this reality and human behavior? Can you flat-out describe the model of human behavior you work with? Can people be trusted to do their job? Is there a moral difference between people doing business and people in public sector?

People are generally good, but there are always going to be ignorant assholes at the ends of the bell curve (like you). You pass laws and regulations to take these outliers into account. It's why we outlaw murder, not because everyone is expected to kill one another at the drop of the hat save for the prohibition against it; but because those of us that make up the majority of the non-murdering bell curve what protection from and recourse against those who do murder. I'm embarrassed that I actually have to explain this shit to you.

This is why we need to guard against unbridled greed, something your wet-dream can't account for outside of magic and feels; but it is something that can be regulated with laws and standards. Without regulations, there is no recourse for the majority against the outliers that adversely affect everyone else. We have seen this before, and inevitable it ends with people taking 'the law' into their own hands. There is no guarantees on human behavior, no guarantee that this utopia will all be made out of well educated pacifist that will never resort to violence. I live in the United States, where we are prudes about sexuality; but boy do we love violence. Go and try to tell a gun-toting Texan that he doesn't have any legal recourse or protections, but that he's also somehow expected to never resort to violence if someone ever fuck him over. He's next question would be "without police or government, who's going to stop me?". Bam, and we're back int he Wild West with vigilante justice; and there is nothing your magical thinking, feels, and assumptions can do to prevent that very likely outcome.



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Can you tell me what do you think of the following video, Edgar the Exploiter? Please watch it whole, it talks about outlawing unfair business practices.



Wow, really? You're that stupid?

Edgar still needs to have those floors cleaned. How much is it worth to Edgar to keep those floors clean? You paint the false dilemma that all workers are only hired and retained for the exact cost/benefit, and as soon as one outweighs the other, they are immediately fired. The floors still need to be cleaned. How much does having a clean environment help everyone else do their jobs better and more effectively? How much more money does that floor sweeper help everyone else make, that simply isn't being accounted for in your childishly simple example? Also, sometimes companies lose money on the things they require to operate their business. Is Edgar going to shut his factory down because he can't afford floor cleaners? Even if he loses money on the cleaner itself (which he might, on a narrow enough look), it's a cost of doing business if we wants to maintain a clean factory.

McDonald's can afford to pay all of it's hourly employees $15 dollars and hour, and even if they put all of that back onto the consumer (instead of taking it out of their monstrous profits), it would increase the cost of their food by a few cents. Walmart could do the same thing, raising average consumer cost by $12 annually for the typical American family that uses Walmart on a regular basis; once again, assuming they put all of the costs back onto consumers instead of cutting into the obscene profits of the Walton family.

The minimum wage is meant to ensure that someone who puts in enough time per week, regardless of whatever the job may be, will be able to afford a certain standard of living. This is because the society decided that this was important, more important than unfettered capitalism; and so used the government to enforce their will. Corporate America can quite clearly afford to pay their workers better wages, but they will not. The first rule of capitalism is to never pay more for labor than you have to. Minimum wage forces them to pay more, because they clearly aren't being motivated to do so on their own; and the studies show that this would barely affect their current profit margins. Even if McDonalds absorbed entirely the cost of paying all of their workers $15 an hour, they would not suddenly fire everyone or close down; there is still plenty of profit to be made. It's just that shareholders and CEO's would get a fraction less of it. Now the consensus of society is that this is the right thing to do, good luck convincing them we need even less corporate regulations and abolishing the few consumer and worker protections we have left. Corporate America has been waging a propaganda war against Unions for decades, and sadly they've been winning. So it turns out people can be that stupid and swayed by misinformation (which is a callback to the previous point about human gullibility, in case you didn't get that point).



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Are people able to react to consequences of their actions?
You seemed to imply that this is not the case and that people need to be regulations to ensure that people have insurance, implying they can not be relied upon go and get one from their own will.

What is a "licensed legitimate (insurance) company"? How does it differ from an unlicensed illegitimate one, which provides the same or better service? Are customers unable to tell a difference?

It's called 'insurance fraud' you dumbass. When someone poses as an insurance company, takes payment, but never makes good on legitimate claims. Likewise even legitimate insurance company can have particular cases of fraud within them. We have regulations and rules to attempt to prevent this from happening, and we have licensing agencies to ensure that the companies are legitimate businesses and have met the minimum regulator standards required of them. This is all meant to prevent and reduce fraud, to protect consumers. I fail to see how this system would be improved by removing all of the regulator framework.

When looking to get vehicle insurance, I can check company X against a publicly accessible database of licensed insurance providers. If company X is not on that list, that is not a good sign. If they claim to be but are not, that is fraud. If they are on the list, then that means that they are a legitimate insurance agency, and my trust in them increases. Not that I shouldn't be wary, but the chances of them being an obvious scam drop dramatically. Not only that, but I know that I do have legal recourse against them if they do fail to uphold their contractual obligations. There are option for civil litigation if they are found to have committed fraud or negligence, which can be handled in court of they are found or accused of being in violation of laws and regulations. This greatly increases public trust, because now I know that if they fuck me over, I have options and recourse available to me.



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What is public trust? Why can't it just be fixed by offering lower prices?

Do you even know what 'trust' means? Clearly you do not. Lowering prices does not instill trust, it just incentives a purchase. But how well would that work for insurance, where it's you giving them money on the promise that they'll keep their obligations; and there is no regulations or laws ensuring that they will uphold their end, or legal recourse should they fail to uphold their end. Try selling insurance in that environment. Good fucking luck with that...


(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What is fairness and standards?

Like not allowing people to lie about their products, to protect consumers from fraud?


(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What motivates people to break them?

In a capitalistic economy, profit is usually the go-to reason.


(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Why do they need to be enforced? By whom? What about the enforcers' fairness and standards?

Enforced to prevent fraud and protect consumers. Enforced by the government (regulators, attorneys, police). Government is regulated by the law, and should be watched by the citizens, who ironically enough are also the very consumers that are being protected by the government.


(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What do you think that a higher risk stops the business altogether instead of just increasing the prices?

Zero regulation means that risk rises exponentially. Given that you're okay with huge wealth disparity and vastly unequal wealth distribution, then only the wealthiest will be able to afford insurance; and even then there may not be enough of them in that risk pool to lower the price enough to make it worthwhile to themselves.

A counter example is the government run healthcare systems on Europe, where everyone gets insurance; and by the nature of everyone being in the risk pool, it helps to spread and minimize risk and keeps costs lower for everyone. Not only that, but they can also use their government to pass other regulations and laws that can encourage healthier lifestyles, thus helping to lower the costs even further. The government has a vested interest in protecting their citizens, provided the citizens are keeping a close eye on their government.

Because sometimes Lumi, making a profit is not the most important thing. Sometimes groups of people and the government that represent them agree that it's in everyone's best interest to have healthcare because it's the humane and empathetic thing to do.

Greed and profit motives do not engender empathy.



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Have you read the article about Wild West?
https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Fuck you, I'm not reading a 21 page PDF of Austrian apologetics. You suck at defending all of your shit here, I'm not wasting more of my time reading more of your second hand bullshit. I imagine that given the option between the Wild West and FDR's New Deal, most people in the developed west would opt for the New Deal.

Bowing I'm jealous of your ability to wittily (is that a word?) deliver the biggest smack down I've seen in a looong time. Yes Please, carry on.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
20-08-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  EK: Cool story. You showed how good regulations are. But if they are so good, why there's so little? I want more guarantees or I want at least a good justification why it's not happening.

I haven't read this entire thread and I'm not going to, but this statement, right here, indicates how very little you actually know about regulation.

Regulation can only be reactive, not proactive. There is no way to prevent someone from breaking a rule, there can only be a reactionary action (fine, censure, or expelled from industry).

Regulation is good in so far as the rules are not too specific (the more specific the rule, the more loopholes are created), and emerging competitors in the industry can have extensive relief of those regulations to allow for adequate competition. Regulation, can - and has - create monopolies. It's costly to comply. The Key here is balance.

I do have to say....all you would need is a few ridiculous hypotheticals, and you are another Frankksj


(19-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Why do regulations stop so woefully short of a total guarantee of well-being of us all?

Again, you do not understand the purpose of regulation. Regulation is to ensure transparency and integrity to whatever industry it's functioning in. The Securities Act of 1933 was established to create transparency after the great market crash caused the depression. Too much fraud and no one had confidence in the system any longer.
The Securities Act of 1933 was NOT established to ensure a "total guarantee of [financial] well-being." No

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Cathym112's post
20-08-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 01:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  EK: Cool story. You showed how good regulations are. But if they are so good, why there's so little? I want more guarantees or I want at least a good justification why it's not happening.

I haven't read this entire thread and I'm not going to, but this statement, right here, indicates how very little you actually know about regulation.

Regulation can only be reactive, not proactive. There is no way to prevent someone from breaking a rule, there can only be a reactionary action (fine, censure, or expelled from industry).

Regulation is good in so far as the rules are not too specific (the more specific the rule, the more loopholes are created), and emerging competitors in the industry can have extensive relief of those regulations to allow for adequate competition. Regulation, can - and has - create monopolies. It's costly to comply. The Key here is balance.

I do have to say....all you would need is a few ridiculous hypotheticals, and you are another Frankksj


(19-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Why do regulations stop so woefully short of a total guarantee of well-being of us all?

Again, you do not understand the purpose of regulation. Regulation is to ensure transparency and integrity to whatever industry it's functioning in. The Securities Act of 1933 was established to create transparency after the great market crash caused the depression. Too much fraud and no one had confidence in the system any longer.
The Securities Act of 1933 was NOT established to ensure a "total guarantee of [financial] well-being." No

Oh if you enjoy crazy you are truly missing out not reading this full thread. Luminon has run the full gamut of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist insanity. He is so far up his own ass it is ridiculous. Best part is he is claiming bachelors degrees in several things he clearly has zero understanding of.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
20-08-2014, 02:28 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2014 02:47 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 01:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I haven't read this entire thread and I'm not going to, but this statement, right here, indicates how very little you actually know about regulation.

Regulation can only be reactive, not proactive. There is no way to prevent someone from breaking a rule, there can only be a reactionary action (fine, censure, or expelled from industry).

Regulation is good in so far as the rules are not too specific (the more specific the rule, the more loopholes are created), and emerging competitors in the industry can have extensive relief of those regulations to allow for adequate competition. Regulation, can - and has - create monopolies. It's costly to comply. The Key here is balance.

I do have to say....all you would need is a few ridiculous hypotheticals, and you are another Frankksj
Honestly, I'm playing a Socratic simpleton here. Looks like we have the very proactive rule #1 Thou shalt pay taxes, and regulations as an afterthought.

According to my Austrian economics lectures, both taxes and regulations mess up the market and make things more expensive and worse quality. During the lectures, I've been given a plenty of evidence that government regulations aren't the cause of good, or aren't the only way to get good things done, they prevent good from happening or they do outright damage.
Read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". Yes, balance is important, but there is no way how a few bureaucrats in offices can get the balance right. It takes efforts of everyone on the market to find the balance and adjust it constantly due to changing resources and technologies. People on the market must be mobile and respond to changing profits and prices if balance is to be maintained. Centralized regulations to stabilize prices always mean extra loss and damage. Everyone has to regulate their own business instead of putting all eggs into one basket.
Hazlitt's book is fun to read and it makes a good case for common sense economics. But you know that evidence does not work on people who didn't get to a stance through evidence to begin with. Ideologies can be secular too, you know?


(20-08-2014 01:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Again, you do not understand the purpose of regulation. Regulation is to ensure transparency and integrity to whatever industry it's functioning in. The Securities Act of 1933 was established to create transparency after the great market crash caused the depression. Too much fraud and no one had confidence in the system any longer.
The Securities Act of 1933 was NOT established to ensure a "total guarantee of [financial] well-being." No
Well, I know that politicians say and most people believe that regulations ensure transparency and integrity. But that's not enough for me or anyone who claims to be scientific or skeptical or whatever. It was a response to EK who seems to have a great confidence that government shits goodness like unicorns shit rainbows, so I tried to take him up on the offer and asked why don't we let government do everything, when it obviously knows better than people.

I demand empirical evidence for political claims and also evidence that the economic or social purpose can not be achieved by any other way than the proactive taxation. There is no such evidence. I think politics is snake oil, but we're living in the Aztec snake cult civilization, so it's not that obvious.
This kind of argument is on the level of "there must be fear of Hell or people would steal even more than they do". Surely the fear of Hell played a great social and historical role and surely prevented many crimes. And surely the slavery of blacks produced a lot of high-quality cotton. And surely it was very problematic to abolish slavery, it caused a whole war! But none of that is an argument that Hell or slavery are the only or even the best method to prevent crimes and produce cotton. Historically we know that they weren't, but I have little something called Non-Aggression principle that allows me to know that in advance.

I tell you one very radical thing: if you encountered such an "argument" in any other area but politics (or family or religion if you are religious), your bullshit alarm would go off.
Read Henry Hazlitt. It will make so much more sense to you that any of people in this thread including my ramblings.
http://library.mises.org/books/Henry%20H...Lesson.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 02:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 01:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I haven't read this entire thread and I'm not going to, but this statement, right here, indicates how very little you actually know about regulation.

Regulation can only be reactive, not proactive. There is no way to prevent someone from breaking a rule, there can only be a reactionary action (fine, censure, or expelled from industry).

Regulation is good in so far as the rules are not too specific (the more specific the rule, the more loopholes are created), and emerging competitors in the industry can have extensive relief of those regulations to allow for adequate competition. Regulation, can - and has - create monopolies. It's costly to comply. The Key here is balance.

I do have to say....all you would need is a few ridiculous hypotheticals, and you are another Frankksj
Honestly, I'm playing a Socratic simpleton here. Looks like we have the very proactive rule #1 Thou shalt pay taxes, and regulations as an afterthought.

According to my Austrian economics lectures, both taxes and regulations mess up the market and make things more expensive and worse quality. During the lectures, I've been given a plenty of evidence that government regulations aren't the cause of good, or aren't the only way to get good things done, they prevent good from happening or they do outright damage.
Read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". There's all the evidence you need to prove that I am correct and all the other people in this thread are... secular version of Christians.
But you know that evidence does not work on people who didn't get to a stance through evidence to begin with.


(20-08-2014 01:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Again, you do not understand the purpose of regulation. Regulation is to ensure transparency and integrity to whatever industry it's functioning in. The Securities Act of 1933 was established to create transparency after the great market crash caused the depression. Too much fraud and no one had confidence in the system any longer.
The Securities Act of 1933 was NOT established to ensure a "total guarantee of [financial] well-being." No
Well, I know that politicians say and most people believe that regulations ensure transparency and integrity. But that's not enough for me or anyone who claims to be scientific or skeptical or whatever. It was a response to EK who seems to have a great confidence that government shits goodness like unicorns shit rainbows, so I tried to take him up on the offer and asked why don't we let government do everything, when it obviously knows better than people.

I demand empirical evidence for political claims and also evidence that the economic or social purpose can not be achieved by any other way than the proactive taxation. There is no such evidence. I think politics is snake oil, but we're living in the Aztec snake cult civilization, so it's not that obvious.
This kind of argument is on the level of "there must be fear of Hell or people would steal even more than they do". Surely the fear of Hell played a great social and historical role and surely prevented many crimes. And surely the slavery of blacks produced a lot of high-quality cotton. And surely it was very problematic to abolish slavery, it caused a whole war! But none of that is an argument that Hell or slavery are the only or even the best method to prevent crimes and produce cotton. Historically we know that they weren't, but I have little something called Non-Aggression principle that allows me to know that in advance.

I tell you one very radical thing: if you encountered such an "argument" in any other area but politics (or family or religion if you are religious), your bullshit alarm would go off.
Read Henry Hazlitt. It will make so much more sense to you that any of people in this thread including my ramblings.
http://library.mises.org/books/Henry%20H...Lesson.pdf

I will make this really, really simple for you.

Too much government is oppressive, stifling, and anti-freedom. But too litlle is dangerous.

The 'market' has already proved itself incapable of preventing harm, just read some history - especially labor history.

So, some government is necessary to protect people from polluters, scam artists, bank robbers, and so on.

Those are paid for communally by - ready for it? - taxes.

Your fantasy of no government is just that - fantasy already shown false.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
20-08-2014, 02:59 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 02:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I will make this really, really simple for you.

Too much government is oppressive, stifling, and anti-freedom. But too litlle is dangerous.

The 'market' has already proved itself incapable of preventing harm, just read some history - especially labor history.

So, some government is necessary to protect people from polluters, scam artists, bank robbers, and so on.

Those are paid for communally by - ready for it? - taxes.

Your fantasy of no government is just that - fantasy already shown false.
Historically, only rich people had voting rights - or any rights, actually. So going against rich people was like going against the government itself. There was none or little free market. And even if there was, people weren't philosophical, they were even more bound up in culture, prejudices and religion than today.

Freedom is created by people who are raised to be reasonable thinkers without any ideology, secular or religious. People who were taught how to resolve conflicts and negotiate.
If this is not the case, then society is dangerous. But the moment someone sets up a government, it is absolutely guaranteed that the worst psychopaths and narcissists will try to get there or influence the system. Yes, transparency, civil society and checks and balances will make things more difficult for them, but not for long. It never works in the long run, there is too much imbalance in power and things go gradually downhill. Depending on who takes over the system, powerful minority or mob rule, the thing slides into fascism or socialism, which is both statism.

Less or more power is just a temporary fix at best and it prevents us from finding real long term solutions, such as peaceful parenting and non-ideological education.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 02:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 02:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I will make this really, really simple for you.

Too much government is oppressive, stifling, and anti-freedom. But too litlle is dangerous.

The 'market' has already proved itself incapable of preventing harm, just read some history - especially labor history.

So, some government is necessary to protect people from polluters, scam artists, bank robbers, and so on.

Those are paid for communally by - ready for it? - taxes.

Your fantasy of no government is just that - fantasy already shown false.
Historically, only rich people had voting rights - or any rights, actually. So going against rich people was like going against the government itself. There was none or little free market. And even if there was, people weren't philosophical, they were even more bound up in culture, prejudices and religion than today.

Freedom is created by people who are raised to be reasonable thinkers without any ideology, secular or religious. People who were taught how to resolve conflicts and negotiate.
If this is not the case, then society is dangerous. But the moment someone sets up a government, it is absolutely guaranteed that the worst psychopaths and narcissists will try to get there or influence the system. Yes, transparency, civil society and checks and balances will make things more difficult for them, but not for long. It never works in the long run, there is too much imbalance in power and things go gradually downhill. Depending on who takes over the system, powerful minority or mob rule, the thing slides into fascism or communism, which is both statism.

Less or more power is just a temporary fix at best and it prevents us from finding real long term solutions, such as peaceful parenting and non-ideological education.

Yes folks magical thinking will solve all problems. Notice he has now changed his stance, government has now shifted to rich people and thus we are back to pointing out how his ideas lead back to exactly that situation. Where 1 rich person has the ability to enslave everyone else because there is no counteracting force.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
20-08-2014, 03:16 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2014 03:21 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 03:02 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes folks magical thinking will solve all problems. Notice he has now changed his stance, government has now shifted to rich people and thus we are back to pointing out how his ideas lead back to exactly that situation. Where 1 rich person has the ability to enslave everyone else because there is no counteracting force.
In the past government was officially in cahoots with rich people, especially during the industrial revolution in 19th century, which was supposedly a time of "unbridled capitalism". Nonsense. The power of aristocracy was still great. I don't know about the British, but in Austrian empire there was later the curia system which was pretty unequal, giving votes to aristocrats, bishops, big land owners and some professors and large tax sponsors too. No wonder that industry was dominated by German ethnicity and national minorities like my Czech ancestors were mostly menial laborers. Not very good for a free market, sure.

I have no problem with rich people who aren't formerly feudal aristocrats with enhanced political rights (as had many factory owners in Europe after the lands bailout of 1848) and aren't in politics. In fact, I want rich people to produce my electronics, if they can make it cheap and available.

What can I say? I do read books, after all Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
So....can someone fill me in on what's been going on for the last 40 pages or so?

Or rather are we still going round and around?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 02:19 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 01:57 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I haven't read this entire thread and I'm not going to, but this statement, right here, indicates how very little you actually know about regulation.

Regulation can only be reactive, not proactive. There is no way to prevent someone from breaking a rule, there can only be a reactionary action (fine, censure, or expelled from industry).

Regulation is good in so far as the rules are not too specific (the more specific the rule, the more loopholes are created), and emerging competitors in the industry can have extensive relief of those regulations to allow for adequate competition. Regulation, can - and has - create monopolies. It's costly to comply. The Key here is balance.

I do have to say....all you would need is a few ridiculous hypotheticals, and you are another Frankksj



Again, you do not understand the purpose of regulation. Regulation is to ensure transparency and integrity to whatever industry it's functioning in. The Securities Act of 1933 was established to create transparency after the great market crash caused the depression. Too much fraud and no one had confidence in the system any longer.
The Securities Act of 1933 was NOT established to ensure a "total guarantee of [financial] well-being." No

Oh if you enjoy crazy you are truly missing out not reading this full thread. Luminon has run the full gamut of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist insanity. He is so far up his own ass it is ridiculous. Best part is he is claiming bachelors degrees in several things he clearly has zero understanding of.

I don't have that kind of time

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: