Bitcoin Forum

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House in DC. One is from New York , another is from Tennessee and the third is from Florida.

All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. The Florida contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The New York contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700." The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?" The New York contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence." "Done!" replies the government official. And that, my friends, is how government contracting works!

funny because it's true...

This is how Govt. contracts work.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/costplus.html

All this is true.

So is this: Corporations exploit the earth in other nations by going there, bribing the officials with money and prostitutes in order to gain access to local resources, and then proceed to do untold damage to the ecosystem all to make a buck manufacturing palm oil.

You don't own the entire ecosystem of the planet.

Stupid fucking answer.

I'm sorry that you feel entitled to the entire planet but I just think you need to be reminded that you don't own the Earth and therefore your opinions on what to do with it are essentially worthless.

So you're in favor of parasites and borrowing that which cannot be paid back?

Also, my opinions are in line with science and those who have taken the time to study the ramifications of these things. Your opinion is in line with greedy people who have not taken the time to study any damn thing which would get in the way of their own selfish desires.

A parasite on who? Do you own the world? No, so how can anyone be a parasite towards you? Borrowing from who? Do you own the world? No, so how can anyone be borrowing from you?

I'm beginning to see that most of the statists on these forums have two things in common, a severe deficit in civility and an inflated sense of entitlement.

I offered some reading material to you, but you were too obtuse to take me up on the offer. This reinforced my suspicion that you do indeed wish to ignore (and thus remain ignorant) of those facts which would cloud your judgement regarding your own selfish desires.

Selfish desires? I have no dog in this race. I don't own an oil refinery, coal-burning power plant or lumber company. I like pristine land, clean air and fresh water just as much as you do. I just happen to have principles that prevent me from grabbing whatever I want by force.

Please just answer the questions. A parasite on who? Borrowing from who? Can you answer? If not, stop wasting my time. Your childish temper tantrums only illustrate how morally and intellectually bankrupt your position is.

Then educate yourself. There are those who claim to like the above, and those who really do. I suspect you're the former, by virtue of your ignorance on how economies interact with the environment and what the long term effects are. I've already offered plenty of information to you. If I thought you were genuinely interested, I would willingly offer more.

It's up to you.

No, it's up to you whether or not you answer my questions. A parasite on who? Borrowing from who? I suspect the answer is some absurd notion of society at large or future generations or anyone else besides the people that actually own the land in question.

You're obviously not really interested.

Then why is he asking you a question?

I know why he is asking the question. But that does not mean I need to share the answer with you.

Translation: I can't answer without sounding like a moron.

No. The correct translation is: It's not worth wasting one's time with those who are not really interested.

I don't know why I'm trying.

LOL  No, I don't.  I'm just stuck living here because leaving is an impossibility at this point, so I do care a little bit about the condition of the earth that we ALL must inhabit, likely for the remainder of our lives.

Riddle me this: why should a small group be able to profit at the expense of every other human being?

The sad truth of it is he places his skewed principles above bigger issues due to the fact that he hasn't yet become aware of the significance or depth of those issues. His ignorance is his excuse for refuting that such cascading effects exist within the biosphere that we live in. To him, it's more important that an entity be allowed to follow a human contrived principle than to actually do the math. Furthermore, he doesn't acknowledge that within his system, due to human nature, everything will be destroyed.

He is probably not aware of the scary statistic that one half of all the Earth's post-ice age forests have been destroyed in the last 8,000 years, and that most of that damage has occurred since 1970. Even if he is given time to digest that statistic, his simplistic ideology does not encourage him to dig deeper and try and truly understand the total ramifications of that. Better to remain blind than to be curious. Deforestation depletes atmospheric cycling, decreases biodiversity (which he doesn't understand the significance of), heats ground water, destroys soil sustainability, displaces local economies, creates pollution from burning and excavation, increases edge effects (something he's never thought of), and disrupts local food chains for the surviving sections.

He has never bothered learning about the true debt that is incurred by consuming the limited resources of this planet. In fact, he is likely to construe the above usage of the term resource to mean only the depletion of some resource, such as oil. He is both unable and unwilling to concede that consumption of a resource also destroys other resources in the process of extracting it. He is too obtuse, and generally dense to apply a deeper analysis to the processes, because by doing so, he might realize that the principles he so earnestly stands behind and defends with the same one liner responses over and over in these forums are not adequate or finely nuanced enough.

He does not care to understand fully the dynamics of the system we all live in. His cancerous solution, predicated upon his simplistic ideology, does not require him to study beyond the boundaries of his own limited ideals, because in the short term, all that matters is the ability to efficiently increase his bottom line. Just like a cancer kills the host in pursuit of its own growth, his system will kill the host in pursuit of its own growth. He cries that his system magically self corrects, without acknowledging that cancer self corrects too, because when the host is dead, the cancer is dead as well.

The very existence of his stubbornness and ignorance are a perfect demonstration that his system, although it would contain beneficial entities within it, also would have stubborn and ignorant individuals who cannot place the importance of a deeper understanding of processes that exist outside of the libertarian principles over greed.

Actually the sad truth is that the govt that you have so much faith in has absolutely failed on every point you make.

That's entirely false. I'm not even questioning the impact of the issues you mention. I'm willing to grant those as being true and more. Let's assume that if we respect private property rights and let people do whatever they want with their own land while not polluting the lands of others that the entire planet will be inhabitable within 50 years. I still say we should respect private property rights. If we all decide to take our land and all voluntarily make it an inhabitable wasteland then obviously, we all wanted that and it's just a form of suicide. The only thing that matters is, are you polluting my land? No? Then have at it.

You want to pretend that if I really thought I was in danger that I would abandon my principles and agree to violate property rights of others, but I won't.

^Which means you're fully in support of destroying the right to life of all those who did not wish to pollute and destroy, but were nevertheless destroyed by your own greed.  More hypocricy.





You're preaching to the choir, bro.  :P

As his response indicates, he doesn't understand the primary flaw with his thinking and the entire libertarian system: no man (or piece of land) is an island unto himself.

Wrong. It's not alright if I pollute your land, air or water. It's alright if I pollute my land, air or water. If any of my pollution spills over into your land, air or water, you have a legitimate complaint but you don't have the right to protect things that you don't own.

And look at his response that he posted before this post. He still does not understand it. I will highlight some of the points I made in my recent post which predicted his response:


What I highlighted above in my recent post claims that he will use his ignorance of the cascading effects to try and refute what is being said. Reading his recent post, it's clear that he chooses to remain ignorant, making the assumption that pollution is the only thing at stake.


The highlighted sections from my recent post above are not technically pollution. Yet he only wants to claim that he might be guilty of pollution, and then, after the pollution has occurred, only wants to be liable for it if other parties can be bothered to pursue legal action. And he conveniently ignores (by choosing to be ignorant) the other damage which is occurring. 


I have highlighted the section which I authored which I think once again predicted and in general, illustrates his world view.


I have highlighted above a section of my post which illustrates, if we read what he has said, that it is clear that he thinks the consequences of his actions on his own land could only possibly result in, at worst, pollution of another's land.


And again, I have highlighted what I said earlier, and by looking at what he has said, it is clear by virtue of what is absent, he does not have a deeper understanding of the processes at work, and the consequences.

Yet, again, consequences are irrelevant. You are forced to keep your hands to yourself even if the planet explodes. Stop with this petty name calling. You're clearly looking for an excuse to disregard my position because you can't attack it head-on.

There is no petty name calling here. Willful ignorance is a terrible thing. And I think the burden falls upon you to demonstrate that consequences are irrelevant.

I think that forcing someone to do something (other than forcing them to keep their hands to themselves) is wrong. You are free to disagree but there's nothing I can do to "prove" that some set of moral values is correct and all others are incorrect. If stealing is wrong then, even if you are starving and you need some food, when you steal, you have committed a crime and you should be forced to pay restitution.

Please justify this last statement.

It's not justifiable. No moral values are. Do you understand that?

I think you've summed up the fragility of your argument. Thank you.

Nice quote mining. The part you forgot to quote and respond to is...


So I guess you don't understand.

If you can't justify an assertion that you have made, then your argument has fallen flat on its face. You've made a claim, an assertion. Back it up.

No moral claims can be justified. I'm sorry that you didn't know that but I suggest you go read up on ethics.

I think you'll find that once you step out of your little fantasy world, your moral claims will be called absurd by others. You were given an opportunity to convince others that your beliefs have merit, but by virtue of your responses, you have failed.

So, morality is a popularity contest?

Of course moral claims can be justified.  What do you think the entire field of philosophy is all about?

The entire field of philosophy? Epistemology? Ontology? No. Not even the entire section of philosophy that deals with ethics attempts to justify moral claims. Some branches of ethics argue that they can't be justified and I agree with them.

Saying that "murder is wrong" is like saying "blue is a pretty color". It's not a fact. It's an opinion. There are no moral facts, only moral opinions. If you claim there are moral facts then please demonstrate it. Don't just say "philosophy herpa derp!"

Well, there's always "Universally Preferable Behavior" by Stefan Molyneux. Wordy, but it gets the point across.

Molyneux's book is pretty much a wordier version of Hoppe's "argument from argument" which says that by arguing with me you presuppose certain beliefs. However, if I don't argue with you, if I just shoot you instead, there's nothing to discuss. You can't say "you shouldn't shoot me because..." since I'm not presupposing anything by shooting you. It's as close as you can get, if you accept that debating is the way to settle these issues but it's not a demonstration of moral facts, only moral presuppositions.

No, not even close, as always.


One statement I can back up with logic arguments and example situations, the other is purely personal opinion.

Well, you could argue that by acting, you're presupposing that your action is valid.


They're both value judgments. One is more universal than the other, that's all.

No, no, just no.

I can make arguments for why murder is wrong or at least why murder should not be allowed, which is what he's being asked to do with his currently baseless statements.  You cannot make any logical arguments for why blue is a pretty color because it's purely a personal opinion.

OK, so, You can argue that murder is wrong.

All the same arguments apply to aggression. (stealing, attacking, etc)

They are both opinions.


You're begging the question. I can make arguments for why the color blue shouldn't be allowed or why it's an ugly color. Give me any argument for why murder shouldn't be allowed and I can give you an analogous argument for why blue is ugly.

Your perverse and fallacious logic only undermines any credibility you might have. Whether you believe blue is ugly or not is irrelevant when you don't act on that opinion. Likewise, your opinion about murder is irrelevant if you don't act on that opinion. However, if you act on your opinion regarding blue (i.e. affect change in the world or prevent change in the world), then you may be called upon to justify your beliefs about blue. Likewise, if you affect change in the world or prevent change in the world regarding your beliefs about murder, then you may find a hatchet buried in your back unless you can find a compelling argument in defense of your beliefs about murder.

Now, normally I despise your intellectually bankrupt statements, but in this case, your unnecessary digression into logic, belief and morality afforded an excellent opportunity to point out what a peacock you are when engaging in debate.

Now, back to my original request in regard to your silly statement quoted below:


Please justify this last statement.

Can you show the existence of a single unqualified moral fact? No? Then my point stands, no matter what kind of names you call me.

I've found your problem.  You're living here:

http://images.clipartof.com/small/48808-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Black-And-White-World-Globe.jpg


The rest of us are living here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/3E0F9160-E7F2-99DF-358998AA3C1A910F_1.jpg


No one said anything about moral facts.  You were asked to justify an assertion you made, nothing more.

Unless you want to claim there are moral facts, that only leaves moral opinions.

I already covered that in my post where I declared you a peacock. Your moral opinions are irrelevant. Read my post again.

The fact that there are only moral opinions is very relevant. Opinions aren't justified because they are subjective. I no more need to justify why I think theft is wrong than I do why I think blue is a pretty color.

Read his post again and strain really hard.  If you try hard enough, you'll understand what he said.

If you try hard enough, maybe you can make a cogent point.

You need to justify the consequences affected in the real world because of those opinions. If the opinions are not the cause of anything you affected in the real world, then nobody cares about your opinion. This whole discussion is predicated on the premise that there are consequences to your opinions. Otherwise, all of your opinions are moot.

You shouldn't do things that are wrong. If you do something that is wrong, you should pay restitution. Stealing is wrong. Therefore you shouldn't steal. If you do steal, you should pay restitution.

If you mean consequences other than that, you'll need to clarify.

You missed the mark by a few miles. 

You're supposed to be justifying everyone following your beliefs even if it's guaranteed to destroy the planet, remember?  I didn't see any of that going on in your post.

Like I said (several times now), I can't justify why people should think stealing is wrong, regardless of consequences, anymore than I can justify why people should think blue is a pretty color. You either agree with me or you don't.

No one asked you to justify why people should think stealing is wrong. 

Again again again again again, you were asked to justify why your beliefs should be followed even if it brings the end of the world.

I said "regardless of consequences". That would include the end of the world.


Work on your reading comprehension.

No kidding, that's the same as your original statement.  Now you just need to explain WHY.

you left out the part where they use Nuts Bolts and Wrenches that will break once a year and can only be bought from MR. NY's buddy in Boston.

And for some idiotic reason you keep buying them.

If you stop buying crap, they'll stop making crap.

Yea that's easy, I'll just stop buying cars and ride my bike 40 miles to work... oh wait...

"Oh wait... my inflated sense of entitlement has deluded me into thinking that I deserve whatever I want at whatever price I want."

The world does not owe you a living.

No no no, see, it doesn't work like that.  You can't nonchalantly, condescendingly even, tell someone to "stop buying crap" as if living without said crap is of no consequence, then when they point out that not "buying crap" isn't a realistic option, turn around and tell them tough shit, no one owes you anything.  That just invalidated your theory that the making of crap is easily stopped by people not buying crap.  If not buying crap is going to create life hardship, people are going to keep buying crap and crap will keep getting made, because when the alternative to a crap car designed to break down all the time is spending five hours per day biking to work, I don't really have a choice.

He will argue that you made the crap choice to select being employed 40 miles away, when clearly you should have chosen to work across the street from your home. Of course this doesn't account for the possibility of knife wielding jugglers you may encounter in your daily activities, but if in fact you did encounter a knife wielding juggler during your day's activities, clearly, you made a crap choice that led to that encounter.

No it didn't. Stop buying crap and people will stop making it. The fact you're too lazy or unintelligent to stop buying it doesn't invalidate that theory at all. Get a new job. Start a business. Start walking. Telecommute. There are a myriad of options but even if there weren't, nobody owes you anything. Curl up and die if that's your only option. You won't be missed.

Of course.  I'll just limit my job options to what's within walking distance of my house.  Why didn't I think of that brilliant idea myself?  That's just a genius idea that I can't see how a society full of people forced to work within feet of their own homes could NOT prosper.

/sarcasm

A-men.

Yes, because nobody would ever start making quality products if everyone refused to buy crap.

/sarcasm

That's also not the only option I listed but I guess you can't process all that information at once.

Strawman.  This is not the argument.  I never disagreed with this point.

For your review, the argument is that not buying crap is easier said than done, the opportunity cost is often too high, and sometimes is flat out impossible.

Stop buying junk and someone will fill the gap in demand. If nobody can fill that gap then you're already getting the best quality/price possible and should probably stop whining since nobody can do any better.

For your review, the argument is that not buying crap is easier said than done, the opportunity cost is often too high, and sometimes is flat out impossible.

Cry moar.

There is not collective unity on the part of citizens to not buy crap. It's almost as if you think that the manufacturing of crap will stop.

seems like some did not understand completely.

The nuts and bolds are not prone to failure due to being poorly made, Built to tight tolerences and designed to fail.  When they do fail, you have to use use a proprietary tool, that is built to fail, and is priced artificially high.
I have been stuck using one of these tools.

At the wrong time the failure of some of these tools can cause a delay costing Millions of dollars. all to make a few thousand extra profit.

Been privileged to use one of those "$3,000 screwdrivers", huh?

Surprise, surprise. Government intervention that causes a problem that can only be solved with... yet more government intervention.

Prove this statement.  Prove that government intervention is why proprietary tools exist.


Before you launch off onto an anti-patent speech, I'll remind you that patents have nothing to do with it because proprietary tools exist whether there are patents or not.  The simple fact of the matter is that when manufacturers make obscure parts of products require a special tool, there just isn't enough of a demand for the tool to warrant a separate company investing the money, time, and effort to sell a half-handful of the special tool.  How often does Joe Public need the proprietary tool to remove the fan clutch on his M3?  Hell, even the dealers don't use it that often.  So why is Craftsman going to invest the large amount of dollars necessary and dedicate the floor space for machining a tool that they're going to sell five of a year, if they're lucky?

That's just the free market at work for ya.  Government has nothing to do with it.

Half the time I went to use it, it was broken, and no one wants to admit they were the one who broke it.  Sometimes an alternative is used in place, sometimes they end up stripping something.

I didn't buy it, The government did, or some big corporation.

+1