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
25-08-2014, 03:27 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 11:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  Some people do know better than me, but that person ain't you. You preach to me about not accepting what other people say at face value, then assert some shit and expect me to swallow it? Laughat

Let's talk about for example an issue such as pollution. How much is it a problem, what shall we do about it, is there a trade off we have to make in order for our economy to grow? Now, a government can set up a committee, can consult experts, can really explore in depth what needs to be done about this issue - and sure, it takes time and particularly in the US the lobbying system means that special interest groups have a disproportionate influence, but the basic thing is, this now frees *me* from having to be an expert on the issue - I don't *want* to have to know everything there is to know about pollution, possible side effects, reasons to allow pollution (for example in SA electricity is generated largely by coal fired power stations and it's not likely to change in the near future)...

As long as there is accountability in the system (which again, our current president seems dead-set on dismantling the accountability sub-systems of our government), then government deciding on some tricky issues for *everyone* is a very good thing.
There is a promise and a charade of accountability, not actual accountability. That is the command & control mindset, if it's not spelled out in the law, nobody will do it even though everyone is talking about it. And by the law this takes control out of the hands of people who really care, that is owners.
Empirically, governments could not protect Alaskan cod population and they can't protect Brazilian rainforests. Tell me, who in the government gets fired and loses money if one more tree is cut down illegally in Brazil and one more tribe gets attacked?

Market knows about pollution. Free market reflects the effects of pollution in prices of literally everything, especially healthcare profits and insurance loses. This imbalance becomes a source of profit for someone to eliminate the problem and get rich if he's successful and -oh so inhumane- get poor if he fails. No government official or government-hired expert ever loses or gains money in proportion to the good or evil they cause.

The only way to protect ecology is to respect property rights. Owners take care of their piece of ecology, because they found a way how to use it. Owners don't exploit, they make long term investments. Owners want to hire experts to help them care for their property better. And so do insurance companies, because they are investors into the health and safety and they want healthy environment to generate profit.
Ownership rights make people naturally accountable through... accounting. There is no such thing as a market externality.
"Previous to 1850, for example, there was no pollution externality. This came about due to a “government failure” to uphold the law against trespass, not because of
any alleged “market failure” such as externalities."

https://mises.org/etexts/Environfreedom.pdf
http://mises.org/media/1804/13-Conservat...and-Growth

Why must you be so dense. You have no evidence to back up your claims. You just pull shit out of your ass and throw it up on the wall to see if it sticks. None of it sticks because all you have is diarrhea. Even the most libertarian people I have ever talked to understand externalities and come up with better bullshit than what you come up with.

People don't naturally think about the long term. People are naturally exploitative of their environment. They want to make the most as quickly as possible, and very few people think about how there actions today will affect even themselves in 5 or more years. The whole fucking 80's was a lesson about the dangers of short term thinking. We are still trying to get over that clusterfuck of a decade, but peoples natural tendencies are still to do what feels best now. It's why if you offer someone $100 today or $200 a year from now, most people will take the $100 today.

Ownership rights don't change a thing. People will use up as much as they can as quickly as they can if that means they can increase their short term profits. They don't give a damn about the future because they can't touch the future. They can feel today, tomorrow is nothing but a dream.

Some how you think people will change just because they are living in your imaginary anarchist utopia. Just a few post ago you claim you don't believe in GDP. Like it's an opinion. No matter what you think about how the GDP is calculated its a real fucking thing you moron. Your opinion on whether it should be calculated differently is an opinion. You are entitle to opinions, but don't be so stupid to claim it does't exist. Next your going to tell me magnetic fields don't exist because you don't like the how the fields are calculated.

I still can't believe that you think externalities don't exist, or didn't exist prior to 1850. What fucking universe do you get this shit from. Stop pulling things out of your ass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like PKJoe's post
25-08-2014, 04:06 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2014 04:32 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There is a promise and a charade of accountability, not actual accountability.

As opposed to your unregulated utopia of zero-accountability, funny how that works...


(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That is the command & control mindset, if it's not spelled out in the law, nobody will do it even though everyone is talking about it. And by the law this takes control out of the hands of people who really care, that is owners.

Owners care about their own, we regulate to make sure they mind others. Actions have consequences, we don't all live within hermetically sealed bubbles, immune from outside influences and the actions of others.


(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Empirically, governments could not protect Alaskan cod population and they can't protect Brazilian rainforests. Tell me, who in the government gets fired and loses money if one more tree is cut down illegally in Brazil and one more tribe gets attacked?

Notice his problem here isn't with corporate exploitation, but with instances where illegal corporate exploitation has continued. The problem here is the corporations not being held sufficiently accountable, and that somehow deregulation will magically make them more accountable.

Because reasons...


(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Market knows about pollution.

And yet we're still arguing over climate change, showing just how easy it is for corporations to buy propaganda to drowned out the opposition; which they have a history of doing to push their own interests at the expense of everyone else.


(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Free market reflects the effects of pollution in prices of literally everything, especially healthcare profits and insurance loses. This imbalance becomes a source of profit for someone to eliminate the problem and get rich if he's successful and -oh so inhumane- get poor if he fails. No government official or government-hired expert ever loses or gains money in proportion to the good or evil they cause.

Oh, that's cute! You still think that insurance companies would actually exist in an unregulated market! How quaint...


(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The only way to protect ecology is to respect property rights. Owners take care of their piece of ecology, because they found a way how to use it.

Also know as exploiting the land, and for good reason.


(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Owners don't exploit, they make long term investments.

LOL, you actually believe that don't you?


(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Owners want to hire experts to help them care for their property better. And so do insurance companies, because they are investors into the health and safety and they want healthy environment to generate profit.

Which is why the insurance companies would be all for abolishing restrictions on drunk driving and tobacco use, as well as the governmental agencies that regulate them and perform oversight and enforcement. Oh wait...


(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Ownership rights make people naturally accountable through... accounting. There is no such thing as a market externality.

We're done here folks, Luminon has gone Ultra Hyper Lumi Remix X2 on us. Full denial of reality is in full effect, because reality doesn't conform to what he was taught; so of course reality is wrong.


(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  "Previous to 1850, for example, there was no pollution externality. This came about due to a “government failure” to uphold the law against trespass, not because of
any alleged “market failure” such as externalities."

https://mises.org/etexts/Environfreedom.pdf
http://mises.org/media/1804/13-Conservat...and-Growth

We didn't understand the greater consequences of our action back then, therefore fuck all government regulations. Luminon should really classify as some sort of psychology student's master thesis on delusion and confirmation bias...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-08-2014, 04:17 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 04:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Luminon should really classify as some sort of psychology student's master thesis on delusion and confirmation bias...

I agree. It would be an interesting thesis paper for sure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like PKJoe's post
25-08-2014, 07:38 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 02:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 05:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Except that since you only read biased crap, you don't how stupid that quote is.
The overhead costs for the private health care 'system' in the U.S. are higher than the costs in most (possibly all) government mandated systems.
By a considerable margin, at that.

Every time someone gives me shit like that, there is a heap of government manipulation behind that.
If private healthcare was open to competition, then surely lots of doctors would want to get themselves rich, instead of working for the government! And they would compete for customers and guess what? Price would go down. And it would be a real price, not government made-up pre-paid number.

Did it ever occur to you that the government can't wave hands and say abracadabra fiat lex, and make the price actually go down? Such actions take about twice the actual price on people's taxes, purchasing power and quality of the service.

(24-08-2014 05:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Do you actually believe that the money paid in to Social Security is not invested? Shocking
Not in my country, we have a Pay as you go system. Other countries prefer to have a several hundred % retirement debt snowballing as a Ponzi scheme.

Private healthcare is open to competition. They have formed a cartel.

Meaning that you will ignore the facts because you have no explanation for them.
Right, got it. Drinking Beverage

Quote:
(24-08-2014 05:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Right, like that paragon of hard work, Bernie Madoff. Dodgy
Never heard of him. Did he order drone strikes or was he in charge of a secret prison?

Proving that you live in an insular little bubble world unconnected to reality.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
25-08-2014, 07:43 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 11:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  Some people do know better than me, but that person ain't you. You preach to me about not accepting what other people say at face value, then assert some shit and expect me to swallow it? Laughat

Let's talk about for example an issue such as pollution. How much is it a problem, what shall we do about it, is there a trade off we have to make in order for our economy to grow? Now, a government can set up a committee, can consult experts, can really explore in depth what needs to be done about this issue - and sure, it takes time and particularly in the US the lobbying system means that special interest groups have a disproportionate influence, but the basic thing is, this now frees *me* from having to be an expert on the issue - I don't *want* to have to know everything there is to know about pollution, possible side effects, reasons to allow pollution (for example in SA electricity is generated largely by coal fired power stations and it's not likely to change in the near future)...

As long as there is accountability in the system (which again, our current president seems dead-set on dismantling the accountability sub-systems of our government), then government deciding on some tricky issues for *everyone* is a very good thing.
There is a promise and a charade of accountability, not actual accountability. That is the command & control mindset, if it's not spelled out in the law, nobody will do it even though everyone is talking about it. And by the law this takes control out of the hands of people who really care, that is owners.
Empirically, governments could not protect Alaskan cod population and they can't protect Brazilian rainforests. Tell me, who in the government gets fired and loses money if one more tree is cut down illegally in Brazil and one more tribe gets attacked?

Market knows about pollution. Free market reflects the effects of pollution in prices of literally everything, especially healthcare profits and insurance loses. This imbalance becomes a source of profit for someone to eliminate the problem and get rich if he's successful and -oh so inhumane- get poor if he fails. No government official or government-hired expert ever loses or gains money in proportion to the good or evil they cause.

The only way to protect ecology is to respect property rights. Owners take care of their piece of ecology, because they found a way how to use it. Owners don't exploit, they make long term investments. Owners want to hire experts to help them care for their property better. And so do insurance companies, because they are investors into the health and safety and they want healthy environment to generate profit.
Ownership rights make people naturally accountable through... accounting. There is no such thing as a market externality.
"Previous to 1850, for example, there was no pollution externality. This came about due to a “government failure” to uphold the law against trespass, not because of
any alleged “market failure” such as externalities."

https://mises.org/etexts/Environfreedom.pdf
http://mises.org/media/1804/13-Conservat...and-Growth

That is possibly the most ignorant, ideology-driven bullshit you have spouted, excepting possibly advocating the killing of IRS agents.

A business that pollutes rivers or the atmosphere has no financial incentive to change its ways.
And there is no financial incentive for a third-party to do so. There is no business case for "We Clean Up Rivers, Inc."

Time for you to shut the fuck up; your knowledge of economics is worse than infantile.

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
25-08-2014, 07:46 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 02:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 05:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Right, like that paragon of hard work, Bernie Madoff. Dodgy
Never heard of him. Did he order drone strikes or was he in charge of a secret prison?

I wish I lived in your world where everyone you haven't heard of orders drone strikes or runs a secret prison. I could have a lot of fun with those things.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Res Publica's post
25-08-2014, 07:56 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2014 09:19 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 07:46 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(25-08-2014 02:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Never heard of him. Did he order drone strikes or was he in charge of a secret prison?

I wish I lived in your world where everyone you haven't heard of orders drone strikes or runs a secret prison. I could have a lot of fun with those things.

Yeah, as if he took the premise of the video-game Evil Genius and applied it to reality...

[Image: eg_c.jpg]

Evil Genius is a single player real-time strategy and simulation video game developed by Elixir Studios and published by Sierra Entertainment, released on 28 September 2004. The game is inspired by the spy thriller genre (notably the James Bond film series). Similarly to Dungeon Keeper, the game turns the traditional plotline on its head, with the player acting as the villain, evading the comically stereotyped forces of justice. Gameplay revolves around the player building an island fortress and achieving clichéd world domination, much like most films.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
25-08-2014, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2014 09:08 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 03:27 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Why must you be so dense. You have no evidence to back up your claims. You just pull shit out of your ass and throw it up on the wall to see if it sticks. None of it sticks because all you have is diarrhea. Even the most libertarian people I have ever talked to understand externalities and come up with better bullshit than what you come up with.
There are market externalities, ergo, people have to be herded at gunpoint to pay to solve them. Riiight. There is original sin, too.

(25-08-2014 03:27 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  People don't naturally think about the long term. People are naturally exploitative of their environment. They want to make the most as quickly as possible, and very few people think about how there actions today will affect even themselves in 5 or more years. The whole fucking 80's was a lesson about the dangers of short term thinking. We are still trying to get over that clusterfuck of a decade, but peoples natural tendencies are still to do what feels best now. It's why if you offer someone $100 today or $200 a year from now, most people will take the $100 today.
Not if their property is respected. Not if they are free. Not if they stop being shielded from responsibility. Not if they stop electing politicians who promise them to relieve their anxiety about natural consequences of their actions, only if they say goodbye to 60 % of their income. Politicians breed people to be stupid, short-sighted, dependent and willing to part with their taxes - it's called a tax farm and major part of it is public education. I've been there and they gave me zero evidence for everything they said. Giving evidence would... slow down the lessons!

(25-08-2014 03:27 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Ownership rights don't change a thing. People will use up as much as they can as quickly as they can if that means they can increase their short term profits. They don't give a damn about the future because they can't touch the future. They can feel today, tomorrow is nothing but a dream.
Yes, you have summed up how people are very well. That's why I am so afraid to let them write and enforce laws.

(25-08-2014 03:27 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Some how you think people will change just because they are living in your imaginary anarchist utopia. Just a few post ago you claim you don't believe in GDP. Like it's an opinion. No matter what you think about how the GDP is calculated its a real fucking thing you moron. Your opinion on whether it should be calculated differently is an opinion. You are entitle to opinions, but don't be so stupid to claim it does't exist. Next your going to tell me magnetic fields don't exist because you don't like the how the fields are calculated.

I still can't believe that you think externalities don't exist, or didn't exist prior to 1850. What fucking universe do you get this shit from. Stop pulling things out of your ass.
You have complaints now. But if I went into politics and won with my opinion, you would submit to me without a complaint. Suddenly, I would be right and virtuous and obedience-worthy! Magic.
Government spending isn't people's spending, it's made-up lobbyist rent-seeking bullshit and printed money. Economy never made sense, until I learned that.

(25-08-2014 07:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, as if the premise of the video-game Evil Genius and applied it to reality...
Eh, it sounds too much like Obama's foreign policy, only more difficult. Who else has 700 military bases around the world, secret prisons and reads Angela Merkel's private mail? Public sector criminality is too easy to make a game about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 09:03 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 03:27 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Next your going to tell me magnetic fields don't exist because you don't like the how the fields are calculated.

Oh, you don't even want to know how much truth there is in that...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
25-08-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Drinking Beverage Well Luminon got dangerously close to an actual dialog over the weekend so I see he has gone as far into fairyland as it is possible to go. I mentioned this to cjlr last night but I used to wonder why Eastern European degrees were not accepted in the USA ("I used to be a Doctor in my country" cliche) but ol Lummy here has shown that a Bachelor's Degree from the Czech Republic is absolutely worthless granted as cjlr kindly pointed out a Private degree probably means unaccredited. External reality does not exit only the market! That has crossed over from fantasy into borderline insanity.

(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
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: