[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Do you have a citation for 'his peers were also..."?

There was a book about this, I don't have it handy.

(15-05-2014 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  And since the plans were not known, no one actively blocked those plans.

The plans were not known because he abandoned them since there was no point of continuing once the government confiscated them.

(15-05-2014 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  And the U.S. government did not confiscate public transport systems.

You're playing with words. We already debated this. You know fully well that in 1935 PUHCA "divestiture of utility-owned electric streetcar companies, which were then acquired by various parties and very often dismantled in what became known as the Great American Streetcar Scandal" and that the companies behind the law were the oil and car companies, and that the law required all the transportation to liquidate their assets, after regulating and capping the fares so that it was impossible to make a profit and thus impossible to sell the assets to anybody but the front shell companies owned by the same oil and car companies. And then the government nationalized passenger rail (Amtrak).

If I paid off politicians and got them to pass a law forcing you to sell your house, and simultaneously pass laws making your house valueless so that you had nobody to sell it to and had to sell it to me for $1, you would call that confiscation. You know this and are being disingenuous to call it anything else since that is indisputably exactly what happened in 1935.

(15-05-2014 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  And there was no "the public transport system". There were lots of systems, from one-track, podunk systems to large metropolitan ones. And many of these were running into the 50's, 60's, and later.

Nearly all of them were covered by the 1935 law and forced to liquidate. The fact that a handful were not owned by electric companies and exempt from the law doesn't change what happened. We already debated all this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 05:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why wait? Move out of the US and renounce your citizenship now and be a man without a country. That's what a true libertarian would do.

Firstly, it's well known that often the US won't allow people to renounce when they don't already have 2nd citizenship since it would leave you a stateless refugee, unable to legally live or work anywhere.

Second, if even the most oppressive countries like China and Russia and the most backwards of countries, like Somalia, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, ALL agree that it's a basic human right to be able to leave your country's system with no strings attached, and the ONLY other countries in the world besides the US that don't allow this are North Korea and Cuba, are you SERIOUSLY going to defend this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 05:52 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 05:09 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Do you have a citation for 'his peers were also..."?

There was a book about this, I don't have it handy.

(15-05-2014 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  And since the plans were not known, no one actively blocked those plans.

The plans were not known because he abandoned them since there was no point of continuing once the government confiscated them.

(15-05-2014 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  And the U.S. government did not confiscate public transport systems.

You're playing with words. We already debated this. You know fully well that in 1935 PUHCA "divestiture of utility-owned electric streetcar companies, which were then acquired by various parties and very often dismantled in what became known as the Great American Streetcar Scandal" and that the companies behind the law were the oil and car companies, and that the law required all the transportation to liquidate their assets, after regulating and capping the fares so that it was impossible to make a profit and thus impossible to sell the assets to anybody but the front shell companies owned by the same oil and car companies. And then the government nationalized passenger rail (Amtrak).

If I paid off politicians and got them to pass a law forcing you to sell your house, and simultaneously pass laws making your house valueless so that you had nobody to sell it to and had to sell it to me for $1, you would call that confiscation. You know this and are being disingenuous to call it anything else since that is indisputably exactly what happened in 1935.

(15-05-2014 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  And there was no "the public transport system". There were lots of systems, from one-track, podunk systems to large metropolitan ones. And many of these were running into the 50's, 60's, and later.

Nearly all of them were covered by the 1935 law and forced to liquidate. The fact that a handful were not owned by electric companies and exempt from the law doesn't change what happened. We already debated all this.

And your conspiracy spin on history was just as unconvincing then.

Streetcars in America

General Motors streetcar conspiracy

List of streetcar systems in the United States

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 06:13 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 03:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Correct. But what difference does it make whether it's 200 or 2,000 when the US says that no matter where a US citizen lives his obligations to the US are the same?

A great deal, to anyone who is not American.

(15-05-2014 03:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Not disingenuous at all. Sure, I have opinions, but I don't force them on others. I think communism is a terrible system. But, as I said, I have no problem if a US state has a communist system--so long as people are allowed to leave. If I happened to be born there, then when I turned 18 I would just pack up and move out, walk, crawl or hitchhike if necessary and go somewhere else.

Uh, no. You are still completely missing the point of my original post.

You know, the thing you were apparently under the illusion that you were responding to?

(15-05-2014 03:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I think I understand your views better than you do and why you hold them.

I think this speaks for itself.

You are so convinced of your own delusion that you're doubling down on a position that is not only groundless and presuppositional but unfalsifiable.

Congratulations.

I call you deranged for a reason. This is the reason. It's far too congenital a mannerism to be willful; I can only assume, consequently, that you literally can't help it.

(15-05-2014 03:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  djhall summed it up very well. The right believes that all humans, at birth, are born with a debt, or obligation, to god, so that you don't own yourself, god owns you and decides what you can do with yourself. The left believes that all humans, at birth, are born with a debt, or obligation, to a group of humans collectively referred to as "society", and that society owns you and decides what you can do with yourself. Libertarians believe all humans are born debt-free, with no obligations, and that they own themselves.

That's a crude and incredibly simplistic reduction, but not invalid so far as it goes.

Not particularly relevant to what I believe, and still less to whatever phantasm you imagine me to believe, but whatever.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 05:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  And your conspiracy spin on history was just as unconvincing then.

Huh? The links you provided just back up everything I said. The 'list of streetcar systems' shows that in every town in every state there was a light rail (metro) system. Just like I said. It confirms "1936 saw GM establish several front companies for the express purpose of purchasing and dismantling America's streetcar systems... GM and other companies were subsequently convicted in 1949 of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products via a complex network of linked holding companies including National City Lines and Pacific City Lines... Both Quinby and Snell argued that the deliberate destruction of streetcars was part of a larger strategy to push the United States into automobile dependency."

The closest thing in those links to a rebuttal is from Guy Span who dismissed this saying "Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction."

So even the expert on your side of the debate defending the government concedes the "government contributed significantly" to this 'war on electric rapid transit', but, the sole defense is that government intervention wasn't the ONLY factor. And you use this to claim I'm some conspiracy theorist??? Jeez, nothing I said was controversial or disputed even by the government-defenders on your side of the issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 07:01 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 06:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not particularly relevant to what I believe, and still less to whatever phantasm you imagine me to believe, but whatever.

Look, bottom line is I committed that I will acquiesce to any policy you propose, no matter how wrong I think it is, with ONLY ONE caveat: that if those affected find your policy too oppressive you must agree to grant them the legal right to flee and relocate to some other jurisdiction--anywhere actually that they can legally live and work--to escape.

I give you HUGE latitude and agree to accept anything you propose with only one minor condition. And that one minor condition is the only thing I'm advocating. And I've yet to hear anybody dispute that by doing this I am simply treating others the way they want to be treated.

The fact that you take such great offense at this position and are so outraged every time I bring it up that you won't even address it head on and instead attack all sorts of silly strawmen that are nothing but distractions, that speaks volumes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 07:08 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 06:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 05:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  And your conspiracy spin on history was just as unconvincing then.

Huh? The links you provided just back up everything I said. The 'list of streetcar systems' shows that in every town in every state there was a light rail (metro) system. Just like I said. It confirms "1936 saw GM establish several front companies for the express purpose of purchasing and dismantling America's streetcar systems... GM and other companies were subsequently convicted in 1949 of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products via a complex network of linked holding companies including National City Lines and Pacific City Lines... Both Quinby and Snell argued that the deliberate destruction of streetcars was part of a larger strategy to push the United States into automobile dependency."

The closest thing in those links to a rebuttal is from Guy Span who dismissed this saying "Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction."

So even the expert on your side of the debate defending the government concedes the "government contributed significantly" to this 'war on electric rapid transit', but, the sole defense is that government intervention wasn't the ONLY factor. And you use this to claim I'm some conspiracy theorist??? Jeez, nothing I said was controversial or disputed even by the government-defenders on your side of the issue.

You are clearly reading those very selectively. You have a strong confirmation bias.
You present the issue incompletely and non-factually with a paranoid agenda.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 07:20 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 07:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are clearly reading those very selectively. You have a strong confirmation bias.
You present the issue incompletely and non-factually with a paranoid agenda.

I dare you to copy and paste (a) one thing I said, and (b) one thing from those wikipedia pages that in any way contradicts what I said.

Your inability to do so will only prove my statements were accurate. And by listing only those facts that were germane to the point I was making is hardly "selective". My posts are long enough and would be hundreds of pages long if I wasn't selective and tried to write a comprehensive analysis of every aspect of the US public transportation system.

The key facts which prove my point are uncontroversial. The private sector in the US _DID_ build a comprehensive public transport system throughout the country without government help. Thus the silly claims that without government we'd have no transportation system and have to walk everywhere are laughable. And, the government did step in with regulations, laws, taking over the setting of fares, etc. When the government takes over something, the government becomes responsible for the outcome. So don't come crying to me that the US's roads and bridges are falling apart, the cities are congested, and there's no viable public transit anymore. This is the system you government-defenders created, so if the system sucks, grow a pair and accept responsibility for the mess you guys created.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 07:22 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The fact that you take such great offense at this position and are so outraged every time I bring it up that you won't even address it head on and instead attack all sorts of silly strawmen that are nothing but distractions, that speaks volumes.

That is not a thing that ever happened. That is a thing you made up. It is fantasy. It's somewhat problematic that you can't tell the difference.

I repeat:
(15-05-2014 06:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You are so convinced of your own delusion that you're doubling down on a position that is not only groundless and presuppositional but unfalsifiable.

So, congratulations, friend. You think that you know what others think. You do not. Any conversation you engage in degenerates into a dialogue between you and the fantasies dwelling in your head. You do not engage with other people. You leap from mischaracterisation to fallacy with no diminishment of self-righteousness. You address what you (erroneously and delusionally) "know" the other person must have meant, and your self-assured bias prevents you from any untoward encounter with reality.

Good luck with that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 07:31 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 07:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 07:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are clearly reading those very selectively. You have a strong confirmation bias.
You present the issue incompletely and non-factually with a paranoid agenda.

I dare you to copy and paste (a) one thing I said, and (b) one thing from those wikipedia pages that in any way contradicts what I said.

Your inability to do so will only prove my statements were accurate. And by listing only those facts that were germane to the point I was making is hardly "selective". My posts are long enough and would be hundreds of pages long if I wasn't selective and tried to write a comprehensive analysis of every aspect of the US public transportation system.

The key facts which prove my point are uncontroversial. The private sector in the US _DID_ build a comprehensive public transport system throughout the country without government help. Thus the silly claims that without government we'd have no transportation system and have to walk everywhere are laughable. And, the government did step in with regulations, laws, taking over the setting of fares, etc. When the government takes over something, the government becomes responsible for the outcome. So don't come crying to me that the US's roads and bridges are falling apart, the cities are congested, and there's no viable public transit anymore. This is the system you government-defenders created, so if the system sucks, grow a pair and accept responsibility for the mess you guys created.

OK, let's do this.

(15-05-2014 11:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  ... by 1930, the private sector built a network with 2500 different light rail (metro) systems so every town [NO] in the US had an all-electric, 250k miles of rail, with air-conditioned trains [NO] travelling over 100mph [NO], and were building vac-tube (hyperloop) models to allow hyper-sonic transport [Full size systems were likely beyond the capabilities of the technology of the time]. Because, before the 1930's, people had a choice in who provided their transportation infrastructure. It was a free market, so all the companies fought to offer the best product at the best price. Since the government took over [NO - "the government" didn't take over], it's a market of coercion. The oil industry got Congress to confiscate and destroy all the mass transit systems [NO - "the government" didn't do that][/b] and force everyone to buy gas-burning cars [NO - no one was forced to build cars]. Everybody MUST pay taxes that go to these roads and bridges whether they actually use them or not and whether they're well maintained or falling apart. The results are no different than what happens when any monopoly, government or private, forces people to buy products against their will. [NO - the maintenance was fine for years. And we all pay taxes for a lot of things that don't benefit every person directly]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: