[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2014, 09:17 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 09:32 AM by frankksj.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(17-05-2014 02:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's because you are a delusional twit, in addition to also being wrong as I pointed out in exacting detail. You are either too stupid to realize that one can both be proven wrong and insulted at the same time, or you do realize it but would rather deflect the issue that you have no good rebuttal by instead focusing on your butthurt.

Huh? Butthurt? Hardly. I just read your posts and sigh and shake my head that, on an atheist forum, somebody could be SOOOO dogmatic and anti-scientific, desperately clinging to a belief that he is completely unwilling to analyze. It's the very definition of religion.

See, a scientific, pragmatic person realizes that if this formula holds true: a+b=c, and you know that b=x, then it must also hold true that a+x=c. However if that's clearly wrong, then it MUST mean there's something wrong with your assumptions.

Case in point: s (society aka fellow citizens) = g (group of individuals). j (Johnson family, cotton plantation owners) = g (group of individuals). So if s=g, and j=g, and you make a claim about 's', and I replay back to you your claim substituting 's' for 'j' and low and behold now your claim is advocating slavery, then if you were scientific and pragmatic you'd realize this is a valid way intelligent people test their assumptions and, therefore, you need to go back and rethink your assumption.

What started this whole thing is was my statement of the libertarian claim that whenever society passes laws that limit freedom and liberty (ie restrict one's ability to exercise free will), then the law should have jurisdictional borders so that individuals who find the law too restrictive have the ultimate recourse of moving away to some other place where they can legally live and work to escape the law. You responded as follows:

(17-05-2014 02:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Does your will supercede the wellbeing of your fellow citizens at all times? If your answer is 'yes, my personal liberty trumps all other considerations', then the rest of society can and will tell you to go fuck yourself. Someone who takes their personal liberty to such an extreme cannot be a constructive member of society if they do not take into account how their actions affect their fellow citizens... If you abdicate your responsibility to your fellow citizens, you're a narcissistic asshole.

What you're saying is 'You have an obligation to [s] and your right to exercise free will is subjugated to [s]'s wellbeing, so [s] will determine what you can and cannot do. And [s]'s rules are enforced with physical force (ie law enforcement's guns), and I refuse to accept your compromise that the jurisdictional lines where [s]'s rule apply should be drawn so that you are legally allowed to live and work somewhere else outside of [s]'s jurisdiction. [s]'s power to force you to do what [s] determines is in [s]'s best interest extends to every place where you can legally live, so resistance is futile and escape impossible.'

That _IS_ a recap of your position. Now all I did as substitute [s] (society) for [j] (the Johnson family cotton plantation), and played your position back to you. IF your statements were reasonable with [s], which is one group of individuals, then your statement should still be reasonable when it's played back referring to another group of individuals [j]. After all, if I can be born with a debt to one group of individuals that you happen to favor, then surely I could also be born with a debt to another group of individuals you do not.

But when we substitute [s] for [j] it IS clear even to you that this position IS advocating slavery. It IS debt bondage. However, you're irate, ranting that you didn't say that. If you were scientific and pragmatic and realized that substitution is a perfectly acceptable way to test assumptions, then YES, YOU DID SAY THAT! But no matter how times I say it, you can't see it. I'm not butt hurt. I'm just at my wit's end trying to figure out how to explain it in a way you can understand. Of course, you are also free to use the same substitution principle with my assumptions, and, if you find a case where my assumption doesn't hold up to the substitution principle, then I will gracefully admit my assumption must be wrong and rethink it. That's unlikely because the whole reason we become libertarians in the first place is because we challenge all our assumptions with every tool in the book, including substitution.

(17-05-2014 02:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Some deserve or need to be national; like protection for civil rights, safety standards, taxation that supports national defense and interstate infrastructure.

That's why this is getting nowhere. It's ironic that as an atheist you assume yourself to be a divine, omnipotent, infallible being. You do not say "In my OPINION certain rules, like safety standards, deserve to have a national jurisdiction that covers every place where my fellow countrymen are allowed to live." You cannot accept that "In my opinion" condition because that means you would have to accept that other people have a different opinion and think your 'safety standards' are a bunch of nonsense, that they're trojan horses which actually protect corporations from individuals and not the other way around, and these individuals think the best way to protect consumer interests is a free market. If you admitted that other people's opinions are just as valid as yours, then your claim that your jurisdictional lines must be drawn so that ONLY your opinion is permitted, and even 2,000 miles away in a remote corner of Alaska, people will NOT be allowed to express another opinion. Then it becomes obvious you ARE a tyrant, insisting that your opinion is the only that matters and that it's your right to enforce your opinion on everybody and use force to make sure they cannot escape. It's clear that you think you're so high and mighty that you need to save other people from their own stupidity. How can you claim a love for "society", ie your fellow countrymen, and then, when I say 'limit the jurisdiction of your rules so your fellow countrymen over in Alaska can make their rules', you respond that those Alaskans are too stupid to decide for themselves and you need to save them with your rules. You don't have a love for society, you have a love for yourself and utter contempt of society, thinking other people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. This is so typical of today's liberals. I've yet to hear ANYBODY ever say 'These laws are needed to protect society from me because without them I will do something horrible.' When you speak of 'consumer safety laws', you NEVER say 'These laws are necessary because I have a business making widgets and were it not for these laws keeping me in check, I'd make dangerous widgets that killed off my customers'. Same thing with drug laws. Nobody says "We need drug laws because without them I would crazy and starting shooting heroin in the park, thank god the police are there to save me from my own stupidity." No, everybody says the laws are to save OTHER people from their own stupidity. Where who are these OTHER people since everybody, both left and right, says the same thing??? What you don't realize is the great point Thomas Jefferson made 200+ years ago that if the people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, then how can you possible advocate a democracy where these stupid people are making decisions for others?

To avoid this whole mess and self-analysis you instead just resort to saying:

(17-05-2014 02:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Some [laws] deserve or need to be national [so that people can never escape them].

You declare that it's someone divinely spoken and irrefutable that these laws which you have chosen are deserving of a national jurisdiction, like there's no room for any other opinion.

So, no, I don't feel butthurt at all. I feel like I'm totally wasting my time because everything I say goes completely over your head. I understand how djhall's posts could go over your head, since he speaks in a more philosophical and sophisticated manner. But I try to make my posts as simple and direct as I possibly can so that even a religious freak redneck with an IQ of 80 could understand them, and yet they STILL go over your head, as proven by the fact that your posts didn't address what I said at all, and yet somehow you've convinced yourself that I'm feeling 'buttfucked' and 'defeated'. No, dumbass, I just feel like I'm wasting my time because I'm incapable of dumbing these concepts down enough that you'll actually understand them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 07:30 AM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2014 09:34 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 02:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's because you are a delusional twit, in addition to also being wrong as I pointed out in exacting detail. You are either too stupid to realize that one can both be proven wrong and insulted at the same time, or you do realize it but would rather deflect the issue that you have no good rebuttal by instead focusing on your butthurt.
Huh? Butthurt? Hardly. I just read your posts and sigh and shake my head that, on an atheist forum, somebody could be SOOOO dogmatic and anti-scientific, desperately clinging to a belief that he is completely unwilling to analyze. It's the very definition of religion.

Right, good to know that you have no idea what a religion is. Also, this is a massive level of projecting on your part. Have I defended the draconian laws and regulations you are arguing against? No. I've repeatedly voiced my opinion that you should be allowed to leave the country free of responsibility; yet you have never once acknowledge that I agree with you here, and instead keep insisting that I want the Gestapo to hunt you down.

There is someone here holding dogmatically to their beliefs, and it's not me, as I've already acknowledge the few times I was wrong and have changed my position accordingly; whereas you've done no such thing in the face of mountains of evidence that contradict your position in various instances.

Not only that, but you've still failed to answer a ton of (what I have to imagine are incredibly inconvenient) questions.


Where were all of the 'Libertarians' freeing the slaves in the United States?

What was the 'Libertarian' fee-market incentive to relinquish a ton of unpaid labor (ie. the slaves).

If your house caught on fire, and there were no publicly funded firefighters, what would you do?

What did Libertarian de-regulation do to prevent the West Texan fertilizer plant explosion that killed 15 and injured 160 more?

Why do you choose to live in a democratic socialist republic (Switzerland), if you're so afraid of the tyranny of the 51%?

Why is sacrificing some personal liberty for national defense okay, but not for publicly funded education or infrastructure?


I imagine that you don't have answers to these questions because either you realize that the logical consequences of your professed ideology would be terrible, or you've never moved beyond actually thinking about your ideology in anything more than vague abstractions which leaves you gasping for air when asked about specifics.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  See, a scientific, pragmatic person realizes that if this formula holds true: a+b=c, and you know that b=x, then it must also hold true that a+x=c. However if that's clearly wrong, then it MUST mean there's something wrong with your assumptions.

Oh joy, lots see how terribly you fuck up and misrepresent basic algebra.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Case in point: s (society aka fellow citizens) = g (group of individuals). j (Johnson family, cotton plantation owners) = g (group of individuals). So if s=g, and j=g, and you make a claim about 's', and I replay back to you your claim substituting 's' for 'j' and low and behold now your claim is advocating slavery, then if you were scientific and pragmatic you'd realize this is a valid way intelligent people test their assumptions and, therefore, you need to go back and rethink your assumption.

Wow, this has to be the most infantile misrepresentation I've seen yet. I support a concern for my fellow citizens, therefore I support slavery? If you need to hide your bullshit under that much obfuscation, it's no wonder you don't realize just how full of shit you are.

Do the world a favor, find the bottle of bleach under your sink, and take a nice long swig from it. Actually, don't stop drinking till it's empty.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  What started this whole thing is was my statement of the libertarian claim that whenever society passes laws that limit freedom and liberty (ie restrict one's ability to exercise free will), then the law should have jurisdictional borders so that individuals who find the law too restrictive have the ultimate recourse of moving away to some other place where they can legally live and work to escape the law. You responded as follows:

I also told you to get the fuck out of the country, as the laws of the United States extend only so far as it's borders.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 02:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Does your will supercede the wellbeing of your fellow citizens at all times? If your answer is 'yes, my personal liberty trumps all other considerations', then the rest of society can and will tell you to go fuck yourself. Someone who takes their personal liberty to such an extreme cannot be a constructive member of society if they do not take into account how their actions affect their fellow citizens... If you abdicate your responsibility to your fellow citizens, you're a narcissistic asshole.

What you're saying is 'You have an obligation to [s] and your right to exercise free will is subjugated to [s]'s wellbeing, so [s] will determine what you can and cannot do. And [s]'s rules are enforced with physical force (ie law enforcement's guns), and I refuse to accept your compromise that the jurisdictional lines where [s]'s rule apply should be drawn so that you are legally allowed to live and work somewhere else outside of [s]'s jurisdiction. [s]'s power to force you to do what [s] determines is in [s]'s best interest extends to every place where you can legally live, so resistance is futile and escape impossible.'

Misrepresentation write large. It's so funny how even when I'm quoted right there, you can't actually read what I've written, but instead need to translatie it into your conspiracy-theory builshit that only makes sense to you.

Once again, get the fuck out of the country. If you don't like how your US citizenship has saddled you with responsibilities, then get rid of it. If you don't like American Agents harassing you in Sweden over unpaid taxes, take that up with your Government in Switzerland; because those agents are legally allowed to do that because of laws and international agreements between the two countries. Switzerland is just as culpable in it's enforcement, those US Agents are not there in Switzerland harassing you illegally. Facepalm

But unfortunately, every piece of land on this planet has already been claimed by others. So short of international waters or Antarctica, there is no place you can take your Libertarian fantasies of absolute-freedom and employ them in practice, because you will always be in someone elses' jurisdiction.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  That _IS_ a recap of your position.

Nope, it was a recap of your illusion of my position. You've been arguing with yourself this whole time fucktard.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Now all I did as substitute [s] (society) for [j] (the Johnson family cotton plantation), and played your position back to you. IF your statements were reasonable with [s], which is one group of individuals, then your statement should still be reasonable when it's played back referring to another group of individuals [j]. After all, if I can be born with a debt to one group of individuals that you happen to favor, then surely I could also be born with a debt to another group of individuals you do not.

It doesn't work because it's never as simple as swapping out parts, and you can't even do that without lying and misrepresentation because you changed everything else too. If it was as simple as switching one out for another, then take what I actually wrote and work with that. But you can't, because what I actually wrote doesn't fit neatly into your delusional boxes and paradigms.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But when we substitute [s] for [j] it IS clear even to you that this position IS advocating slavery. It IS debt bondage.

Hyperbole some more please, it really helps prove how delusional you are about the current state of reality.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  However, you're irate, ranting that you didn't say that. If you were scientific and pragmatic and realized that substitution is a perfectly acceptable way to test assumptions, then YES, YOU DID SAY THAT!

You are a member of a social species born into a world already populated and covered by groups of people organized into coalitions and governments that already control everywhere you could possibly live. No matter where you go you will be subject to someone rules, jurisdiction, and enforcement. Your solution to this is to demand that you be given your own space, much like the aforementioned petulant 5 year old; and then try to pretend like you're not a self serving selfish asshole.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But no matter how times I say it, you can't see it. I'm not butt hurt. I'm just at my wit's end trying to figure out how to explain it in a way you can understand. Of course, you are also free to use the same substitution principle with my assumptions, and, if you find a case where my assumption doesn't hold up to the substitution principle, then I will gracefully admit my assumption must be wrong and rethink it.

Except that every time I have ever done this, you ignore it. I have asked you plenty of questions, presenting plenty of hypothetical scenarios; and every time the answer is too inconvenient you just ignore it. You have repeatedly quote-mined me to serve your own delusion, attacking only the bits you like, and ignoring the parts you cannot rebut.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  That's unlikely because the whole reason we become libertarians in the first place is because we challenge all our assumptions with every tool in the book, including substitution.

Except for when people challenge just how naive and unworkable your ideology is when placed in the real world.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 02:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Some deserve or need to be national; like protection for civil rights, safety standards, taxation that supports national defense and interstate infrastructure.
That's why this is getting nowhere. It's ironic that as an atheist you assume yourself to be a divine, omnipotent, infallible being. You do not say "In my OPINION certain rules, like safety standards, deserve to have a national jurisdiction that covers every place where my fellow countrymen are allowed to live."

We've had this debate already, Libertarians lost. This is why we have national safety standards and national regulations that enforce them. This is why the EPA has a national jurisdiction, because the environment needs an advocate and legal protection in every state. We needed Social Security, you lost the debate already. We needed the Civil Rights Act, you lost the debate already. We needed the American with Disabilities Act, you lost the debate already.

Once again, 200 years ago your ideas might have actually worked. But now they're nothing more than a failed, selfish, and useless ideology.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You cannot accept that "In my opinion" condition because that means you would have to accept that other people have a different opinion and think your 'safety standards' are a bunch of nonsense, that they're trojan horses which actually protect corporations from individuals and not the other way around, and these individuals think the best way to protect consumer interests is a free market.

Once again...

Robber Barons: Historical Proof that Libertarianism is Full of Shit.

What did Libertarian deregulation do to prevent the West Texas fertilizer plant explosion?


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  If you admitted that other people's opinions are just as valid as yours, then your claim that your jurisdictional lines must be drawn so that ONLY your opinion is permitted, and even 2,000 miles away in a remote corner of Alaska, people will NOT be allowed to express another opinion.

Not all opinions are equal you dumbass. Some people have informed opinions, others (like yourself) are delusional fucktards with conspiracy theory leanings. Their opinions are not based on reality, and thus are not the equal of people with informed opinions. You can express your opinion all you want, and the rest of us reserve our right to point it out for the stupid and nonsensical bullshit that it is. Don't like it? Then you can keep your opinions to yourself.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Then it becomes obvious you ARE a tyrant, insisting that your opinion is the only that matters and that it's your right to enforce your opinion on everybody and use force to make sure they cannot escape.

I'm not the one that created the world we live in, I'm just not the delusional twit misprereseting the opions of those I disagree with.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  It's clear that you think you're so high and mighty that you need to save other people from their own stupidity. How can you claim a love for "society", ie your fellow countrymen, and then, when I say 'limit the jurisdiction of your rules so your fellow countrymen over in Alaska can make their rules', you respond that those Alaskans are too stupid to decide for themselves and you need to save them with your rules.

And if they all decided that they'd rather keep things as they are now, to keep the current social contract? If they voted to keep the status quo, would they be obligated to give you a chunk of their land for you to have your Libertarian fantasy on?


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You don't have a love for society, you have a love for yourself and utter contempt of society, thinking other people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves.

Society has already made these decisions. You're the one going 'fuck society as a whole, I want my own land not under anyone else's jurisdiction, and It's cool because I want the same for everyone' while completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of us would reject your Libertarian wet-dream in favor of maintaining and improving our current social contract. You're the one telling the 90% of Americans who want to protect and expand Social Security and Medicare that they're delusional and valuing the wrong things, you stupid fucktard...


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  This is so typical of today's liberals. I've yet to hear ANYBODY ever say 'These laws are needed to protect society from me because without them I will do something horrible.' When you speak of 'consumer safety laws', you NEVER say 'These laws are necessary because I have a business making widgets and were it not for these laws keeping me in check, I'd make dangerous widgets that killed off my customers'.

Cigarettes do kill their customers, as do cars and firearms. We just make sure that their are some restriction in place to prevent undue risk, like the failing gas tanks of the Ford Pinto. But there's nothing preventing you from jumping in the same Pinto and driving it into a wall at 100mph if you're really set on killing yourself on purpose. Regulation is there to make sure they don't kill people inadvertently. This is why toys with small pieces are have warning labels about choking hazards, to help make people aware of the potential danger. You can still buy that action figure for your 2 year old, but now you can no longer claim ignorance about the potential danger.

I don't want to live in a society where vehicles are sold without being safety tested, where building can be constructed without safety standards, and where there is no one inspecting what goes into our food and our medicine; and much to your great disappointment, the vast majority of citizens in this country agree with me.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Same thing with drug laws. Nobody says "We need drug laws because without them I would crazy and starting shooting heroin in the park, thank god the police are there to save me from my own stupidity."

No, it's the conservative Republicans and their donors who profit from the War on Drugs.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  No, everybody says the laws are to save OTHER people from their own stupidity. Where who are these OTHER people since everybody, both left and right, says the same thing???

Same thing? Oh right, so that's why we didn't just legalize marijuana in Colorado and Washington. Wait, we did legalize it there you dumbass...


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  What you don't realize is the great point Thomas Jefferson made 200+ years ago that if the people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, then how can you possible advocate a democracy where these stupid people are making decisions for others?

Once again, if you don't realize the difference between an informed opinion and an ill informed opinion, you're a delusional fucktard of the ninth degree.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  To avoid this whole mess and self-analysis you instead just resort to saying:

(17-05-2014 02:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Some [laws] deserve or need to be national [so that people can never escape them].

See, you can't even quote what I say without adding in your own bullshit.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You declare that it's someone divinely spoken and irrefutable that these laws which you have chosen are deserving of a national jurisdiction, like there's no room for any other opinion.

I didn't choose so, the people of this nation already did long before either of us got here; and there has never been enough desire to make them otherwise.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So, no, I don't feel butthurt at all. I feel like I'm totally wasting my time because everything I say goes completely over your head.

There's a good reason for that, it's because you're arguing with yourself dumbass.


(17-05-2014 09:17 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I understand how djhall's posts could go over your head, since he speaks in a more philosophical and sophisticated manner. But I try to make my posts as simple and direct as I possibly can so that even a religious freak redneck with an IQ of 80 could understand them, and yet they STILL go over your head, as proven by the fact that your posts didn't address what I said at all, and yet somehow you've convinced yourself that I'm feeling 'buttfucked' and 'defeated'. No, dumbass, I just feel like I'm wasting my time because I'm incapable of dumbing these concepts down enough that you'll actually understand them.

And you're still arguing with yourself. If there was an award for the Most Oblivious Narcissistic Idealoge on the internet, you'd have won it by now. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-05-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
Here's proof, no question you throw me is inconvenient. If I don't have a good answer to a question, then I have to re-evaluate my position.

(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Where were all of the 'Libertarians' freeing the slaves in the United States?
What was the 'Libertarian' fee-market incentive to relinquish a ton of unpaid labor (ie. the slaves).

I already addressed this. Non-libertarians created, advocated and defended slavery. Libertarians were the one that rid the world of that evil. Remember, for all of human history, thousands of years, slavery existed worldwide. In the late 18th century libertarians briefly took over and almost instantly, in less than 100 years, slavery was completely eradicated in every single place on earth where libertarians took charge.

For all of recorded human history there's been a system where one group of individuals gets to force another group to do something. The role of government is to enforce that. Law enforcement means using threats of violence to coerce people into doing what other people tell them to. Then, during the age of enlightenment, a new breed of philosophers proposed we turn the whole system upside down, do a complete 180, and make the role of government to block force and coercion so that each individual can exercise free will. They proposed that laws and law enforcement, instead of forcing people to do things against their will, should actively defend each individual's inalienable right to exercise free will. John Locke (died 1704 in the UK) is widely regarded as the "Father of Classical Liberalism" (which today is called 'libertarianism'. After him, Thomas Jefferson was one of the torchbearers. He argued that 'all men are created equal', and obviously one man could never own another. So libertarians did wholesale ban slavery. The very concept of men being forced to do things against their will is precisely what libertarianism fights against. Thus, when libertarians took over and the US adopted a libertarian manifesto, the constitution, those people who normally would have used slave labor were SOL. So they had to find new “beasts of burden”. So they went to Africa and started importing “livestock”, which they considered non-human, high-level primates. Remember, before this slavery as not a race thing. Whites never left their continent to find slaves; whites owned whites. Yes, what happened was a horrific tragedy because that “livestock” was actually humans, with the same capacity, the same emotions as everybody else. The problem was that after thousands of years of doing it the non-libertarian way, technology had hardly advanced. They knew nothing about DNA, chromosomes, there was no modern medicine, no knowledge of species, nothing. They only judged what was a man by the physical characteristics. If it didn't have a penis, then it is not a man, capable of intelligent thought and self-deterministic. It is a baby factory. If the skin is not dark and the hair is tightly wound, then it is not a man. Once libertarians took over and the government defended intellectuals right to think outside the box and propose wild new theories that went against everything society believed without fear of being imprisonment, then, suddenly the Galileo's and Da Vinci's of the world were liberated, free to innovate. Darwin proposed a theory that before libertarians took over would have resulted in having his head chopped off. Another crazy idea, germ theory, was allowed to exist. Knowledge expanded at breakneck speed and it was very quickly realized that a horrible, grave injustice had been done by excluding females and blacks from the system, as they were every bit as human, as intelligent and capable as white men. Most of the world where libertarianism flourished tried to right this wrong the libertarian way—through peaceful negotiation. They bought the slave's freedom. However, with a handful of southern states they abandoned the libertarian values and instead resorted to the old system of using violence and guns to solve disputes. It ended up costing more than it would have to free the slaves and left the south completely devastated, impoverished, and filled with hate, so that 100 years later after slavery “officially” was ended, in reality not much improved as blacks could still be lynched and hung if they didn't 'stay in their place'. If, however, libertarians hadn't taken over during the age of enlightenment, I'm convinced none of this progress would have happened because for thousands of years it was tried the non-libertarian way and we saw the results. We'd still have slavery everywhere—sure, it wouldn't be a racial thing and whites would own whites. There would be no technology, since that always required new theories the club-wielding majority found offensive. We'd still be dead by the age of 40 since all the advances that led to modern medicine required theories the majority found blasphemous (like germ theory) and practices the majority deemed criminal (lost postmortem dissection and study).

See, not a tough question at all. It's just a hassle because I've answered it 100 times already in this forum, and you just don't like my answer, so rather than rebutting it, your mind blocks out the answer. Your claim that I “still failed to answer” this inconvenient question is absurd! It's the answer that's inconvenient. Ask the question 100 more times and my answer will still be the same.

(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If your house caught on fire, and there were no publicly funded firefighters, what would you do?

There ARE communities in the US that have left fire-fighting to the private sector, like Scottsdale. And guess what??? They do a better job for a fraction of the price. Here's a study: http://reason.org/news/show/fire-protect...vatization

(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What did Libertarian de-regulation do to prevent the West Texan fertilizer plant explosion that killed 15 and injured 160 more?

Regulation CAUSES those disasters—it doesn't prevent them. Remember the fertilizer plant WAS regulated by your beloved government. Osha had already inspected the plant and discovered they were improperly storing ammonia in an unsafe manner. And, naturally, the regulation slapped the plant with an extreme fine commensurate with the damage they caused: it was $30. That was the fine your beloved regulators slapped on the plant for putting the town at risk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertil..._explosion

Regulation protects the corporate interests—not the private citizens. Remember, who is writing the regulation? Congress, right? And who do Congressmen depend on for the funding they need to get elected? The corporations they're tasked with regulating. This is a trojan horse farce. When the airline industry was heavily regulated and legislatures proposed deregulation, who found the deregulation? Oh yeah, the airlines being regulated. Today, when startups like Uber and Lyft are fighting regulation of taxi service, who is defending the regulation? Oh yeah, the taxi companies that are regulated. Somehow the corporations, through their slick marketing, have convinced you that all this regulation they get passed is there to help you, and that it's really making their life difficult. Absurd. Without any regulation the West Texan fertilizer plant would have been sued by the survivors and lost everything. To prevent that happening, those companies need regulation which stipulates that if they X and Y, and pay certain fines (like the $30 slap on the wrist from Osha), then the owners of the company are granted blanket immunity from prosecution under a corporate umbrella and cannot be held accountable for the damage they caused. There's a pending lawsuit right now. But I can guarantee you that in the end the victims will never be fairly compensates, and the shareholders of the West Fertilizer Co. will get to keep whatever wealth they extracted from a business that destroyed a town and left a bunch of dead bodies. And they'll probably just form a new corporation and repeat the same thing all over again. THAT would NEVER happen under a libertarian system. Under a libertarian system where corporations got no special privileges and regulation granted no special immunity, and people were held liable for initiating force against others (like that explosion) the assets of the shareholders of the fertilizer company would be distributed to the victims and they wouldn't be able to get away with it and keep doing it.

(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why do you choose to live in a democratic socialist republic (Switzerland), if you're so afraid of the tyranny of the 51%?

Jeez, you're totally confused. Switzerland is most definitely NOT socialist. It's the exact opposite. Switzerland IS a republic, and they follow their constitution and, despite the ability to hold national referendums, nearly always defer decision-making to the local authorities, just like Thomas Jefferson and others envisioned a perfect libertarian society.

(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why is sacrificing some personal liberty for national defense okay, but not for publicly funded education or infrastructure?

As I've said a million times, if you want services, whether they're from a government or corporation, you should have the right to decide if the asking price is fair and services represent a good value or not. So, if you're going to have property within national borders and expect the military to protect it, fine, the military will stipulate a price for that service and you have the option of accepting it, or moving outside the border. It should be the same with education and infrastructure too in my opinion. If you have a child and want to send your children to public school, fine, pay whatever the public school system asks for, which could be an annual tuition, or a lifetime property tax, or whatever. If the public schools suck, then, yes, you should be able to choose to opt-out and instead of paying for a public school send your kids to a private school instead.

And you'll be shocked to know that the European countries which score well in education tend to be much closer to the libertarian ideal. Belgium, for example, is all vouchers. Public schools compete with private schools, and parents have a choice where to send their kids. If the public schools are lousy, you don't have to pay for them. Finland is the most decentralized with the greatest local autonomy, and they score #1 across the board in most internationally standardized tests. Switzerland too follows the libertarian system of leaving education to the cantons (states). There is no central planning of education or monolithic federal department of eduction like in the US. The cantons are free to choose if they want vouchers or how to handle it. And guess what. The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report for 2010-11 ranked Switzerland's education as first overall. Having gone to an American high school and seeing how education works here when it's decentralized the libertarian way, wow, there's no comparison. When the Swiss finish their high school (“gymnasium”) they have learned 4 languages, including latin, advanced math and science, and upon graduation are encouraged to roam and travel the world, so you experience and learn to tolerate other cultures and widen your world view.

(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do the world a favor, find the bottle of bleach under your sink, and take a nice long swig from it. Actually, don't stop drinking till it's empty.

See, when you come from a good position you have the luxury of attacking your opponent with logic and facts—not death threats.

(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No matter where you go you will be subject to someone rules, jurisdiction, and enforcement. Your solution to this is to demand that you be given your own space, much like the aforementioned petulant 5 year old; and then try to pretend like you're not a self serving selfish asshole.

Total strawman mischaracterization. I've acknowledged that rules, jurisdiction and enforcement and have said a million times my ONLY request is that when you draw the arbitrary jurisdictional lines, just don't draw them in the one place that it encompasses every single place where a person can legally live. Give people a way to leave and opt-out if they find the rules too burdensome. That's it. That's all I've ever said. How does that make me a selfish asshole? IMO, it makes you a tyrant that you're not even willing to consider this compromise and insist that all your rules must be drawn in such a way that escape is impossible. Nobody likes to have a gun pointed to their head and be forced to do something against their will. Everybody wants to be able to exercise free will. So it baffles me that you guys say libertarians are “selfish” for merely treating you the way you want to be treated! What is so offensive to you about the golden rule?

(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We've had this debate already, Libertarians lost.

Agreed. We tried it your way for thousands of years with the 'might makes right' system where whoever gets the club of power gets to force others to do things. Then Libertarians took over for about one century and radically transformed the world, ushering in the sort of innovation and progress never seen before. Life expectancy doubled. Instead of a system of peasants and slaves toiling for an unimaginably wealthy aristocracy, a middle class grew.

And, yes, little by little you club-wielders are rolling back the clock going back to the old system. Yes, look at the US's gini coefficient. Every year, whether liberals or conservatives are in power, inquality is growing. The middle class is eroding and returning back to the old system of peasants and aristocracy. Yes, it's inevitable that libertarians lose because the one thing that defines us is we don't use violence. So guess when, when libertarians and liberals fight, and libertarians use logic and reason, and liberals use police with guns, guess which side wins? I'm not disputing you guys are winning in most places and that Switzerland here is a tiny hold-out. I'm just trying to remind you how barbaric the system you want to go back to really is and that you maybe should reconsider turning your back on te system that ushered in the quality of life you enjoy today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 10:24 AM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No True Scotsman Fallacy - Only the Libertarians that follow your specific definition are True Libertarians.

Absurd. I use the definition that's in the dictionary: “Libertarian: a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct. Liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.” In other words, let people exercise free will. Sure, some, like Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann hijack the word. Remember, we used to simply call ourselves “liberal”, until you guys hijacked that word to mean the exact opposite of what it originally did. Today some libertarians prefer “classic liberal” since that term hasn't been hijacked yet.

(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "But it all reduces to this: I want to be left alone, and I want things my own way." -Steve Shives
So Steve nailed it right on the head.

This shows close-minded backwardness. If you want to know what libertarian reduces to, go to a libertarian, or to wikipedia. Instead, when you want a summary of libertarianism you go to some guy who makes libertarian-bashing videos. Typical of the liberal mindset.

(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "But the thing is a Constitutional democratically empowered government.... Unfortunately most politicians with Libertarians leanings seem like they would rather sabotage the government." -Steve Shives

So, Steve hit the nail on the head again.

Wow, your devotion to him is so unflappable that you can't see the oxymoron in his statement. He acknowledges that the constitution IS what defines the government. Now google “Defender of the constitution”. Who do you find? Only libertarians. Who was the leader author of the constitution? Oh yeah, the father of US libertarianism, Thomas Jefferson. In a republic, the government IS the constitution. It's the liberals like Shives who are trying to sabotage the government by burning the constitution. What you guys still don't seem to get is BOTH of us are pro-government. We just have 180 degree opposite views of what government actually is. To us, government's job is to defend liberty block the initiation of force and coercion so everyone can exercise free will. To you, government's job is to deny liberty, initiate force and coercion to deprive people of free will. But you're so convinced that your form of government is the only possible one, so oblivious to the alternative that libertarians proposed, that whenever we attack YOUR FORM of government, you assume we are attacking government in general. Again, if you want to learn about the differences in our beliefs start listening to libertarians rather than simply following one guy who already shares your belief system. Nobody learns anything new that way.

(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  'There are more people living in poverty than private charities alone can afford to help? Gee, that's too bad.'

Like I mentioned, what opened my eyes was living in a libertarian country that has no government welfare and leaves everything to local charity, and realizing this system actually eliminated poverty. And Switzerland is recognized as one of the only places with no inter-generational dependence on welfare/charity. Whether your parents were or were not dependent on the local welfare/charity has little statistical effect on your likelihood. Unlike the system you favor where countless generations are trapped into poverty and dependence with no hope of their children being able to escape.

(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But why are you not responding to all of the video? You know it's called '5 Stupid Things about Libertarianism', not 4, right? … 5 - It's naive.

Because it's moronic to attack a position based on some subjective, knee-jerk emotion. The fact is that if you rank the countries of the world on how closely they adhere to the libertarian ideal, the more libertarian a country is the more people live long, healthy, happy, free and prosperous lives. The fact is that after thousands of years of ignorance and darkness the moment libertarians took over, almost instantly innovation and knowledge exploded, standards of living shot up, a middle class grew, life expectancy doubled.

(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Robber Barons - Historical Proof that Libertarianism is Full of Shit.

This epitomizes the differences between us. I'm commenting on and analyzing the youtube videos that support your position. If you had an open mind you'd google 'libertarian position on robber barons' and find the video below which utterly decimates that myth. But, of course, you're not looking for knowledge, just self-affirmation, so you're not willing to listen to the other side. Here's one little factoid for you: While US public education is very poorly rated, google the international ranking of universities of higher education. The US dominates having the lion's share. Now look at the history of all those universities? Who founded them? Oh yeah, in every case, it was your much maligned robber barons. In fact, look at US News's rating of US universities. Every one of the top 46 was founded by private entrepeneurs—the robber barons. You have to go all the way down to #47 before you find the first one that was NOT created by robber barons. Look at all the other great charities in the US, and trace their roots. Again, the robber barons.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 12:37 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 04:48 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Here's proof, no question you throw me is inconvenient. If I don't have a good answer to a question, then I have to re-evaluate my position.

(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Where were all of the 'Libertarians' freeing the slaves in the United States?
What was the 'Libertarian' fee-market incentive to relinquish a ton of unpaid labor (ie. the slaves).

Except that you hadn't, although I can only imagine what kind of bullshit you're going to drag up.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I already addressed this. Non-libertarians created, advocated and defended slavery. Libertarians were the one that rid the world of that evil. Remember, for all of human history, thousands of years, slavery existed worldwide. In the late 18th century libertarians briefly took over and almost instantly, in less than 100 years, slavery was completely eradicated in every single place on earth where libertarians took charge.

Libertarianism =/= The Enlightenment

Also, you forgot the United States...


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  For all of recorded human history there's been a system where one group of individuals gets to force another group to do something. The role of government is to enforce that. Law enforcement means using threats of violence to coerce people into doing what other people tell them to.

Or, to follow the laws and rules they have decided collectively are in the best interests of everyone, like not stealing from or murdering your neighbors. But heaven forbid that society authorize the use force to coerce or prevent people from killing each other! The TYRANNY!

But no, I'm sure in your perfect Libertarian utopia, no one would have any reasons to murder someone else without any oversight or enforcement preventing them from doing so...


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Then, during the age of enlightenment, a new breed of philosophers proposed we turn the whole system upside down, do a complete 180, and make the role of government to block force and coercion so that each individual can exercise free will. They proposed that laws and law enforcement, instead of forcing people to do things against their will, should actively defend each individual's inalienable right to exercise free will.

Even if that free-will destroys society?


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  John Locke (died 1704 in the UK) is widely regarded as the "Father of Classical Liberalism" (which today is called 'libertarianism'. After him, Thomas Jefferson was one of the torchbearers. He argued that 'all men are created equal', and obviously one man could never own another.

Except that Jefferson did, so there is that...

Also, the first recorded condemnation of slavery came from the Socratic dialogues of the Stoics of ancient Greece. Not only that but slavery had faded away from the British Isles and Ireland as far back as 1100 as it was uneconomical, easily predating the Enlightenment by centuries.

Also, there is this...

Constitution of Carolina
Appraisals of Locke have often been tied to appraisals of liberalism in general, and also to appraisals of the United States. Detractors note that (in 1671) he was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal African Company. In addition, he participated in drafting the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina while Shaftesbury's secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves. For example, Martin Cohen notes that Locke, as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673–4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696–1700), was in fact, "one of just half a dozen men who created and supervised both the colonies and their iniquitous systems of servitude". Some see his statements on unenclosed property as having been intended to justify the displacement of the Native Americans. Because of his opposition to aristocracy and slavery in his major writings, he is accused of hypocrisy and racism, or of caring only for the liberty of English capitalists.


So, hypocrisy much?


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So libertarians did wholesale ban slavery.

Except for what, in the United States and the rest of the Islamic world?


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The very concept of men being forced to do things against their will is precisely what libertarianism fights against.

Even if that will is to construct sub-par housing that is not safe to life in, because who needs the tyranny of safety regulations telling you what you can and cannot build?

Even if that will is to sell a sub-par product prone to failure and causing injury, because who needs the tyranny of safety regulations telling you what you can and cannot sell?

Even if that will is to defraud people with medical quackery?


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Thus, when libertarians took over and the US adopted a libertarian manifesto, the constitution, those people who normally would have used slave labor were SOL.

Except that slavery was explicitly written into and sanctified by that very same Constitution. If it was truly a Libertarian article of anti-slavery, how come we needed a Civil War and the addition of an Amendment to the Constitution to fix that? The Supreme Court, the arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional, had ruled that slavery (regardless of the moral implications) was Constitutional. Slave owners did not violate your supposedly 'Libertarian' anti-slavery manifesto...


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So they had to find new “beasts of burden”. So they went to Africa and started importing “livestock”, which they considered non-human, high-level primates. Remember, before this slavery as not a race thing. Whites never left their continent to find slaves; whites owned whites.

You do know that the American and Caribbean colonies were importing African slaves long before the American Revolution and the signing of the Constitution? Slaves were still being imported from Africa as late as 1859.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, what happened was a horrific tragedy because that “livestock” was actually humans, with the same capacity, the same emotions as everybody else. The problem was that after thousands of years of doing it the non-libertarian way, technology had hardly advanced. They knew nothing about DNA, chromosomes, there was no modern medicine, no knowledge of species, nothing. They only judged what was a man by the physical characteristics. If it didn't have a penis, then it is not a man, capable of intelligent thought and self-deterministic. It is a baby factory. If the skin is not dark and the hair is tightly wound, then it is not a man.

Please stop equating Libertarianism with the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, they are not all synonymous.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Once libertarians took over and the government defended intellectuals right to think outside the box and propose wild new theories that went against everything society believed without fear of being imprisonment, then, suddenly the Galileo's and Da Vinci's of the world were liberated, free to innovate.

How was slavery ended in the British Empire again? Abolitionists gained popular support and pressured their government to address the issue, finally getting Parliament to pass the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. There wasn't a wholesale abandonment of government regulation, they instead used their government's ability to wield that power of regulation and enforcement to eliminate slavery. They used their government to enforce the will of the people, even on those who would rather keep and maintain slavery. They had a debate, slavery lost.

Now the Enlightenment (not Libertarinsim) did help play a role in allowing people to challenge the religious establishment, which had itself a large role to play in establishing and formalizing the African slave trade.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Darwin proposed a theory that before libertarians took over would have resulted in having his head chopped off. Another crazy idea, germ theory, was allowed to exist. Knowledge expanded at breakneck speed and it was very quickly realized that a horrible, grave injustice had been done by excluding females and blacks from the system, as they were every bit as human, as intelligent and capable as white men.

Once again, stop conflating Libertarinsm specifically with the Enlightenment in general.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Most of the world where libertarianism flourished tried to right this wrong the libertarian way—through peaceful negotiation.

You mean like petitioning their government for a redress of grievances? Funny, because that's just about how everyone, regardless of ideology, seeks change in liberal democracies.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  They bought the slave's freedom. However, with a handful of southern states they abandoned the libertarian values and instead resorted to the old system of using violence and guns to solve disputes.

Yeah, except that they weren't Libertarians that 'fell from grace', slavery in the colonies had from the outset been enforced with violence. They didn't just invent whipping slaves after the Civil War started...


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  It ended up costing more than it would have to free the slaves and left the south completely devastated, impoverished, and filled with hate, so that 100 years later after slavery “officially” was ended, in reality not much improved as blacks could still be lynched and hung if they didn't 'stay in their place'.

How is this a Libertarian victory again? Why must the anti-slavery movement have needed to have bought the slaves freedom, as that seems a bit more like extortion than anything else? Why couldn't the South, in their Libertarian wisdom, have freed their own slaves and instead have paid them wages? They could have still maintained their economy, just without their exorbitant profit margins that all went to rich land-holding white males. Oh right, that's exactly why they didn't...


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  If, however, libertarians hadn't taken over during the age of enlightenment, I'm convinced none of this progress would have happened because for thousands of years it was tried the non-libertarian way and we saw the results.

This is how myopic your thinking is, there are only two world views, Libertarianism and everything else. Your reductionist history is chock full of bullshit, and now we can all see why.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  We'd still have slavery everywhere—sure, it wouldn't be a racial thing and whites would own whites. There would be no technology, since that always required new theories the club-wielding majority found offensive.

Here'es a not terribly exhaustive list of technological advancements that predate Libertarinsim.

-Fire
-Wheel
-Agriculture
-Animal husbandry
-Metallurgy (bronze & steel)
-Armor-craft
-Weapon smiting
-Crossbows
-Windmills
-Waterwheels
-Steam engine
-Robotics
-Ships
-Trans-Atlantic travel
-Telescope
-Gunpowder
-Sextant
-Compass
-Antikythera Mechanism
-Calendars,


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  We'd still be dead by the age of 40 since all the advances that led to modern medicine required theories the majority found blasphemous (like germ theory) and practices the majority deemed criminal (lost postmortem dissection and study).

The Enlightenment help to advance the Scientific Method, but once again, Libertarinsm =/= the Enlightenment or the Scientific Method. Scientific advancement was allowed to progress once it was more socially acceptable to challenge religious dogmas. Need I remind you however that Gregory Mendel, the father of genetics, was a Franciscan Friar? It was valuation of critical thought, new ideas, and rationalism; not solely personal freedom, that allowed for and enabled the scientific revolution. You do not get to claim credit for all of it under the umbrellas of your ideology.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  See, not a tough question at all.

Yeah, they're not tough when you rewrite and misrepresent history for your own ends.

(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  It's just a hassle because I've answered it 100 times already in this forum, and you just don't like my answer, so rather than rebutting it, your mind blocks out the answer.

No, I've actually thoroughly rebutted just about everything you've posted.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Your claim that I “still failed to answer” this inconvenient question is absurd! It's the answer that's inconvenient. Ask the question 100 more times and my answer will still be the same.

The same historical misrepresentation? I'll pass, thanks...


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If your house caught on fire, and there were no publicly funded firefighters, what would you do?
There ARE communities in the US that have left fire-fighting to the private sector, like Scottsdale. And guess what??? They do a better job for a fraction of the price. Here's a study: http://reason.org/news/show/fire-protect...vatization

Yes, let's look at that study.


"This report looks at the experience of fire protection privatization. The report uses two basic methods to accomplish this task. The first is to examine case studies to see how private fire protection services are provided in different contexts—subscription, special districts, municipal contract, and industrial—and why they are successful."

Well, that's certainly more like a contract. So a contract with private industry is okay, but a contract with your public government is not. But let's look at the conclusion of the report itself.

"Fire protection is inherently labor-intensive, but at the same time it is characterized by long periods of time during which no calls for service take place. In effect, customers must pay for the availability of qualified fire fighters. The key innovations which the private sector has developed to deal with these problems are:

⋅ the use of a mixed force of full-time and reservist fire fighters (so that fewer full-time salaries need to be paid);

⋅ cross-training and multiple-service provision, so that the same emergency-services personnel, equipment, and stations can provide more than one type of service, thereby spreading out the costs among all the offered services; and

⋅ a pro-active fire prevention strategy that is aimed at minimizing fire loss through the use of technology (sprinklers, for example) and information (public education and safety promotion, for example)."


I see nothing there that cannot be adopted by public fire-fighters to improve their efficiency. But, who pays the private fire-fighters? Taxpayers, same as public fire-fighters. If you live in county X, you are still paying taxes that support fire-fighter company Z, whether or not they are a public or private employees. Even this paper doesn't support your ideal Libertarianism wet-dream as you've proposed.

Fuck, did you even bother to read the report?

Do I need to remind you of the failure of the for-profit prison system?


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What did Libertarian de-regulation do to prevent the West Texan fertilizer plant explosion that killed 15 and injured 160 more?
Regulation CAUSES those disasters—it doesn't prevent them. Remember the fertilizer plant WAS regulated by your beloved government. Osha had already inspected the plant and discovered they were improperly storing ammonia in an unsafe manner. And, naturally, the regulation slapped the plant with an extreme fine commensurate with the damage they caused: it was $30. That was the fine your beloved regulators slapped on the plant for putting the town at risk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertil..._explosion

A failure in the power of a regulatory body that had been previously gutted in budget and manpower by Libertarians. Regulation didn't cause the explosion, nothing in the OSHA standards mandated that they keep that much explosive ammonia nitrate (actually, the exact opposite, they were breaking the law having that much). Regulation mandated sprinklers systems, which the facility lacked. Because of under-funding, the plant hadn't been inspected on site since 1985.

But no, keep repeating how regulation caused the explosion; if you repeat it enough times, you might almost convince yourself of your own bullshit.

What would even less regulation have done to prevent the plant explosion fucktard? The plant was basically operating by self-regulation already. What would even less regulation have done to prevent the massive build up of 1350 times the legal amount of explosive ammonia nitrate?

Why didn't the owner's Libertarian ideals of personal freedom kick in and prevent him from endangering his neighbors?


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Regulation protects the corporate interests—not the private citizens.

Except here the private interest had bought the Congressmen it needed to gut the regulators and allowed the private industry to operate almost unregulated, and to disastrous result,. The problem isn't with government regulation per se, it's with its subversion by private corporate interest you dumbass.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Remember, who is writing the regulation? Congress, right? And who do Congressmen depend on for the funding they need to get elected? The corporations they're tasked with regulating. This is a trojan horse farce.

WOLF-PAC





I am already more than well aware of the issue and I'm fighting to make a difference, I'm fighting for a Constitutional Amendment to restore free and fair elections. What you you doing to help jackass?


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  When the airline industry was heavily regulated and legislatures proposed deregulation, who found the deregulation? Oh yeah, the airlines being regulated. Today, when startups like Uber and Lyft are fighting regulation of taxi service, who is defending the regulation? Oh yeah, the taxi companies that are regulated. Somehow the corporations, through their slick marketing, have convinced you that all this regulation they get passed is there to help you, and that it's really making their life difficult. Absurd.

There can be over-regulation and unfair regulation. Claiming that I support it all is blanket misrepresentation, as I'd already pointed out to you earlier vis-a-vis the cable infrastructure (oh right, but then I wouldn't fit into your little caricature box now would I?). What's absurd is your desire to eliminate it all because of some failures, instead of trying to fix the failures. You'd rather burn the house down rather than repaint a room or replace a single door.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Without any regulation the West Texan fertilizer plant would have been sued by the survivors and lost everything. To prevent that happening, those companies need regulation which stipulates that if they X and Y, and pay certain fines (like the $30 slap on the wrist from Osha), then the owners of the company are granted blanket immunity from prosecution under a corporate umbrella and cannot be held accountable for the damage they caused.

So get corporate interest out of politics, get proper funding back to OSHA and other regulatory bodies, and let them actually do their jobs properly; to defend the public interest from the private sector.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  There's a pending lawsuit right now. But I can guarantee you that in the end the victims will never be fairly compensates, and the shareholders of the West Fertilizer Co. will get to keep whatever wealth they extracted from a business that destroyed a town and left a bunch of dead bodies.

It's actually privately owned by an individual. Too bad he didn't care enough about the safety of his neighbors to make sure he wasn't building a bomb there. Oh well, so much for his Libertarian freedom; it failed to save his neighbors from his greed, neglect, and incompetence.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And they'll probably just form a new corporation and repeat the same thing all over again. THAT would NEVER happen under a libertarian system. Under a libertarian system where corporations got no special privileges and regulation granted no special immunity, and people were held liable for initiating force against others (like that explosion) the assets of the shareholders of the fertilizer company would be distributed to the victims and they wouldn't be able to get away with it and keep doing it.

Redistribution of wealth, and through the force of the government no less? That sounds surprising like Socialism.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why do you choose to live in a democratic socialist republic (Switzerland), if you're so afraid of the tyranny of the 51%?
Jeez, you're totally confused. Switzerland is most definitely NOT socialist. It's the exact opposite. Switzerland IS a republic, and they follow their constitution and, despite the ability to hold national referendums, nearly always defer decision-making to the local authorities, just like Thomas Jefferson and others envisioned a perfect libertarian society.

Local authorities, which can still impose laws and regulation on you that you disagree with if they are supported by the majority of those in your local area. Libertarian fail once again, you are still subject to the Tyranny of the (Local) 51%.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why is sacrificing some personal liberty for national defense okay, but not for publicly funded education or infrastructure?

As I've said a million times, if you want services, whether they're from a government or corporation, you should have the right to decide if the asking price is fair and services represent a good value or not. So, if you're going to have property within national borders and expect the military to protect it, fine, the military will stipulate a price for that service and you have the option of accepting it, or moving outside the border. It should be the same with education and infrastructure too in my opinion.

And it is, leave the country.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  If you have a child and want to send your children to public school, fine, pay whatever the public school system asks for, which could be an annual tuition, or a lifetime property tax, or whatever. If the public schools suck, then, yes, you should be able to choose to opt-out and instead of paying for a public school send your kids to a private school instead.

There is nothing stopping you from doing this already. So long as the child passes minimum standards, he can be publicly schooled, privately schooled, or home schooled; but everyone must meet a minimum level of competence as determined by government regulations and standards.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And you'll be shocked to know that the European countries which score well in education tend to be much closer to the libertarian ideal. Belgium, for example, is all vouchers. Public schools compete with private schools, and parents have a choice where to send their kids. If the public schools are lousy, you don't have to pay for them. Finland is the most decentralized with the greatest local autonomy, and they score #1 across the board in most internationally standardized tests. Switzerland too follows the libertarian system of leaving education to the cantons (states). There is no central planning of education or monolithic federal department of eduction like in the US. The cantons are free to choose if they want vouchers or how to handle it. And guess what. The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report for 2010-11 ranked Switzerland's education as first overall.

Those are also countries that strongly regulated private industry, so that you don't see the corruption and inefficiency you see happening with the charter-school fad here in the Sates. Also they pay their public school teachers far better, and they have the political will to maintain their excellent schools. Libertarian politicians here in the States want to further de-fund and undermine education spending and redirect funds that are left into private schools, so that the money goes into private profits rather than into student education.

Also, are the private schools in those countries allowed to discriminate? Because private schools are allowed to do that here in the United States because of lack of regulation. Also most of their supposed improvements over public schools can be chalked up to their ability to discriminate; allowing them to only allow in more affluent families with more money and students with better academic and socioeconomic backgrounds. But every student is still guaranteed access to a public education, even if he can't get into a private one.

So you can't just point at Europe and expect victory. Once again the issue has far more variables than your black-and-white Libertarinism will let you account for.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Having gone to an American high school and seeing how education works here when it's decentralized the libertarian way, wow, there's no comparison. When the Swiss finish their high school (“gymnasium”) they have learned 4 languages, including latin, advanced math and science, and upon graduation are encouraged to roam and travel the world, so you experience and learn to tolerate other cultures and widen your world view.

An excellent standard to strive for.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do the world a favor, find the bottle of bleach under your sink, and take a nice long swig from it. Actually, don't stop drinking till it's empty.
See, when you come from a good position you have the luxury of attacking your opponent with logic and facts—not death threats.

[Image: DrinkingBleach-300x294.jpg]

My encouragement of you to drink bleach is not a death threat, it's just encouragement for your suicide; there is a difference.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No matter where you go you will be subject to someone rules, jurisdiction, and enforcement. Your solution to this is to demand that you be given your own space, much like the aforementioned petulant 5 year old; and then try to pretend like you're not a self serving selfish asshole.
Total strawman mischaracterization. I've acknowledged that rules, jurisdiction and enforcement and have said a million times my ONLY request is that when you draw the arbitrary jurisdictional lines, just don't draw them in the one place that it encompasses every single place where a person can legally live.

Uh, go live off planet then, as that's the only way you'll escape all jurisdictions.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Give people a way to leave and opt-out if they find the rules too burdensome. That's it. That's all I've ever said. How does that make me a selfish asshole?

Because granting you this would by necessity take away something from someone else.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  IMO, it makes you a tyrant that you're not even willing to consider this compromise and insist that all your rules must be drawn in such a way that escape is impossible.

United State's laws end at the border, except where there are international agreements with other nations.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Nobody likes to have a gun pointed to their head and be forced to do something against their will. Everybody wants to be able to exercise free will. So it baffles me that you guys say libertarians are “selfish” for merely treating you the way you want to be treated! What is so offensive to you about the golden rule?

Because it's never that easy, your world doesn't exist in a perfect little bubble separated from everyone and everything else. We are all interconnected and interdependent and inter-reliant; and to ignore this in favor of a focus entirely on yourself is inherently selfish and narcissistic. All of your actions have consequences. Libertarians stop looking at consequences past their own actions, it is a very myopic view of a complex world.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We've had this debate already, Libertarians lost.
Agreed. We tried it your way for thousands of years with the 'might makes right' system where whoever gets the club of power gets to force others to do things.

Non-Libertarian =/= Totalitarianism or Authoritarianism, please do try to keep up.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Then Libertarians took over for about one century and radically transformed the world, ushering in the sort of innovation and progress never seen before. Life expectancy doubled. Instead of a system of peasants and slaves toiling for an unimaginably wealthy aristocracy, a middle class grew.

Middle class existed before the Enlightenment, as the merchant class.

Once again, Libertarism =/= the Enlightnement, please do try to keep up.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And, yes, little by little you club-wielders are rolling back the clock going back to the old system. Yes, look at the US's gini coefficient. Every year, whether liberals or conservatives are in power, inquality is growing.

Right, due to the rampant and unfettered influence of the free-market in our politics. Our politicians represent their donors, not the people. I fail to see how less regulation would improve the situation, rather than making the outright buying of our politicians even more legal?


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The middle class is eroding and returning back to the old system of peasants and aristocracy. Yes, it's inevitable that libertarians lose because the one thing that defines us is we don't use violence. So guess when, when libertarians and liberals fight, and libertarians use logic and reason, and liberals use police with guns, guess which side wins?

Right, because cops are at the beck and call of us Evil Liberals. It was all of those Evil Liberals cracking down on Occupy protesters, right? Could you hyperbole any more?


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm not disputing you guys are winning in most places and that Switzerland here is a tiny hold-out.

Actually Switzerland is a shining example of a well-regulated government that represent it's people and keeps the free-market and private interest in check. It's an example of how well regulation can work as one of the most effective tools of the public to protect their interests.


(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm just trying to remind you how barbaric the system you want to go back to really is and that you maybe should reconsider turning your back on te system that ushered in the quality of life you enjoy today.

You fucking dumbass...Facepalm

I don't want to return to a previous system, I want to improve the one we have rather than burning it down you delusional twit. I would love to get us closer to the Liberal Democracies of norther Europe, and we're not going to get there by following Libertarian ideologies or politicians.

The quality of life I have today is much improved over what it could have been. Things would undoubtedly be worse without the Civil Right Act, woman's suffrage, worker protection, safety regulations, the EPA, the Clean Air Act, Social Security, and any number of other programs instituted to help and protect our fellow citizens. Does that make every regulation perfect? Hardly (not that you'd know that listening to you). Regulations are at their best when they serve to protect public, and not corporate, interests.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-05-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Give [slaves] a way to leave [the plantation] and opt-out if they find the rules [to pick cotton wearing shackles] too burdensome... How does that make [the slave] a selfish asshole?
Because granting [the slave] this would by necessity take away something from [the slave owner].

I had to include this first because it's SOOOO good. Of course, I changed the pronouns to a slave and master. But why not? When I asked the question why you felt I shouldn't be to leave an oppressive system, and you said it's because if I fled and didn't keep doing what you told me to you'd lose something valuable. But I could be a slave, you could be my master, and these ARE the justifications that masters used to defend slavery. This is why slave-owners were exclusively Democtrat, and the Democrats today share the same belief system that drives the Democratic party today. It's the belief that individual liberty should be sacrificed for the greater good (ie the will of the ruling majority that has 51% of the vote). The belief that each individual is born indebted to that ruling majority, and that the ruling majority has a right to restrict the individual's liberty and freedom because the ruling majority benefits from the individual's labor. The belief that ruling majority (like the Southern Whites) have the power to use force against minorities (like the slaves) and tell the slaves what to do because sacrificing their individual freedom is acceptable if it is for the greater good, and that if a slave tries to leave, he is, as you said, 'taking something away from' his master.

The only difference is that back then it was a racial thing. Now it's not. Now you preach that ALL men, regardless of race, are born into slavery and can be forced to do things against their will, forced to surrender the fruits of their labor, and, as you just confirmed, that they do not have the right to simply leave and thus opt-out because they were born into debt bondage.

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Libertarianism =/= The Enlightenment

Look up 'age of enlightenment' on wikipedia. See the right column “Part of a series on libertarianism”.
The article states “The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals... emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange.[2] The Enlightenment was a revolution in human thought. This new way of thinking was that rational thought begins with clearly stated principles, uses correct logic to arrive at conclusions, tests the conclusions against evidence, and then revises the principles in the light of the evidence. “

See how “individualism” was the key emphasis of this movement? Something you previously said is selfish and abhorrent?

Previously I stated many times that the “libertarianism” is subscribe to is “classic liberalism”, the one originating from John Locke, Adam Smith. Yes, Libertarianism (classic liberalism) = age of enlightenment. It IS the radical reform put in place during that period.

And, yes, there is a clear, black-and-white distinction which separates us. Our side believes the role of government is to eliminate force and coercion allowing individuals to exercise free will. Your side preaches the precise polar opposite: the role of government is to initiate force and coercion to force individuals to do things against their will. Yes, there really are 2 black-and-white opposites here. Look up 'negative rights' (libertarian) vs. 'positive rights' (liberal). There is a very clear difference.

But, the problem is you liberals are so, well, conservative, that you won't entertain any new ideas. So, no matter how many times I tell you we are both PRO-government, we just have opposing views on what government is, you CANNOT open your mind to this concept. You still think that YOUR idea of government is the only possible form of government that could exist. Therefore, if someone does not embrace YOUR form of government, he must be an anti-government anarchist. This closed-minded dogma is shown by your comment that under a libertarian system everybody would just go murdering everybody else. How can you possibly criticize libertarianism when you clearly have NO CLUE what it actually means, no matter how many times I explain it? Is murder force? YES, DUMB ASS!!! Is that a revolution to you? Now what do libertarians believe is the role of government? To eliminate force. So how is it, then, that a libertarian government accepts murder? You can't see how totally confused you are? It is YOUR side that actually embraces murder, you just trick yourself into thinking that it's not murder because you hire someone else to pull the trigger for you.

If my neighbor is growing roses in his yard, and I hate roses, and so I order him to stop growing them, and when he refuses, I bust down his door and try to haul him away, and when he resists I shoot him dead. Is that murder?

Now, take the exact same scenario, just substitute “rose” for “opium”, and instead of me shooting the neighbor directly, I use the power at my disposal, my vote, to order a 3rd party to do it for me (ie the police). Now you'll insist that it's no longer murder—it's just law enforcement. Bull shit. It's exactly the same. It IS murder. It is YOUR system that advocates a government that initiates force, and, yes, commits murder.

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 09:26 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The very concept of men being forced to do things against their will is precisely what libertarianism fights against.

Even if that will is to construct sub-par housing that is not safe to life in, because who needs the tyranny of safety regulations telling you what you can and cannot build?

Libertarianism empowers the individual to make good decisions. We teach the individual to not buy housing that has not been safety-inspected by a 3rd party. And, if there are defects, we empower the individual to be able to make wise decisions since he knows his situation best. Maybe the 3rd party inspector determines the house itself is fine, and only the detached garage is built on unstable ground and may collapse. So, the informed buyer may decide that he doesn't have a car anyway, doesn't need the garage, and he negotiates with the builder to buy the house at half the market value because of the defect in the garage. Yes, that is individualism. It's empowering the individual.

Your system is the opposite. You assume the individual is too stupid to make these decisions, so some bureaucrat 2,000 miles away, who knows nothing of the situation or the individual, must make the decision for him. But, here's where us libertarians love to use logic and reason. Who picks the bureaucrat that's 2000 miles away and tells him what safety rules to follow? Oh yeah, the individual—the same individual that you claim is too stupid to make informed decisions about his own set of circumstances that he knows intimately well and lives with every day—he should be empowered to make decisions for people thousands of miles away that he knows nothing about. It is so illogical and moronic to us libertarians.

And, as always, when you give this example you never say “I need regulation because I am incapable of hiring an inspector and I will be foolishly tricked into buying an unsafe house if some government regulator isn't there to protect me from my own stupidity.” No, you ALWAYS use the 3rd party when describing who needs your beloved regulators. It's always someone else. You always say “Sure, well I'm smart and would make good decisions on my own. But everybody is else is a fucking moron and needs government minders to save them from themselves.” You don't stop to realize (a) that EVERYBODY says this, therefore who is the “everybody else”, and (b) even if it were true that you're smart and everybody else is stupid the fact is that in a democracy every vote counts the same so all that means that your vote will get overruled by those of all the stupid people who are totally inept at deciding what are appropriate safety rules and that “everybody else” that you have so much contempt for will be telling you what house you can live in.

See, your antiquated way of thinking is just plain egotistical thinking you know better than everybody else how they should live their lives. Just remember what Thomas Jefferson said that if a man is too stupid to make decisions for himself, how can he be trusted to make decisions for others?

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Scientific advancement was allowed to progress once it was more socially acceptable to challenge religious dogmas.

YES. And the ruling majority that held the power were religious and saw experiments, like Gregory Mendel's genetics, to be blasphemous and that the punishment for defying God like that was death. There is very little progress in a system of 'rule by majority' because new ideas and innovation never come from the majority. You're never going to have 51% of the population simultaneously come up with the theory of evolution. Innovation comes from out-of-the-box free-thinkers who challenge the status quo the majority subscribes to. So as long as the majority is allowed to suppress these challenges, they will. Only when classic liberalism took over, and flipped the role of government upside down so that, instead of imposing the will of the majority on the minority, became to defend the minority from the majority could new, controversial ideas like genetics come to light. You hate it when I say this, but it's simply a historical fact that for all of recorded history it was tried your way where whoever had the power (the majority in the case of the democracy) used force to maintain the status quo. Only during the age of enlightenment when classic liberals (ie libertarians) took over and turned the role of government upside down did we see an explosion of progress. And every single time you use your vote to impose the will of the majority on minorities you are rolling back the clock, returning to the age-old system that cavemen used thousands of years ago. Were it not for libertarians, there would be evolution, no genetics. You'd still be clinging to the religious status quo as the only answer to life's questions.

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I see nothing there that cannot be adopted by public fire-fighters to improve their efficiency.

Humans are risk:reward calculators. When there's no reward, nobody takes risk. Experimenting with new ideas and ways of doing things, like the private fire-fighters did, involves risk. The ONLY reason they did it is because there was a reward (a profit incentive). Remove the reward, and you also remove the risk. Sure, because there some private fire-fighters who took the risk and proved there was a better way to run a fire department, NOW that the risk is removed the public fire-fighters might try to copy it. But if ALL the fire-fighters were public there never would have been this progress.

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do I need to remind you of the failure of the for-profit prison system?

Of course!!! And this only proves my point. Whenever you attach a profit motive (ie a reward) to something, you encourage that behavior. So you WANT to attach a profit motive to all the good things in the world, like fire-fighting, building roads, and so on. But locking people up in prison is the LAST thing you want to encourage with a profit motive. It is INSANE to, effectively, put a bounty on everybody's head so that private for-profit corporations have a motive to lock everybody up. Libertarians goal is to REDUCE coercion and force, not INCREASE it. The use of force and prisons is NOT something you want to encourage, it's a last resort to BLOCK people who try to initiate force on others. It exists to REMOVE force, not create it. Since you guys got this all backwards and mixed up and instead favor a system where the whole point is to CREATE coercion and INITIATE force you got it all backwards and somehow thought you should attach a profit motive to hauling people off at gunpoint and locking them in cells! You take all the good things that society should encourage, like building roads and fighting fires, and completely remove the profit motive that is necessary for them to grow, and you take the bad things that society should try to avoid, like initiating force, rape, murder, etc., and THAT is where you decide to attach a profit motive!!!! Dumb, dumb, dumb.

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Regulation didn't cause the explosion, nothing in the OSHA standards mandated that they keep that much explosive ammonia nitrate.

OSHA standards state that in exchange for the fertilizer plant allowing OSHA inspectors and paying OSHA's $30 fine (which they did), the owners of the fertilizer plant are granted immunity from prosecution under a corporate umbrella. OF COURSE your regulation caused the explosion because it's your regulation that guaranteed the owners of the fertilizer plant that no matter how many lives they killed, they wouldn't be held individually responsible, and they could keep their private jets and mansions even if they behaved recklessly, just so long as they allowed OSHA to inspect.

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why didn't the owner's Libertarian ideals of personal freedom kick in and prevent him from endangering his neighbors?

Because your regulation interfered and granted the owner freedom to endanger his neighbors without liability.

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I am already more than well aware of the issue and I'm fighting to make a difference, I'm fighting for a Constitutional Amendment to restore free and fair elections. What you you doing to help jackass?

I'm pointing out the futility of your policy, that you're only making things much, much worse. If you get your way and give the central government even MORE power to pick winners and losers and redistribute wealth, then those who already have wealth and power and thus already have the upper hand, are going to stop at nothing to make sure they're on the receiving end. The ONLY way to fix this is to strip the politicians of the ability to pick winners and losers based on their allegiances, and instead let a free-market system pick as winners the ones who do the most good for society, providing the best goods and services for the best prices.

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So get corporate interest out of politics, get proper funding back to OSHA and other regulatory bodies, and let them actually do their jobs properly; to defend the public interest from the private sector.

You don't get it. You don't realize that YOU are falling into their trap. I gave you example after example where it's the corporations that are fighting for more regulation. When airlines were regulated, it was the airlines fought deregulation. Today taxi companies are fighting deregulation tooth and nail because they can't compete upstarts like Uber and Lyft that offer a better service at a lower price, so their only option is (a) to improve, or (b) to get more government regulation passed by convincing lemmings like yourself that this regulation is for your own good. Clearly strategy b works very, very well.

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, due to the rampant and unfettered influence of the free-market in our politics. Our politicians represent their donors, not the people. I fail to see how less regulation would improve the situation, rather than making the outright buying of our politicians even more legal?

Did you see that last part? If the politicians have nothing to sell, then there can be no buyers! The reason donors are buying politicians is because what politicians have to sell is the power to redistribute wealth back into the donor's hands, to grant the owners monopolies and craft regulation that stifles their competition, and to make sure that their donors are always on the winning side. Giving the politicians even MORE power to do this is just going to mean they have even MORE to sell their donors.

(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I don't want to return to a previous system, I want to improve the one we have rather than burning it down you delusional twit. I would love to get us closer to the Liberal Democracies of norther Europe, and we're not going to get there by following Libertarian ideologies or politicians.

Yes, you would!!! Why is Sweden able to pull off what it does? It's because Sweden is a small country of only 9m people, all of whom are universally liberal and well-educated and, because there's only 9m people, they're able to keep much closer tabs on their politicians. IF you set your sights on passing laws at the state level, you could find US states that met that same key criteria as Sweden. There are plenty of universally liberal, well-educated states, and if the power was kept local at the state capital, you could keep your politicians in check and make sure they don't get out of control. The reason you can never achieve this goal is because you try to boil the ocean, demanding that the whole entire country do things your way, insisting that the right-wing rednecks in Mississippi have to be forced at gunpoint to accept your liberal agenda. Of course they too are trying to force you at gunpoint to accept their agenda. So instead of using your resources to achieve your goals, you two put everything you have to get locked in mortal battle spending all your time fighting each other, neither one gaining the clear upper hand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I don't want to return to a previous system, I want to improve the one we have rather than burning it down you delusional twit. I would love to get us closer to the Liberal Democracies of northern Europe, and we're not going to get there by following Libertarian ideologies or politicians.

I do have a few serious questions that I hope won't get drowned in this long running argument, but the quote above prompted me to go ahead and ask them. What about the very large minority of fellow citizens who don't want a country that resembles the Liberal Democracies of northern Europe and who find the very notion of that kind of social and political system abhorrent? A lot of the US sees Europe the way you do, but an awful lot also Europe as a shining example of everything to run away from as far and as fast as possible.

Do you see those people and states getting drug along kicking and screaming against their will? If the east and west coast states became more European in their political policies, while the middle ones became more libertarian, could the coastal states survive financially if people and businesses have free choice to move to and from the other states? Basically, do those politics have an adverse selection problem severe enough to require "lock-in" of the unwilling in order to be sustainable?

I suppose the above is just a subset of this question: Are other political systems viable subsets of a more Libertarian collective? I don't necessarily mean fully Libertarian, just a lot more libertarian than normal. It definitely doesn't work so well in reverse, where a subset of a very authoritarian system tries to be exempted and libertarian. But can it work the other way around? Could, say, Texas be essentially the wild west where people wear guns everywhere they go and have no social programs or welfare or retirement assistance or food stamps or anything, while California has single payer universal health care, public housing for the homeless, generous social safety nets, maximum constitutionally allowed gun control, etc.? I'm not sure if that could work with long residency requirements for service eligibility, say years after moving in before you get benefits, or if that kind of variability makes the California model inherently unsustainable as all the people paying more than they use leave and all the people who want to get more than they can pay for move in.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djhall's post
19-05-2014, 11:24 AM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
frankksj,

I have some question for you too, but I need to get to work, so I'll have to finish writing them later.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 12:06 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 12:40 PM by frankksj.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(19-05-2014 11:02 AM)djhall Wrote:  Could, say, Texas ... have no welfare ... while California has single payer universal health care, public housing for the homeless, generous social safety nets... or if that kind of variability makes the California model inherently unsustainable as all the people paying more than they use leave and all the people who want to get more than they can pay for move in.

I know this was for EvolutionKills, but I couldn't help chime in. That actually _IS_ one of the most coherent arguments against the libertarian system in the US constitution which, just what you described, is a libertarian federal system that only enforces negative rights, and states can do most anything except restrict people's ability to leave.

However even though it's a great argument liberals never bring it up because they don't want to say "the problem with your system is that my liberal state will attract all the deadbeats and freeloaders looking for a handout and your libertarian system will lure all the hard working, industrious people who make society a better place."

However, living in Switzerland, which is exactly what you describe, and where welfare is entirely left up to the local communities, it's actually not the problem you might think. The fact is there are plenty of liberals here who are hard working and industrious and don't mind paying higher taxes to have a stronger safety net. They're not about to move one of the more libertarian communities just to save on taxes. And even in the communities that try to keep government and taxes to a minimum, like Zug, where the tax rates are only a couple percent, still, nobody wants to see people homeless or hungry. It's a very rare type that loves to flaunt his wealth while stepping over homeless people sleeping in the street. Thus, by shifting all the power to the local level, you get migration of political ideologies, where some communities are very liberal, others very conservative, and thus they have very different laws and the people are generally happy with the laws they live under, but you do not have a problem with migration where all the freeloaders concentrate in the liberal communities. Income taxes in liberal Zürich are around 30%. It's a 20 minute drive to conservative Zug where it's 2%, and you can even negotiate a fixed tax without disclosing your income. Yet more wealthy people still prefer, and voluntarily choose to pay for, living in Zürich. The problem is when you have a 30% (or 50%) tax rate nationwide, because then the people who think it's too high simply stop working as they have nowhere else to move to where they feel the taxes are not a disincentive to work. You're much better off to let the local communities set their own rates so that everybody has a place where they can be happy, work, and pay what they think is an acceptable rate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 08:50 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Libertarianism =/= The Enlightenment

To show you that they are, I just made this post for you. You can see I don't make any claims or state my opinion, I just ask liberals questions to challenge their beliefs. The reply is just vitriol, calling me a fucking cunt, when I said nothing disrespectful. You have to scroll through 6 pages of vitriol before post #51 when someone finally even attempted to answer the questions. See my response in #54. Was the reply in #51 based on logic and reason?

And look how after 6 pages of posts proving that the IRS taxes all bartering whether commercial or not, Chas still insists that bartering "is not reportable income if it is not commercial." See his post #57, and compare that to the IRS links here and here. See my post #58. If he's willing to twist something that is so simple and obvious and irrelevant trivia that doesn't even affect our positions, imagine what it would take to get him to admit he's wrong on something that REALLY matters. And, no matter how times I challenge liberals to come up with ANY question that a libertarian will similarly run from, you can't. Try. Throw out your toughest question and see if, like the liberals, I scream profanities and refuse to answer it.

Now read how the Age of Enlightenment was a "cultural movement of intellectuals... emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange."

See, challenging ideas like I did in that thread is a defining characteristic of the AoE, and libertarianism.

As much as I disagree with conservatives, I find them easier to get along with because at least they admit their beliefs are what they are: based on faith. Many will even readily admit there is no scientific proof for the talking snake and all their other traditions. And that's perfectly valid. The world would be a miserable place if everybody focused only on logic and reason. The world is much better having artists and creative types and a wide range of people with all different talents. The ONLY time conservatives get under my skin is when they pretend to be something their not, claiming the can prove Noah survived the flood using logic and reason and facts. To me, THAT gets really annoying. Same thing with liberals. If you want to come out and say "I believe in this system, I like it, I want to live in it" I would totally respect it. No criticism, no sarcasm. BUT, since liberals want to force their beliefs on others they all too often try to pretend like it's rooted in logic and reason so they have some justification to have those who disagree thrown in jail.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: