PS: Consider it done Ahmed.. good day sir  Wait. As in Bodi? Yeah ahmed bodi Well, shiver me timbers! |
|
|
|
475 sat + 7,357.14% = 35,421 sats?  Rejoice! |
|
|
|
PS: Consider it done Ahmed.. good day sir Wait. As in Bodi? |
|
|
|
The moderation is basically a libertarian approach just as the whole BTC thing has a libertarian concept around it. To the ill educated ones who cant quite grasp the sensible moderation approach please visit your local library and read everything. Seriously?  Of all the places you would imagine the libertarian concept to be fully understood it would be here. But nah, we see the same brainwashed hordes running around demanding their liberties be taken away from them. Doesnt matter the reason, their always the same Ultimately these people shoot themselves in the foot. The mods approach is correct! While there are a few libertarians on this board, they are in the minority - just like in real live. As you stand on your pedestal castigating the "ill educated", keep in mind that • [miners] are in complete control of Bitcoin's production in the absence of a central authority • [miners] are remunerated proportionally for their effort • The entire Bitcoin ecosystem is entirely dependent on a [consensus-based blockchain] Now, replace [miners] with [workers] [central authority] with [factory owners, landowners, etc.] [consensus-based blockchain] with [democratic blockchain] What do you have? Limited socialism at play. I also used to think the forum administrators were libertarians. Now I realize they are just apathetic. |
|
|
|
[...] the Bitcointalk community has set out to damage Blocknet’s ITO [...] I know you guys are not real journalists (even discounting the run-on sentences and lack of parallelism), but at least try to appear impartial instead of coming across as paid cheerleaders. Further, the "Bitcointalk community" has not "set out to damage" them. I, and I suspect many others, couldn't care less about Blocknet or Metcalf - at least before reading your post. There has been no "catastrophe" - just questions and concerns concerning the developers, code and transparency. What did Metcalf, Prometheus and Synechist think would happen when they decided to adopt a heavy-handed and dishonest approach to handle their investors' concerns? Less it be forgotten, there is almost a million dollars at stake here. |
|
|
|
You must've spent at least a couple of hours writing this 2,141-word post. Righteous, dude. I applaud you. |
|
|
|
Your reading comprehension… I'll just point out two problems so I can save myself considerable time walking you through what you should have learned in maybe high school grammar classes, because at this point we’re not even talking about the issues, we’re just struggling with your illiteracy. I’m not your grammar teacher, go back to school. So in other words, since I have debunked all of your ridiculous, and at times, extreme and illogical notions, the issue is suddenly my “reading comprehension”. Is that also the reason why you dishonestly cherry pick my posts and deceptively quote me out of context? If I go “back to school” and improve my 'literacy', would that make you a more honest and thoughtful poster? then you've painted a picture that it's either prostitution or death and the last thing they might be able to turn to is charity. You created that scenario, then you mischievously assign it to me. Really, I mischievously assigned it to you? Did I mischievously sneak in that “then” and those 3 other points that led up to that? What do you think I meant with the word “then”? Well let’s look at the whole context shall we? You wrote the bolded bit and the three other points, genius. Not me. The only thing I am not sure of is whether you are lying, or just simply forgot (unlikely, since it's been just a day). 4.) Is there any chance of charity? If on the off chance there was literally no better option than sex trafficking, then you've painted a picture that it's either prostitution or death and the last thing they might be able to turn to is charity. If there is no chance for charity, then what do you want me to say? There's nothing that can be done for these people, and they're certainly not better off by being strong-armed out of jobs that are terrible and immoral, but are at least keeping them alive. Moron, you are quoting yourself. I didn’t write that – hence why I said “You created that scenario, then you mischievously assign it to me.” I was walking through scenarios that would give us a different understanding of the situation, depending on what the situation is, because “Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year for money?” depends on a lot of factors, so I said “If on the off chance there was literally no better option than sex trafficking, then you’ve painted a picture that it’s either prostitution or death and the last thing they might be able to turn to is charity.” One more time – moron, you are quoting yourself (again). I didn’t write that – hence why I said “You created that scenario, then you mischievously assign it to me.” So you taking that position depends on whether this 12 year old was in the off chance situation of having literally no other options other than sex trafficking or death (through starvation).
I didn’t paint you in it, force you in it, or do anything “mischievous” by any normal standards. Moron, you wrote the posts; the words are yours. I didn’t write them. After writing the post, you then claimed I wrote them one day later, and went on to argue against yourself. Here they are: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9403771#msg9403771https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9406005#msg9406005The other problem you have is with both mainstream economics and Austrian Economics. You keep trying to say that because I can’t prove something empirically, I have lost all credibility. Not ‘something’ – specifically, voluntary charitable contributions in a tax free society and how the current almost non-existent private welfare is superior. You can’t predict how society will react towards the poor in a tax free environment. You would get laughed out of any serious economics class if you said something like this, because you could say this to any mainstream or Austrian economics professor and it would be true. That doesn’t discredit our entire understanding of economics, any more than it discredits my position on the welfare system. No, I wouldn’t. No “mainstream or Austrian economics professor” would dare make such a ludicrous claim. Besides, didn’t you yourself say “Austrian Economics cannot predict with utmost certainty outcomes in a marketplace because marketplaces are inherently chaotic and unpredictable.” “the well-established fact that economics is not testable” Now, it would be a fair criticism that I hadn’t made a connection all the way from praxeology to the welfare system, but I certainly can’t do that in a forum post, and the way Austrian Economists understand economics gives them a different way of addressing economic problems that avoids the empirical issue, but again, the fact that economics is empirically untestable or predictable is pretty much a universally accepted fact of economists. First, duh. Second, aren’t you contradicting your owns words one paragraph above? Third, we are not talking about economics. We are talking about your a radical societal sociopolitical and psychological change involving the welfare system in a tax free environment. The fact that you don’t see this connection either again reflects your reading comprehension issues, or a deeply flawed understanding of economics (Probably a combination of both). Don’t debate this with me, go debate this with the entire Economics profession. Big talk from someone who doesn’t even understand the term ‘diminishing marginal utility”. Once again, we are not having an economic discussion here. The original question @turvarya asked you was "Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year for money?"
It's a simple yes or no question. No, it really isn’t. I walked through 4 different steps that would lead to different answers depending on what the situation is. It is probably immoral because I don’t think 12 years old is old enough to consent, but the whole “consent” issue for what age group is a gray area that I haven’t seen a really good answer to from anyone. It is certainly immoral in my society. So doing this whole “yes or no” thing for this very complex issue just reflects a very puerile and not well considered moral philosophy. This is not a matter of consent. This is not a complex issue. A 12-year-old girl is not mentally, emotionally and physically prepared to fuck a 40-year old. Even a 12-year-old is starving, you should feed her instead of asking her to choose between fucking a 40-year-old man or starving to death. I am not a violent man by any stretch of the imagination, but I would literally risk my life to prevent a psychopath or a pedophile from taking sexual advantage of a 12-year-old girl. I am sure most rational, sane people would react the same way. So. I wish you the best in luck in all your endeavors, but I can’t continue with this because you’ve demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension, a lack of basic knowledge of economics, and very poorly considered moral philosophy. You don’t need to be doing debates, you need to be taking some basic level English, Economics, and Philosophy courses. Cheers. Dumbfruit, the reason why I easily poked holes in your juvenile grasps of economics is because one of my degrees is in Economics. I originally held myself back on several occasions so I don’t embarrass you. But when you started to cherry pick my posts and misquote me after failing to offer any substantiation for your radical, extreme and cruel notions, I had no choice but to call you out. Moreover, if I am so dumb, what does it say of your own mental capacity, considering you failed to substantiate any of your arguments against me? And for heaven’s sake, if you’re going to quote from a book, make sure you at least read it first instead of just copy pasting. See how foolish you ended up looking with Leeson’s book? Finally, one word of advice for you. Don’t let anyone on this forum know your real identity. Because if your earlier posts about sex with minors ever gets out, you can pretty much kiss goodbye to any chance of a respectable professional career. Not only that, your extended family, neighbors and community members might also take preventive actions against you. |
|
|
|
Bittrex has been under investigation for some time regarding their illegal "grey area" (as claimed by Bill, Rami, Richie and Ryan) business adoption.
I know what happened to the cat, but I'm curious. Empty accusations or are there more to this? Anyone? |
|
|
|
|
Why is this thread repeatedly necroed? Will Fairbrix's thread be the next one necroed?
|
|
|
|
It would have to be put on hold for a while which is why i have not pushed on with this in any way yet.
Two reasons..
- I may have to be offline for a bit soon.
- The blocknet scandal will attract too much Trolling.
So i am setting aside any plans for the time being.
Strong interests for your coin, man. You should give it some thought while you're away. |
|
|
|
I never asked about capital accumulation, I asked about "free choice" of children.
What ideology do you hold, and what is the age of consent? My question wasn't about age of consent. There is a huge difference between having sex for fun and having sex as a job. Should a 12-year old work in a mine? I say no, they shouldn't. You say, yes they should.
Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year old for money?
I say no, they shouldn't. What is your answer to that question?Oh if only the world boiled down so nicely. Again, what is the age of consent? Are you having trouble answering the question? Is perhaps the world not quite as crystal as you're trying to pretend it is? I am also interested to hear you answer to @turvarya's question, DumbFruit. Why bother? What if I said the following; Should a 12-year old work in a mine? I say that depends. You say, no, they should be taken out of the mine and left to starve to death in the street. Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year for money? I say that depends. You say, no, they should be taken out of the brothel and left to starve to death in the street. Of course, that kind of misrepresents your positions, but you both seem totally satisfied in misrepresenting mine. I don't know if you really believe this, or are just merely trying to stay true to your broken philosophy, but just so you know, DumbFruit, you are coming across like a really sick and twisted person. First of all, only pedophiles and psychopaths think it’s okay to sleep with 12-year old girls. Secondly, only a truly evil and degenerate modern society will intentionally allow sexual commerce involving 12-year-old girls and adult males. Thirdly, this is why social safety nets which you detest so much are important. You're misrepresenting me again, and you don't understand the Anarcho-Libertarian position. We have to look at the problem logically, not resort to arguments from emotion, or ad-hominem. 1.) What is the age of consent? If 12 years old is the age of consent, then it's their choice whether they want to work in a mine, or work in prostitution. 2.) Did the parents decide to put them there? If 12 years old is not the age of consent, then it was the parents decision to put them there. 3.) Was it the best option for the child? If 12 years old is not the age of consent and the parent is not doing their best effort make decisions for their child that best promotes their safety and health, then it would be appropriate for anyone to take that child from them and to do a better job. All options for the child are first crossed off if they violate the non-aggression principle. Since sleeping with someone below the age of consent is rape and violates the NAP, these options are crossed off first. 4.) Is there any chance of charity? If on the off chance there was literally no better option than sex trafficking, then you've painted a picture that it's either prostitution or death and the last thing they might be able to turn to is charity. If there is no chance for charity, then what do you want me to say? There's nothing that can be done for these people, and they're certainly not better off by being strong-armed out of jobs that are terrible and immoral, but are at least keeping them alive. For such a scenario to come about you would have to believe that there is an entire society of people that have no conscience, but are somehow so poor that there are no jobs aside from sex-trafficking, but at the same time are people that can afford and want to hire 12 year old girls for sex, and for some reason are completely resistant to any kind of charity. What exactly would you say to such a scenario? There's no reason to suggest that's what would happen in an Anarcho-Libertarian society. DumbFruit, how am I misrepresenting you? I am saying your previous post makes you come across like a really sick and twisted person. Also, you are once again being dishonest. then you've painted a picture that it's either prostitution or death and the last thing they might be able to turn to is charity. You created that scenario, then you mischievously assign it to me. Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year for money?
I say that depends. You say, no, they should be taken out of the brothel and left to starve to death in the street.
Of course, that kind of misrepresents your positions, but you both seem totally satisfied in misrepresenting mine. The original question @turvarya asked you was "Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year for money?" It's a simple yes or no question. Yes means you are either a pedophile or a psychopath. No means you are a normal human being. There is no gray area here. Your prevarication and pussyfooting around the question gives me great cause for alarm. If you are someone I know, I would have made a call to the police right now. That is how alarming your evasiveness is. |
|
|
|
How can you achieve either when you censor or misrepresent my posts? You need to show how the quotes that I choose are somehow being displayed out of context, which alters the meaning of the quote. You don’t do this, you just go into arguments from emotion and ad-hominem whenever absolutely everything wasn’t quoted from start to finish. Which is just silly, most of the world does not do this. Scientific journals will simply put an annotation to the relevant material and not even quote a single line. Are scientific journals all trying to play games with the source material? Certainly not, you’re just being a baby, because there’s a certain way you like to respond to posts that don’t match everyone elses. This is exactly what I’m talking about. I explained why you shouldn’t be editing and cherry-picking my posts – again. Yet, you came back by editing and cherry picking it anyway, and then innocently ask why you shouldn’t. Isn’t that hypocritical? You even ridiculously compared a forum discussion to a ‘Scientific journal’. How can we hold a conversation when you won’t respond to my entire posts? When you only respond to parts that are convenient to your narratives? Look at the silly Hitler subject you brought up. I answered your question, you edited it out two posts ago, and asked me the same question again, and then agreed with my original contention. Isn’t that childish? Or when I demonstrated the fallacy of your Banning example - you just cut that portion out so you don’t have to concede on being wrong – as you have been so many times over the past four days. Or when you avoided responding to my question about your apparent lack of interest in corporate subsidies that amounts to more than the welfare you're trying to abolish. I am re-posting your Mr. tough guy routine here so you can be reminded again of your childish attitude. Grow a pair, man. please stop cherry picking my posts. Or what? What have you added in the remaining paragraph of this quote? I’ve read it, and a quick click to the link above will take anyone including yourself to read it to get the context. There’s nothing substantive here, so I cut it out. I don’t like wading through massive walls of quotes just so that I can read something, and I expect others might feel the same. Or what? Ooh, internet tough guy here, folks. Or it might enhance your reputation as a sneaky poster who picks and choose sentences, segments and questions to respond to while grandstanding to an invisible audience? In case you forget, you are having a discussion with me. You have to present your arguments to me, while defending yours. How can you achieve either when you censor or misrepresent my posts? How will you learn, evolve and grow if you choose this path? Honestly, what do you hope to achieve with this childish attitude? Do you think this evasiveness will make anyone take you or your ideas seriously? You know I can see this, you know others can see it as well, so why do you do it? Is your pride so enormous that you must be right even when you’re wrong?
On one hand, you have a crystal ball on how society in a tax free environment will react to those in need, but on the other hand, you don’t have a crystal ball (never mind that we’re talking about the past and present) to explain why charitable donations did not rise when the economy is flooded with $6.6 trillion. The air is thick with hypocrisy. No, not really. All you’ve proven is I’m not omniscient and Austrian Economics cannot predict with utmost certainty outcomes in a marketplace because marketplaces are inherently chaotic and unpredictable. There are certainly activities that you can do that are ultimately harmful to society, but tracking down all the variables and seeing where the harm took place is an extremely difficult thing to do. This doesn’t undermine Austrian Economics or Anarcho-Capitalism one bit. We are not talking about Austrian Economics or Anarcho-Capitalism one bit. We couldn’t , even if I want to. You lack sufficient understanding of either subject as you have amply demonstrated over the past couple of days. What we are talking about is, indeed, you are not omniscient. You can’t predict the real life consequences of your abstract ideas. You can’t predict how society will react towards the poor in a tax free environment. This is blindingly obvious to anyone, but it took you three days to concede that point. And still you want to revoke welfare spending because of something you believe might happen - something you, nor anyone else for that matter, have been unable to empirically demonstrate.
Of course you won’t admit it - even after presented with your own words… and are absolutely reveling in my use of the word ‘altruism’ and ‘altruistic’, completely oblivious to the fact that I am using the catchword of self-professed paleolibertarians. This is how you defined altruism, not me; Err, have you forgotten Oxford’s definition I posted three days ago? The Oxford Dictionary said that if there are any altruistic people in society then altruism means “that all of the 400,000 orphans that society as a whole do not want would be adopted by families annually - now”? I must of missed that. My quote above, which you have deviously snipped off context again, was in response to your over the top claims. Yet you are falsely positioning that as my definition of altruism. Why? Is your position reduced to misrepresenting me?
Just for the record, when you say corporations help everyone, does that include them opening sweat ship factories overseas to avoid paying real, livable wages to workers here? You would prefer they opened factories here to avoid overseas workers having the opportunity to work themselves out of third world status? Just When you say they help everyone, regardless of race, class, gender or age, does that include business owners that
(i) Do not hire people based on their race, class, gender or age? “Hiring” itself is not a benefit to mankind, first of all. The goal of businesses is to provide goods and services, and they will provide goods and services to any race, class, gender or age, pretty much all the time. I know there are outliers, but competition will drive out businesses that are incorrectly discriminating against their employees or their customers. Note that there are perfectly acceptable reasons to discriminate. If you have severe Parkinsons, you shouldn't be doing triple bypass surgery, for instance. See, another example of your hiding from your original assertion. This is your original claim. They help everyone; Regardless of race, class, gender, or age. You deviously snipped of the portion, and try to reframe the discussion into “hiring”. Besides, what competition? If there are no laws or taboo against discrimination, what incentive would there be for businesses and business owners to intentionally create barriers against themselves? And please, we’re not talking about doctors suffering from Parkinsons.
(ii) Pay lower wages to people based on their race, class, gender or age? Competition will drive this out. Consider if we lived in a society that didn’t want to hire any woman. This would be a huge business opportunity for you, because there are all these highly intelligent and hard-working woman that are not being hired over men that are less intelligent and less hard working. You could outcompete by hiring the best woman and the best men. You might say that the culture wouldn’t allow that, but that’s a cultural problem, not a free-market one. And yet historically, businesses have always paid women lower, to this today. Why would competition emerge involving stable, socially acceptable factor? Did businesses pave the way for civil rights or women’s suffrage, or were they compelled by law to do so?
(iii) Exploit entire communities for their natural resources such as timber, oil or and diamond? I love how “exploit” has turned into some kind of a bad word, and that’s somehow enough to replace an argument. Businesses get diamonds and wood from certain places in the world, ok. Did you have a point you wanted to make with that? You really shouldn’t start on the topic if you need an explanation on something so elementary. I’m re-quoting you one more time, to keep the discussion in perspective. They help everyone; Regardless of race, class, gender, or age. Here’s a one example. When Western diamond retailers and their agents force people (including children) in parts of Africa to work in mines for low wages (at times, without wages, at gunpoint) from dusk to dawn under harsh and dangerous conditions, which part of the community there are they helping? Or do you include company owners and shareholders in the U.S. or Europe as part of the communities in Sierra Leone, Angola, etc? 
You can call them whatever you want. It only reflects on you and your mentality. And the ad-hominems just keep flowing, should I keep a tally and we can see which one of us has used less? You seem very concerned about reputation after all. See, another cowardly attempt at misrepresentation. Shall I repost the conversation to make your lunacy more understandable? And for the record, you are the one who is grandstanding to a silent audience. I am debating you. To reemphasize my point, I have no overlords. The fact that you think you have overlords “only reflects on you and your mentality”. And again, I have no ‘overlords’. You seem very convinced that you do – I am beginning to sense that is the root of your problem. In what way are they not overlords? They are class of people that follow different rules than we do, they decide how we should run our lives however they see fit, they’re paid more than most, they don’t do any kind of industrial work, they don’t provide any service themselves that benefits anyone, they have titles and demand respect in their presence, um.. Ya, they’re our supreme overlords alright. Would you prefer if I called them semi-temporary overlords that get into power based on how well they promised what they couldn't deliver to as many people as possible? I’m sure you’ve heard of “Stockholm syndrome”.
Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds when you make statements like “Voluntary contributions are better than State welfare”, when you yourself have conceded that you can’t empirically prove it? I said that neither one of us can empirically prove it to either of our benefit. This isn’t “ridiculous” this as an old and well established fact of Economics. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/071103.asp I don’t have to prove the existence of federal welfare. It exists. You, on the other hand, cannot prove your abstract assertions that voluntary private charitable contributions will take over in a tax free society. It’s a notion based on zero empirical data. Besides, you’re being dishonest again. Let me post the entire conversation. Why aren’t you concerned about its effectiveness and reach?
Doesn’t the entire point of your argument rest on the fact that voluntary contributions in a tax free society trumps government welfare? I did not say that I am not concerned about it’s effectiveness and reach, I said “I am not concerned with the effectiveness of charities in terms of ‘reach’”. Voluntary contributions are better than State welfare, but I was appealing to the logic of it rather than go through empirical data all day and still never come to any better understanding about the world. Economists use a term called “Ceteris Paribus” because economists understand that societies are complex structures that are immune to traditional experimentation. There is no way to control the variables and rerun an experiment. For example; I can say, “Look at the United States in the 1800’s, it had tremendous growth and innovation under little taxation and essentially no public welfare system.” You could say, “Well that was another generation at another time, that won’t work with the culture of today.” (I know this isn’t an argument of yours.) Strictly speaking, this isn’t “wrong”. I couldn’t disprove that by taking our culture back in time and giving it to the people of the 1800’s and see what happens. So we’re always struggling with hypothesis without experimentation or accurate conclusions. Austrian economics gets around this problem by looking at society from a logical perspective starting with the concept of “Human Action”. This is called Praxeology. https://mises.org/rothbard/praxeology.pdf Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds when you make statements like “Voluntary contributions are better than State welfare”, when you yourself have conceded that you can’t empirically prove it? “For example; I can say, “Look at the United States in the 1800’s, it had tremendous growth and innovation under little taxation and essentially no public welfare system.” Aren’t you forgetting something? The slave labor advantage that early America had? You know, the subhumans without wages who we used to exploit the enormous natural resources of the land and as farm workers and later on, railroad and factory workers? Yeah, we had no public welfare system. Why would we? They’re not humans, right? You bandy around terms like praxeology and ceteris paribus as if these somehow lend any weight to your arguments. Like “diminishing marginal utility” you used earlier, I don’t even think you understand what “ceteris paribus” means, judging by how you are using it.
“For example; I can say, “Look at the United States in the 1800’s, it had tremendous growth and innovation under little taxation and essentially no public welfare system.” Aren’t you forgetting something? The slave labor advantage that early America had? You know, the subhumans without wages who we used to exploit the enormous natural resources of the land and as farm workers and later on, railroad and factory workers? Yeah, we had no public welfare system. Why would we? They’re not humans, right? You bandy around terms like praxeology and ceteris paribus as if these somehow lend any weight to your arguments. Like “diminishing marginal utility” you used earlier, I don’t even think you understand what “ceteris paribus” means, judging by how you are using it. Ok, you didn’t address what I was talking about, which is the well-established fact that economics is not testable. My point was about why the term “ceteris paribus” is used. Why do you suppose that "ceteris paribus" is not used in mathematics? When I was using “diminishing marginal utility” I was pointing out a reason why it’s so hard to predict what will happen under certain scenarios. People have different chains of wants that they satisfy depending on the amount of any particular good they have, including discretionary money. We are not talking about economics now. Your position is that the sociocultural habits of society with regards to charitable contributions will suddenly change in a tax free environment.
So can you or can you not demonstrate this empirically? No one can demonstrate it empirically in either direction with any certainty. What are talking about? Federal welfare exists now. It helps the citizens. Some may argue it is not enough or not efficient, but it is there. That’s empirical evidence. There is empirical evidence of private charities as well, though maybe there’s not enough of it (Private charity). That doesn’t help us understand which is a fundamentally more moral and efficient system. Our discussion is not centered on understanding “which is a fundamentally more moral and efficient system.” It is centered on your radical assertion that federal welfare should go down to zero and in a tax free society, people will voluntarily make charitable contributions for the weaker members of society, including the old, sick, handicapped and children.
Voluntary charitable contributions as a form of a credible social safety net does not exist – it has never existed. You are arguing that in a tax free society, it will exist. The onus is on you to prove that. Fourth day on, you still can’t prove it (not that you can, of course). The onus is not on me to prove that a “charitable contributions as a form of a credible social safety net” will absolutely exist under any particular circumstance. Why not? You are proposing to end federal welfare, and (I’m repeating myself here) “ in a tax free society, people will voluntarily make charitable contributions for the weaker members of society, including the old, sick, handicapped and children.” I know you’re trying to slowly back down from you original assertions, but your pride keeps getting in the way.
Is this not in principal true; Because welfare is achieved through taxation, it can remain perpetually indebted, show poor results, and have high overhead. For the population to do anything about it, they need to have a majority vote hampered by the votes of the welfare employee’s themselves and the recipients. If it is true, is this not superior; No, it’s not true. Because (i), blaming the government’s level of indebtedness to welfare spending (0.066%) is silly, I didn’t do that, try again. I highlighted your own words for your own convenience
(ii) ‘poor results’ can be improved upon That’s not the point, the point is that it can show poor results with very little recourse by those who pay into it. Changing the goalposts, are we? Fine. Then fight to fix the system to enhance its efficiency instead of advocating its complete abolishment, at the cost of death and suffering of the needy. Instead of advocating some abstract solution absent of any hard data, rectify the situation. If you say it can’t be done, then how has the conservatives successfully placed the federal budget for family and children on a steady downward spiral? Family and children ( http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy12bs12015n_4041_605#usgs302) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Billion 283.8 266.9 270.7 264.4 259.8 264.4 % of GDP 0.074% 0.007% 0.068% 0.066% 0.062 0.059%
(iii) The population includes the welfare recipients. Being poor does not mean you should not be involved in decision making process. I didn’t say that just because you’re poor you should not be involved in decision making processes. I was pointing out a distinct conflict of interest. By your reasoning, the figures I gave above shouldn’t be happening.
the agency gets money by the consent of their customers, the benefactors. For them to stay in business they have to succeeded in several ways; Most of the money they receive needs to make it to the people they’re trying to help, they have to show positive results, and they must stay solvent. If at any time the benefactor’s don’t like what’s going on with this business they can withdraw their funding immediately, no questions asked, and no theft permitted. And if no benefactors exist in your tax free market utopia? It is not a utopia. If there would be no benefactors in the free market then there would be no votes in a democracy. Or I suppose there would be votes from those that want the benefit, but if all the votes were coming in this manner, then that would mean 51% are literally voting for something from the other 49%, which is unethical and unsustainable. If there are votes coming from the people that are giving, then we already know there would be benefactors in an anarcho-capitalist society consisting of the same people. I can afford to donate only very little time or money to the needy. But I am happy that my tax dollars are used to protect, feed, clothed and educate children. In a tax free society, why would I, or anyone, be compelled to make monetary sacrifice if my neighbors, people like you for instance, won’t do so? Doesn’t that make your abstract an utopia? So once again, if no benefactors exist in your tax free market utopia? What happens to the needy?
Yup, you can’t guarantee anything. You can’t guarantee that people will voluntarily contribute time, money and resources to take care of the sick, aged, handicapped. You can’t guarantee that in your tax free utopia, people will take care of orphans. Thank you so much for admitting that. It took four days, but you finally caved. If you recall, this was your initial point of contention with me four days ago. Now that you have conceded that point, are you going to find something else to argue with me? Haha. I’m not omniscient, you caught me. That has absolutely nothing to do with why private charity is better than public welfare. For example; Can you prove to me absolutely that welfare voting won’t be used to ultimately hurt society? You can’t prove it? Then welfare is bad, QED. Private charity is better because it’s structurally superior and because it’s morally superior, not because I'm omniscient. Huh. Your pride just had to force you to make a 180, huh? See, this is a textbook example a circular argument. You have stated several times that you cannot prove your assertions, yet still maintain it's superior. That’s farcical. And when you say morally, by whose moral standards? Yours?
If I use your flawed argument about diminishing marginal utility, it actually does predict that “Bill Gates wouldn’t be charitable”. Remember what you said? “when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up” “when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up” To be honest, I don’t think you really understand what diminishing marginal utility even means. Do you know what “might” means? As in the difference between “might not” and “always will not”? Oh give it, up. You have no clue what you’re talking about. You said that “diminishing marginal utility” somehow means Bill Gates wouldn’t exist. Please make that argument or concede. How you can come to that conclusion, make no argument for it, and then accuse me of not knowing what “diminishing marginal utility” means, is beyond me. I already did. Bush tax cuts, $6.6 trillion, etc - remember the part of my post which you’ve edited out? That still is a different matter though. Because when I say you really don’t understand what “diminishing marginal utility” means, it is based your own words – not mine. I highlighted it again for your convenience.
Really? You left in a question mark, but did not bother explaining what that question mark is for? Go on, explain it to me. It means that the reported GDP went down, but the author went on to explain why he suspects that the records weren’t correct. So the author was saying that it is unclear whether or not this record accurately shows an increase or decrease in the welfare of the population. Actually, no. Leeson states that “Per capita GDP (PPP) is lower than its 1989–1990 level, but the data overstate the size of average income in the pre-1991 period, which was likely lower than it is under anarchy.” His reasons for saying so, other than trying to prove his point, are overreporting, pre-anarchy economy produced “a great deal of” military hardware that “citizens didn't consume” , and a large amount of foreign aid. Of course, all three factors are also present during the period of anarchy, but that is too inconvenient to consider I suppose.
Anarchy only ended three years ago. Your data, using 15-20 year gap, showed fractional improvements in several areas (while ignoring the effect that foreign aid has on those numbers, and the presence of regional warlords). The data I presented showed vast improvements in just two years, which completely negates any arguments about how anarchy is better for Somalia. It doesn’t, you said that removing the welfare state would decrease the welfare of the people in the given region. I showed that there was actually an improvement in Somalia during anarchy, which shows that your contention is not always the case. So no, your argument didn’t negate any arguments about how anarchy is better for Somalia than the preceding state of affairs, which was my argument. So two years of explosive growth under a government compared with 15-20 years of fractional growth using uncorroborated data doesn’t negate your arguments? You never cease to surprise me. Would it interest you to know that even Leeson didn’t make the claim you did? “This essay makes a simple point: although a properly constrained government may be superior to statelessness, it doesn't follow that any government is superior to no government all.” Leeson also qualifies his findings several times, but this attracted my attention. “Although this analysis helps exclude some alternative factors that might be driving Somali improvement apart from state collapse, only a tentative conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the available data. Further, the comparison in Table 9.2 doesn't help exclude other possible sources of Somalia's improvement unrelated to anarchy. For example, the period of Somalia's state collapse coincides with the rise of a large Somali diaspora, which supports an enormous remittance economy that has undoubtedly been important to Somalia's improvement. Similarly, in 1993–1994 UNOSOM intervened in Somalia and provided large quantities of humanitarian and other aid to Somali citizens, which might also have contributed to Somalia's improvement without government.” Anything else?
Here, let me requote myself. “You are resorting to Godwin's law once again. Yes, Hitler was elected. But you are intentionally ignoring the years of unchecked abuse he inflicted on the government culminating with him holding the entire Reichstag hostage while forcing the passing of Ermächtigungsgesetz, which elevated his powers to near monarchy.” Again, Ermächtigungsgesetz happened after he was elected, so what’s your point? Exactly what I wrote. He was no longer operating under a democratic government. Do you disagree? He arose through a democracy, what he did from there was only possible because he was elected. Do you deny that he was no longer operating under a democratic government? Do you deny that he seized power by threatening members of the Reichstag?
Let’s go with your idea. Go and game the election presidential election in 2016, and the 2018 midterms since you make it sound so easy. Once your candidates win the Presidency and two thirds of the seats in the House and Senate, then go on to appoint supportive Justices into the Supreme Court. Then, dissolve the union, disband the government and you can have your tax free utopia. I never said that it was easy, nor that it is gamed in favor of smaller government. In fact, it is gamed in favor of larger government largely because it is not easy. Really? You make it sound so. “It’s a good thing there’s no one with resources or patience to game the system.” Anyway, so you are actually agreeing with my original contention which you have craftily edited out again. “Elections cannot be easily gamed”
Now excuse me while I go an address your position on sex with minors. That was rich, since I didn’t actually tell you my position on sex with minors. Really? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9403771#msg9403771 |
|
|
|
I never asked about capital accumulation, I asked about "free choice" of children.
What ideology do you hold, and what is the age of consent? My question wasn't about age of consent. There is a huge difference between having sex for fun and having sex as a job. Should a 12-year old work in a mine? I say no, they shouldn't. You say, yes they should.
Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year old for money?
I say no, they shouldn't. What is your answer to that question?Oh if only the world boiled down so nicely. Again, what is the age of consent? Are you having trouble answering the question? Is perhaps the world not quite as crystal as you're trying to pretend it is? I am also interested to hear you answer to @turvarya's question, DumbFruit. Why bother? What if I said the following; Should a 12-year old work in a mine? I say that depends. You say, no, they should be taken out of the mine and left to starve to death in the street. Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year for money? I say that depends. You say, no, they should be taken out of the brothel and left to starve to death in the street. Of course, that kind of misrepresents your positions, but you both seem totally satisfied in misrepresenting mine. I don't know if you really believe this, or are just merely trying to stay true to your broken philosophy, but just so you know, DumbFruit, you are coming across like a really sick and twisted person. First of all, only pedophiles and psychopaths think it’s okay to sleep with 12-year old girls. Secondly, only a truly evil and degenerate modern society will intentionally allow sexual commerce involving 12-year-old girls and adult males. Thirdly, this is why social safety nets which you detest so much are important. |
|
|
|
please stop cherry picking my posts. Or what? What have you added in the remaining paragraph of this quote? I’ve read it, and a quick click to the link above will take anyone including yourself to read it to get the context. There’s nothing substantive here, so I cut it out. I don’t like wading through massive walls of quotes just so that I can read something, and I expect others might feel the same. Or what? Ooh, internet tough guy here, folks. Or it might enhance your reputation as a sneaky poster who picks and choose sentences, segments and questions to respond to while grandstanding to an invisible audience? In case you forget, you are having a discussion with me. You have to present your arguments to me, while defending yours. How can you achieve either when you censor or misrepresent my posts? How will you learn, evolve and grow if you choose this path? Honestly, what do you hope to achieve with this childish attitude? Do you think this evasiveness will make anyone take you or your ideas seriously? You know I can see this, you know others can see it as well, so why do you do it? Is your pride so enormous that you must be right even when you’re wrong?
I’ve asked you why there was no explosion in charitable contributions when the Bush tax cuts freed up $6.6 trillion. You said it’s difficult to make a prediction because it’s “a temporary tax credit” and “people can’t make decisions about charitable donations based on the whims of politicians that change from year to year”. Really? Thirteen years on? Do I have a crystal ball? You will find examples that match and mismatch throughout all of history given any kind of ideology. What does that prove exactly? Nothing much. Just that societies are very complicated. I know you don’t like this answer, but again, that’s just reality. Far from it. I love this answer. Because it proves all your theories are hogwash. On one hand, you have a crystal ball on how society in a tax free environment will react to those in need, but on the other hand, you don’t have a crystal ball (never mind that we’re talking about the past and present) to explain why charitable donations did not rise when the economy is flooded with $6.6 trillion. The air is thick with hypocrisy. Of course you won’t admit it - even after presented with your own words… and are absolutely reveling in my use of the word ‘altruism’ and ‘altruistic’, completely oblivious to the fact that I am using the catchword of self-professed paleolibertarians. This is how you defined altruism, not me; Err, have you forgotten Oxford’s definition I posted three days ago? I’ve asked you why you think corporations that consistently exploit communities will suddenly develop a social conscience? You ignored that I didn’t respond to this because I didn’t think you meant it, honestly. Businesses that aren’t running as political entrepreneurs benefit the poor through their own operation. Strip away all the money, strip away all the classes, strip away all of the relationships and pretend for a second that the world is running as it is without money. Take a look around, and then tell me what’s doing the greatest good for humanity? You would see McDonalds, with a massive industry working day in and day out to feed people. You would see Wal-Mart stocking its shelves and making everything clean and presentable. You would see a massive network of fuel stations, trucks, and operators insuring that people that can get to where they need to go. So on and so on and so on. What do you see with the government? An entire group of people doing almost nothing for anyone. The roads they manage are in disrepair, their mailing system is no better than any other business, they have tanks, bombs, and airplanes that are awe-inspiring wastes of time and effort. When they are used, you would see the deaths of villains, as well as helpless innocents. Businesses are the lifeblood of society, and government is the leech. To say that “corporations aren’t charitable” is just totally missing what corporations do every single day. They help everyone; Regardless of race, class, gender, or age. All they ask in return is about the same effort in return in the form of currency. Why wouldn’t I mean it? Your simple-minded rationalizations and irrational hatred of the government aside, I am curious by your intimate knowledge on what they want. Just for the record, when you say corporations help everyone, does that include them opening sweat ship factories overseas to avoid paying real, livable wages to workers here? When you say they help everyone, regardless of race, class, gender or age, does that include business owners that (i) Do not hire people based on their race, class, gender or age? (ii) Pay lower wages to people based on their race, class, gender or age? (iii) Exploit entire communities for their natural resources such as timber, oil or and diamond? And again, I have no ‘overlords’. You seem very convinced that you do – I am beginning to sense that is the root of your problem. In what way are they not overlords? They are class of people that follow different rules than we do, they decide how we should run our lives however they see fit, they’re paid more than most, they don’t do any kind of industrial work, they don’t provide any service themselves that benefits anyone, they have titles and demand respect in their presence, um.. Ya, they’re our supreme overlords alright. Would you prefer if I called them semi-temporary overlords that get into power based on how well they promised what they couldn't deliver to as many people as possible? I’m sure you’ve heard of “Stockholm syndrome”. You can call them whatever you want. It only reflects on you and your mentality. Why aren’t you concerned about its effectiveness and reach?
Doesn’t the entire point of your argument rest on the fact that voluntary contributions in a tax free society trumps government welfare? I did not say that I am not concerned about it’s effectiveness and reach, I said “I am not concerned with the effectiveness of charities in terms of ‘reach’”. Voluntary contributions are better than State welfare, but I was appealing to the logic of it rather than go through empirical data all day and still never come to any better understanding about the world. Economists use a term called “Ceteris Paribus” because economists understand that societies are complex structures that are immune to traditional experimentation. There is no way to control the variables and rerun an experiment. For example; I can say, “Look at the United States in the 1800’s, it had tremendous growth and innovation under little taxation and essentially no public welfare system.” You could say, “Well that was another generation at another time, that won’t work with the culture of today.” (I know this isn’t an argument of yours.) Strictly speaking, this isn’t “wrong”. I couldn’t disprove that by taking our culture back in time and giving it to the people of the 1800’s and see what happens. So we’re always struggling with hypothesis without experimentation or accurate conclusions. Austrian economics gets around this problem by looking at society from a logical perspective starting with the concept of “Human Action”. This is called Praxeology. https://mises.org/rothbard/praxeology.pdf Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds when you make statements like “Voluntary contributions are better than State welfare”, when you yourself have conceded that you can’t empirically prove it? “For example; I can say, “Look at the United States in the 1800’s, it had tremendous growth and innovation under little taxation and essentially no public welfare system.” Aren’t you forgetting something? The slave labor advantage that early America had? You know, the subhumans without wages who we used to exploit the enormous natural resources of the land and as farm workers and later on, railroad and factory workers? Yeah, we had no public welfare system. Why would we? They’re not humans, right? You bandy around terms like praxeology and ceteris paribus as if these somehow lend any weight to your arguments. Like “diminishing marginal utility” you used earlier, I don’t even think you understand what “ceteris paribus” means, judging by how you are using it. So can you or can you not demonstrate this empirically? No one can demonstrate it empirically in either direction with any certainty. What are talking about? Federal welfare exists now. It helps the citizens. Some may argue it is not enough or not efficient, but it is there. That’s empirical evidence. Voluntary charitable contributions as a form of a credible social safety net does not exist – it has never existed. You are arguing that in a tax free society, it will exist. The onus is on you to prove that. Fourth day on, you still can’t prove it (not that you can, of course). As I’ve noted before, U.S. welfare spending for families and children in 2014 ($264 billion) amounts to to 0.066% of the federal budget. And it’s decreasing annually relative to GDP. Did you know that we spend $863.5 billion, three times as much, on defense? Did you know that oil companies receive an average of $5.2 billion in subsidies annually, almost the same as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ($5.6 billion) designed to assist 14.5% Americans facing food insecurity? Did you know that the tax rate of the 3 biggest US based oil and gas companies averages at 20%, which is lower than my rate, despite making $80 billion in profit? Suppose that all of this is true, what have we proven? What if we just got lucky, and the spending is going down relative to GDP by pure coincidence? I asked you to show me how welfare is superior. How can you guarantee that this isn’t just a fluke? I pointed out to you that Public Welfare is essentially designed to fail. If it succeeds it’s by blind coincidence, or enormous spending that is simultaneously destructive elsewhere. Superior to what? And you edited out the rest of my post on the subject. Did you know that farm subsidies cost the taxpayers $14.1 billion (2012), almost twice as high as the budget for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children ($7.1 billion)?
Did you know that the $88 million worth of subsidies enjoyed by Koch Industries is almost as much as the $100 million allocated for the federal Emergency Food and Shelter budget?
Did you know that 965 of the largest corporations in the United States receive $110 billion in subsidies, larger than the entire federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Program ($107.2 billion) - which includes the above cited subprograms?
And yet you here you are, a self-professed sympathetic guy, frothing on bringing down the welfare budget to zero. And you say you are not extreme. Can you see how ridiculous your fixation with welfare is, considering the existence of other more wasteful expenditures, specifically involving the corporations you idolize. Is this not in principal true; Because welfare is achieved through taxation, it can remain perpetually indebted, show poor results, and have high overhead. For the population to do anything about it, they need to have a majority vote hampered by the votes of the welfare employee’s themselves and the recipients. If it is true, is this not superior; No, it’s not true. Because (i), blaming the government’s level of indebtedness to welfare spending (0.066%) is silly, (ii) ‘poor results’ can be improved upon (iii) The population includes the welfare recipients. Being poor does not mean you should not be involved in decision making process. the agency gets money by the consent of their customers, the benefactors. For them to stay in business they have to succeeded in several ways; Most of the money they receive needs to make it to the people they’re trying to help, they have to show positive results, and they must stay solvent. If at any time the benefactor’s don’t like what’s going on with this business they can withdraw their funding immediately, no questions asked, and no theft permitted. And if no benefactors exist in your tax free market utopia? Edit: And if no credible number of benefactors exist in your tax free utopia? ( have to be careful, otherwise, you will leap on that sentence) Just leave the weak and sick to fend for themselves? Aaah. So you actually don’t know if people will make charitable contributions in a tax free environment – despite repeatedly proclaiming that people don’t contribute to charity now because they expect the government to do it. Thank you for finally admitting that, even if it was done in accident. Look, if I say if you jump out of a boat in the Atlantic, you’re going to get wet, will that always be true? No, you could land on a raft, or by some shocking coincidence hit a whale. I can’t guarantee anything at all about the past or the future, I’ve just written a lot about this. However, if 51% of people are willing to vote to tax the “charity” out of them, why would that same 51% not act of their own accord to provide charity? Markets will always seek to fill the demand of the society, if even a small minority of people want to provide charity, markets can provide for that. Only in the instance that 51% of people want public welfare, can this happen. If it wouldn’t happen in a free market then it certainly wouldn’t happen in a democracy. Well, as certainly as you would get wet if you jump out of a boat in the Atlantic, if you want to get that pedantic. “when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up” To be honest, I don’t think you really understand what diminishing marginal utility even means. Do you know what “might” means? As in the difference between “might not” and “always will not”? Oh give it, up. You have no clue what you’re talking about. Predictably, you copied those stats verbatim from self-professed libertarian Peter Leeson’s book. You didn’t even delete the question mark he placed on the huge drop in GDP – it makes me wonder if you even read it. You think it would have been more honest to edit out the question mark? Are you serious? I assure you, I intentionally left it in. And is the empiricist suddenly against empirical data whenever it contradicts your narrative? Really? You left in a question mark, but did not bother explaining what that question mark is for? Go on, explain it to me. Do you understand now why I was laughing when you brought Somalia up? No, could you please explain to me what looking at the country long after anarchy has ended has anything to do with the effect that anarchy had on the society? How do you know the success in later years wasn't due to the bootstrapping of the anarchistic society before? Anarchy only ended three years ago. Your data, using 15-20 year gap, showed fractional improvements in several areas (while ignoring the effect that foreign aid has on those numbers, and the presence of regional warlords). The data I presented showed vast improvements in just two years, which completely negates any arguments about how anarchy is better for Somalia. Thanks for the book recommendation, but to be honest, I don’t take anything published by Young America's Foundation seriously. You can only read so much revisionist accounts and half-truths before you get sick of them. Your loss. /quote] Nah. I prefer dealing with facts. Here, let me requote myself. “You are resorting to Godwin's law once again. Yes, Hitler was elected. But you are intentionally ignoring the years of unchecked abuse he inflicted on the government culminating with him holding the entire Reichstag hostage while forcing the passing of Ermächtigungsgesetz, which elevated his powers to near monarchy.” Again, Ermächtigungsgesetz happened after he was elected, so what’s your point? Exactly what I wrote. He was no longer operating under a democratic government. Do you disagree? “Elections cannot be easily gamed - gaming it requires resource, patience and most importantly, depends on the apathy of the citizens. Case in point, you - you refuse to do anything about Citizens United, but have no problem complaining endlessly about the government. You just want the whole thing abolished in favor of some half baked theories.” It’s a good thing that no one has the resources, patience, or the citizens to do this sort of thing. Oh wait, according to you there are the citizens, most importantly, so we can scratch that one off. It’s a good thing there’s no one with resources or patience to game the system. Your simple-minded arguments are quite breathtaking to read sometimes. You know what? Let’s go with your idea. Go and game the election presidential election in 2016, and the 2018 midterms since you make it sound so easy. Once your candidates win the Presidency and two thirds of the seats in the House and Senate, then go on to appoint supportive Justices into the Supreme Court. Then, dissolve the union, disband the government and you can have your tax free utopia. Now excuse me while I go an address your position on sex with minors. |
|
|
|
I never asked about capital accumulation, I asked about "free choice" of children.
What ideology do you hold, and what is the age of consent? My question wasn't about age of consent. There is a huge difference between having sex for fun and having sex as a job. Should a 12-year old work in a mine? I say no, they shouldn't. You say, yes they should.
Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year old for money?
I say no, they shouldn't. What is your answer to that question?Oh if only the world boiled down so nicely. Again, what is the age of consent? Are you having trouble answering the question? Is perhaps the world not quite as crystal as you're trying to pretend it is? I am also interested to hear you answer to @turvarya's question, DumbFruit. |
|
|
|
First off, for the umpteenth time, please stop cherry picking my posts. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish when you do that. If I wrote two things, and you were either wrong on or could not respond to one of them, then concede the point instead of lifting specific sentences to fashion a new argument against me. Don't hide behind excuses that you don't think it’s relevant or I'm throwing a tantrum. What do you think people will do if you conduct yourself this way in a real life discussion? Quote from: Cameltoemcgee on October 28, 2014, 11:44:39 PM
He's saying that the same people who are doing it now will continue to do it but instead of putting tenders to government for funding, they will be directly funded by people. The argument could be made that in the absence of a violent (and inefficient) monopoly claiming responsibility for remediation of a VERY important issue, the quality of care that underprivileged get will be significantly better without them.
Yes. I love how you highlighted this in red like you caught me out. Great job detective. How does what cameltoemcgee said contradict anything I said previously? You just posted a bunch of things I said, but you haven’t described how I contradicted myself, and I don’t see it. I’m saying that the condition of the poor improves under Anarcho-Capitalism better than under state overlords. I’m not saying that all the poor will disappear immediately, no matter how many times you try to paste some quotes together to try to make it look like I’ve taken some extreme position. The extreme position that you are trying to put me in is here plain as day for anyone to see and was never a position that I took. First you say that altruism should mean that all the poor and all the orphans should be taken care of immediately, and since I said altruism already exists in society, I need to show you a society in which all the orphans and all poor people are constantly and completely taken care of. That’s an outrageous definition of altruism, and that’s not my position. Altruism should mean that all of the 400,000 orphans that society as a whole do not want would be adopted by families annually - now.
Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan… Of course you won’t admit it - even after presented with your own words. I expected no less. You don;t even realize how extreme your position is. Instead, you are arguing semantics, and are absolutely reveling in my use of the word ‘altruism’ and ‘altruistic’, completely oblivious to the fact that I am using the catchword of self-professed paleolibertarians. You argue against government welfare, and stated that in a tax-free form of government, people and corporations will voluntarily give charitable donations to support the poor. I’ve asked you why you think corporations that consistently exploit communities will suddenly develop a social conscience? You ignored that (but went on the make a remarkable revelation below). I’ve asked you why there was no explosion in charitable contributions when the Bush tax cuts freed up $6.6 trillion. You said it’s difficult to make a prediction because it’s “a temporary tax credit” and “people can’t make decisions about charitable donations based on the whims of politicians that change from year to year”. Really? Thirteen years on? And again, I have no ‘overlords’. You seem very convinced that you do – I am beginning to sense that is the root of your problem. This of course brings up the question - based on what actually, other than blind supposition? Has corporations made measurable charitable initiatives today that exceeds the government in terms of reach and effectiveness? I am not concerned with the effectiveness of charities in terms of “reach”, because government welfare crowds out private charity. You cannot lose money in taxes and then send that same money to private charities. You can give up even more of your income, but people have what is called “diminishing marginal utility” for their discretionary income. The more money that is taken in taxes, the less people will give in charity, depending on their prefences. It's also more important for charity to be effective, than have massive quantity. "Charity" that makes the problem worse, is better off if it is smaller. So the “reach” part aside, I think there can certainly be made the case that private charities in the United States are far more efficient than Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. However, I’m not going to do that. Society is so complex we could spend the next century trying to figure out why event X happened despite Y. Austrian economists do not believe that economics is based on empirical research. Economic understanding comes from the outworking of logical principals. For instance, we understand that raising the minimum wage, ceteris paribus, will mean that less people will be employed. Raising the minimum wage makes it illegal for the least productive members of society to work. There is no need to go out and do research, or figure out if this is always the case, because you’re always going to find strange outliers where you haven’t been able to track down all the variables. This is just the same as if your teacher told you the Pythagorean Theorem, and then you went out a measured a bunch of triangles but you found one where the Pythagorean Theorem didn’t seem to hold true. It was a right triangle, but your measurements didn’t correspond to what the Pythagorean Theorem gives you. Your teacher would rightly scold you, because whether or not the Pythagorean Theorem is correct is not based on empirical research; where mathematicians measured triangle after triangle and it just happened to be true most of the time. It’s based off of the fundamental principles of mathematics. In this same way, no matter how much empirical research you do, you can’t disprove the logical effects of the minimum wage. Now then, the welfare state is necessarily an entity that takes money from you by force, also known as “theft”, funnels it through its bureaucracy, and then deposits it back into the accounts of certain members of society. Who those members are is based on the whims of congress or appointed agencies. Because welfare is achieved through taxation, it can remain perpetually indebted, show poor results, and have high overhead. For the population to do anything about it, they need to have a majority vote hampered by the votes of the welfare employee’s themselves and the recipients. Now consider private charity. In this scenario, the agency gets money by the consent of their customers, the benefactors. For them to stay in business they have to succeeded in several ways; Most of the money they receive needs to make it to the people they’re trying to help, they have to show positive results, and they must stay solvent. If at any time the benefactor’s don’t like what’s going on with this business they can withdraw their funding immediately, no questions asked, and no theft permitted. There is no fundamental advantage to a welfare state. There is no positive improvement in any way over private charity. If a welfare state “succeeds” in any way, it is only due to the infusion of insane amounts of money; impoverishing society as a whole in order to benefit the chosen few. So instead of asking for empirical evidence, I would ask you instead: In what fundamental way is the welfare system structurally superior to a private charity? What do we gain that we can’t gain from private charity in a better way? Why aren’t you concerned about its effectiveness and reach? Doesn’t the entire point of your argument rest on the fact that voluntary contributions in a tax free society trumps government welfare? Yet you go on to state that “I think there can certainly be made the case that private charities in the United States are far more efficient than Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.” So can you or can you not demonstrate this empirically? “… no matter how much empirical research you do, you can’t disprove the logical effects of the minimum wage.” Which are? “There is no need to go out and do research, or figure out if this is always the case, because you’re always going to find strange outliers where you haven’t been able to track down all the variables.” How convenient. Is it because there is no empirical evidence to support your argument? Naturally, I expect you’ll want me to just ignore your statement (two quotes above) that private charities are more efficient that SS and Medicare. “So instead of asking for empirical evidence, I would ask you instead: In what fundamental way is the welfare system structurally superior to a private charity? What do we gain that we can’t gain from private charity in a better way?” So since you can’t substantiate your arguments, you’re asking me to disprove it.  Here’s the problem with that. Voluntary private charities have never existed in significant enough size to make that comparison – throughout human history. Why do you think that is so? And why do you think that will change in a tax free society? “Because welfare is achieved through taxation, it can remain perpetually indebted, show poor results, and have high overhead.” As I’ve noted before, U.S. welfare spending for families and children in 2014 ($264 billion) amounts to to 0.066% of the federal budget. And it’s decreasing annually relative to GDP. Did you know that we spend $863.5 billion, three times as much, on defense? Did you know that oil companies receive an average of $5.2 billion in subsidies annually, almost the same as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ($5.6 billion) designed to assist 14.5% Americans facing food insecurity? Did you know that the tax rate of the 3 biggest US based oil and gas companies averages at 20%, which is lower than my rate, despite making $80 billion in profit?  Did you know that farm subsidies cost the taxpayers $14.1 billion (2012), almost twice as high as the budget for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children ($7.1 billion)? Did you know that the $88 million worth of subsidies enjoyed by Koch Industries is almost as much as the $100 million allocated for the federal Emergency Food and Shelter budget? Did you know that 965 of the largest corporations in the United States receive $110 billion in subsidies, larger than the entire federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Program ($107.2 billion) - which includes the above cited subprograms? And yet you here you are, a self-professed sympathetic guy, frothing on bringing down the welfare budget to zero. And you say you are not extreme. But you can somehow predict their behavior post tax-abolishment? All I predict is that the same demand for charity that exists with a government will still exist without a government, and that demand will be met more efficiently by private charity. If society neglects the poor, that is a reflection of their values, and a government could do no better. (But often does far worse.) Using your argument, altruistic people like Bill Gates shouldn't exists at all now. Remember your argument of “diminishing marginal utility” one paragraph above? Further, you seem unaware that Rockefeller and Standard Oil actually paid enormous amount of taxes in the form of import tariffs for their equipment and concession fees - not to mention systematic kickbacks to local, state and federal officials. Diminishing marginal utility doesn’t predict that Bill Gates wouldn’t be charitable. I was using Diminishing Marginal Utility as a way to show that just because some people have more money does not necessarily mean that those people will be more charitable because it depends on their preferences. The fact that Rockefeller paid taxes has nothing to do with anything I’ve said about him. The amount of taxes he paid was the important part. If I use your flawed argument about diminishing marginal utility, it actually does predict that “Bill Gates wouldn’t be charitable”. Remember what you said? “when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up” To be honest, I don’t think you really understand what diminishing marginal utility even means. Re Rockefeller. You don’t even know how much he paid in taxes. You didn’t even compare how much he and Standard Oil spent in tariffs and what a similar company would pay today, but you are perfectly okay making a blanket statements like “Rockefeller’s rule was he would tithe 10% of his earnings, so the benefit that he had for the poor depended heavily on him succeeding in business, and not having his income taxed into oblivion.” Your definition of anarchy is, I'm sorry, just plain silly. Exercising my free will within the constraints of the law is not anarchy. An Anarcho-Libertarian society is exercising free will under the judiciary of private law agencies, and the executive action of private defense agencies and individuals. In this way having “no rulers”, which is what I call “anarchy”. No, you said. “Every time you do something without permission from any authority but your own, you are acting under Anarchy” That's silly, and you know it. Which is why you edited out my quote, and then wrote a different explanation. “GDP per capita (PPP constant $) 836b 600c,e ? Life expectancy (years) 46.0b 48.47c,g Improved One year olds fully immunized against measles (%) 30 40h Improved One year olds fully immunized against TB (%) 31 50h Improved Physicians (per 100,000) 3.4 4h Improved Infants with low birth weight (%) 16 0.3l Improved Infant mortality rate (per 1000) 152 114.89c,g Improved Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000) 1600 1100i Improved Pop. with access to water (%) 29 29h Same Pop. with access to sanitation (%) 18 26h Improved Pop. with access to at least one health facility (%) 28 54.8k Improved Extreme poverty (% < $1 per day) 60 43.2k Improved Radios (per 1000) 4.0 98.5k Improved Telephones (per 1000) 1.92d 14.9k Improved TVs (per 1000) 1.2 3.7k Improved Fatality due to measles 8000 5598j,m Improved Adult literacy rate (%) 24b 19.2j Worse Combined school enrollment (%) 12.9b 7.5a,f Worse …Only two of the 18 development indicators in Table 1 show a clear welfare decline under stateless: adult literacy and combined gross school enrollment. Given that foreign aid was completely financing education in Somalia pre-1991, it is not surprising that there has been some fall in school enrollment and literacy… …A substantial observed rise in consumption without an attendant rise in per capita GDP suggests an unmeasured increase in per capita income between the pre- and post-anarchy periods not reflected in the data.” The lives of people in Somalia improved under anarchy almost across the board compared to under government, your prevaricating and sense of humor notwithstanding. http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdfPredictably, you copied those stats verbatim from self-professed libertarian Peter Leeson’s book. You didn’t even delete the question mark he placed on the huge drop in GDP – it makes me wonder if you even read it. Anyway, did you happen to notice that he was using UNDP data from the mid-80s and comparing it against UNDP data between 15 and 20 years later? In your eyes, is that a fair comparison? Do you expect society to stand still for up to two decades? Do you expect the presence of aid workers and funding from international organizations to have zero effect in the interim period? Shall we take a look at the numbers of post-anarchy Somalia using the latest data from UNDP's Somalia Annual Report (2013), UNDP's Somalia Human Development (2012) and CIA World Factbook (2014) and watch them blow yours away? http://www.so.undp.org/content/dam/somalia/docs/Project_Documents/Human_Development/UNDP%20Somalia%20Annual%20Report%202013.pdfhttp://www.so.undp.org/content/dam/somalia/docs/MDGs/Somalia%20Human%20Development%20Report%202012.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-100,794https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.htmlGDP per capita : $600 (Improved)Life expectancy (years) : 55 (Improved)One year olds fully immunized against measles (%): 85% (Improved)One year olds fully immunized against TB (%): NA Physicians: 0.04 physicians/1,000 population (Improved)Infants with low birth weight (%): NA Infant mortality rate (per 1000): 100.14 deaths/1,000 live births (Improved) Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000): 1,000 deaths/100,000 live births (Improved)Pop. with access to water (%):31.7% of population (urban, urban: 69.6%) (Improved)Pop. with access to sanitation (%): 52% of population (Improved)Pop. with access to at least one health facility (%): NA Extreme poverty (% < $1 per day): 43% (Improved)Radios (per 1000): NA, but there’s now one government-operated radio station and ten private FM radio stationsTelephones (per 1000): Total lines, 100,000 – works out to about 10 per 1000 (Improved) (There’s even stats for mobile [658,000] and internet usage now[106,000]) TVs (per 1000): NA, but there’s now one government-operated TV station and one private TV station stations Fatality due to measles: NA Adult literacy rate (%): 37.8% (Improved)Combined school enrollment (%): 78.4 (Improved)Do you understand now why self-professed libertarians and paleolibertarians stopped using Somalia as an example after a government was put in place in 2011? Do you understand now why I was laughing when you brought Somalia up? Sadly, corporatocracy has always acted in its own self interest, not society's. Business’s acting in their own self-interest is the same as acting in the interest of society. The only time this is not the case is when the business quickly fails, or when the business is getting favors from government. I would suggest getting the book “The Myth of the Robber Barons” and learning the difference been entrepreneurship and political entrepreneurship. http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Robber-Barons-Business/dp/0963020315Since when? Left unchecked, land, natural resources and communities will always be exploited by corporations. The United States and especially third world nations are now being raped and exploited by American enterprises even as you read this. The myth of trickle-down economics is not “the same as acting in the interest of society”. Thanks for the book recommendation, but to be honest, I don’t take anything published by Young America's Foundation seriously. You can only read so much revisionist accounts and half-truths before you get sick of them. Also, you are laboring under the impression that free market equals complete deregulation - something that the United States nor any other nation have ever tried nor experienced. Deregulation insofar as practices don’t conflict with the Non-Aggression principle, but otherwise yes. A good example of free trade was inter-state free trade in the United States. One of the biggest reasons the Federal Government was instituted was to “regulate interstate commerce” which actually meant to remove any kind of barriers to commerce that states might try to erect amongst each-other. This is why when the Constitution we know today went into effect in 1789, all interstate tariffs, trade restrictions, and export taxes were banned. -Dewey, Financial History of the United States (5th ed. 1915) ch 1-3 If you’re going to quote Section 9 as an example of free trade, you should also quote Section 8 and the import tariffs designed to protect American businesses. I repeat, “you are laboring under the impression that free market equals complete deregulation - something that the United States nor any other nation have ever tried nor experienced.” Answer to "There is absolute no justification at all to stop aiding people in need." here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible aren’t actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them? What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it “collateral damage”? I guess that’s just altruism existing outside of reality again. You've asked me this earlier, and I've answered you. 8. The government is you, me and other people like us. They are not some alien beings or members Alex Jones' ruling 20 families. Fix the government, from outside or inside. Don't let organizations like {url=http://www.alec.org/]ALEC [/url] write bills for your Congressmen. Pressure your Congressmen to repeal acts like Citizens United which allows companies to secretly fund political campaigns. Despise the war? Make it known, like the Flower Generation. They achieved results, despite the almost universal ridicule they received.
Voting can be gamed; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wIq2xeyal8Voting didn’t stop Hitler. He was elected before the Ermächtigungsgesetz, so I’m not sure why you brought that up. Voting didn’t stop this; http://www.usdebtclock.org/Voting didn’t stop the fall of Rome. Voting can’t stop the tyranny of the majority. Voting fails time and time again because it’s subject to social pressures, conflict of interest, Condorcet’s paradox, and the ignorance of voters. Elected officials aren’t “me”, they don’t even necessarily represent the views of the majority. Yes, I did say that. I also explained how it can be gamed. I also explained your weak argument regarding Hitler. Not surprisingly, you once again edited out the relevant part of my quote and pretended as if I hadn’t already answered you. Why? Did you think I wouldn’t notice? Or are you just grandstanding for a silent audience? Here, let me requote myself. “You are resorting to Godwin's law once again. Yes, Hitler was elected. But you are intentionally ignoring the years of unchecked abuse he inflicted on the government culminating with him holding the entire Reichstag hostage while forcing the passing of Ermächtigungsgesetz, which elevated his powers to near monarchy.
Elections cannot be easily gamed - gaming it requires resource, patience and most importantly, depends on the apathy of the citizens. Case in point, you - you refuse to do anything about Citizens United, but have no problem complaining endlessly about the government. You just want the whole thing abolished in favor of some half baked theories.” Your excuse on why “Voting fails time and time again” can also be applied to individuals and personal psychology in personal capacity. “Elected officials aren’t “me”, they don’t even necessarily represent the views of the majority.” I know. To you they are “overlords”, “aristocratic lords” and some other description I forget. In your mind, are they humans or reptilians from another galaxy? Or are they scions of Alex Jones' twenty families that secretly control the world? Or are they shape shifters? |
|
|
|
Altruism should mean that all of the 400,000 orphans that society as a whole do not want would be adopted by families annually - now.
Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan, provide assistance to single mothers, and care for their old, sick and handicapped? No, it hasn't - other than a few truly altruistic individuals, society has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of others. I answered this twice. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9370403#msg9370403This is a "Straw Man argument" because you're arguing a position that I didn't take. I never said that if we got rid of government all the sudden every single orphan would get adopted. I'm not under the illusion that when people exist in anarchy that all problems disappear; The lame walk, the blind see, and healthy food is piled like mountains on every street corner. When people are free to do as they like and to be commensurately rewarded for their efforts, then people will work for the benefit of their neighbor even if they think they are acting in their own self interest. Wonderful prosperity occurs, but it's not magic. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245Irrelevant. Stop trying to paint me into a utopian position. My position is not that *EVERY* orphan will be adopted. My position is that anarcho-capitalism can better handle charity than the government can. "The Baining also derogate sexual intercourse, because it is natural, although they apparently engage in enough of it to keep their population going. They consider adoption to be the ideal form of parenting, because to raise someone else’s child is less natural than to raise one's own. At the time that Fajans studied them, 36% of the children were adopted. In Baining tradition, if someone asks to adopt your child it is not polite to refuse their request. In many ways, the Baining are the ideal Puritans, even though they have no particular religious traditions and do not give religious reasons for their beliefs or behavior." The Baining are totally free of orphans and even adopt more from neighboring villages, and have no government. Though again, this is actually not relevant to my position. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201207/all-work-and-no-play-make-the-baining-the-dullest-culture-earthYou did. I would suggest that maybe most people don't go out of their way to help people because they expect the government to take care of it.
Quote from: Cameltoemcgee on October 28, 2014, 11:44:39 PM
He's saying that the same people who are doing it now will continue to do it but instead of putting tenders to government for funding, they will be directly funded by people. The argument could be made that in the absence of a violent (and inefficient) monopoly claiming responsibility for remediation of a VERY important issue, the quality of care that underprivileged get will be significantly better without them.
Yes.You also argued that: My position is that anarcho-capitalism can better handle charity than the government can.This of course brings up the question - based on what actually, other than blind supposition? Has corporations made measurable charitable initiatives today that exceeds the government in terms of reach and effectiveness? Are we supposed to believe that corporations that routinely exploit communities will metamorphosize into entities with social conscience once we stop taxing them? Further, your examples of the Banning is misleading because they certainly exist within a governmental framework. Where did you get the idea that they have "no government". The are semi-nomadic, but they are not cut off from society. Some of them even go to churches and mosques! Further, their adoption habit is based on a unique sexual taboo. It has nothing to do with anarcho capitalism. When exactly will these mythical altruistic people emerge? By your own words, they won't suddenly emerge if we abolish taxation. I've also clearly addressed that altruism and altruistic people do not set conditions before helping people. Yet you're going back to the same argument - altruism is absent because " they expect the government to take care of it."
Why? That's not altruism, which is the central core of your argument. Nevertheless, I'll bite, once again.
When former President Bush enacted his massive tax cuts in 2001 (effectively the largest since the Hoover days), the federal government lost about $6.6 trillion in revenue over an 11-year period. By your logic, shouldn't these extra income also resulted in an explosion of charitable contributions during the time? It didn't though. Despite being flushed with cash, there were no significant increase in charitable contributions from individuals and corporations over the last decade.
You know where the money went? Stock market and monetary instruments speculations, including subprime mortgage bundles which ultimately led to the worst American economic crisis in 80 years. And yet, self-professed paleolibertarians keep on insisting that if we abolish taxes and cripple the government, people will magically start being altruistic. I've asked this question before, even to Justin Amash. No one has been able to give a proper answer beyond rhetorics and quoting Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell, Mises or Bastiat. Answered this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245Because the federal welfare state didn’t go anywhere in the meantime and because people can’t adjust their spending habits based on the perturbations of our aristocratic overlords. Expanded point: If I wasn’t being clear, I’m saying that people can’t make decisions about charitable donations based on the whims of politicians that change from year to year, and they especially don’t go out of their way to help people that should be being helped by the federal programs that they are funding with their taxes. People in general don’t have the idea that they are going to spend their money on either taxes or charity. There is what is called in economics a “diminishing marginal utility”, which when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up, because people value charity at different levels subjectively. For some people, they might put all the money they save in taxes directly into charity. For other people, they might value their own children’s education, or paying down their debts before they start putting money into charity. The point is we can hardly make any kind of prediction about precisely what’s going to happen during a temporary tax credit in such a government dominated industry (Welfare). http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.aspNo, you did not answer it earlier. You answered it now though, in your last sentence. "The point is we can hardly make any kind of prediction about precisely what’s going to happen during a temporary tax credit in such a government dominated industry (Welfare)."But you can somehow predict their behavior post tax-abolishment? $6.6 trillion in liquidity and no discernible difference in charitable contributions, but we're supposed to accept there will be a difference if we stop taxing them entirely? Speaking of marginal utility, shouldn't private charitable contributions increase in light of the ever decreasing federal welfare funding relative to GDP? Or does that only work in favor of aggrieved taxpayers? And just so we're clear, I don't have any "aristocratic overlords". You may imagine you do, but I don't. I don't consider government officials or politicians "aristocratic overlords. I've even yelled at a couple of your "aristocratic overlords". Are you for or against anti-trust laws? And how does it relate to Rockefeller's altruism? Let's make it more current though. Look at Bill Gates. As of now, he is the biggest philanthropist in the history world. In a few decades, his Foundation's continued activity will also elevate him above Rockefeller, after inflation adjustment. I doubt there have been many Americans, if at all, who have paid more taxes than Gates. But like Rockefeller, he plans to give out all of his wealth to charity. That's altruism. And fyi, he works alongside governments of various nations - now. I answered that here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245This reminds me very much of the concept of the seen and the unseen that Bastiat wrote about. We can all see that Bill Gates exists today. We can’t see how many Rockefellers don’t exist today. I can’t rewind history and play it back like I’d like, I can just appeal to logic by stating that people like Bill Gates could always exist, but other people that would only have succeeded absent government intervention would not exist by definition. Rockefeller’s rule was he would tithe 10% of his earnings, so the benefit that he had for the poor depended heavily on him succeeding in business, and not having his income taxed into oblivion. You might try to argue that he’d have “given” more to the poor if it was taxed out of him, but that’s a hard case to make considering, again, he gave more to the poor than you or any of your ancestors combined even if you and all of your ancestors ate nothing but dirt and gave everything else to the poor. His contributions were also designed to be more effective than government schemes, which was only possible by virtue of the fact that it was his own money. Expanded: I’m not interested in measuring how altruistic people are. It doesn’t concern me whether or not Bill Gates is a better guy any more than I care which of them had the bigger penis. I’m concerned about which philosophy guides people closer to actually alleviating the suffering of the poor. Under anarcho-capitalism Bill Gates could still exist, in society today there could not exist people like Rockefeller, because they simply could not compete like they did in the 1800’s under low taxation and low regulation. I am of course against anti-trust. I don’t see it as a benefit that it destroyed Standard Oil. Once again, you didn't answer that. Using your argument, altruistic people like Bill Gates shouldn't exists at all now. Remember your argument of “diminishing marginal utility” one paragraph above? Further, you seem unaware that Rockefeller and Standard Oil actually paid enormous amount of taxes in the form of import tariffs for their equipment and concession fees - not to mention systematic kickbacks to local, state and federal officials. You say this as if a significant form of anarchist government has ever existed; as if there have been occasions in history where fully functional anarchist geo states or communities exist; as if humans are not communal, social creatures that will naturally create a form of government. From the dawn of time, some form of government have always existed. This is an undeniable fact. From patriarchy and other forms of social hierarchy-based leadership, to tribalism, feudalism, warlords, aristocracy, monarcy (hereditary and later, divinely inspired), theocracy, democracy, republicanism, oligarchy, sultanate, caliphate, parliamentary monarchy, communism, socialism, Maoism - I could go on.
After trials and errors stretching several millennia, democracy, regardless of its form, has proven to be the most stable, productive and compassionate form of government. And we're supposed to throw all this away based on some theory and philosophy that has never been able to withstand scrutiny, never mind produce empirical evidence to substantiate its assertions? I answered that here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245Every time you do something without permission from any authority but your own, you are acting under Anarchy. System D would be the second largest economy in the world if it were measured as one. Also, complete anarchy, when tried, tends to do better than the governments prior. A good rule of thumb is the closer you get to 0% as GDP of taxation, the closer you get to anarchy and the more prosperous the underlying society given its previous condition. Expanded: You hemmed and hawed about Somalia, but the bottom line is that Somalia has done much better without a government than with one. It’s not a paradise by any stretch of the imagination, but again, that’s not my position. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s still without a State. http://mises.org/daily/2066http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdfYour definition of anarchy is, I'm sorry, just plain silly. Exercising my free will within the constraints of the law is not anarchy. Your rule of thumb is also, I'm sorry again, just plain silly. You're just restating your opinion that abolishment of taxes will magically lead to prosperity for all, ignoring historical, social and economic precedents. Your rule of thumb is just another rephrasing of the Reagan's trickle down economic (Laffer Curve, anyone?), which has been proven to be false. I wasn't hemming or hawing about Somalia. I told you I was laughing - I even spilled cigarette ash on my keyboard. Most paleolibertarians steer clear of Somalia - not you though. Sorry, I'm laughing again.  Somalia pre-anarchy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drW5cmd-GQkSomalia post-anarchy: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac7_1321327107Sigh. Sometimes I wonder... Regardless, whatever do you mean by "The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor."? Don't you still require your "altruistic people" to help the weaker members of society? Answered here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245Charity is necessary even in an anarchist society, but the greatest contribution to the poor has always been businesses acting in their own self-interest. We exist in a free market economy right now. What's stopping the emergence of such charities right now? Private charities do exist right now. We do not exist in a free market economy right now. Our economy is heavily controlled by both houses of congress, ill-concieved “free trade agreements”, as well as a central bank that manipulates interest rates (which are arguably the bedrock of business decisions). Not answered, again. You didn't mention the agents or intermediary in your initial answer. But I knew you were going to say businesses/corporations. Sadly, corporatocracy has always acted in its own self interest, not society's. Do I really need to expand on this? Private charities exists, yes, I have mentioned that myself. But the total number is practically insignificant. Also, you are laboring under the impression that free market equals complete deregulation - something that the United States nor any other nation have ever tried nor experienced. The government is you, me and other people like us. They are not some alien beings or members Alex Jones' ruling 20 families. Fix the government, from outside or inside. Don't let organizations like ALEC write bills for your Congressmen. Pressure your Congressmen to repeal acts like Citizens United which allows companies to secretly fund political campaigns. Despise the war? Make it known, like the Flower Generation. They achieved results, despite the almost universal ridicule they received. Anarcho-Libertarians like myself don’t believe old white men should have the authority to vote on whether or not we can keep our individual freedom, no matter how many votes they have, or how many mistresses. On top of that, no one in Congress represents me, nor does any majority in in any state in the United States. I represent me, and in a just society, that would be enough. Anyway; Hitler was elected, elections can be easily gamed, and the mob can’t be trusted. So your point is moot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wIq2xeyal8You are not an anarcho-libertarian. Anarcho libertarians does not exist. Its philosphy is a half baked mutation of paleolibertarianism, which is a half-baked neo-confederate racist ideology, designed to justify social and economic extremism. It is just a label. The beauty of democracy is, if there are enough people who share your beliefs, you can change the sociopolitical and socioeconomic system of this country. You are resorting to Godwin's law once again. Yes, Hitler was elected. But you are intentionally ignoring the years of unchecked abuse he inflicted on the government culminating with him holding the entire Reichstag hostage while forcing the passing of Ermächtigungsgesetz, which elevated his powers to near monarchy. Elections cannot be easily gamed - gaming it requires resource, patience and most importantly, depends on the apathy of the citizens. Case in point, you - you refuse to do anything about Citizens United, but have no problem complaining endlessly about the government. You just want the whole thing abolished in favor of some half baked theories. If you have heard a grown man crying because he can't feed his hungry child, then you wouldn't be so cavalier about cutting off aid to them.
If you have spent time with orphans, you would be filled with fear at the thought of them left unprotected, uneducated and unfed, and you wouldn't be so eager to stop money going to orphanages.
If you have spent time with an old woman left on the streets by her children, then you wouldn't begrudge the money spent giving them shelter and feeding, and you wouldn't be callously insisting we should stop paying taxes.
There is absolutely no justification at all to stop aiding people in need. None. Ugh. No. I’m not going to respond to this appeal to emotion again. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotionWhy not? Didn't you say you were sympathetic? How do you reconcile your sympathy with your insistence on bringing welfare spending to zero? Do you think people won't die when you do that? Do you think people won't suffer when you remove social safety nets? Do you realize how many people who are just one paycheck away from poverty? Is this truth too inconvenient for you? Answer to "There is absolute no justification at all to stop aiding people in need." here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible aren’t actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them? What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it “collateral damage”? I guess that’s just altruism existing outside of reality again. You've asked me this earlier, and I've answered you. 8. The government is you, me and other people like us. They are not some alien beings or members Alex Jones' ruling 20 families. Fix the government, from outside or inside. Don't let organizations like {url=http://www.alec.org/]ALEC [/url] write bills for your Congressmen. Pressure your Congressmen to repeal acts like Citizens United which allows companies to secretly fund political campaigns. Despise the war? Make it known, like the Flower Generation. They achieved results, despite the almost universal ridicule they received.
ps: You do realize that most of the links you posted, especially the Mises ones, are merely opinions, not substantive facts? |
|
|
|
I actually spent two hours on this - the longest I've spent designing anything on Bitcointalk! But for a potential 2 BTC, it's worth it. GOLD, 0.50BTCVERSION 1  VERSION 2  Alternate designs: Version 3Version 4Version 5SILVER, 0.10BTCVERSION 1 (embedded major landmarks like the Eiffel Tower, Hagia Sophia and Golden Gate Bridge - wondering if they are too small)  VERSION 2  VERSION 3  |
|
|
|
If you feel this is a tantrum, then I will try to be more gentle with you.
It's not about "being gentle", the only thing I'm objecting to right now is going on a repeated rant about how I'm just ignoring everything instead of doing any counterarguments to the things I did address. However, I will go back and specifically address the following stuff. In full context for some reason. Some if it I know I addressed already, some of it I ignored for good reason, but by golly if it's what you really want, I'll do it. I'm nothing if not an unrelentingly caring, helpful, generous, friendly, humble, gregarious, and all together decent, intelligent, and good looking individual. I feel I've addressed all of your arguments at least once already. Even if I hadn't, you can't demand that I did without addressing my earlier points. How is that a rant? That is, as far as I know, reasonable decorum for discourse. You can address those points tomorrow. I've spent too much time here as it is today. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
